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