Grrrrrrrrrrr

A Boston woman is suing two doctors and Planned Parenthood for their failure to kill her baby.  She is seeking child-rearing costs in damages.

Jennifer Raper went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion when she was about 4 or 5 weeks pregnant.  Surely to her enduring shame and grief, Dr. Allison Bryant failed to kill the baby.  Raper then went to Boston Medical Center at 20 weeks (the article doesn’t say why), where a doctor failed to detect her 20-week pregnancy.  Presumably, this doctor is included in the lawsuit because Raper would’ve hastened to have her 20-week fetus (which would look much like this) torn into pieces, either through D&E (baby dismembered in the womb) or D&X (baby delivered until only head remains in birth canal; skull punctured and brains sucked out). 

Raper’s lawsuit mentions no health problems on the part of her desperately unwanted, now 2-year-old daughter, whom Raper for some reason kept.  And you know Raper would mention any and every miniscule flaw in the girl if they existed, so as to swindle more dough.  She’s not suing for the expenses of raising a child who was severely disabled by a botched abortion (not that that would be morally acceptable either).  No, the essence of her claim is that she had a “right” to a dead child; that this perfect daughter of hers should not be alive at all but since she is, dammit, someone needs to pay. 

Can you imagine growing up with this soulless trash for a mother?  If the kid didn’t know before that she was unwanted, she surely will now, and for the rest of her life. 

Jennifer Raper reminds me of those people who eat their entire entree and then complain that it wasn’t cooked right or wasn’t what they wanted, so they demand it be taken off their bill.  Yet they ate every last bite.  If Raper didn’t want this burdensome child, why didn’t she give her up for adoption?  

Worthless whore.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/07/boston_woman_sues_for_child_rearing_costs_after_failed_abortion/

Advertisements

~ by lewdandlascivious on March 7, 2007.

11 Responses to “Grrrrrrrrrrr”

  1. “Jennifer Raper”

    An unfortunate name.

    But in all seriousness, why do people think lawsuits equal big bucks? It’s like they think this is some kind of lottery.

  2. Maybe the National Organization of (unaborted) Women can help her. Oh, wait, they are pro-abortion also.

    Hopefully she’ll change her mind and give her child up for adoption. Can you imagine their conversations? “Honey, I really, really wanted to have you murdered. But that lawsuit paid off nicely so I guess it worked out OK.”

    Morbid irony: “Botched abortions” results in live human beings.

  3. Oh my. This is simply sickening.

  4. TT, the sad truth is, med-mal suits ARE a lottery, all too often. After I finish law school, I’m going into med-mal defense for that very reason. It’s bad enough when people sue for $20 million because of a few bedsores or the loss of 6 months of chemo-ridden, morphine-soaked life, but it takes a special kind of perversity to sue because your doctors failed to dismember the growing body of the child you raise day to day.
    Neil, it’s just a guess, but I’m willing to bet the child in this case gets the message loud and clear that she exists only at the mercy of her noble, long-suffering mother. I agree with you: the kid would probably be better off in foster care, as wretched as that is, than be raised on money her mom won b/c a jury agreed that kiddo never should’ve been born.

  5. Have you studied the case in law school where a man sues over a botched vasectomy? I can’t remember the case name right now.

  6. Have you studied the case in law school where a man sues over his “botched” vasectomy? I can’t remember the case name.

  7. Oddly enough, stories like this can help advance pro-life reasoning with the middle ground.

    In short, it was legal for this lady to pay a stranger to destroy the human being in question. If the procedure hadn’t been “botched” the girl wouldn’t be alive today.

    Is it legal for the mother to kill the girl today? Of course not. It would not only be illegal but it would be considered the worst possible crime.

    So what changed in the mean time? Two things: The girl in question got bigger and her environment changed (from inside the womb to outside). But the size and location of a person are irrelevant with respect to their human rights. In fact, we typically afford greater rights to those who are smaller and weaker.

  8. I’ve heard of those cases; I think they’re not uncommon. But since vasectomies aren’t ever 100% guaranteed (release/consent forms routinely spell this out), the plaintiff would have to prove that the doctor was negligent; i.e., that he failed to meet the particular state’s statutory standard of care. I don’t know the numbers, but I’d bet very few of those claims succeed.*
    As for wrongful life (brought by the child, who usually has disabilities) or wrongful birth (brought by the parents who would’ve preferred a dead baby), a number of states have abolished one or both of those causes of action.

    * Sigh. Tired old disclaimer: I’m not a licensed lawyer yet; I’m not giving legal advice.

  9. I think that the vascetomy issue is different. If you genuinely do not want more children and try to prevent it from happening BEFORE anyone is conceived, IMHO, good. A person who tries to get a vascetomy is being proactive and responsible. I don’t think that “wrongful life” is what you should sue for – but the hassle of being pregnant and the emotional trauma of adoption, sure. I also don’t think, as a jurisprudential matter, that a cause of action should be removed because someone else doesn’t like it.

    That all said, I don’t know whether to be ill or to cry when I read this. I’m really revolted that she kept her disabled child and is SUING because she happens to be alive.

    I guess I see a fundamental difference between suing over conception and suing over not being murdered. Would a person who put out a contract on someone else’s head be able to recover if the hit man chickened out?

  10. I dunno, Bridge, states are able to allow or disallow, or limit to varying degrees, causes of action based on public policy (which amounts to the state not liking a certain kind of claim).

    But you’re exactly right, there is a ridiculously crucial and obvious difference between not being murdered and never being conceived.

    I would be interested in seeing numbers on how many “bad vasectomy” cases are filed by people whose vasectomies naturally reversed (which is statistically rare but still a possibility) and those who were injured in a negligently performed vasectomy. I’d bet most of them are people trying to get around the consent form they signed after their vasectomies naturally reverse.

  11. Silver Lining, #1: if the abortionist loses big-time, then maybe she’ll go out of business.

    Silver lining #2: the kid may sue the mom, someday, for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Or (perhaps this wasn’t a botched abortion) for killing her twin. Because what goes around, comes around. Right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: