He took two motorists to court, blaming them for his wife's abortion

Recently in Ireland, a High Court judgment was passed that denied compensation to a married couple. The middle-aged married couple had taken an action against two motorists, claiming that the careless driving of the two motorists had been responsible for the wife’s abortion, and secondly the man’s vasectomy.

Yes, this is not a made-up court case!

The wife had been involved in a road crash in 1996, and afterwards suffered soft tissue injury to her neck and back, tinnitus and stress. After the crash, she became pregnant, but had an abortion in England because she feared the pregnancy would aggravate her health problems. In the past few years regretting the abortion, the couple sued for damages because they hold the motorists who caused the crash responsible for the wife’s abortion. If they hadn’t caused the crash which caused her back problems then she wouldn’t have sought an abortion…

The judge rejected this attempt to blame others for the wife’s abortion, on the basis that the wife’s life had not been in danger by the pregnancy when she travelled to England. As the judge noted, “her life was not in danger by reason of the pregnancy”.

After her abortion, to prevent any further pregnancies, the husband had a vasectomy, from which he suffered a post-operative pain condition and mental distress. The husband maintains that he would never have had the vasectomy were it not for the negligence of the motorists who crashed into his wife’s car.

Both the ‘termination’ and the vasectomy were done because the wife’s doctors had advised that pregnancy would pose risks to her mental and physical health.

Forgive me for being a stubborn pro-lifer, but the motorists were not responsible for the wife’s pregnancy after the crash, nor were the motorists responsible for the doctor’s exaggeration of the risks posed by pregnancy. And yes, clearly the doctors exaggerated, because as the judge had to explain to the couple, her life was not in fact at risk by virtue of the unborn baby in her womb. Also, the married couple quietly avoided holding the abortion clinic responsible; did the clinic ever check to see if the risks posed by the pregnancy were life-threatening? Would the clinic have been honest enough to state that the reasons for the abortion were not genuine? The married couple sued the motorists because they had lost a baby, but who actually removed the baby limb by limb? Is it not also telling that the couple lament the loss of a baby through abortion, but the very people who promote abortion would deny it was a baby?