I said it WOULD be manslaughter. The investigation would decide if it were INVOULANTARY.
Keep spinning and twisting, but eventually you will have to address the actual point, or give up. The logic is clear and undeniable. It doesn’t change just because you want everything to go your way.
But there is no reason to believe they would be, since you fundamentally misunderstand the crime of manslaughter. How can you confidently assert that (if the embryo is regarded as human) all miscarriages would be manslaughter, and then say it’s not your place to say what elements comprise manslaughter? How did you reach the conclusion that they were all manslaughter if you don’t have a view of what manslaughter is?
***Again, what’s the difference? It’s the killing of a human being right? Is it then a form of manslaughter? we are not at war with zygotes, so that justificatin wouldn’t apply. ***
Not all killing is murder, and not all killing is manslaugter. Some killing is simply accidental, and has no criminal implications at all.
I suspect this is what’s hanging you up. You seem to believe that any killing of one person by another is at least some kind of manslaughter. But that’s not correct.
Again, you miss the point. It’s not about what I think, it’s about wives, sisters, daughters etc. having to go through a criminal investigation to prove they did not deliberatly or in any other way “cause” the death of the unborn.
You’re sitting in a chair that is wired to a light switch. I see you there, and knowing that the chair is electrically wired, and intending to kill you, I throw the switch.
You’re sitting in a chair that is wired to a light switch. I can’t see the chair and don’t know you’re in it, but I know that the chair is electrically wired, and I really like the mental rush of knowing I just might be killing someone who decided to sit down I throw the switch.
You’re sitting in the chair and I have no idea the chair or the switch is unusual in any way. I walk into the room and see you sitting in the chair, and since the light is kind of dim, I throw the switch.
Each of these situations is different. One is murder, one is manslaughter, and one is no crime at all.
But again, and sorry t keep belaboring the point, this is what you said earlier:
"If abortion is murder, then misscarriage is invoulantary manslaughter. It’s undeniable. "
Now you seem to admit that miscarriage is not “undeniably” manslaughter. Your objection is that there would have to be an investigation to determine if it is manslaughter.
You do understand that miscarriage could simply no an accident, no crime at all now? And your only objection is that an investigation would be necessary?
And you retract your claim that “If abortion is murder, then misscarriage is invoulantary manslaughter. It’s undeniable?”
You are spinning around and muddying the waters and missing the entire point, which is that if abortion (deliberate killing of a human being) is murder, then misscarriage (the accidental killing of a human being) MUST be AT LEAST “INVOULANTARY manslaughter”.
Now dance some more while avoiding the inevitable logic I have repeatedly provided.
Killing implies some sort of act, accidental or deliberate. A miscarriage is neither.
When a child dies of swine flu, we don’t investigate the killing. There is no “killing”. The police aren’t required to investigate to see if the parents deliberately infected the child with the flu viurs.
And yet every single time I ask you to actually define, specifically, what involuntary manslaughter is, you decline.
So let me spell out plainly where you are mistaken: the accidental killing of a human being is NOT necessarily involuntary manslaughter.
Repeat that fact over and over again in your head. If you kill someone by accident, it does not mean that you are guilty of manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary.
So when you say, in capital letters no less, that the accidental killing of a human being MUST BE AT LEAST involuntary manslaughter, you are factually incorrect.
The elements of involuntary manslaughter include a reckless or criminally negligent act. If you are acting without any negligence, or even with simple negligence, and someone dies as a result of your act, it’s not any kind of manslaughter. Manslaughter requires a higher degree of reckless behavior.
So your premise is factually, and fatally, flawed, because you don’t have the slightest clue as to what the crime of manslaughter actually is, and are supremely indifferent to learning.
But that’s true of every death. Every death would have to be investigated to know whether there is a crime involved. And yet, every death is not investigated. Why is that?
Because most investigations of deaths are not about the indulgence of bigotry. Anti-abortion laws are. Harassing women is the whole point of passing such laws in the first place, and that’s how they will be enforced, to make life as unpleasant as possible for as many women as possible. It’s no different than passing a law enforcing segregation; even if the language is “separate but equal”, in reality the result will always be a persecution of non-whites because that’s what segregation is for. Just as laws against abortion have no other purpose than the persecution of women.