Woman sues doctor, Planned Parenthood for child-care expenses over botched abortion
posted at 3:02 pm on March 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
She gave her doctor good money to kill her fetus. Was the fetus killed? No. Now she’s got a live, apparently healthy baby girl on her hands.
And someone has to pay.
[Jennifer] Raper claimed in the three-page medical malpractice suit that she found out she was pregnant in March 2004 and decided to have an abortion for financial reasons.
Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it “was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant,” according to the complaint…
The state’s high court ruled in 1990 that parents can sue physicians for child-rearing expenses, but limited those claims to cases in which children require extraordinary expenses because of medical problems, medical malpractice lawyer Andrew C. Meyer Jr. said.
Raper’s suit has no mentions of medical problems involving her now 2-year-old daughter.
Why didn’t she exercise her right to choose adoption? It seems unlikely that she’s just looking to get paid given that it took her two years to file suit. Maybe she had a change of heart after the baby was born? But in that case, where’s the “mal” in the malpractice claim?
Tangentially related exit question video: Via Blogs Against Hillary, the progressive pro-choice gender warriors of EMILY’s List lose themselves in a daydream…
Update: Plaintiffs in tort cases generally have a duty to mitigate damages. Does that mean Raper had a duty to give up her unwanted child for adoption before a significant financial burden could accrue?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
But wait… Planned Parenthood is flawless. Report to your nearest re-education camp at once.
Gwillie on March 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Maybe we should think about changing our currency.
How bouts, In Hillary We Trust?
Kini on March 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM
AP nailed it with ‘adoption’….10 year waiting lists in this country and this bi&^% is suing?
Pam on March 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM
What psychological damage will be done to that child when she grows up and finds out mommy tried to kill her before she was even born? The mother should have given that child up for adoption long ago…now the child would have attachment issues if given up for adoption. But, hey, who cares about kids? Just us stone-cold-hearted and downright mean dinsosaur conservatives, I guess…
JustTruth101 on March 7, 2007 at 3:13 PM
We have a wrongful life cause of action in my state, too. It’s essentially the mirror image of a wrongful death suit.
In a wrongful death case, the plaintiff (usually a relative standing in for the decedent) paid someone to perform an action to improve or preserve a life, and they fouled it up and the patient died. Ergo, you owe me, Dr.
In a wrongful life case, the plaintiff (the mother of the minor child) paid someone to terminate a life, and they fouled it up and the patient lived. Ergo, you owe me, Dr.
And perhaps the greatest offense of all was allowing a baby to be born with the name “Raper.” That should make for an easy life.
What a world.
Blacksheep on March 7, 2007 at 3:15 PM
JustTruth101 is absolutely, totally right.
INC on March 7, 2007 at 3:15 PM
She paid for a dead baby, by Gawd, and she didn’t get it.
Labamigo on March 7, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I think they should start talking about finishing the abortion. Oh, wait, that’s a real live little human being now! Oh, wait, it was a real live little human being then, too! What was I thinking?
jjjen on March 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Oh this little girl now is going to grow up in a real nice environment now isnt she? That mother wants out of everything from monetary responsibility to child neglect in the future and everything else. What a friggin joke. Whats she gonna want next, college tuition for this child the doctors made her keep?
First, how the hell does someone walk out of an office not knowing if the abortion they went in for didn’t get performed? Gee I guess the father of the child may have to pay child support now huh? Pitty. Where the hell is he?
I hope this case falls on its face. Disgusting.
johnnyU on March 7, 2007 at 3:22 PM
After the Scooter Libby verdict, it’s anyone’s guess…. it will all depend on the Liberal Politics of the day….
PinkyBigglesworth on March 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM
umm…Is that video ad with the word “pregnant?” there just by chance? On this story?
JetBoy on March 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM
This is basically the greatest story ever. Man, that kid is going to be so disturbed one day.
Alex K on March 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM
The way the Emily’s List-type people will spin it to her is that it didn’t work for her mommy, but now she can continue the fight for the right to kill her kid. What’s the over-under on her time in therapy? Maybe 20 years?
And by the way, who’s the Chief Justice behind “Hillary’s” hand? It’s not Roberts. Is Paul Begala going to be Chief Justice in 2009?
eeyore on March 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM
A fetus is not a human being.
A two year old is not a fully human person.
Ergo, the woman can dispose of this “problem” on her own and save herself all the grief.
It’s all in one’s perception!
