Doctor Must Pay Support For Child After Failed Abortion

qrrgprgua

Goes to show the symptom of what is wrong with society.

How does the mother get around explaining the payment to her boy.. I didn't want you,, and I sued the doctor who was supposed to abort you.

Unbelievable.

Failed abortion

The woman has since given birth to a healthy baby boy. A judge has recently ordered the gynecologist and the private clinic to pay the mother 150,000 euros ($190,000) in "moral damages" for their negligence and a monthly maintenance of 978 euros ($1,230) until the boy reaches his 26th birthday.

The Big Red Button

That's a bit mad alright ...

Why the Christianity forum, though?

qrrgprgua

chatterpillar wrote: »

That's a bit mad alright ...

Why the Christianity forum, though?

I suppose I should have added it to the abortion thread already in this forum.

doctoremma

Hmmm, not sure why the boy would need to know anything about his mother's finances. I hope he never finds out this part of his background. Why would she not give him up for adoption, I wonder.

qrrgprgua

doctoremma wrote: »

Hmmm, not sure why the boy would need to know anything about his mother's finances. I hope he never finds out this part of his background. Why would she not give him up for adoption, I wonder.

Probably lawyer said she had an case and she saw $$$

eviltwin

Surprised its "child support", surely she is entitled to something because the doctor was not doing his job properly and didn't do all the checks etc, I would assume no woman would be sent home without making sure the abortion was complete

Confused as to the point of this in the first place anyway? Most abortions are done properly and safely by well trained doctors who know what they are doing.

Fanny Cradock

If abortion is a medical procedure, the procedure of removing unwanted cells from the body, then I guess she has every right to sue the doctor for botching the job. I suppose if they ever extend abortion to the point of infanticide it would solve such little problems.

Let's hope the child has a loving mother.

georgieporgy

eviltwin wrote: »

Surprised its "child support", surely she is entitled to something because the doctor was not doing his job properly and didn't do all the checks etc, I would assume no woman would be sent home without making sure the abortion was complete

Confused as to the point of this in the first place anyway? Most abortions are done properly and safely by well trained doctors who know what they are doing.

It seems to me the doctor did an excellent job. seeing as every gynecologist has 2 patients (mother and child) , the doctor has managed to save the child's life without the mother coming to any harm, and will continue to provide for the very healthy little boy in case his murderous mum neglects to do her duty of care.

everyone's a winner :cool:

eviltwin

I was wondering why this was included here when the story is more typical of After Hours

Now we know, its just another opportunity to pour scorn over women who have abortions again without fear of censure.

georgieporgy

Who? Me?

Chucken

I dont usually get involved in abortion debates but this just shows how some women use it as a method of birth control.


Quote
Thinking she had become pregnant again, the woman went back to the clinic three months later....unquote


I hope she can learn to love her baby and that any help she needs is forthcoming

eviltwin

Its interesting that there is no mention of the father in this, surely if anyone is due to pay child support it should be him? I wonder if there is more to this story than meets the eye, could the woman be a sex worker for instance?

Run_to_da_hills

chatterpillar wrote: »

That's a bit mad alright ...

Why the Christianity forum, though?

Because it involves the murder of an unborn child.

eviltwin

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Because it involves the murder of an unborn child.

But the child lived......

Seriously though all these abortion threads are getting boring. How about changing the record. What about the massacre of innocent kids in Syria or the kids living in poverty or going without vital healthcare due to cutbacks etc?

Worry about the kids who are already here rather than ones who aren't even born yet.

Fanny Cradock

eviltwin wrote: »

Seriously though all these abortion threads are getting boring. How about changing the record. What about the massacre of innocent kids in Syria or the kids living in poverty or going without vital healthcare due to cutbacks etc?

So you think that people who think that abortion is murder should change the record because it's getting tedious? Additionally, it's not an either or situation, is it?

Run_to_da_hills

eviltwin wrote: »

But the child lived......

Seriously though all these abortion threads are getting boring. How about changing the record. What about the massacre of innocent kids in Syria or the kids living in poverty or going without vital healthcare due to cutbacks etc?

Worry about the kids who are already here rather than ones who aren't even born yet.

