Double Agent Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 IMO, this is criminal. Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 dude. so many things wrong with this story. the woman who threw the baby away should be prosecuted for some sort of homicide. but what irks me almost as much is the b*tch who comes in to get an abortion, and now decides to sue the clinic for treating her baby like a piece of trash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 the b*tch who comes in to get an abortion, and now decides to sue the clinic for treating her baby like a piece of trash. seriously--what is she suing about? She wanted a dead baby and she got a dead baby. No harm, no foul. (Well, at least from everybody but the baby's point of view.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 this is about one of the most horrible things I've ever read about Like my mom says, all you can do is pray for everyone involved... I know at 23 wks of being prego, you are showing, you can feel the baby move, you've already had the sono to determine the gender, look for abnormalities...a baby at 23 wks is about 1.5 lbs, has a discernable face on the sono which you can actually see looks like you or the father or both, etc....all the organs are in place, just developing from here on out...wish she would have waited and just gave the baby up for adoption as millions are ready to take the infant off her hands. So sad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 seriously--what is she suing about? She wanted a dead baby and she got a dead baby. No harm, no foul. (Well, at least from everybody but the baby's point of view.) She wasn't paying to have it done in a particular manner? I mean, a shotgun blast to the abdomen would have aborted the baby too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 She wasn't paying to have it done in a particular manner? I mean, a shotgun blast to the abdomen would have aborted the baby too. speaking of which, Charles Whitman, the infamous Austin TX clock tower sniper, picked-off a visibly prego woman by shooting her in the abdomen, and purposely did it as he was thought to be a good shot, sick bastage! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted February 6, 2009 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 No doubt this mother is as f'ed up as the woman that put the baby in the bag. Why wait so long to have the abortion? I've always been anti-abortion unless there are certain conditions that are met. But I realize that those conditions could invite accusations that lack merit. But when the baby is viable outside the womb, I think it's murder...plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 seriously--what is she suing about? She wanted a dead baby and she got a dead baby. No harm, no foul. (Well, at least from everybody but the baby's point of view.) according to her lawyer, "it all changed when she saw the baby". oh isn't that convenient -- did you see dollar signs in its little eyes? it didn't change when you felt your child kicking inside of you and you paid a doctor to cut it out and kill it. just sickens me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 according to her lawyer, "it all changed when she saw the baby". oh isn't that convenient -- did you see dollar signs in its little eyes? it didn't change when you felt your child kicking inside of you and you paid a doctor to cut it out and kill it. just sickens me. Seems like a clear case of breach of contract to me. She paid for a medical procedure. She could have delivered the baby herself and strangled it in a Ziplock all on her own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 of course, if they tried (and succeeded) to keep the baby alive, she would have a suit (probably stronger) against the clinic for failure to perform, burdening her with a dependent, etc. but hey, if that sort of legal conundrum gets clinics out of the business of performing these late term abortions, great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 of course, if they tried (and succeeded) to keep the baby alive, she would have a suit (probably stronger) against the clinic for failure to perform, burdening her with a dependent, etc. but hey, if that sort of legal conundrum gets clinics out of the business of performing these late term abortions, great. Really? How could someone sue a doctor for following the law. I always thought that doctors took an oath to protect life...and if a baby is born Anencephalic they still had to do life preserving measures unless the parents requested otherwise. I think they would have an obligation under the law to care for this baby as a baby carried to full term.....regardless what the mother wants or wanted. I say the person murdered the kid....and that the gal only has a case because the person actually murdered her baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Really? How could someone sue a doctor for following the law. I always thought that doctors took an oath to protect life...and if a baby is born Anencephalic they still had to do life preserving measures unless the parents requested otherwise. I think they would have an obligation under the law to care for this baby as a baby carried to full term.....regardless what the mother wants or wanted. I say the person murdered the kid....and that the gal only has a case because the person actually murdered her baby. she pays someone to perform an abortion, they hand her a live baby instead, and you think she has no case against them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.