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I was going to make a joke after reading the headline (Lord, I apologize…), but now I just feel too sorry for that little girl. What kind of environment is she growing up in, unwanted except apparently as a cash cow for her “mother”? Very sad.
ReubenJCogburn on March 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM
The reasoning will be that mommy didn’t try to kill her, because she didn’t exist as a person back then. The assumption seems to be that if you can kill a human early enough, it doesn’t count as murder. Only killing innocent persons is murder on this view. I don’t hold this view, but it’s one of the main justifications for abortion.
Bill Ramey on March 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM
She should SUE!!!!
After all, she paid for something, and she did not get it!
Of course she can bring the child back to the doctor and make sure the doctor does it right this time. After all, a woman has the right to do with her baby what she wishes. There is no reason that a two year old, who is not a fully human person, should be alive if her mommy does not want her.
The woman’s rights trump the child’s!!!!!
No, Planned Parenthood should uphold their original agreement and give this woman her dead baby!
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 3:44 PM
A pr0n star waiting to happen. Mommie Dearest, indeed!
Kid from Brooklyn on March 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM
God help us all…
Lonevoice on March 7, 2007 at 3:48 PM
“JustTruth101,”
What about all the children who find out that their big brother or sister, and/or their little brother or sister, or brothers and sisters, were dismembered, or sucked down a suction tube at mommy’s request?
What do you think those children might think?
This is a reality for millions of children throughout the USA, and more if we include the entire world.
What does that say when a mother ends up in an abortuary and is a coconspirator in mutilating an innocent, new human being? How much confusion must their be inside the minds and hearts of children who ask themselves “Mommy went and had my little sister aborted. What does that say about her love for me? What does she think about me and big sister Suzie?”
Abortion, the sacred, solemn, wonderful choice which gives women power!
Let us continue to support medical rape with our tax dollars, slaughtering more than on million children per year, all for the sacred “Reproductive Right” to have a child dismembered, cut and torn to pieces, and all this is enforced at the point of a gun, stifling those who wish to prevent this slaughter of innocents!
What a world!
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Re: the update above
Please don’t hate on me for what I’m about to say (as I too think this kind of case is wrong on about 47 different levels), but if this was my case I would argue as follows:
“Judge, the claim for damages is based on the cost to the mother of raising an unexpected child. The mother had no recogonized duty to surrender custody or attempt another abortion, and thus the damages claim can not be mitigated. Therefore, the doctor owes my client for the full cost, including inflation, of raising that child to the age of majority in this state.”
Consider for a moment the financial impact on a family if a fetus is believed to carry a significant birth defect, and the abortion (which might more accurately — and humanely — be considered a medically necessary D&C) fails and the child is born with the defect. From a strictly legal perspective, should not the doctor be liable for his screw up?
Now, I’ve got to go take a shower. I feel dirty all of a sudden.
Blacksheep on March 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM
The video of Hillary being sworn in as President, and a story about a botched abortion, could not be better related. Brilliant!
roninacreage on March 7, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Let’s see:
1) Woman decides for financial reasons to kill her fetus
2) Doctor Messes Up the procedure, thereby not killing fetus
3) Woman waits 2 years to file suit
4) Kid now gets to find out that she was never wanted by her mother in the first place, and would prefer that she be dead.
That poor, poor kid. My heart aches.
Matticus Finch on March 7, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Thank the liberal bastards for all this crap.
JackM on March 7, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Sounds like the Better Business Bureau needs to get involved. If you coldly look at it from a paid service standpoint, she does have a case. Of course it’s disgusting, but that’s law. The case will see a courtroom and she will be awarded a judgment. Hopefully the judge will see the obvious non-adoption route, and will only award her reimbursement for the cost of the abortion procedure. Not a penny more.
natesnake on March 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM
A condom is a lot cheaper than an abortion.
Am I correct that the Roe vs. Wade baby is still alive? I heard the case wasn’t settled in time for the woman to have the abortion so she had to have the child. How does that child feel? Your mom went to the Supreme Court to have you killed.
icelandicfarmer on March 7, 2007 at 4:13 PM
My wife and I can’t have kids for medical reasons.
If the woman in the story wants to avoid the financial burdens of raising the kid, and if anyone knows how I can get in touch with her, we’ll adopt her. Right now. On the spot.
psrch on March 7, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I can’t help but wonder who and where the father is. Did he even know he had a child on the way?
icelandicfarmer,
Norma McCorvey gave birth to a daughter Melissa. She later converted to Christianity and has become a pro-life advocate. She has also (unsuccessfully) petitioned the Supreme Court to rehear the case.
