Now we're back to what's wrong with the world, I'm afraid.
Wesley J. Smith (whose blog I have to catch up on now that I'm back) reports that an Oregon couple is suing because they didn't find out their baby had Down Syndrome until after she was born. So they couldn't kill her.
I don't know if pro-aborts try to argue that these suits are wrong, but it would be hard for them to do so consistently with their position. Is there any way to be pro-choice, really pro-choice, to hold that it should have been the couple's "choice" to abort that baby girl if the test hadn't registered a false negative, and still to hold that such a suit is wrong? I find it difficult to find any way. Which is yet another reductio of the many for the pro-choice position.
I'm glad to say that my state is one of the 1/3 the story reports has banned such suits. Thank goodness.
Comments (9)
I have son with Downs. I cannot imagine making such a statement of unlove for my child. Every child is imperfect. So if an imperfect child will ruin your life then you are beat before you start. It is good they are forced to face this early. Maybe they can even dare to beleive God is doing something beautiful in their lives. Something much better than the perfect little child they would have given themselves.
Posted by Randy | June 16, 2009 10:07 AM
I don't think pro-aborts do try to argue these suits are wrong.
Didn't read the story, but the other angle these types of suits take is from the point of view of the child - that is, the child sues on his own behalf because now he has to live with being "imperfect" rather than not having lived at all. Although I have seen them attempted, I have never seen these suits get past the summary judgment stage.
Posted by c matt | June 16, 2009 11:00 AM
According to a law professor in the story: "So many courts have resisted compensating the child directly," Wolf said. "But most of them have found a way to compensate the parents."
I don't know what cases Wolf has in mind. It looks from the quote like suing in the name of the child has been less successful than suing on behalf of the parents.
Posted by Lydia | June 16, 2009 11:22 AM
sadly, this is perfectly consistent. If women can end the life of a healthy child for a trivial reason, it is certainly implicit that they can end the life of an abnormal child. Of course, people are still shocked when these cases surface. Yet, it only reveals how damnably duped the average person is about abortion. "But I don't believe in that, it's about rape and incest, it's about limiting the number of abortions, not that"
These cases are the logical conclusion. I am in no way implying that you don't see this, Lydia; of course, you do. And it is healthy that when faced with the latest abomination we should be freshly reviled, but we really shouldn't be shocked.
As the law stands, the parents probably have every right (politically) to sue. These sorts of cases help to reveal the thoughtlessness of our political culture. People want to be pro-choice but no one wants these sorts of cases.
Let me be clear, I obviously support the ban on such cases, because I believe abortion is an abomination. But so far as current law is concerned, the ban on such cases is entirely inconsistent with on-demand aborttion.
Posted by Brett | June 16, 2009 12:37 PM
Brett, I think that all things considered, you are right as far as strict logic is concerned. But it's probably just as well that the law does not always follow strict logic. For example, the legitimacy of post-birth infanticide would follow as a matter of strict logic if the pro-aborts stuck with their position on the non-personhood of the unborn child and the reasons for it.
The legal fiction is that abortion is merely about the right of the mother to "control her own body." If one sticks with that illogical legal fiction and leaves out of consideration the concomitant right to kill the child, one can probably find a rationale for ruling out wrongful birth suits on the grounds that the mother does not have a "right to a dead baby" but only to abortion during her pregnancy. Since, ostensibly, the abortion regime isn't about a "right to a dead baby," this might mean that legally one could still be disallowed from getting money for not having been given information that would have led one to have an abortion in the past. I'm guessing that this is the legal reasoning behind the bans on wrongful birth suits, though I'd be interested to have more information.
Posted by Lydia | June 16, 2009 1:51 PM
Agreed. In a significant sense, the inconsistencies are a cause for hopefulness that the day the law does become consistent again, it might also be moral.
As for the legal issue, I would be very surprised if the "right to a dead baby" argument were addressed at all. It is much more likely to revolve around the competency of the doctor, and his/her conducting the test. If the doctor blundered, the doctor will pay, and everyone will be very careful not to mention what he is really paying for. Part of the circumspection, I imagine, will be that the "payment for all costs of raising the child" demand will be thrown out.
That being said, when I get out of work I intend to read up on some of the previous cases and see if my intuition is right.
If anyone has any knowledge about this, please share.
Posted by Brett | June 16, 2009 3:29 PM
one can probably find a rationale for ruling out wrongful birth suits on the grounds that the mother does not have a "right to a dead baby" but only to abortion during her pregnancy
IIRC, the last time I dealt with this was about 13 years ago. Back then, the court (Texas Sup Ct.) refused to recognize "wrongful life" claims because it was against public policy to ask a jury to value, even if it could, the benefit of "never having been born" vs. existence. The value of existing is in itself a good that cannot be compared against non-existence in a way to somehow calculate damages. In a sense, it would simply be too arbitrary.
Of course, this is different from the case where a healthcare provider does casue some damage (or exacerbates damage) to an unborn child. In that case, a jury can determine comparatively the value of living w/o the disability vs. with the disability caused by the provider. But in that case, you are comparing living v. living, not living v. never having lived. In short, the Tx Court did not buy into the "better off never having been born" argument.
But that was 13 years ago.
Posted by c matt | June 16, 2009 4:43 PM
There may also have been some discussion about the joy and value of having the child would outweigh the costs of raising it (I think this was in the context of a bad vasectomy or something). Again, no dice. But this is Texas, where things are different than NY or El Lay.
Posted by c matt | June 16, 2009 4:47 PM
Good info., Matt. A pro-choicer might be able to hold that an individual (say, the mother) can make such a choice for her child--and hence decide to abort--but that public policy should not involve having this decided in a quasi-objective context--e.g., by a jury.
Posted by Lydia | June 16, 2009 4:59 PM