There isn't a difference between a medical "induced abortion" and a legal one.
That’s simply not true. The removal of a dead fetus is not, legally speaking, an abortion.
Especially since "abortion" doesn't mean "kill fetus" by definition.
Wrong again. Under the legal definition there must be a intentional termination of something that could potentially be born alive at some point in the future. Stop focusing on irrelevant medical definitions when the only thing pertinent to this discussion is the LEGAL definition.
Let me state again, abortion doesn't mean what you apparently think it does and no, legislators don't get to reinvent the English language.
You can state it all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. Legislators get to define terms within statutes, and do so all of the time.
Let’s look at actual legal authority, shall we? Here is a definition from an actual court opinion authored by a judge:
"A person commits an abortion when he uses an instrument, medicine, drug or other substance with the intent to procure a miscarriage of any woman."
So, no, that judge did not consider the removal of a fetus that died of natural causes to be abortion since doing so would not “procure a miscarriage.”
Source: https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case? ... as_sdt=2,5
Are you aware of a single medical provider who has been prosecuted for removing a fetus that died of natural causes from a person’s body? (Spoiler alert: You aren’t because you have made a strawman argument.)
Is it asking too much for you to dispense with the strawman so we can get back to a substantive discussion?