PDA

View Full Version : Woman Sues Abortion Clinic For "Failed" Abortion After Giving Birth To A Healthy Baby




Sola_Fide
04-01-2013, 11:19 AM
http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/03/mother-of-two-sues-ohio-abortion-clinic-following-failed-abortion/

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 11:24 AM
So in other words, she's suing the abortion clinic for attemping murder and failing instead of succeeding.

As far as I'm concerned she has publicly admitted to being a murderer and anyone who kills her is a hero for justice.

fisharmor
04-01-2013, 11:28 AM
So in other words, she's suing the abortion clinic for attemping murder and failing instead of succeeding.

As far as I'm concerned she has publicly admitted to being a murderer and anyone who kills her is a hero for justice.

Wow, we're having a rash of DRTA today.

The Northbreather
04-01-2013, 11:42 AM
So in other words, she's suing the abortion clinic for attemping murder and failing instead of succeeding.

As far as I'm concerned she has publicly admitted to being a murderer and anyone who kills her is a hero for justice.

WTF!

Eagles' Wings
04-01-2013, 11:43 AM
After celebrating Life all week and weekend, may the Lion of Judah and the Lamb of God, have mercy on us and give us strength to fight for the protection of the unborn and those who are suffering injustice.

itshappening
04-01-2013, 11:45 AM
If she doesn't want the baby then give it up for adoption to loving parents.

oyarde
04-01-2013, 11:45 AM
I guess she would not just accept her money back ?

RockEnds
04-01-2013, 11:47 AM
I think I'll just be glad that I don't have her health problems and mind my own business.

RockEnds
04-01-2013, 11:48 AM
If she doesn't want the baby then give it up for adoption to loving parents.

She wanted the baby. Did you read the article?

angelatc
04-01-2013, 11:53 AM
I'm glad everything worked out, but it just hardened my heart a little more towards the "life of the mother" argument. Apparently, she had a difficult pregnancy but everybody made it through just fine.

If she knew another pregnancy could be fatal, why didn't she get her tubes tied?

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 11:54 AM
She wanted the baby. Did you read the article?

I didn't. I just realized that it was in an attempt to save her life. I take back my comment. I just wish I could neg rep myself...

RockEnds
04-01-2013, 11:56 AM
I didn't. I just realized that it was in an attempt to save her life. I take back my comment. I just wish I could neg rep myself...

Well, things aren't always as black and white as they first appear.

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 12:35 PM
Well, things aren't always as black and white as they first appear.

I assumed that it was an abortion out of convenience. Granted, my position is radical compared to the status quo anyway but even I think that if the mother's life is in danger that it is a legitimate form of self-defense.

enjerth
04-01-2013, 12:56 PM
I assumed that it was an abortion out of convenience. Granted, my position is radical compared to the status quo anyway but even I think that if the mother's life is in danger that it is a legitimate form of self-defense.

Going in with guns ablazing is not generally necessary for self-defense. Why does a mother's "life-saving" operation need to be done with the intent to end the life of the unborn child?

Smart3
04-01-2013, 12:57 PM
I assumed that it was an abortion out of convenience. Granted, my position is radical compared to the status quo anyway but even I think that if the mother's life is in danger that it is a legitimate form of self-defense.

You give young people a bad name. I'm totally astonished that anyone of your age could support murder of innocent women who get abortions.

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 12:59 PM
Going in with guns ablazing is not generally necessary for self-defense. Why does a mother's "life-saving" operation need to be done with the intent to end the life of the unborn child?

I'm not an MD so I have literally no idea what has to be done in those cases.


You give young people a bad name. I'm totally astonished that anyone of your age could support murder of innocent women who get abortions.

They aren't innocent. They are murderers. And who cares how old I am, exactly?

angelatc
04-01-2013, 01:01 PM
You give young people a bad name. I'm totally astonished that anyone of your age could support murder of innocent women who get abortions.


If they're getting an abortion, they're not innocent in any sense of the word.

enjerth
04-01-2013, 01:03 PM
I'm not an MD so I have literally no idea what has to be done in those cases.



They aren't innocent. They are murderers. And who cares how old I am, exactly?

My point is that it's part of the pro-choice political game to get you to admit that, to save the life of the mother, we must allow for abortions... and to get that they may trick you into thinking that there are circumstances where the mother benefits from the unborn baby's death. But that's a fallacy, isn't it?

