man involved in car crash charged with manslaughter after woman has miscarriage

Yep.

The law says that when it's convenient, it's a human being.

Not so convenient for pro-choice supporters.

At some point, these laws will be used to challenge Roe V. Wade, and when that happens have plenty of popcorn and a leather strap available.

 

WHERE EXACTLY does the law say "when it's convenient it's a human being" ?

"""""""""The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]""""""""""



Yes, it is a possibility these laws could be used to deem the fetus a "person"....however, it will backfire

"Persons" have rights BUT they also have RESTRICTIONS.


One of which is : NO one may use another person's body to sustain their life without that person's consent. So if the woman withdraws consent, out goes the fetus.

 

The answer is simple:

In order to be charged with manslaughter, your victim must be a human being with a right to life.

 

Take it to court....and see where it gets ya .... The state where this happened doesn't agree with YOUR "legal" findings


I see your inability to address what's in a post hasn't changed at all.....typical, just ignore what you don't want to see ...

 

Again, not mine, and the UVVA is federal, not state.

More bad news for pro-choice.

One cannot legally argue that a human being both is and is not a human being except under certain circumstances.

That argument hasn't happened yet, but like I said, when it does, Roe V Wade is in trouble.

 

I don't know about the law in the USA, but Canada's Criminal Code says it's murder if the death occurs AFTER the fetus becomes a human being, which happens at live birth:

223. When child becomes human being

223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not

(a) it has breathed;

(b) it has an independent circulation; or

(c) the navel string is severed.

Killing child

(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.

http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/223-when-child-becomes-human-being

 

No one is......except you....

That's the problem, you say stuff but don't read anything (it's so much safer and easier to convince yourself you're right when you never read an opposing idea)

You forgot that RvW , after 45 years , is still the law....



I see your inability to address what's in a post hasn't changed at all.....typical, just ignore what you don't want to see ...





Yes, it is a possibility these laws could be used to deem the fetus a "person"....however, it will backfire

"Persons" have rights BUT they also have RESTRICTIONS.


One of which is : NO one may use another person's body to sustain their life without that person's consent. So if the woman withdraws consent, out goes the fetus.



Is that easier to read.....????

 

You can use bigger fonts and loud colors if you want, it still doesn't change the facts.

There are laws that have recognized the right to life of a non-viable fetus.

That does not bode well for an already shaky "Roe V Wade".

 

I thought if I made them easier to see you might read them....guess you couldn't......but anyone else can....



I see you are now going off in another direction and claiming m RvW is "on shaky" ground because you were stumped on what we were discussing.....well, squirm and wriggle all you want the law will always override your mere opinion....

 

I'm not stumped at all.

You're the one that doesn't seem to understand that there are laws that recognize a fetus as a human being.

 

You haven't shown one......










AND you haven't shown this to be wrong :

"Persons" have rights BUT they also have RESTRICTIONS.


One of which is : NO one may use another person's body to sustain their life without that person's consent. So if the woman withdraws consent, out goes the fetus.

 

Law is a poor basis for argument.
Slaves were legal, women couldn't vote.
So what?

 

You are making up nonsense that was not in the article.

 

Ironic!

 

Your appalling lack of knowledge regarding premature labor is your problem.

http://americanpregnancy.org/labor-and-birth/premature-labor/

The premature labor was induced by the violence of the car crash ergo it was NOT an abortion wince the article referred to the infant as STILLBORN!

 

Chuz misses the point that the fetus is dependent on another person; its rights are embedded in the mother, not in itself.

 

Then it was dead when it came out.
Never a person, per the argument of several posters in this thread.

 

"""""""""The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1]""""""""""


NO where does it say a fetus is A human being, NO where....and it doesn't have to be a human being or a "person"....it is recognized as a "legal victim".... a "member of the species"

A fetus doesn't have rights, it has protections.

 

Aren't the two the same thing here?

I mean what possible legal justification is there for giving fetuses protections if not to respect their rights? It's not exactly like fetuses are on an endangered species list. (Although Ceausescu banned abortions to try to increase Romania's population)

People are trying to treat fetuses like they were the property of the woman, but the whole point in having a fetus is having the baby that comes out afterwards, and babies are not the property of the woman. (I doubt any woman gets pregnant to just have a fetus inside them, although there are a few full-time surrogate mothers who say they get a thrill out of being pregnant)

 

Still having problems with definitions I see.

Premature labor of a non-viable fetus is natural abortion. A non-viable fetus cannot be born, it can only be miscarried.

Physical trauma does not induce birth of a non-viable fetus, it induces miscarriage.

 

A one year old is just as dependent on another person as a fetus is.

 

Not if the charge is manslaughter, which can only be charged in the taking of a human being's life.

 

Fallacy of equivalency. A fetus cannot live outside of the mother's body. A baby can.

 

Pleases show us the elements of manslaughter.

 

No, one word is "rights" and one word is "protection"...two different words that do not have the same meaning.


Fetuses over 23 weeks have protection from abortion. They can't legally be aborted for no reason other than the life/health of the woman.

After 23 weeks they still do not have rights since they aren't BORN and if the woman's life is in danger because of them they can be killed ( no rights).