Pablo on March 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM
This is an example of the garbage that is created when you refuse to separate right from wrong, as the baby-killer crowd has done.
Fatrap on March 7, 2007 at 4:30 PM
If this poor child isnt murdered by the mother sometime in its life ill be surprised…can you emagine growing up and finding out about how your mother wanted you murdered before you had a chance at life…a worthless POS this woman is.
davy on March 7, 2007 at 4:32 PM
I’m curious of the mother of this child wishes today that the baby were dead. If so, why is she still in possession of it?
lorien1973 on March 7, 2007 at 4:35 PM
At least this will give me something interesting to talk about at my pro-life club meeting this evening.
bookwurm322 on March 7, 2007 at 4:36 PM
My question is: how will the daughter react when she finds out her mommy tried to kill her and then when it failed, sued over the fact that she’s not dead?
Opinionnation on March 7, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I can answer, for myself at least. I won’t say it didn’t bother me to learn about my mother’s past, but I cannot at all compare it to a person who survives an attempted abortion.
At least I know I was and am wanted by both of my parents. Though I also saw my mother’s regret when she told me that. She had a change of heart as she got older.
Esthier on March 7, 2007 at 4:57 PM
This brings up a variation of Chris Rock’s routine on what a man should and shouldn’t say when a woman tells him she’s pregnant…Suggesting a abortion is RIGHT out, because if that doesn’t happen, some day you might ask the kid how he or she is and get a response of “ALIVE! That’s how the F**k I am…ALIVE, MF’er!!”
If this kid doesn’t get into a healthy, loving household fast, she’s going to grow an attitude that would make the ones that Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar carry around (just a representative selection…fill in your own names…Ann Coulter some weeks, for example, Janeane Garofalo some other time)look like a sunny Saturday in the park.
I hope someone spares this kid that. Two years old may be young enough to repair the damage we see coming. Eight or nine is a lifetime of therapy waiting to happen.
52Ranger on March 7, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Actually, Norma McCorvey (a/k/a “Jane Roe”) has since realized her mistake, has become a full-fledged born-again Christian, worte a book about her experience (“Won By Love”, a must-read for any pro-lifer), and tried unsuccessfully to get the SCOTUS to rehear her case and overturn it.
Here’s a whacky idea: Let the court rule for the woman, make Planned Parenthood pay that child’s FULL expenses, from now until age 18, send PP into bankruptcy, and save who-knows-how-many children’s lives.
BTW Allah, you owe me for the lunch I lost watching that Hillary video. bleccch
BigOrangeAxe on March 7, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Regarding Roe v Wade: Normal McCorvey NEVER had an abortion. The case Roe v Wade case was a hoax, like the Scopes Monkey Trial which championed Darwinism-evolutionism, and did take place, was a hoax.
McCorvey stated that she was unaware of much of the case and that she was not included in the hearings. The attorneys who took the case had an ax to grind and McCorvey was the perfect patsy for their pet agenda.
Dana Cano, the Doe of Doe v Bolton, the sister case with Roe v Wade which helped spread the ugly, barbaric practice of dismembering and suctioning innocent babies as a “Reproductive Right” and as a “Women’s right to choose (Choose what? – To have someone dismember, slice, and rip a baby apart, and engage in medical rape, disrespect, and abuse of women and live human babies), also is pro-life and has attempted, along with McCorvey, to have their cases reviewed and overturned.
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 5:46 PM
As an eight-month pregnant lady, I have to say this lady must have been hella fat and more than slightly retarded to not know she was (still) pregnant and 7+ months along. And that second doctor should lose his license, too.
Someone should just take her baby away from her and give it to a worthy couple and call it even.
NTWR on March 7, 2007 at 5:55 PM
If the Abortionist wind up having to pay child support, will they get visitation rights?
The girl will end up spending weekends at the clinic.
Mark was here on March 7, 2007 at 5:55 PM
The baby didn’t just fly out of her womb 8 months later. She would have know immediately she was still pregnant and could have had someone else attempt to murder her child.
The woman needs to be in a mental hospital. Or maybe rehab. Well I guess not rehab, her actions don’t rise to that level.
csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Dude, you have some serious issues to work out.
On a related note, who can I sue if my girlfriend refuses to have an abortion? (hypothetical, but where insane lawsuits like this are headed)
Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Because she wouldn’t have a lawsuit if she didnt have the baby.