KingNothing
04-01-2013, 01:06 PM
If they're getting an abortion, they're not innocent in any sense of the word.


Says you and says me, but there are definitely people who feel otherwise and their argument is just as valid as ours.

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 01:07 PM
My point is that it's part of the pro-choice political game to get you to admit that, to save the life of the mother, we must allow for abortions... and to get that they may trick you into thinking that there are circumstances where the mother benefits from the unborn baby's death. But that's a fallacy, isn't it?

I know ecoptic pregnancies exist although I'm not sure how often that occurs or whether there are any other cases where the mother's life is genuinely endangered by the fetus. I do, however, believe that were such a case to exist, it should be legally acceptable to defend yourself.

angelatc
04-01-2013, 01:08 PM
Says you and says me, but there are definitely people who feel otherwise and their argument is just as valid as ours.

Not really.

jmdrake
04-01-2013, 01:11 PM
Let's see if I get this straight:

1. Woman has baby
2. Woman is told she has two uteri.
3. Woman gets pregnant a second time.
4. This time the baby is growing in the "bad" uterus.
5. Woman is told "If you don't get an abortion you'll die."
6. Woman attempts abortion.
7. Baby survives.
8. Woman finds out baby survived.
9. Woman tells abortion clinic - they pass the buck and say "Call our other affiliate"
10. Woman calls another abortion clinic altogether - they say "We won't fix the mistake of someone else."
11. Woman and fiance' decide to forge ahead with pregnancy
12. Woman is managed as a high risk pregnancy
13. Baby turns out fine.

Is it just me, or shouldn't this woman be suing the doctor who said at step five that she needed to have an abortion? I'm not an expert, but a quick internet search suggests that such pregnancies typically aren't fatal. And if it is such a danger, shouldn't the condition have been surgically fixed after the first pregnancy? If not removal of the 2nd uterus, disconnecting it from the fallopian tubes?

jmdrake
04-01-2013, 01:12 PM
//

angelatc
04-01-2013, 01:13 PM
I know ecoptic pregnancies exist although I'm not sure how often that occurs or whether there are any other cases where the mother's life is genuinely endangered by the fetus. I do, however, believe that were such a case to exist, it should be legally acceptable to defend yourself.

Ecoptic pregnancies aren't really even pregnancies. Even the Catholic Church allows them to be terminated.

The "to save the life of the mother" position is largely a lie, as this case illustrates. Quite honestly, any of us can be killed by a pregnancy gone wrong. One weak blood vessel in the brain plus a slightly elevated blood pressure, and goodbye world.

I suppose there could be a case of an accident, where the mother is so severely wounded that emergency procedures could dictate making such a choice, but this case illustrates that going through with the pregnancy didn't actually harm the mother.

jmdrake
04-01-2013, 01:15 PM
I'm glad everything worked out, but it just hardened my heart a little more towards the "life of the mother" argument. Apparently, she had a difficult pregnancy but everybody made it through just fine.

If she knew another pregnancy could be fatal, why didn't she get her tubes tied?

We don't know all of the facts, but it seems like she was getting poor medical advice from her OBGYN. She should have only needed to get the tubes connecting the right uterus tied, or simply had the right uterus removed. This sounds like medical malpractice on multiple levels.

jmdrake
04-01-2013, 01:18 PM
Ecoptic pregnancies aren't really even pregnancies. Even the Catholic Church allows them to be terminated.

The "to save the life of the mother" position is largely a lie, as this case illustrates. Quite honestly, any of us can be killed by a pregnancy gone wrong. One weak blood vessel in the brain plus a slightly elevated blood pressure, and goodbye world.

I suppose there could be a case of an accident, where the mother is so severely wounded that emergency procedures could dictate making such a choice, but this case illustrates that going through with the pregnancy didn't actually harm the mother.

I remember as a child reading about a woman who refused chemotherapy because she was pregnant and I think she eventually died. She may have died anyway. And she might have been saved by other treatments that wouldn't have been harmful to the fetus.

Edit: I just realized something. If everyone realizes that "ecoptic pregnancies aren't really pregnancies and can be terminated", then doesn't that mean life does not begin at conception, or that at the very least conception != fertilization? And if that's the case, then why the fuss over RU486?

fisharmor
04-01-2013, 01:25 PM
The "to save the life of the mother" position is largely a lie, as this case illustrates. Quite honestly, any of us can be killed by a pregnancy gone wrong. One weak blood vessel in the brain plus a slightly elevated blood pressure, and goodbye world.

