|
Wouldn't a more appropriate analogy be a doctor surgically attaching an extra leg, as opposed to the amputation comparison? Instead of missing something that she can't replace, she gained something that she's elected to keep.
If she were suing for damages related to pain and suffering in terms of the pregnancy and birth, I could sort of see it. But no one is making her keep the kid that she intended to abort. To me that seem like an elected decision very unlike the amputation example.
It's just so weird: how could she and doctors that she visited not know she was 20 weeks pregnant?
|
Threaded Mode
