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