Sorry I can't rep you twice in this thread!

My mother and father had been trying to have children for 13 years and had already adopted two.
They went to a specialist to find out what was up, and he suggested getting a procedure done whereby they'd inject dye into her fallopian tubes and take xrays.
As a standard question the technician asked when her last period was. She told him it had been 32 days, and he cut her off and told her he wouldn't do it on the chance she was pregnant.
She got indignant with him, saying it was 13 years and what the hell did he know.
But he refused.

That was me.

Contrast that to today, where the default position is "YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER!!!! NO CHOICE BUT TO ABORT!!!!"
Medicine has gotten pretty rotten in the last 40 years.

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 02:18 PM
I remember as a child reading about a woman who refused chemotherapy because she was pregnant and I think she eventually died. She may have died anyway. And she might have been saved by other treatments that wouldn't have been harmful to the fetus.



I think that's a laudible choice but you should have the legal right to ptrotect yourself. That does not mean you should be allowed to abort on demand.

seraphson
04-01-2013, 02:50 PM
I'm pretty sure the back of the receipt CLEARLY states babies are excluded from the 14 day return policy.

LibertyEagle
04-01-2013, 02:53 PM
I'm glad everything worked out, but it just hardened my heart a little more towards the "life of the mother" argument. Apparently, she had a difficult pregnancy but everybody made it through just fine.

If she knew another pregnancy could be fatal, why didn't she get her tubes tied?

WHAT?!!! You want someone to be responsible for their own actions???? How dare you!

/s

PaulConventionWV
04-01-2013, 02:56 PM
I bet she'll make a great mother.

kcchiefs6465
04-01-2013, 02:57 PM
I'm pretty sure the back of the receipt CLEARLY states babies are excluded from the 14 day return policy.
You mean to tell me that you don't believe the mother has the 'freedom' to be free from a baby and that if she so chooses, the baby's head could be sliced open, a vacuum tube inserted and the baby's skull collapsed inside itself? You are a bad example of [insert age group]. /sarc

kcchiefs6465
04-01-2013, 02:58 PM
I bet she'll make a great mother.
I'm sure someone could be.

PaulConventionWV
04-01-2013, 02:59 PM
You give young people a bad name. I'm totally astonished that anyone of your age could support murder of innocent women who get abortions.

What are you talking about? That response had nothing to do with the quote. No, really, what are you even talking about?

PaulConventionWV
04-01-2013, 03:02 PM
Let's see if I get this straight:

1. Woman has baby
2. Woman is told she has two uteri.
3. Woman gets pregnant a second time.
4. This time the baby is growing in the "bad" uterus.
5. Woman is told "If you don't get an abortion you'll die."
6. Woman attempts abortion.
7. Baby survives.
8. Woman finds out baby survived.
9. Woman tells abortion clinic - they pass the buck and say "Call our other affiliate"
10. Woman calls another abortion clinic altogether - they say "We won't fix the mistake of someone else."
11. Woman and fiance' decide to forge ahead with pregnancy
12. Woman is managed as a high risk pregnancy
13. Baby turns out fine.

Is it just me, or shouldn't this woman be suing the doctor who said at step five that she needed to have an abortion? I'm not an expert, but a quick internet search suggests that such pregnancies typically aren't fatal. And if it is such a danger, shouldn't the condition have been surgically fixed after the first pregnancy? If not removal of the 2nd uterus, disconnecting it from the fallopian tubes?

It's pretty hard to sue a doctor for giving bad advice, especially where no harm came of it.

Lucille
04-01-2013, 03:58 PM
“’That’s a sore subject to think about,” she said as she became visibly emotional. ‘I mean, it’s just hard, thinking she’s here and thinking, if they would have done their job. … It’s just something I don’t like to think about.’”

Yet she doesn't mind her daughter someday having to think about how she tried to have her killed (twice), and then sued because the abortionist failed which caused her so much pain, suffering and emotional distress, and then blabbed about it to the media.

God forbid she just be grateful, and try to prevent her darling daughter from ever finding out about it. Nope. It's all about her feelings.


On the morning of her appointment, in March 2012, Knights said women were being herded into the clinic's waiting room like cattle.