The subject of abortion is about murder and it just shows the state of what the world is in when someone can get sued for not killing a child.

eviltwin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So you think that people who think that abortion is murder should change the record because it's getting tedious? Additionally, it's not an either or situation, is it?

Talking about it all the time is tedious. Using your religious views as a platform to insult women who have to make this choice is tedious. We know you think its murder, try having a bit of empathy for women who feel this is their only option or those who come home destroyed by it.

Fanny Cradock

eviltwin wrote: »

Talking about it all the time is tedious. Using your religious views as a platform to insult women who have to make this choice is tedious. We know you think its murder, try having a bit of empathy for women who feel this is their only option or those who come home destroyed by it.

I'm sorry, but how do you know I don't feel empathy? What exactly do you know about me and my stance on abortion?

The wonderful thing about discussion forums is that you can simply leave if you find it tedious.

HamletOrHecuba

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The subject of abortion is about murder and it just shows the state of what the world is in when someone can get sued for not killing a child.

Infanticide was hugely common in Europe before Christianity conquered it.

The removal of Christianity from at least lip service to it as a guiding principle of societies was bound to bring it back.

prinz

It's not that unique there have been similar compensation claims in Germany too.. there is one in particular I recall, I'll try to find a link in english but IIRC the case involved the child surviving the botched abortion.. when they realised the child was still alive the staff took care of the kid and were sued because they intervened, they should have just let it die.

eviltwin wrote: »

Talking about it all the time is tedious. Using your religious views as a platform to insult women who have to make this choice is tedious..

All these abortion threads? Two out of twenty threads on the first page of this forum relate to abortion.... the main reason it's 'tedious' to you is that you seem to focus on it all the time yourself.

Cossax

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Infanticide was hugely common in Europe before Christianity conquered it.

The removal of Christianity from at least lip service to it as a guiding principle of societies was bound to bring it back.

Christianity may have preached against it but it certainly didn't stop it.

qrrgprgua

Cossax wrote: »

Christianity may have preached against it but it certainly didn't stop it.

Sad that we need religion to tell us that killing a child is wrong,, or to say the a child is a child from conception.

Friend went for a scan today, 4 weeks pregnant, has had many miscarriages so they wanted to scan to see where the baby is placed in the womb. All the discussion is centre on words.. your baby is.. you baby is this size..etc.

endacl

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Goes to show the symptom of what is wrong with society.

How does the mother get around explaining the payment to her boy.. I didn't want you,, and I sued the doctor who was supposed to abort you.

Unbelievable.

Failed abortion

The woman has since given birth to a healthy baby boy. A judge has recently ordered the gynecologist and the private clinic to pay the mother 150,000 euros ($190,000) in "moral damages" for their negligence and a monthly maintenance of 978 euros ($1,230) until the boy reaches his 26th birthday.

Medical practitioner botches procedure, and is ordered to pay compensation? Sounds fair. His professional indemnity doesn't affect me. Neither does her womb.

I'm sure he'll take better care in future.

endacl

eviltwin wrote: »

Its interesting that there is no mention of the father in this, surely if anyone is due to pay child support it should be him? I wonder if there is more to this story than meets the eye, could the woman be a sex worker for instance?

A conclusion jump of pole-vaultian proportions!

Maybe there is more to this than meets the eye...

Obviously a sex worker of course. No possibility the termination was a mutual decision made including the father's input? Perhaps he took responsibility? Perhaps he paid half the fee? Which would only be fair. Which puts the good doctor back in the position of having to compensate for the botched proceedure.

Or any number of other scenarios....

fro9etb8j5qsl2

chatterpillar wrote: »

That's a bit mad alright ...

Why the Christianity forum, though?

So that all the god fearing anti abortioners can jump on the bandwagon and burn another person at the stake without knowing the full situation :rolleyes:

Chucken wrote: »

I dont usually get involved in abortion debates but this just shows how some women use it as a method of contraception

MASSIVE assumption. Who's to say she hadn't been using contraception in the meantime and feared that it had failed??

