Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site burdvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!psuvax1!burdvax!bnapl From: bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Inconsistency strikes again Message-ID: <1920@burdvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 12:47:48 EST Article-I.D.: burdvax.1920 Posted: Thu Feb 7 12:47:48 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:20:55 EST References:Reply-To: bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) Organization: Burroughs Corp. - SDG/Devon Lines: 26 Summary: In article ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >... >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. I would assume, not knowing all the facts of the story, that the doctor felt the woman's injuries and the presence of the fetus placed the woman's life in jeopardy. Under those circumstances, the doctor was justified in aborting the pregnancy. Hicks would be liable for the death of the infant because he caused the accident and, therefore, indirectly caused the death of the child. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl