Woman Sues for Failed Abortion. Your Thoughts?

[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.

[laylo]

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

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

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.

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

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.

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.

Originally Posted by UrbanizdSkillz

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.

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.

[UrbanizdSkillz]

Originally Posted by laylo

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.