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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!zehntel!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Reply to Gary Samuelson
Message-ID: <3659@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Apr-85 17:30:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.3659
Posted: Fri Apr 26 17:30:38 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Apr-85 06:34:41 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 15

> I suggest the analogy be modified as follows:
> You are driving your car, and you have an accident in which
> you are not injured, but someone else is.  Is it not evading
> your responsibility to refuse aid to that injured person?
> Your action has resulted in a situation in which someone
> else's life depends on what you do.  (Now, who caused the
> accident may be a factor in determining whose is the 
> responsibility, but not in the analogy I draw below.)

Whether your analogy is more accurate than mine depends
on exactly one thing:  whether or not a fetus is a human
being.  That, of course, is precisely my point: the "responsibility"
argument is irrelevant.
References: <818@bunker.UUCP>