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

FoxHastings said: ↑
"""""""""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.

I guess you couldn't be bothered to actually read the LAW quoted above....or couldn't understand it.....it's plain enough ...

 

Biological self sufficiency does not rights make.
Ironically, your statement is the very example of Fallacy of equivalency. You have casually equivocated rights with being able to survive outside of someone else's body. The connection between the two is not at all straightforward or fundamental.

 

Ironic!

You still have not established that the fetus was non viable.

The link I provided proved you to be wrong. Physical trauma is a cause of premature labor.

 

YUP, it does....as long as the fetus needs the woman's body to sustain it's life it has no rights.

Yes, it is.

 

BZZZZT Wrong!

Anyone can care for a one year old infant but ONLY the pregnant woman can care for the fetus inside of her.

 

What about a woman who can't survive without someone else's organ inside her body?
Are you saying it's somehow different when one is inside the other than vice versa?

 

BZZZT Wrong!

The Law of the Land clearly stipulates that rights only apply to the NATURALLY BORN!

 

What?!!!

"""""""What about a woman who can't survive without someone else's organ inside her body?""""


What about it?

 

That's not true.
Seems like another person misinterpreting the text of the Fourth Amendment.

You say a fetus doesn't have rights because it can't survive outside of someone else's body. I'm saying, in terms of logical reasoning, that's not so different from someone trying to claim a woman doesn't have rights because she can't survive without someone else's organ inside her.

Fetus can't survive without being connected to parts of a woman's body.
Organ transplant patient can't survive without being connected to part of someone else's body.

Having part of someone else inside you, or being inside someone else, doesn't take away all your rights.

 

No, there is none of that at all in your post.

A woman is a BORN person with rights.





BUT, LIKE THE FETUS, she cannot FORCE anyone else to use their body to sustain her life.

GEE, you are correct, having someone else's DONATED body part in you does not take away your rights because you are a BORN person..


...anymore convoluted crap you need sorted out ???

 

Actually they do. A fetus has no person hood independently under the law. Absolutely no where.

The fetus is dependent on the host carrier, the mother. She can survive without the fetus, but the reverse is false.

 

Evoking law is the epitome of sophomoric debate

 

kazenatsu, it is obvious that you do not understand the concept of person hood.

That woman is already considered a person, even if she needs an organ replacement.

A fetus is always a fetus, until birth when it becomes an independent person.

 

Explaining the law under discussion , isn't.

Denying the law says what it says IS sophomoric....and a few other things I can't post.

 

Can the person taking care of the infant kill it?

 

Of course it's been established, by the article itself.

A 19 week old fetus is not viable.

How many times do I need to point out the obvious?

 

man·slaugh·ter
ˈmanˌslôdər/
noun
noun: manslaughter; plural noun: manslaughters
the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

 

Not true.

Most state's abortion laws do not allow abortion after a certain period, meaning that the fetus develops a right to life while still a fetus.

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with the 4th Amendment.

Onus is entirely on YOU to refute Article 2 and the 14th Amendment.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, "

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

 

Source for your claim that "They can't legally be aborted for no reason other than the life/health of the woman."

 

Here, I'll quote you: ""Most state's abortion laws do not allow abortion after a certain period""

 

It has a "protection"...you may call it a right to life but it has no rights until it's born.

Remember, with rights comes restrictions that we ALL have....

 

It's a sea cucumber?

 

Yes, but why. You made the claim that the only issue was the health of the woman.

 

Yes, they can but it's against the law because the one year old has been BORN, is a person with rights, so it would be considered murder which is against the law