'Every seat was full. People were standing,' Knights told the Beacon Journal. 'It was pretty much like a slaughterhouse; it was like OK, next, next (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302511/Ariel-Knights-abortion-Mother-22-sues-abortion-clinic-fails-terminate-pregnancy.html).'

She described how, when her name was called, she walked into a cramped room, hopped onto a table and, as instructed, positioned her lower body over a trash bag.

"Like a slaughterhouse..." Well, if the shoe fits.

angelatc
04-01-2013, 05:58 PM
I remember as a child reading about a woman who refused chemotherapy because she was pregnant and I think she eventually died. She may have died anyway. And she might have been saved by other treatments that wouldn't have been harmful to the fetus.

Edit: I just realized something. If everyone realizes that "ecoptic pregnancies aren't really pregnancies and can be terminated", then doesn't that mean life does not begin at conception, or that at the very least conception != fertilization? And if that's the case, then why the fuss over RU486?

I am not Catholic, but the way I understand it is because the procedure calls for the removal of the fallopian tube, not just the embryo, and that the mother's life is indeed in danger. Removing the tube to keep it from rupturing is an action that unfortunately results in the death of the embryo, but isn't specifically a procedure to destroy the embryo.

Catholics feel free to correct me if I have it wrong.

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 06:13 PM
You mean to tell me that you don't believe the mother has the 'freedom' to be free from a baby and that if she so chooses, the baby's head could be sliced open, a vacuum tube inserted and the baby's skull collapsed inside itself? You are a bad example of [insert age group]. /sarc

This statement also explains why I think the mother, if she didn't actually do this in order to save her life, deserves to be killed by anyone heroic enough to do it.

Brett85
04-01-2013, 06:49 PM
This woman says that she's pro choice because of her condition and the situation she faced, but she's ignoring the fact that practically every pro lifer is in favor of making an exception for the life of the mother. The issue is whether abortion should be legal for matters of convenience.

Christian Liberty
04-01-2013, 06:50 PM
This woman says that she's pro choice because of her condition and the situation she faced, but she's ignoring the fact that practically every pro lifer is in favor of making an exception for the life of the mother. The issue is whether abortion should be legal for matters of convenience.

I've learned that using the word "Convenience" really ruffles the feathers of the pro-choice. I don't personally have a problem with the phrase, but use it in a debate with them at your own risk.

Origanalist
04-01-2013, 07:16 PM
What are you talking about? That response had nothing to do with the quote. No, really, what are you even talking about?

He doesn't know. As long as it's about killing babies he's for it.

fisharmor
04-01-2013, 07:31 PM
God forbid she just be grateful, and try to prevent her darling daughter from ever finding out about it. Nope. It's all about her feelings.

In fairness, if it was me I'd probably be after some medical bill money. This pregnancy doesn't sound like it was cheap. Now I'm not excusing anything, I'm merely trying to walk in her shoes - if it was me, there'd be a lot of thought along the lines of "M*&^%$F$^%er, they told me my M*&^@#F$%^ing life was in danger and I decided to have a procedure done that I'm not really on board with, so yeah, you're paying my damned bills".

Something else I didn't think of before... if her life was really in danger, do you think maybe the technicians would have made sure they were in the right cervix? Or did they just go through the motions, because 99.9999999999999999999% of the time they're aware the mother's life isn't really in danger......



This woman says that she's pro choice because of her condition and the situation she faced, but she's ignoring the fact that practically every pro lifer is in favor of making an exception for the life of the mother. The issue is whether abortion should be legal for matters of convenience.

Like Angela already pointed out, that's not the issue at all. The "life of the mother" argument is also cast into question here. We're expected to accept it as boilerplate, yet here is an example where it was applied in apparent scientific earnest, and yet turned out to be 100% incorrect.

The Northbreather
04-01-2013, 08:06 PM
I dunno. I think after hearing the doc say that theres a good chance that the love of my life is going to die I have a hard time looking in too her eyes and say "lets risk it".

I'd have a hard time forming any opinion but the the in the back of my mind I would be thinking what if we go for it and they both die, then what was it worth.

Like fish said though. if they pressurred her into it and failed, there might be liability for the bills.

kcchiefs6465
04-01-2013, 08:40 PM
I dunno. I think after hearing the doc say that theres a good chance that the love of my life is going to die I have a hard time looking in too her eyes and say "lets risk it".