Labamigo on March 7, 2007 at 6:12 PM
hmmm,
That video was narrated by:
A MAN baby! Yeah!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on March 7, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Interesing precedent:
from the book, “They Sued for Millions: A Study of Big Money Lawsuits Won in the Last Ten Years”
wordwarp on March 7, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Max Power,
It helps if you will include the person’s name and tag line for the post you are including in your comment which shows at what time the post was placed here. That way anyone reading it can look at the original post and see what the person said and make sense of the context of the line of communication that is carried through.
Regarding “Dude, you have some serious issues to work out.” — Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 6:06 –
It is the abortionists, the abortuaries, those who advocate abortion, women who submit to abortion, fathers who cannot protect their offspring from the abortionist, and surviving children, and those surviving siblings of aborted children who have serious issues to work out.
Regarding suing our girlfriend who refuses to have an abortion, all you need do is contact an abortion advocacy organization, or the judge who coerced the girl to have an abortion against her will. They should be able to help you.
Many abortions are coerced on women, and many women are victims of violence as a direct result of abortion as their boy friends, and others pressure then to abort, and then go on to actually beat them, harass them, and even murder them.
Finally, abortuaries are known to have engaged in coercion once the woman is in the abortuary, refusing to allow her to leave until they have aborted her baby, phsyically restraining her, even ignoring her screams and cries to stop and to be released.
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Wordwarp,
I remember that case. I was living in houston at the time and I remember that it made an impact on me. There’s a big difference however between this case and the Miller case in which your cited. They were told that the baby would not live, that the process of attempting to save the baby would cause pain and irreparable harm. I applauded the Millers at the time because they chose to have the child and to let God make the life and death decisions. She could have had an abortion, but did not. For the doctors to go against the expressed wishes of the parents was abhorrent. The costs of raising this child is bank-breaking as they will be caring for her 24/7 for the rest of their daughter’s life.
Compare that case to this one – she didn’t want the baby because it would cost too much. The baby was healthy. She was just being selfish, which is apparent because instead of giving the child up for adoption, she kept the baby so she could file a lawsuit. If the lack of money was truly an issue, she would have called the nearest adoption agency. The fact that she did not, means that she was and is in it only for the money.
pullingmyhairout on March 7, 2007 at 7:08 PM
There was a case a few years back where a man was suing to not be responsible for his baby.
Apparently, He had told the girl he was sleeping that he did not want kids. From the beginning of their relationship, she had said that she was not able to have kids. When she did get pregnant, he told her he wanted her to have an abortion, but she chose not to kill the baby.
After the child was born, his (now ex)girlfriend sued him for child support.
He filed a suit saying that he should not be responsible for the child since he had told her he didn’t want kids, she had given him the impression that she couldn’t have kids, and he had wanted her to abort the child when he found out about it. He argued that a woman has a right to decide whether or not she is ready (or willing) to be a parent and that (under the equal protection clause) a man should have the same legal right.
I never heard what was decided (if the case has been decided yet).
JadeNYU on March 7, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Correction to a section of one of my previous posts:
Should be Sandra Cano of the Doe ve Bolton Supreme Court Case, not Dana Cano.
I apologize for the error.
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Hey, I am sure you’re a nice guy William, you are just comming across in this particular thread as super militant. Some of the events you describe are the exception to the rule, no doubt. No one likes the reality of abortion, but realistically, it something we’re stuck with. Ensuring that it is used as humanely as possible is about the best that can hoped for.
Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 7:28 PM
I’m waiting to see how this case works out, so I can pursue my nearly identical case. I hired a hitman, and he missed shooting the target. Now I have a “wrongful life” case, too!
stonemeister on March 7, 2007 at 7:30 PM
So this woman admits she paid someone to kill her child. I would call that murder for hire.
I’m sure that’s just what the the majority of the slave owners said 150 years ago about slavery, just before the civil war and abolition.
BTW, how do you humanely kill an unborn child? The humane thing to do would be to have the child and give it to another family through adoption.
RedinBlueCounty on March 7, 2007 at 8:03 PM
The case should be thrown out and her baby taken and given to someone who wants to adopt.
My question is can this child sue her mother at 18 for emotional damage for attempted murder?
Tim Burton on March 7, 2007 at 8:15 PM
This woman is suing everyone for her pregnancy, except herself who holds the the primary blame for her pregnancy. Why is it that she can sue a doctor for “failing to see” she was pregnant? The article doesn’t say it but I am sure she didn’t have a pregnancy test when she saw the second doctor. After all, she had an abortion, so how could anyone suspect that she was still pregnant?
