Anybody here about the kid that sued the doctors that did not abort him.

[xaigi]

Bitterness and sanctity of life have nothing to do with this discussion. I'd be willing to bet that both the child and the parents are being pulled along by a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers.

Across the street from me, and barely visible from my window is a big foam sign that says "NEED CASH FAST? GET $1000-$10000 NOW". Underneath it is the notation "Had an accident or injury? We can get you cash now!" I expect that the lawyers get people to say that they have a stubbed toe or something, give them a couple of thousand dollars, and take the rest of the millions for themselves.

 

[StageLeft]

DJ_Donut

I don't see the connection.

If I spend money on a defective product and cannot return it I sue for the amount it was worth and stop using this product, right?

Now, this kid is effectively sueing because he is a defective product, so if there is money to be had he should stop being used.

--

I am so exceptionally bad at explaining this, but basically what this child argued was that he is sueing because he should never have lived. For him to win the case he should a) get money and, b) get the problem resolved, ie, death. It just doesn't make sense.

You can sue and argue that doctors caused you undue pain, and I agree with that. But arguing that you should not have been born and trying to win money _now_ means that even _now_ you should not be living, and so it just seems to me that to win this case the child should end up dead as a result. Clearly nobody wants him killed, and thus he cannot sue for the fact he should never have been born. He can sue for hospital costs, pain, etc...and perhaps this is just semantics but his staying alive while arguing he should not have been born and winning money for that makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[DJ_Donut]

Skroob

OK,you spend money on a broken product and cannot return it. you sue for the amount it was worth, and receive money for all the trouble, pain, etc because a broken product should've never been handed to you in the first place. that part is conclusive.

now whether you want to keep using the half functioning product or destroy it completely in a method of your choice and start over from scratch, I think that choice belongs to you the owner and owner alone.

 

[Double Trouble]

The one thing we seem to be missing here is that a child is not simply a "product" we can talk about like some Widget out of a factory. This is a child! There's only one entity 'responsible' for the children we have (and their faults or flaws). If you can sue Him, good luck, more power to you.

 

[StageLeft]

donut

Ok lets put it this way: I have an old vintage car that is worth about $7k, but given its peculiar paintjob and body is exceedingly expensive to repair. Somebody gets in a crash with me and repairs exceed $7k - but $7k is all its worth. The car is written off, so I get the money for it. It should then no longer be my property, because the $7k signed it off - if I say "Hey, it looks like crap but still works so I'll drive it", I have effectively ripped the person off who paid the $7k.

Or if you have a porsche and you scratch it and it costs $2500 to fix you may not be bothered to fix it yourself - however if somebody else did it you can ask for the $2500, it then seems unethical to keep that money and not pay for the repair.

--

If you can see where I'm going that makes one of us, I've lost my train of thought but perhaps there is something mildly-relevant in what i just said.

 

[PCAddict]

It's only fitting that this took place in France. It sickens me that the parents are the ones who were the driving force behind this lawsuit. That's the sad part.

 

[Russ]

<< Anyway, anyone who chooses not to have an abortion, where they know there offspring will turn out to be a vegatble, should have their head read. >>



Yeah, DABANSHEE, much better to just kill the kid and avoid the inconvenience. I used to think you were an idiot, now you've removed all doubt.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Regulator]

The kid is too studip to understand the case. The parents are making a point with the lawsuit that cripple/retarded children should not be borned.
Life is overrated anyway.

 

[Russ]

<< The kid is too studip to understand the case. The parents are making a point with the lawsuit that cripple/retarded children should not be borned. >>



Judging by your grammar and spelling skills, it's a good thing your parents were not of like mind.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Yeeny]

My brother is mentally retarded and autistic, and the thought that my mother should have aborted him simply for those reasons is mind blowing. He is a wonderful human being who we adore with all our hearts, and thank God every day he was brought into our lives. He unlike us so called normal people never has an unkind word to say about anyone. And he can spell a hell of a lot better than some of the people who say he should have been aborted too!

As for the original case, this is just ridiculous. A child is a gift, and sometimes they don't turn out perfectly. If the parents did not want to deal with this, why didn't they just give the child up for adoption?

 

[Elita1]

Hear, hear, Girlfriday.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
some of the most decent and admirable people I know are physically or mentally handicapped.
and I am a better person for having known them.

 

[Regulator]

Geez,
Attacking my spel1ing or grammar is so low esp from someone who uses NCNE. Anyhow, I should have said the kid is &quot;mentally challenged&quot; not stupid. I wouldn't advocate killing any child period. I was making fun of the article.
Also, I don't think it's &quot;peachy&quot; for people with disabilities to watch &quot;normal&quot; people do things so easily and they have to work much harder just to achieve the same result. So we may think everyone should be born regardless but we don't really live their lives.