Woman Sues for Failed Abortion. Your Thoughts?

[tld221]

Originally Posted by cinammonkisses

It's sad because I can only imagine how this 2yr old child will feel when they reach of age to realize that their mother wanted to abort them AND THEN sued because it didn't work out the way she wanted it to. Very sad, very distrubing

you know! she'll be one of the many members of prozac nation... sean preston better save her a seat...

Originally Posted by mccoyred

It would be interesting to find out that she was pregnant with TWINS

word! does anyone smell a Law and Order SVU episode from this? cause it sho would be good!

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I really wish people would stop infringing upon women's rights. She wanted an abortion. PERIOD. She couldn't get the abortion. PERIOD.

Imagine how this discussion would go if it was a 19 yr old woman.

i skimmed the article and overlooked the fact that she was 45 (prime menopausal stages and all) combined with Planned Parenthood saying that abortions are not 100% effective (logically that makes sense, i guess people just dont expect then NOT to be), i can totally seee how the abortion didnt work... or took one of the twins... whatever story we're going on...

but still, she needs to get her $$. allow me to direct you to a similar story: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030204.html

woman in Australia gets $104K for child-rearing costs of her now-7 year old son. convienently this story broke on March 2. hmmm... i mean while $104k isnt nearly what i imagine it costs to have a child, it sho pays for some college.

[RoyalEmpress33]

If you know you are in a bad financial situation...

...KEEP YOUR LEGS CLOSED. You can take all the birth control pills you want, get your tubes tied (I've heard of cases where women still got pregnant),take the shot, use condoms, wear the patch or whatever and still end up pregnant. Why? Because these methods are not 100%.

Now even though I do not agree with abortion, and people do sue for anything these days, she should get some money back since she claims the procedure was done incorrectly. Someone asked this question in another forum and it made me think. If people can sue for failed abortions, then can they also sue for birth control pills that fail and broken condoms too? They might as well.

I wonder what that child's life is going to be like considering the mother was trying to abort it. That child is going to need some serious therapy. Just give the baby up for adoption.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by tld221

word! does anyone smell a Law and Order SVU episode from this?

Only if she was raped.

woman in Australia gets $104K for child-rearing costs of her now-7 year old son. convienently this story broke on March 2. hmmm... i mean while $104k isnt nearly what i imagine it costs to have a child, it sho pays for some college.

Ten years from now?

[UrbanizdSkillz]

Call it my pro-choice (borderline pro-abortion) outlook but I feel that people are missing the point here.

I see the response that this child is going to go through emotional turmoil after finding out about the attempted abortion on her life. While this may be true, I think people are unjustly attacking this woman. She sought an abortion and paid for a service which was improperly rendered. Point blank, period, end of question. Then some want to assert that she should have been "responsible." It is completely out of the question to demand that this woman remain abstinent because she was in a "bad financial situation." Get real. How many times do people engage in sexual activity and don't have a dime to their name? (That is why many of us come from such large families of ten or twelve children, but I digress.) Clearly, this woman is 45 years old, not some 13 year old Maury talk show guest having sex with 50-11 different men. It's not the woman's sexual character OR morality that is being called into question. It is the execution of the supposed medical expertise of the doctor.

Has anyone stopped to think that at 45, this woman probably firmly believed that there wasn't a cold chance in hell that she could get pregnant? I mean having never been 45 I can only go on suspicion but I would venture to say the body, especially of a woman, will play tricks on you. Also at 45, I doubt this woman wanted to raise another child. And if you've NEVER been through an adoption process and/or seen the effects of adoption first hand on a person, then you shouldn't be so quick to throw that up as an option. Newsflash, the cost of adoption is just as much as the cost of raising a child and frankly, has more of an emotional cost than raising a child does. Assuming that the child is finally adopted out of the system, what happens if that child goes into an abusive home? Don't put your blinders on, this scenario happens more often than you'd imagine. Besides, we're not at the "woulda-coulda-shoulda" point of the situation. What's done is done now and that is the fact that she PAID for a procedure that was improperly rendered.

I wonder would people have this many speeches are soap box episodes for a case when it's really needed...

[laylo]

There is no way you can convince me that a failed abortion is 100% responsible for a child being born. It does not make me less of a feminist/womanist to believe that women have agency in making babies as well as in aborting them. To say that abortionists owe this woman the cost of raising her child is to act as though women are the helpless victims of pregnancy, which in this country is simply not the case.

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

Newsflash, the cost of adoption is just as much as the cost of raising a child and frankly, has more of an emotional cost than raising a child does.

Adoption is expensive for adoptive parents, not biological ones. It costs nothing to leave a baby at a drop-off center. Which emotional cost is greater is not measurable. Asking "What happens if a child goes into an abusive home?" is just like asking "What happens if a child is born into an abusive home?"--s/he should be removed. Adoptive parents run no greater risk than biological ones, particularly biological ones who didn't want their children in the first place.

[UrbanizdSkillz]

Originally Posted by laylo

There is no way you can convince me that a failed abortion is 100% responsible for a child being born. It does not make me less of a feminist/womanist to believe that women have agency in making babies as well as in aborting them. To say that abortionists owe this woman the cost of raising her child is to act as though women are the helpless victims of pregnancy, which in this country is simply not the case.

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.

Originally Posted by laylo

Adoption is expensive for adoptive parents, not biological ones. It costs nothing to leave a baby at a drop-off center. Which emotional cost is greater is not measurable. Asking "What happens if a child goes into an abusive home?" is just like asking "What happens if a child is born into an abusive home?"--s/he should be removed. Adoptive parents run no greater risk than biological ones, particularly biological ones who didn't want their children in the first place.

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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

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.

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

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

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.

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.

[UrbanizdSkillz]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

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

Originally Posted by laylo

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

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.

Originally Posted by laylo

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.

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.

[cinammonkisses]

Originally Posted by tld221

word! does anyone smell a Law and Order SVU episode from this? cause it sho would be good!

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.

[christiangirl]

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.

[BlessedOne04]

Originally Posted by cinammonkisses

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.

I remember that episode. Maybe it was ripped from this story.