ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (02/05/85)
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.
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/06/85)
Remember, the man you mentioned is only being CHARGED with vehicular manslaughter. If the court goes by recent rulings in other states, he will be judged innocent on the basis that a fetus is NOT a human. Sure, the woman involved can seek civil damages, but the usual way of determining how much money you get for the loss of a child (note, I am NOT saying that the fetus was a child) is how much money that child would have made over its lifetime. It would be difficult to prove that the fetus would definitely have been even born, not to mention born completely healthy, so no determination can be made about how productive said fetus would/could have been. She might get bucks for pain and suffering. The reason the woman and doctor are not being prosecuted is that, thank the gods, abortion is still legal in this country. Mikki Barry
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (02/07/85)
In article <alice.3367> 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
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/08/85)
> 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
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Chris Kreilick) (02/10/85)
> > 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 WAIT MR. FADER! I'm not sure about this one. If the belt was around the baby's waist, wouldn't it also shield the baby? -- Bronto rider
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (02/11/85)
> > > 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