Basically, everyone has an issue because there is a human life involved. But the fact of the matter is, she paid for a medical procedure that went wrong and as a result, her whole life has changed dramatically and she has incurred suffering and will incur costs for the rest of her life. There have been cases like this with vasectomy patients aswell and i dont see anyone scornfully crying murder there. If a person paid a doctor to perform a medical procedure and he botches it, resulting in anguish and costs for the patient, the patient should be entitled to compensation.

qrrgprgua

Kylie Thundering Broccoli wrote: »

MASSIVE assumption. Who's to say she hadn't been using contraception in the meantime and feared that it had failed??

Basically, everyone has an issue because there is a human life involved. But the fact of the matter is, she paid for a medical procedure that went wrong and as a result, her whole life has changed dramatically and she has incurred suffering and will incur costs for the rest of her life. There have been cases like this with vasectomy patients aswell and i dont see anyone scornfully crying murder there. If a person paid a doctor to perform a medical procedure and he botches it, resulting in anguish and costs for the patient, the patient should be entitled to compensation.

I always amazes me how people change the obvious with indirect or softened words. Medical procedure,, Boob job, face lift.. and sure while I am at it get rid of this "cells" that are growing inside.. Leave the clinic and off you go to have sex again... Fine if that's the life you want to lead,, but why drag an innocent life into this. Sterilise herself and get done with it, she obviously never wanted a child as she tried to abort twice.

endacl

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Kylie Thundering Broccoli wrote: »

MASSIVE assumption. Who's to say she hadn't been using contraception in the meantime and feared that it had failed??

Basically, everyone has an issue because there is a human life involved. But the fact of the matter is, she paid for a medical procedure that went wrong and as a result, her whole life has changed dramatically and she has incurred suffering and will incur costs for the rest of her life. There have been cases like this with vasectomy patients aswell and i dont see anyone scornfully crying murder there. If a person paid a doctor to perform a medical procedure and he botches it, resulting in anguish and costs for the patient, the patient should be entitled to compensation.

I always amazes me how people change the obvious with indirect or softened words. Medical procedure,, Boob job, face lift.. and sure while I am at it get rid of this "cells" that are growing inside.. Leave the clinic and off you go to have sex again... Fine if that's the life you want to lead,, but why drag an innocent life into this. Sterilise herself and get done with it, she obviously never wanted a child as she tried to abort twice.

It is a medical procedure all the same....

fro9etb8j5qsl2

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I always amazes me how people change the obvious with indirect or softened words. Medical procedure,, Boob job, face lift.. and sure while I am at it get rid of this "cells" that are growing inside.. Leave the clinic and off you go to have sex again... Fine if that's the life you want to lead,, but why drag an innocent life into this. Sterilise herself and get done with it, she obviously never wanted a child as she tried to abort twice.

How is 'medical procedure' softened words?? It's carried out in a medical clinic by a registered medical professional. Jesus you'd swear 'twas a coat hanger in a back alley! And who are you to say she should be sterilised just because she didn't feel able to cope with having a child at one certain period in her life?? :mad: And just to point out, the 'innocent life' would not have been dragged into it if the DOCTOR had carried out the MEDICAL PROCEDURE properly.

qrrgprgua

Kylie Thundering Broccoli wrote: »

How is 'medical procedure' softened words?? It's carried out in a medical clinic by a registered medical professional. Jesus you'd swear 'twas a coat hanger in a back alley! And who are you to say she should be sterilised just because she didn't feel able to cope with having a child at one certain period in her life?? :mad: And just to point out, the 'innocent life' would not have been dragged into it if the DOCTOR had carried out the MEDICAL PROCEDURE properly.

The innocent life was dragged into it the moment the mother went for an abortion. Twice.

Lets hope the lad never finds out how little his life meant to his mother.

georgieporgy

endacl wrote: »

It is a medical procedure all the same....

You wouldn't be the first person to say that....

