Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Inconsistency strikes again
Message-ID: <342@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 17:31:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.342
Posted: Thu Feb  7 17:31:56 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 08:19:34 EST
References: <3367@alice.UUCP>
Organization: The Wall Of Fog
Lines: 25

> In Elliott City, Maryland today, Ronald Hicks was charged with vehicular
> manslaughter because he was involved in a traffic accident that led
> to the abortion of a 13-week fetus.
> 
> Hicks was driving a pickup that collided last August with a car
> that contained a 22-year-old pregnant woman.
> 
> She suffered internal injuries of a nature that led her doctor
> to terminate her pregnancy.
> 
> Here is the inconsistency:  there is no way to know what would have
> happened had the doctor not done the abortion, and yet the driver of
> the truck is being charged with manslaughter!
> 
> If abortion is murder, shouldn't the woman and her doctor be charged too?
> If it isn't, how come Hicks is being prosecuted at all?
> 
> Can someone come up with a consistent way of explaining the facts?
> I can't.

Stop and look again. The child was not wearing a seatbelt
or involved in driving the car. Therefore the decision is fair.
-- 
The Watcher
seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf