Action Alert!

any way they can both lose?

By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 07, 2007

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 8 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 6:53 PM ET USA

    Because, My dear Kate, it is easier for them to abort than to go full term and deal with the aggravation, the nausea, the restrictions on their sex lives; in other words, the inconvenience of pregnancy. And, perhaps, they're afraid that they will learn that having to take a child to term entails responsibilities that are left unlearned; not the least of which that engaging in sex is an act best left to those who are a married to one another.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 5:17 PM ET USA

    There's a switch. In this case the abortion patient is the "raper" rather than a member of the clinic staff!

  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 4:46 PM ET USA

    Why can't these don't-wannabe-mothers give their unwanted children up for adoption? I simply don't understand. If the child is so hateful to her that she needs to sue someone and she can't afford to keep her ... What am I missing?

  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 4:17 PM ET USA

    I can't quite figure out how a doctor performs an abortion and doesn't end the pregnancy. Or, how a different doctor misses the diagnoses of the pregnancy at 20 weeks (another issue from this story I found on a different site). Says a lot about what kind of doctors are in the abortion field.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 3:41 PM ET USA

    Most Courts and States have rejected the three torts, defined as "wrongful life" (when brought by the child); "wrongful birth" (when brought by the mother") and "wrongful pregnancy" (when brought due to a botched sterilization). However, and not surprisingly, as of 2004, California, New Jersey and Washington allowed these torts. Interestingly, and notwithstanding the mandates of Evangelium Vitae, the bishops of those States have done little to effect a repeal by statute or referendum.

  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 2:30 PM ET USA

    Not to worry; this same theory has been considered and definitively rejected by the courts, even instances where the child has been born with what are quaintly termed "special needs" (I myself prefer that over "birth defects"). I'm always happy to see Planned Parenthood sued, though, even if it is for negligently failing to remove the product of conception. (As I've written before, I call those who employ that particularly odious euphemism the "products of digestion." I'm really very funny.)

  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 12:48 PM ET USA


  • Posted by: - Mar. 07, 2007 12:26 PM ET USA

    April 9, 2018 Teenager: "YOU NEVER LOVED ME!" Parent: "I have always loved you" Teenager: "LIAR!!!!" Mother Theresa, pray for this poorest of children.