Of course she can. That’s what all rational people do when they conceive a child even though they did not wish originally want to conceive one.

Is it irrational for a person to say, “I have no desire to bring a child into this world, that’s why I use contraception. However, if I accidentally conceived a child, I would certainly bring it to term and love it.”

It seems anyone who believed human life began at or shortly after conception would take this position.

Not wanting to bring a child into this world is not even remotely the same as not wanting your child once it has been brought to or nearly to term.

But the main point you are missing is that the decision to abort is the mother’s sole decision and is simply not the kind of thing a person can be required to do. It may mitigate your damages if I eat maggots, run naked through the street, and donate my kidneys, but that can’t mean that I’m required to do them. It is absurd to argue that failure to have an abortion is a failure to mitigate damages.

Unforeseen intervening cause? Sound familiar? No?

If the mother chose to have the child? Yes, is it coming back?

That breaks the chain of legal causation. Remember?

There is no indication the mother learned of the pregnancy too late to have an abortion; nor is there an indication that the mother wanted an abortion. Indeed, the mother could have obtained an abortion to mitigate her economic damages; instead, she decided to have the child, and seek damages from the doctor. This should be a case praised by pro-life activists.

I agree. We should remove immunity from all beings including judges and politicians.

Obviously, anyone who agrees to a medical procedures agrees to the risks, known and unknown. But that has no bearing on a doctor’s culpability when he does the procedure improperly or negligently.

So long as the law requires plaintiffs to show a sufficiently negligible performance of the doctor’s duties and that the negligence was the proximate cause of some harm or cost to the patient, why shouldn’t the doctor be responsible for the harms his negligence caused?

There is no public policy interest in immunizing doctors from the harmful consequences of their serious negligence.

As for the suit constituting child abuse, that strikes me as crazy in the extreme. I would argue it’s parental negligence to ignore a child’s legitimate claim to the support of another person who is responsible for their existence. If instead of the doctor, the responsible person was the father, nobody would hold that it’s abuse to try to get the father to pay support. There is no *rational* reason to see a difference, only emotional ones.

The abortion debate is a mess because what WON’T get debated is the actual point of disagreement: when a human life begins.

No “religious nonthink” is required to come to a different conclusion than you on that point, and the rest of one’s position on abortion writes itself based on that conclusion.

I’ve read several of your posts before, and I’m sorry you have such a problem with religion and religious people, but that’s no reason to smear them and people who happen to agree with (many, not even remotely all) of them on a particular topic.

I’m all for abortion, but I’m even more all for responsible use of birth control. Accidents do happen. Of course, I blame myself when they do — I don’t seek to squeeze others for cash.

If these kinds of suits are to b allowed, th parent should at least have to give up custody of the child, sinc the suit itslf should count as severe child abuse.

(Of course, that’s assuming that the suit is anything other than a money grab, which is a bit of an assumption these days, I suppose.)