After settling in Buenos Aires, Mengele soon returned to his old ways by performing illegal abortions for a living, and pioneered ways of making the procedure more survivable for women using new technologies and instruments. Interestingly, he also bought a local pharmaceutical company. After killing a woman as well as her child during an abortion, Menegle found himself arrested and in court on trial for double murder. But then as now, a large envelope filled with cash made things happen behind the scenes, and his case was dismissed. He returned to performing abortions and evaded capture living under assumed names in Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil. He lived a comfortable life until 1979 when he drowned while having a stroke. He remained an unrepentant abortionist and eugenicist until the end, believing he had done the world and the superior races a favor and made a crucial procedure in the eugenics platform more survivable for women.

endacl

georgieporgy wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

It is a medical procedure all the same....

You wouldn't be the first person to say that....

After settling in Buenos Aires, Mengele soon returned to his old ways by performing illegal abortions for a living, and pioneered ways of making the procedure more survivable for women using new technologies and instruments. Interestingly, he also bought a local pharmaceutical company. After killing a woman as well as her child during an abortion, Menegle found himself arrested and in court on trial for double murder. But then as now, a large envelope filled with cash made things happen behind the scenes, and his case was dismissed. He returned to performing abortions and evaded capture living under assumed names in Argentina, Paraguay, and Brazil. He lived a comfortable life until 1979 when he drowned while having a stroke. He remained an unrepentant abortionist and eugenicist until the end, believing he had done the world and the superior races a favor and made a crucial procedure in the eugenics platform more survivable for women.

Why not pick a Nazi dentist, or a Nazi dermatologist. Would that expose your false analogy?

qrrgprgua

endacl wrote: »

Why not pick a Nazi dentist, or a Nazi dermatologist. Would that expose your false analogy?

Why false.... Its a medical procedure, isn't it?

endacl

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Why false.... Its a medical procedure, isn't it?

There we go. Penny dropped.

Your original post was to report a doctor being sued for botching a medical procedure, that was carried out legally in a jurisdiction in which it was legal. Whatever the moral position you may take yourself, the woman was entitled to avail of the service, which of course can only be safely carried out by a qualified practitioner. The thread, however, quickly descended into the usual hackneyed kneejerks. At which point I felt compelled to respond.

It's quite obvious why you posted in this particular forum. Not for an open discussion (and there are plenty of open and stimulating discussions to be found here), but rather to incite a mass castigation of the woman concerned. A woman who, quite happily, will most likely never be aware of it, and likely would not care much either way about what you thought. Plenty of other women will though and - this bit's important - each and every one of them, whether pro-choice or anti-choice, knows a friend, mother, sister, neighbour or colleague who has had to struggle with this incredibly difficult decision, and in many cases the 'medical procedure' itself. Many of whom will make that choice in a secret shame not of their own making, but one that has been imposed on them by the likes of several who have responded here, Many decide not to opt for termination. I applaud their choice, but only as their choice. I find it personally shameful that my country and society makes a horrible process so much more horrible, based on what I suspect to be spite (which in itself is based on what I personally feel to be a mixture of superstitious non-sense, and biological ignorance - but that's another thread).

I presume the penny dropping was you agreeing that termination/abortion/ murder (take your pick, I'll facilitate you) is in fact a medical procedure. If so, the woman was quite right and entitled to seek compensation when it was carried out incompetently. And also allows you to get back to what you presented as the original premise for your thread. Or was it really 'look at that terrible woman. Join me in shouting at her.

So why, to get back to the topic you introduced, is it a bad thing for an injured party to seek compensation for an incorrectly carried out medical procedure?

Just out of interest? From where I'm sitting, the question looks kinda weak. Maybe the thread is really 'shout at the bad woman'....

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

endacl

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nothing unconscious there at all. I made no comment whatsoever on medical ethics. People's ethics are their own business. I just didn't employ 'abortion debate' levels of shrillness. In the jurisdiction where the woman had the termination it was decided when the clump of cells became a child by people deemed qualified and proper to do so. It was her choice to decide if she agreed with this decision or not.

I didn't only apply clinical language. You'll note I included murder - far be it from me to exclude people from discussion.

Oh. In answer to the last bit - Some time after the procedure was carried out, one would hope.

Cossax

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Sad that we need religion to tell us that killing a child is wrong,, or to say the a child is a child from conception.

Friend went for a scan today, 4 weeks pregnant, has had many miscarriages so they wanted to scan to see where the baby is placed in the womb. All the discussion is centre on words.. your baby is.. you baby is this size..etc.

