Click here to advertise on

any way they can both lose?

By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 07, 2007

In Boston, a woman is suing a local abortionist, because she had the baby despite the operation and now she thinks the doctor should pay for rearing the child.

If the suit is successful, the child-- now a 2-year-old girl-- will someday learn that her education has been subsidized by the man who was hired by Mom to dismember her. A lovely bit of information to comfort a child. The plaintiff's name, by the way, is "Raper." I'm not making this up.

But now consider the logic of the suit:

Dr. Allison Bryant, a physician working for Planned Parenthood at the time, performed the procedure on April 9, 2004, but it "was not done properly, causing the plaintiff to remain pregnant," according to the complaint.

Interesting view of causality there. Did the botched abortion cause the continued pregnancy? No; the doctor failed to end the pregnancy. Raper remained pregnant because, in the absence of an outside agency (i.e. a scalpel or suction machine) that's how nature arranged things. Pregnancy is not caused by an incomplete abortion. Not even at Planned Parenthood.

In other news, Joe Sixpack got drunk as a skunk last night, and this morning the Alka-Seltzer failed to kick in, "causing Joe to remain hung over." If he's fired from his job at the foundry because he can't stand the noise, should he sue Alka-Seltzer for lost wages?

An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!

Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($25,821 to go):
$150,000.00 $124,178.96
17% 83%
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.

Fall 2014 Campaign
Subscribe for free
Shop Amazon
Click here to advertise on

Recent Catholic Commentary

Denial of Service Attack: Success! December 19
Federal debt as a social-justice concern December 19
Another side of Francis: US-Cuba role shows Pope's diplomatic muscle December 18
Silly season: a Christmas approaches, a scholar questions whether Jesus ever existed December 18
The intrinsic immorality of torture: still not convinced? December 18

Top Catholic News

Most Important Stories of the Last 30 Days
Pope Francis: Europe seems 'elderly and haggard' CWN - November 25
Pope Francis, Ecumenical Patriarch sign joint declaration, lament persecution of Christians CWN - December 1
Consistory for new cardinals scheduled for February CWN - December 11
Vatican report on US women religious calls for further self-assessment CWN - December 16
Pope brokered deal to open US-Cuba ties CWN - December 17