I would not want to ever be in that position. I would solely leave the decision in her hands and I'd support whatever decision she made. Aside from that, if she doesn't want my baby, I will gladly take responsibility without any child support or anything.

enjerth
04-02-2013, 10:27 AM
Like Angela already pointed out, that's not the issue at all. The "life of the mother" argument is also cast into question here. We're expected to accept it as boilerplate, yet here is an example where it was applied in apparent scientific earnest, and yet turned out to be 100% incorrect.

The "life of the mother" argument is for the life of the mother, not for the abortion. Any procedure taken, for the life of the mother, doesn't require the intention to kill the unborn child. That part of the procedure, for the life of the mother, is done for other conveniences and has nothing to do with health. For the life of the mother, the baby does not NEED to die, although the mother may NEED to not be the unborn child's life support. Where those overlap doesn't really matter, the life of both are precious and should be cared for when possible. The right to choose which risks you face is what should be protected, but with all concern for maintaining both lives when possible. IMHO.

fisharmor
04-02-2013, 11:20 AM
Wow, enjerth, great point.
However, I'd add something to this:


I think after hearing the doc say that theres a good chance that the love of my life is going to die I have a hard time looking in too her eyes and say "lets risk it".

I would not want to ever be in that position. I would solely leave the decision in her hands and I'd support whatever decision she made.

When my wife was pregnant with my first, she did a lot of reading on natural childbirth, and actually got me to read some as well.
Now I realize that not every man is going to read about childbirth, and that most of us would be perfectly happy to wait outside with a box of cigars. I ended up being way more involved with my first child's birth than I wanted to, and way, way, waaaaaaaaay more involved with my second than I was with my first.
She had a copy of Natural Childbirth the Bradley Way (http://www.amazon.com/Natural-Childbirth-Bradley-Way-Revised/dp/0452276594) which I read cover-to-cover and which I recommend specifically to men who are looking to find out about childbirth procedures, and specifically liberty leaning men.

Bradley is known for being pretty militant. I would probably discount a lot of it if I hadn't had a lot of that book corroborated during my first daughter's birth.
It is one of those books like The Road to Serfdom or Weapons of Mass Instruction which exposes you to ideas that you've never heard before and which you can't unlearn. It's one of those books that you get through without realizing there's a viper that has been biting your hand the entire time you've read it, and now something that you were previously ambivalent toward, you have nothing but venom for.

So that's the context of my statements: Childbirth professionals are liars. They are on a script. They are not going to discuss real risks with you, because any risk is more risk than they are prepared to accept.

If I end up involved in another hospital birth and a maternity nurse says "Good Morning", I'm finding a window and checking the position of the sun.

enjerth
04-02-2013, 11:51 AM
If I end up involved in another hospital birth and a maternity nurse says "Good Morning", I'm finding a window and checking the position of the sun.

I agree, for the most part we are living in a society where in we are the product. Staying stupid just ensures that you're gonna get your sheep-ass sheered.

Ranger29860
04-02-2013, 02:30 PM
In fairness, if it was me I'd probably be after some medical bill money. This pregnancy doesn't sound like it was cheap. Now I'm not excusing anything, I'm merely trying to walk in her shoes - if it was me, there'd be a lot of thought along the lines of "M*&^%$F$^%er, they told me my M*&^@#F$%^ing life was in danger and I decided to have a procedure done that I'm not really on board with, so yeah, you're paying my damned bills".

Something else I didn't think of before... if her life was really in danger, do you think maybe the technicians would have made sure they were in the right cervix? Or did they just go through the motions, because 99.9999999999999999999% of the time they're aware the mother's life isn't really in danger......




Like Angela already pointed out, that's not the issue at all. The "life of the mother" argument is also cast into question here. We're expected to accept it as boilerplate, yet here is an example where it was applied in apparent scientific earnest, and yet turned out to be 100% incorrect.

That's the big catch with this. She in the end paid for a service, that service was not rendered. Now what that service was by the sounds of it was a potentially life saving procedure (AS FAR AS SHE WAS TOLD) so if it truly was not life threatening and she was mislead then its fraud at least and I could argue attempted murder since the doctors may have knew that there really was no danger. (kind of the same way if a doctor causes the death of a fetus then they are liable) She is entitled at least for the abortion bills to be covered by the doctors.