Previous (and other) religions didn't necessarily have an issue with it.

EDIT: Besides, it's a bit unfair to judge people 2000 years ago by today's standards in that respect, having a child then when existence was much less certain - disease, lack of food, harvest failures, wars etc.

Early hunter gatherers, for instance, used regularly practice infanticide for some very practical reasons (spaced kids out 4 years apart due to the need to move and follow prey etc.) and if they weren't, it'd hurt the tribe/clan/family and their hunt/potential survival.

endacl

Cossax wrote: »

Previous (and other) religions didn't necessarily have an issue with it.

Lots of people do. Lots of people don't. Lots do and don't based on all sorts of religions. Lots do and don't based on none at all. Among certain sectors though, its a crusade. Doesn't matter what your opinion is. 'I will decide for you'. Pity.

My personal stand on the abortion debate is, for what its worth.... 'You're anti-abortion? You don't want one? Cool by me. Don't have one. They're not mandatory... You want one? Cool by me. None of my business'.

For what its worth...

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

endacl

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, you inferred this. That's your business. With all due respect.

PDN

endacl wrote: »

My personal stand on the abortion debate is, for what its worth.... 'You're anti-abortion? You don't want one? Cool by me. Don't have one. They're not mandatory... You want one? Cool by me. None of my business'.

For what its worth...

That sound's superficially reasonable. It's exactly the kind of reasoning that many used to portray William Wilberforce and the abolitionists as a bunch of interfering busybodies over 150 years ago.

'You're anti-slavery? You don't want to keep slaves? Cool by me. Don't keep them. They're not mandatory... You want to keep slaves? Cool by me. None of my business'.

This is the Christianity Forum. And there has been a tradition within Christianity (sadly not always expressed clearly or consistently enough) that it is our business to do what we can to tackle issues of exploitation of the weak and defenceless. Therefore we see such issues as slavery, child abuse, unjust economic structures etc as mose certainly being our business.

Now, if you are not a Christian you may well disagree with the idea that an unborn child is a human being worthy of possessing human rights (although it is not an exclusively Christian concept). But for Christians, who do accept the full worth of that unborn human being, then sitting on their hands and saying, "It's none of my business if other people want to kill babies" isn't really an option.

georgieporgy

endacl wrote: »

Why not pick a Nazi dentist, or a Nazi dermatologist. Would that expose your false analogy?

How about the medical procedure of female circumcision that is favored in some parts of the world? And I'm not askin are ye for it or agin it like.

Just wondering if you have more than bombast to offer.(well, I'm not really)

endacl

PDN wrote: »

That sound's superficially reasonable. It's exactly the kind of reasoning that many used to portray William Wilberforce and the abolitionists as a bunch of interfering busybodies over 150 years ago.

'You're anti-slavery? You don't want to keep slaves? Cool by me. Don't keep them. They're not mandatory... You want to keep slaves? Cool by me. None of my business'.

This is the Christianity Forum. And there has been a tradition within Christianity (sadly not always expressed clearly or consistently enough) that it is our business to do what we can to tackle issues of exploitation of the weak and defenceless. Therefore we see such issues as slavery, child abuse, unjust economic structures etc as mose certainly being our business.

Now, if you are not a Christian you may well disagree with the idea that an unborn child is a human being worthy of possessing human rights (although it is not an exclusively Christian concept). But for Christians, who do accept the full worth of that unborn human being, then sitting on their hands and saying, "It's none of my business if other people want to kill babies" isn't really an option.

I can entirely respect your position based on your personal beliefs. I get that. I've no problem with it.

The slavery analogy is a little weak though. In the situation under discussion, nobody is being placed in chains and forced to have an abortion against their will. Where any comparison can be drawn, I suppose, it is the belief of one being imposed on another as regards bodily integrity. Slavery: I own your body and will do with it what I will, because I believe I have the right to impose my will. Abortion: You own your body, but in this regard you can not do with it what you will, because I believe I have the right to impose my will. Both to me are abhorrent scenarios.