I suspect that she wasn’t even thinking about suing until some friend told her that she could make a lot of money and recommended she talk to a lawyer. That would explain the two year gap between the child’s birth and the filing date of the lawsuit.
This case will go nowhere, but you be sure that this woman and her lawyer will be on every liberal talk show and news station on both coasts and will make millions on the book and movie rights (think Sundance Channel) when she publishes “her” story. You can also be sure that the child will never see any of this money.
RedinBlueCounty on March 7, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Can you put this reality we have to live with, and it’s lack of outrage, in perspective with this latest Ann Coulter flap, and the outrage it generated?
I mean for cying out loud, what has happened to conservatism?
csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM
My exit question:
Why is it that the people who claim to be for the little guy, “liberals” and/or “progressives”, willfully kill the littlest guys of all; unborn children? Why do the people that claim represent the rights minorities turn unborn children into a minority group without any rights at all, including the right to life itself?
RedinBlueCounty on March 7, 2007 at 8:27 PM
A good point. I think there are a lot more people aligning themselves with conservatives theses days, that are not inherently consevative themselves as a result of the events of 9/11. Maybe it has watered down some conservative’s pet clauses.
Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Let’s hope the suit includes enough money for the child’s counseling once she finds out how much her mommy really loved her… How tragically sad.
Scotsman on March 7, 2007 at 8:58 PM
You’re probably right. I just hope the rest of us can get them to adopt all the conservative values instead of us letting them infect the movement with sissyfied values.
csdeven on March 7, 2007 at 9:10 PM
I am 38. I have miscarried three times, and have no living children. My husband and I would do almost anything to have a child. People who do things like this leave me physically ill. I just … have no words.
Stefka
Stefka on March 7, 2007 at 9:28 PM
Had to define “abortion” to several kids, since they’d heard the word and didn’t know. The look on their faces … first disbelief that perhaps they’d misunderstood the explanation, then pure horror when they finally accepted what they’d heard. It’s a gut-renching mix of shock for to them a new and frightening concept of betrayal, worse a betrayal of trust made by parents who children believe utterly are there to protect them. Being callous about babies is something that has to be learned – a hardening. Kids are naturally delighted with and protective of babies – they’re very close to those days. You tell them about abortion and it’s as if the world has fallen out from under them.
naliaka on March 7, 2007 at 9:36 PM
What an apt last name.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 7, 2007 at 9:56 PM
Does anyone remember the woman(unmarried of course) who found out that she and her live in were expecting triplets-a single baby and twins.
She wrote about how she choose to “selectively reduce” down to the single baby because she didn’t was to change her standard of living and shop at costco.
My sister-in-law and bro- in- law had just delivered their 3rd child-a result of faulty b.c.
Helen’s sister is 8 years older, her brother 10 1/2-and her parents love going to Costco.
annoyinglittletwerp on March 7, 2007 at 10:10 PM
As a former (Reagan) democrat, now conservitive, I remember thinking this issue was a purely religious issue. I was of course wrong. But that is what most liberals think. ” Don’t force your religious beliefs on us. If we screw up and get pregnant, we don’t want your doctrine limiting our options.” We could benefit from de-emphasizing the religious argument, (though totally valid). There are plenty of other arguments against Roe v Wade. It needs to be overturned because there is no constitutional right to privacy. Ever take a piss test to get a job? Same physical neighborhood – not private. The so-called constitutional right to privacy applies only to abortion. Secondly, most average democrats think overturning Roe v Wade would outlaw abortion. It should be up to the state legislatures and if you want one bad enough you can always go to Vegas and have one. Roe v Wade is judicial activism at it’s most absurd and should be overturned because it’s bad law. Don’t let “pro-choice” people frame the argument in purely religious terms. (However valid.)
Buck Turgidson on March 7, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Roe v Wade isn’t bad law…it’s anti-law. The Constitution was bastardized to read into it the right to kill a baby under the auspices of “privacy”, when the Constitution says nary a word about either (but does arguably give rights to babies, whether born or not).
With this logic, the Supreme Court could “interpret” the right to eradicate Jews, burn churches, or anything else they want to interpret from a living Constitution. The only valid point-of-view for the Supreme Court is strict constructionism…all else is supremely dangerous!
stonemeister on March 7, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Agreed. However anyone, right or left, religious or secular, may feel about abortion and it’s place in society, Roe v Wade was indeed wrongly decided. The merits or lack thereof of legal abortion are beside the point. A pro-choice person who is intilectually honest should admit that and campaign for state reps who share their view. If they can pass legislation in their state, then I will feel the people have spoken. Let the system work and may the best man win. (So to speak.) Nobody is trying to take away anyone’s “rights”. And no one is trying to force their morals or religion on anyone else. The constitution says what it says. The rest is up to the voters and their representatives.
