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!mhuxb!mhuxn!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!ritcv!ccice5!ccice6!daf
From: daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Inconsistency strikes again
Message-ID: <345@ccice6.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 12:36:40 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice6.345
Posted: Mon Feb 11 12:36:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Feb-85 03:23:48 EST
References: <3367@alice.UUCP> <342@ccice6.UUCP> <597@ccice2.UUCP>
Organization: The Wall Of Fog
Lines: 33

> > > 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.
> >
>
> I'm not sure about this one.  If the belt was around the
> baby's waist, wouldn't it also shield the baby?
> 

I acknowledge that, however you have failed to
address the issue of driving. My point stands.
-- 
The Watcher
seismo!rochester!ccice5!ccice6!daf