I know this is the Christianity forum. I'm actually a frequent lurker here. I understand and respect your view based on your deeply held beliefs. I don't share them, but am open to discussion. If you can offer argument that is not rooted in these beliefs, I'd genuinely be interested in hearing them. The problem with this debate is not the debate itself, but that anti-choice arguments are presented from a point of view that often has no relevance whatsoever to the people they are trying to convince, and pro-choice arguments ridicule the faith of those they try to convince. So it goes round and round....

I am not Christian (just in case anybody missed that...) but each to their own. My original posts had to do with knee-jerkery and conclusion jumping on the part of some respondents to the OP. An article was presented that had to do with compensation being paid after an incompetent medical procedure, which is right and proper. The responses immediately turned...... well, you've read them yourself.

My position stays the same. I personally see nothing inherently wrong with abortion. If you don't want one, don't have one. Slavery doesn't really fit. If you want one, forget it. You can't have one, because you can't own a person, or decide without their consent what will or will not be done with their body.

endacl

georgieporgy wrote: »

How about the medical procedure of female circumcision that is favored in some parts of the world? And I'm not askin are ye for it or agin it like.

Just wondering if you have more than bombast to offer.(well, I'm not really)

Now you're just being silly.

FGM isn't carried out by trained professionals in controlled theatres. It's not carried out with the consent of the child undergoing the mutilation. Its illegal in most parts of the world where its carried out. Of course its wrong.

Try again.

Bombast? Where?

I certainly have contradictions and counters to offer. You're just not stretching me here...

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

How does the mother get around explaining the payment to her boy.. I didn't want you,, and I sued the doctor who was supposed to abort you.

Not sure why that would be such a problem. I know my mother didn't want to have a child at the time she had me, she was in a terrible position financially to raise a child and it caused a lot of hardship in the first initial years. I've no issue with that, I don't want a child right now any more than she would have.

It is a very peculiar theme on this forum that if a woman doesn't want a child at all points in her life she is some how a bad person. The idea that there might be a good time to have a child and a bad time to have a child seems to be some sort of moral disgrace. Odd.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Sad that we need religion to tell us that killing a child is wrong

Lol, which religion would that be then :rolleyes:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ... Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Zombrex

Zombrex wrote: »

Lol, which religion would that be then :rolleyes:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ... Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Not to mention if you force a woman to miscarry you just pay her a fine...

and it's ok to kill children by sending bears to kill them if they're rude...

or we could even sing a psalm:
"Blessed is the one who grabs your little children and smashes them against a rock."

Fanny Cradock

endacl wrote: »

My position stays the same. I personally see nothing inherently wrong with abortion. If you don't want one, don't have one. Slavery doesn't really fit. If you want one, forget it. You can't have one, because you can't own a person, or decide without their consent what will or will not be done with their body.

Well that is pretty much the rationale we are using. We contend that the unborn child is a person.

endacl

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

My position stays the same. I personally see nothing inherently wrong with abortion. If you don't want one, don't have one. Slavery doesn't really fit. If you want one, forget it. You can't have one, because you can't own a person, or decide without their consent what will or will not be done with their body.

Well that is pretty much the rationale we are using. We contend that the unborn child is a person.

And there's the gap that can't be bridged. I put a greater value on the actuality of the mother than I do on what I view simply as the potentiality of the child. I really do respect your position. I just respectfully disagree.

qrrgprgua

endacl wrote: »

And there's the gap that can't be bridged. I put a greater value on the actuality of the mother than I do on what I view simply as the potentiality of the child. I really do respect your position. I just respectfully disagree.

There is no potentiality about it,,, it IS a child, a human being, a person. And I don't and never will respect or agree with your point of view on this. The priciple of right to life is fundamental.

endacl

qrrgprgua wrote: »

There is no potentiality about it,,, it IS a child, a human being, a person. And I don't and never will respect or agree with your point of view on this. The priciple of right to life is fundamental.

That's fine. I'll accept that as part of your point of view.

georgieporgy

An earlier post/link I posted showing some nuts and bolts info got erased rather quickly.

Here is something more cerebral from a couple Nobel Prize winners which may interest the patient inquiring minds among us.




http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fKyljukBE70