Buck Turgidson on March 7, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Given Islam’s growing demographic advantage over free peoples, it seems abortion, contraception, and feminism in general will be curtailed soon. Men and women in the liberal democracies will either begin insisting that women resume becoming mothers at an early age and have their fair share of children, and that men agree to father larger families; or their peoples and way of life will go on being eclipsed by muslims and Islam.
It’s true that muslims could become slouches and join in all the contraceiving and aborting. However, it seems foolish for free men and women to leave their relative numbers up to muslims, unless they’ve simply become indifferent to the course of their own late life and their posterity. No news I’ve read leads me to think muslims are even close to being ready to begin eeking out just one or two late-life trophy babies.
There’s always genocide. No, genocide is an option, so shut up and let me finish my reductio ad absurdum. Free men and women could preserve their relative numbers and preserve “a woman’s right to choose” and a man’s right to sex without fatherhood, if they began killing or sterilizing muslims by the tens of millions. Apart from everything else one can say about such bloodthirstiness and tyranny, they seem a high price to pay for “a woman’s right to choose” to help her people stagnate, dwindle, or die out.
Kralizec on March 8, 2007 at 12:07 AM
If she wins, can boyfriends use that as a defense against paying child support? “Hey, Judge, she could have had an abortion.”
hadsil on March 8, 2007 at 3:10 AM
Kid: “I wuv you mommy!”
Mother: “I once tried to kill you, you little brat.”
Oh, the therapy bills.
Olbgasm on March 8, 2007 at 6:39 AM
How do you screw up an abortion anyway? Isn’t it like shooting fish…er nevermind…
JackM on March 8, 2007 at 8:22 AM
Our country is jacked up man
Drtuddle on March 8, 2007 at 11:26 AM
In response to Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 6:06 PM
William: It is the abortionists, the abortuaries, those who advocate abortion, women who submit to abortion, fathers who cannot protect their offspring from the abortionist, and surviving children, and those surviving siblings of aborted children who have serious issues to work out.
Finally, abortuaries are known to have engaged in coercion once the woman is in the abortuary, refusing to allow her to leave until they have aborted her baby, physically restraining her, even ignoring her screams and cries to stop and to be released.
William
William2006 on March 7, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Max Power’s response to William: Hey, I am sure you’re a nice guy William, you are just comming across in this particular thread as super militant. Some of the events you describe are the exception to the rule, no doubt. No one likes the reality of abortion, but realistically, it something we’re stuck with. Ensuring that it is used as humanely as possible is about the best that can hoped for.
Max Power on March 7, 2007 at 7:28 PM
William’s response:
Max Power,
Please define “militant” as it applies to the issue of abortion.
Frankly, I don’t see anything militant about my comment.
In the comment I state facts, that women are coerced into the abortuary, that they are harassed by family members, employers, and friends, and boy friends. They are also beaten, and even murdered for refusing to abort babies. Perhaps you are not aware of this phenomenon.
It is also a fact that women have reported being restrained against their will and their babies aborted.
Abortion itself is a barbaric practice. There is nothing humane about it. It involves dismembering, ripping tiny human beings several weeks after conception-fertilization into pieces, and killing healthy babies up to and including the moment of birth, which includes late term abortions in which labor is induced, the baby is born, and an abortionist punctures baby’s skull, inserts a suction tube, and sucks the contents of baby’s skull until baby’s skull collapses in onto itself.
There is nothing humane about that.
Abortions are abuse of women, showing disrespect for their bodies and their role as mothers, and their role as the gateway to a human body, to love, the life itself.
Abortions damage mothers’ bodies, causing increased chances of cancer, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, hemorrhaging, perforations, infections, and so on. Women risk internal scarring inside their womb, thus putting thei reproductive health, and future pregnacies, in jeopardy. This increases the chance of dangerous complications.
With the combined damage to women’s emotions and bodies, and the clear damage and slaughter of innocent human babies, abortion is anything but humane.
To call such a barbaric act “humane” is tantamount to calling plucking out someone’s eyes, stretching them on the wrack, or dousing them with gasoline and lighting them ablaze “compassionate.”
William
William2006 on March 8, 2007 at 11:00 PM