Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Inconsistency strikes again
Message-ID: <3367@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 16:41:55 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3367
Posted: Mon Feb  4 16:41:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 01:30:44 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 19

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.