Um ... what?

In this story, sent to me by one beloved aunt, a woman is suing doctors and Planned Parenthood for a failed abortion. She wants help with child-rearing costs. Yes, I understand she paid for a "service" that wasn't properly performed, but I've got some questions here: For how many years of child rearing would these folks be paying? And, more importantly, why do people always seem to forget about adoption?

The reason the 45-year-old woman gave for terminating her pregnancy was not rape and not for her own health; she did not have enough money to raise a child. So, who was forcing this woman to raise the baby to begin with, or who is forcing her to raise the child now? Again I'm befuddled by the only TWO options there seem to be for unwanted pregnancies on TV and now in the real world -- raise the child or abort it. There is yet another option in which more parties win. Or maybe there's something I'm just not getting...

1 comment:

SerineKat said...

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE:
So let's say that she didn't have the money to raise a baby or even have a baby. True, she could've gone through some mormon adoption agency that paid for everything or some crazy couple that covered the costs for the baby but then you have the hassle of mormons or crazy people.
THE REAL STORY:
But really let's look at what's going on NOW. She didn't want the kid. Even though it was born injured or deformed or whatever she now wants to keep it... why? What's changed? Oh yeah... MONEY. She doesn't care about the child... she wants the payday so she can hire round the clock care and buy a new handbag. If she really stuck to her guns and did what she set out to do whe would have put the child up for adoption upon birth and let the adoptive parents fight this one.