Woman Sues Doctors After Failed Abortion
Either people in Boston have officially lost their minds or this country is too sue-happy. Associated Press (AP) released this news a while back but long story short: Woman who got pregnant had an abortion that didn't kill the child, and proceeded to have the child, has sued every party involved in her pregnancy except herself and the father. She alleges that doctors owe her the money to pay for the cost of raising the child. Ms. Raper (that's her real name) apparently does not recognize who is responsible for her becoming pregnant.Setting aside my personal views on abortion, lets look at this logically.
Firstly, If she didn't want this child, why is she keeping this child? There is such a thing as adoption, and there are many people who will pay the costs to adopt, and there are many people who want to adopt.
Secondly, Medicine is still called a "practice" rather than an art for a reason: It's imperfect.
Thirdly, when she found out she was in fact pregnant, why didn't she proceed with some action, such as having the abortion again (assuming Mass state law allows such late abortions--I know not, and it matters not here), or again, putting the poor child up for adoption?
Fourthly, abortions are known to fail on occasion, just like birth control, just like medical practice.
Fifthly, the doctor who (allegedly) failed to detect she was pregnant could have made an honest mistake (no medicine is without mistakes, nor are people--get over it), or he could have been incompetent. That doesn't mean he is to blame for her stupidity. Yes, stupidity, nothing short of it.
I might add the lady is either a) 'blessed' to know nothing about being pregnant (unlikely, and I say 'blessed' because she didn't want the child, so to her being barren must be a blessing) or b) blessed to have had a good pregnancy to not know she was pregnant at 7 months?
Leaving the above aside, who bears the blame for getting pregnant in the first place? Don't rip into me yet--there is no mention of rape, so she willingly allowed herself to do what naturally in the course of human history has often resulted in pregnancy--she had sex. Whether or not she had some sort of protection or not is irrelevant, as no protection is 100% guaranteed. Even using multiple forms of protection (costly, defeats the alternate purpose of sex--pleasure, and rather impractical) isn't 100% guaranteed!
Must be great for the child. Can't wait to hear about those therapy sessions when the child finds out what happened. Will mom say "Daughter, you were supposed to be dead, but I sued the doctors because you're alive" or "I didn't want you, but hey, look at all the money I made!"
Just when I thought I had seen a new low in stupidity. Oh, look! Here comes a new low. I hope the judge or panel has some common sense here. Does anyone else think this is absolutely insane?
This article was written by Justin Swatsenbarg from Tech and other things. Credit for the thumbnail image which has a great quote by Albert Einstein. If you are interested in contributing to the thinking process and become a guest writer on The Thinking Blog, find out more information here and be my guest!
