Abortion debate (2 Viewers)

[erawamai]

because she paid good money to the doctors to get the hysterectomy done...we are punishing the doctors here...

Damages are not punitive (punishment). Damages are compensation because they compensate the person for the damage done to them. In this case the brith of a child which they they did not want ios a a result of the bad medicine practiced by the doctor.

The damages awarded are for the parents to raise the child. Not for the punishment of the doctor.

----

If you can sue your doctor for damages and compensation for the bringing up of a child that you would not have had but for the doctors negligence why cannot money be taken into account for abortion?

 

[Iron]

Hello torts talk

 

[musik_junky]

Damages are not punitive (punishment). Damages are call compensation because they compensate the person for the damage done to them.

She is compensated because she has been wronged by someone. In this case, it is the doctor who didn't perform the hysterectomy properly. If a poor woman has sex and becomes pregnant, who has she been wronged by?

 

[erawamai]

She is compensated because she has been wronged by someone. In this case, it is the doctor who didn't perform the hysterectomy properly. If a poor woman has sex and becomes pregnant, who has she been wronged by?

The court measures her damage by how much it would cost to raise the child. But for the negligence of the doctor the women would not have had the child. The women is damaged in that she has to have a child that she cannot afford. She sues the doctor for negligence. Damages are awared to compensate her for the birth of the child that resulted from the doctors negligence. Essentially money is awarded so the women can raise the child.

And in any case, this woman could sue for medical negligence and get tons of $$$...this would duly compensate her for the extra burden of having an extra child.

If money should not be a matter that is taken into account when considering an abortion why should it be taken into account if a women, as a result of negligence of the doctor, falls pregnant?

The women should get nothing. Right? Because money should not be a consideration when we talk about having a child. Right? The birth of a child is always great...?

If economic standards are not a consideration for the validity of an abortion why should a women be compensated for a birth? Birth is a good thing no matter what hmmm? Hence she doesn't deserve any compensation.

 

[musik_junky]

If economic standards are not a consideration for the validity of an abortion why should a women be compensated for a birth? Birth is a good thing no matter what hmmm? Hence she doesn't deserve any compensation.

Isn't it obvious?? The woman in a bad economic position hasn't been wronged by someone per se - therefore she doesn't deserve compensation. The woman who has been subject to a defective hysterectomy procedure HAS been wronged by someone - therefore she is entitled to compensation.

 

[erawamai]

Isn't it obvious?? The woman in a bad economic position hasn't been wronged by someone per se - therefore she doesn't deserve compensation. The woman who has been subject to a defective hysterectomy procedure HAS been wronged by someone - therefore she is entitled to compensation.

Economic factors should not be consideration when judging abortion. Right?

Then why should a court take into account economic factors (as in how much the child would cost to raise) when culculating the womens compensation? Money is irrelevant remember.

 

[musik_junky]

what are you talking about? The court will look for 2 things: intent and/or negligence. A doctor who performs a defective hysterectomy is guilty of the second. But as for the poor woman, who has wronged her? This is why she is not entitled to compensation.

 

[erawamai]

what are you talking about? The court will look for 2 things: intent and/or negligence. A doctor who performs a defective hysterectomy is guilty of the second. But as for the poor woman, who has wronged her? This is why she is not entitled to compensation.

By golly gosh you are thick.

What did the negligence of the doctor result in? The birth of a child that was unwanted.

What was the damage or loss? The birth of the child which caused economic loss.

What is she being compensated for? The damage that resulted from the negligence of the doctor which was the economic cost of the birth of an unwanted child.

How much is the compensation? Compensation takes into account the economic cost of raising the child.

--------

This kind of action is a case of negligence resulting in economic loss. Therefore the court, when calculating the damages or compensation for the women, looks at the economic factors. Essentially they compensate her by giving her the money that it would cost to raise the child.

If economic factors are irrelevant in judging whether an abortion should be allowed because economic factors should not determine whether you have an action or not a person should not receive damages if the doctors negligence results in a the birth of a child that is not wanted. Why? Because money should not be a consideration whether you have children or not.



This means the court takes into account economic fact

 

[musik_junky]

i agree that anyone that does not own a uterus has no right to make these decisions...

This is just ridiculous - using this logic one can say that anyone who doesn't own a gun has no right to make laws pertaining to guns.

 

[musik_junky]

What is she being compensated for?

She is being compensated because she gave birth to a child AFTER paying a doctor a lot of money to sterilise her.

 

[erawamai]

What did the negligence of the doctor result in? The birth of a child that was unwanted.

What was the damage or loss? The birth of the child which caused economic loss.

What is she being compensated for? The damage that resulted from the negligence of the doctor which was the economic cost of the birth of an unwanted child.

How much is the compensation? Compensation takes into account the economic cost of raising the child.

--------

This kind of action is a case of negligence resulting in economic loss. Therefore the court, when calculating the damages or compensation for the women, looks at the economic factors. Essentially they compensate her by giving her the money that it would cost to raise the child.

If economic factors are irrelevant in judging whether an abortion should be allowed (because economic factors should not determine whether you have a child or not a person should not) a woman not receive damages if the doctors negligence results in a the birth of a child that is not wanted. Why? Because money should not be a consideration whether you have children or not.

......................

 

[erawamai]

She is being compensated because she gave birth to a child AFTER paying a doctor a lot of money to sterilise her.

so what is she being compensated for? What damage resulted from that negligence of the doctor?

To get compensation the person must have suffered some kind of damage or loss.

 

[Rafy]

I seriously wish to abort you kangaroo.


Anyway, i am in favour of abortion where the child would have a substantially lower quailty of life (i.e a major disability) or in situations of Rape.

Also maybe a restriction of a 2-3 months after conception.

 

[Rafy]

Probally just a troll. I doubt he seriously believes what he preaches.

 

[loquasagacious]

Needs post-natally aborting.....



I think that pro-lifers have succeded in portraying pro-choicers and anti-lifers. From the tone of pro-lifers one would assume that the pro-choice movements ultimate goal was the abortion of all pregnancies.

Being pro-choice is all about a choice. Holding out a choice between termination and pregnancy.

Where there a spectrum of views pro-choice would sit in the middle pro-life and pro-aborting all pregnancies would sit on either side. Pro-choice is a centrist, non-extremist position, pro-life is not.

 

[musik_junky]

applying your logic of pro lifers and pro choices, one could argue that murder should not be illegal, but rather a choice. since most people won't kill others anyway, we should give people a choice whether they want to murder others. Sometimes enemies can ruin someone more than any baby could.

 

[erawamai]

applying your logic of pro lifers and pro choices, one could argue that murder should not be illegal, but rather a choice. since most people won't kill others anyway, we should give people a choice whether they want to murder others. Sometimes enemies can ruin someone more than any baby could.

Well hello there. Should lack of money be a reason for an abortion?

 

[Generator]

applying your logic of pro lifers and pro choices, one could argue that murder should not be illegal, but rather a choice. since most people won't kill others anyway, we should give people a choice whether they want to murder others. Sometimes enemies can ruin someone more than any baby could.

Just for the record, that's not a similar application of addymac's logic.

 

[Spirits]

Just for the record, that's not a similar application of addymac's logic.

Why? Back up your claims with evidence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Addymac's argument is like if I were to say VSU is really the middle-ground, it's CHOICE about whether or not you want to be in a union, not disallowing people to join unions or forcing people.

And people usually get pretty cut at anyone that says that.