I think this is ridiculous. If she had the abortion originally b/c she could not shoulder the cost of raising a child, I would think she would give it up for adoption. There is no way that I can believe the cost of giving up a child for adoption is more expensive than raising one yourself. That doesn't make any sense.
Regarding the abortion, if it fails, it is possible to go back and have it done again. This is not unlike other procedures that may need to be repeated if the doctor screws up (plastic surgery comes to mind) or if there is still more tissue present (tumor resection comes to mind). And from my limited medical training, it is not standard to get a pregnancy test afterwards to check if there is still a pregnancy. Usually that is only done if there was a problem, OR if the patient suspects she is still pregnant!

If she's going to sue for a failed medical procedure, then fine. BUT for the cost of raising a child that she could have given away?? Unacceptable.

[QUOTE=RedefinedDiva;1409831]OK, I'm no abortion expert, but my understanding of the procedure means that the fetus is sucked or scraped out (TMI and quite gross, but I'm getting to a point). Was "something" removed? If so, is the child.... "deformed" in any way? If not and "something" was removed, what the hell was it? [QUOTE]

Depending on the type of abortion she had, tissue could have been removed that was not actually part of the fetus. Most of what is removed in a surgical abortion is not actually the fetus. So the child could be perfectly normal.

[QUOTE=blackngoldengrl;1410465][QUOTE=RedefinedDiva;1409831]OK, I'm no abortion expert, but my understanding of the procedure means that the fetus is sucked or scraped out (TMI and quite gross, but I'm getting to a point). Was "something" removed? If so, is the child.... "deformed" in any way? If not and "something" was removed, what the hell was it? So is what is removed only done to allow the fetus to be eventually expelled from the body? I thought this was the case of the old technology of a D&C, not the current technology of a surgical abortion.

[QUOTE=ladygreek;1410491][QUOTE=blackngoldengrl;1410465]I wasn't as clear as I should have been. The idea is to remove everything, the fetus* and the additional tissue. I was saying that in this case where the abortion failed, what was removed was not any part of the fetus, but rather the supportive tissue.

In general when a surgical abortion is performed, most of what is there is not the fetus, but the supportive tissue. Meaning that the tissue makes up a greater percentage of what is actually removed, since the fetus is still so small at this point.

*depending on gestational age, could be embryo

As a Law and Order addict, I must fill you in. There actually is an SVU episode similar to this. But you know there are always some differences. In the Law and Order episode, the child has cerebal palsy. That was a good episode too.

While I don't doubt what you're saying, as I have never been nor do I have interest in getting pregnant or having an abortion at any point in the past or present, nor do I have a strong scientifc background, but I cannot understand how "supportive tissue" can be removed and a child survive. :confused:

I still say she should get some money (at least enough to cover her prenatal medical bills and some therapy!) but not enough to cover having a child.

Children are expensive--SO ARE LAWYERS. Unless the lawyer is her boo-nana, she's going broke as we speak. She must know that she'll probably lose because PP put that loophole in the release for services that she signed. Seeing as how this whole thing started because she didn't have the finances to have a child, that just doesn't sound right. Why would she pay an arm, a leg, and half a breast on a case she'll probably lose? I think she's owed something....A LOT OF SOMETHING....but not what she's asking. Hope her settlement's big because there's no way she'll go all the way on this, not with the loopholes that this corporation set up in case something like this happened.

This much is true. But it's not the question of her role in the matter, it's the obligation of the doctor who failed to perform his compensated duties.

Here in the state of Georgia, it is against the law to leave a child at a "drop off center." If a woman who does this is identified, she will be found guilty of negligence and sentenced to jail time. There again, another cost and this time, it's her complete freedom to do anything. There is a vast difference in the ideology of the child being removed from an abusive home and the actual application of that to cases where it should take place.

The plaintiff's role in a matter she is suing someone else about is always vital. Normally when someone fails to perform his or her compenstated duties, he or she pays the customer back. If the customer has only remained in his or her original condition, the provider of the service is not held responsible for the condition.

You're mistaken. http://www.safeplacefornewborns.com/statefiles/ga.html

Sure, but you seemed to be implying some kind of increased risk of being placed into an abusive situation with adoption. I'd be much more worried about this particular mother abusing her child than the chance that an adoptive parent might.

How does a doctor NOT see a 20 week old fetus?
And why is she still raising the child if she didn't want it?

I agree. However, if Planned Parenthood specifically states that the abortion procedure is not 100% effective (in terms of ending a pregnancy) then I don't see how they are liable. If that was the case, then why shouldn't couples who are seeking IVF and do not successfully conceive be reimbursed? Are they not paying money for a procedure that does not guarentee a particular outcome? This case sets a very unsettleing precendent which is why I think it will get tossed out of court.

But honestly, I think this lady is full of it. I think she did have an abortion (probably a D&C), but got pregnant again soon afterwards and is now looking for a way to make some $$$.

That poor kid! It's one thing to unplanned (I'm sure many of us are :p ) but its quite another thing to have it plastered all over the news and in court.

I've completely missed your point. Would you mind explaining it further, perhaps? If it says what I think it says, then it seems that you're agreeing with the original point that I stated

Allow me to correct myself as I am mistaken on the time limit. You may legally leave an infant at a "safe haven" within a week of giving birth. After such time, abandonment becomes punishable by law. So that given, my point still stands.



Having been raised by a parent who was placed into an abusive home as well as having witnessed the arduous and lengthy process of adoption, I will openly admit that my viewpoint is skewed and heavily biased, as are many of the arguments that have been seen in this thread. But no, there was no implication of increased risk. There was an attempted observation of the fact that adoption isn't always the best solution. Adoption isn't a "catch-all" or an infallible alternative to abortion. I think that is the notion that irritates me most of all, but I digress.

My point was that she is entitled to the money she paid for the abortion, not the cost of raising her child. The doctor failed to provide a service (changing her condition)- that doesn't make him or her completely responsible for the condition and her choices about its future.



Yes, there is a time limit on doing this. But it was a free option that she did not take. Lawsuits are for the unavoidable costs that someone or some entity causes you, not your choice to go with the most expensive option.



Understandable. I would just imagine that (granted I've seen no studies about this) unwanted children would be more likely to be abused than children who were tirelessly sought after. Not that it's guaranteed to work out.

Ahh. Okay I see your points. :)