“In a civil society, there must be better remedies for cases like these,” said C. Ben Mitchell, professor of moral philosophy at Union University in Jackson, Tenn. “Rather than ‘wrongful birth’ suits, a robust social services infrastructure could relieve the burden families feel when they choose to bring disabled children into the world. There are many communities who would be willing to rally around these families if they knew the need.
“At the same time, we must repudiate abortion for disability,” said Mitchell, also a biomedical and life issues consultant for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “The diagnosis of a disability, including Down syndrome, should not be a death sentence for the unborn baby.”
Of course, this devalues the life of everyone with Down’s Syndrome. The logic of the decision means that they … well OK not them but everyone else … would be better off if they had never been born. Their lives were all the product of “wrongful birth.” If we follow that logic to its endpoint, we can only reach one conclusion. They should all be euthanized because they never should have been allowed to exist in the first place. This is what happens to powerless demographics in the age of abortion.
carl
Perhaps the only deviance from Nazi ideology is that the state is supporting a person’s evil choice, not dictating it. The basis, though, is the same – some children are worthy of life, others not.
And of course, it doesn’t stop with Downs either. Many is the time in my younger days when I was confident that it would have been better not to be born — better for the world, not merely myself.
Perhaps I should sue for wrongful birth? Or my parents because of my own psychological dysfunction and disability?
Dang it, Sarah!! You beat me to the punch. I was going to sue my parents for a wrongful birth because if the courts decide in my favor, then I can get all the free therapy I want!! WINNING!!
This is why, under Obamacare, the right to abort is going to become a duty to abort. The Secretary of Health has already taken the position that children being born costs money, and should be prevented if possible.
#2, don’t blame the state, blame the jury, aka, your fellow citizens. Legacy Health should appeal.
#5, what Sebelius was saying is that it is illogical to oppose contraception solely on fiscal grounds, that statistics suggest that covering contraception ends up costing (the government/employer/HMO) less than not covering it, because of the associated costs of pregnancy, birth, and pediatrics. A valid point, that did not address the religious freedom concerns that are the actual issue. Argue it on other grounds, if you must, but not on cost.
That being said, this case is disgusting on multiple levels. That the couple might want assistance in caring for their child is understandable. That they would state publicly that Kalanit should never have been born is truly horrific. If I was on the jury, I would have denied the award, and argued that child protective services should take her away from these monsters.