Woman Sues for Failed Abortion. Your Thoughts?

[christiangirl]

I mean really. Suing for the cost of raising a child?? I just don't agree. I say sue for whatever the procedure cost and the prenatal care she got once she found out, maybe even for the cost of the therapy she's gonna need after this nightmare. But while it may be a botched procedure that is to blame for her remaining pregnant, it's not the organization's fault for her being pregnant when she couldn't afford it. Most people don't abstain from sex when they can't handle the consequences, but whose fault is that? It just doesn't make sense to me to know full well that sex can and often will lead to a baby, do it, then be mad when a baby is made. Condoms, the pill, the patch, use whatever you want--but if the only way to make C is to put A and B in the same body.....when you put A and B in the same body, don't start suing people when C is made. She could've relinquished the baby to child services after she was born. As hard as it would have been, that would've been an answer to her problem and, since she's so hard up for cash, it would have cost a lot less than the thousands she's about to pay in legal fees. If you can't afford the baby formula at Family Dollar, what does she think the lawyer's gonna cost?!?!?! There's something about that that doesn't sit well with me....fishy as tuna, I say.

Give her what she's due and withold what she's not.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by tld221

p.s. anyone having a tongue-in-cheek moment about the woman's last name?

HAHAHA, well, I wasn't gonna say anything........

[RedefinedDiva]

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?

She could sue off the sheer fact of medical malpractice. I am too tired to read the article and add'l facts tonight, so I'll reserve comment on her suing for the cost of raising a child, etc.

[Infamous12]

After doing a bit of research, I found documentation from Planned Parenthood that states it is NOT 100% effective. It states directly on their national website that depending upon the procedure she endured (medical or surgical) the effectiveness varies from 92% effective to more than 99% effective.

More than 99% effective does not equal 100% effective.

Also, it was not stated in the article the type of procedure she went through. If it was the abortion pill that 8% of variation could mean high possibility for a child.

Planned Parenthood Abortions

So I guess IMHO if she's going to sue anyone, she should sue the doctor who did not detect the pregnancy, not Planned Parenthood. Especially when they say upfront that certain procedures are far less than 100% effective.

While it's naive to say that a 45-year-old should be abstinent, the truth still remains that abstinent people ironically are NEVER pregnant. The last I heard of an abstinent woman being pregnant was a few thousand years back...this really nice lady named Mary.

*snickers at Raper as last name* Sorry.

[DSTCHAOS]

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

This isn't about condoms, the pill, the patch, abstinence, adoption, the stork, or whatever else.

Save the speeches for the MEN who are having sex--usually irresponsibly.

Until then, this 45 yr old grown ass woman wants her money. And I think she should get at least some of it.

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

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by RedefinedDiva

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?

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

[OOhsoflyDELTA#9]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

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

wow I never thought of that Soror...hummmm...

[Infamous12]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

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

Yeah it would be! Wow... that's some serious 'survival of the fittest'!

[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

[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.

[mulattogyrl]

While I do agree that this is a botched surgical procedure and she does deserve some compensation, I just can't forget that there is a NEW PERSON to consider now. There is a person here who one day may find out they weren't wanted. Somebody needs to help him/her too. This whole thing just makes my stomach hurt. (no pun intended)