[tld221]

sidenote: i thought Planned Parenthood did abortions for free or low-cost?

if the abortion was free, could she even seek $? i mean, it sucks but can the "you get what you pay for" maxim work here?

on another note, (and these are more legal questions) when children are killed, dont parents tend to sue for the dollar amount of the expected financial worth of the child? i remember something about a teenager who was killed and the lawsuit was for the $ he couldve made had he went to college, graduated and worked a healthy career (i forget what the field was).

i can KINDA see how this works if your child(ren) is/are approaching adulthood, but if the kid is like 3 or 4, then that doesnt really work...

my point to all that was, if parents can sue when their child dies (therefore no longer making them a parent, then that logic says an adult can sue when their child lives (making them a parent, in this case when she didnt intend to be).

man, talk about "the customer is always right"

ETA: i also don't believe that this woman is suing purely for "financial reasons." that is her and her lawyer's cover to make this lawsuit as cut and dry as possible. i mean abortions happen because the pregnancy is UNPLANNED. which is why PLANNED Parenthood swoops in and is "supposed to save the day." but they just made it worse. well, the doctors anyway.

AND ANOTHER THING. when women are artificially inseminated, they are paying for a service, yet its known that pregnancy is not 100% guaranteed. are abortions going to start being advertised as "not 100% effective?" will you have to go to the doctor for a follow-up, to make sure that sucka aint kickin anymore? (i know, that's kinda insensitive)