Sure, as long as the awarded settlement includes sterilization for both parents.

Post-natal abortions?? What's next, gas chambers for "defectives"?

Too
Many
Lawyers

The love in that household is going to be one to envy. /sarcasm

Daddy, where did we get all the money from?

This articles offers a more nuanced look at the topic. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/ian-brown/im-glad-i-never-had-to-decide-whether-my-strange-lonely-boy-ought-to-exist/article2144132/

"Still, wouldn't he have been better off, thanks to a simple genetic test, not living his shadowy, pain-filled, so-called life? I understand the question. I understand the appeal of the DNA test, its trouble-free promise. But the answer is complicated."

.....abortion is just a pretty word for MURDER.

Fodder for a whole string of 'no arms and one leg' jokes.

and why do these "parents" still have custody of that poor boy? It sounds to me like it would not be a safe place for him to be...

"Post-natal abortions??"

Sickeningly, that's pretty much what a judge said in Edmonton in the case of a woman who strangled her newborn.

I understand that raising this boy will cost a lot of money and one way to get that money is to sue. What I don't understand is how they will explain to their son how "we would have aborted him" really means "we love you, Bryan".

and this is why we have more child murders and abuse of children since abortion became so bloody legal. There is an expectation that the child needs to be perfect or have perfect timing or else it is as disposable or as usable as kleenex.

Animals have more protection in our enlightened advanced society...ain't we grand?

Could the parents of the parents have aborted them because they have mental defects as apposed to this child's physical defects?

The parents are completely right as far as I can tell. The testing company failed them and now they have to raise a defect.

and this is why we have more child murders and abuse of children since abortion became so bloody legal

Demonstrably false.

"The testing company failed them and now they have to raise a defect***."

No they don't. They could give him up. They've admitted to not wanting him.

But where's the payday in that, eh?

***a defect? Really? Wow, and I thought I enjoyed being offensive.

libertariansaren'tassmartastheythinktheyare:

http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics

Child deaths due to abuse are up from about 3 a day in the late 90's to almost 5 a day, a rise of about 50%.

What's demonstrably false is your smug opinion.

The only species to keep it's mutants alive

North of 60 what a disgusting statement.
The reason we keep all of our offspring alive is because we aren't the animals the liberanos are, or the jungle monkey for that matter.
We the human race are above that!

I wonder what Alvin Law has to say about this. http://www.alvinlaw.com/

What do I know anyhow, maybe Alvin the mutant should have been thrown in the garbage with the rest of the discarded humans.

Well, libertariansaredimmer, do qualify your disgusting statements.

He's a boy, not a "defect".

You and North of 60 can go bowling. You're made for one another.

Tommy Douglas would be proud.

Perhaps in the interests of clarification, the liberals could provide us with a list of the conditions which make children sufficiently "deficient" to be unworthy of being born. That could then segue nicely into providing justification for child murder, oh, sorry, "infanticide" or if despite repeated efforts at redress, and a persistent failure to make the grade, euthanasia. That could tie in nicely with "honor" killings of errant children and wives. Or should we simply use historically established criteria for "untermenschen".

Why the sky's the limit.
Imagine it,
Parents: "Well, you see your honour, we had our doubts before and just after she was born, gave it our best shot, but despite a lot of money spent on tutors and personal trainers, she never did better than the bottom third of the class, and flunked out of ballet school. Plus she insisted on wearing make-up when she thought we weren't looking so having reached age fifteen we decided we'd about had it. She was never going to amount to anything so we decided to end her suffering and got her older brother to do her in with the baseball bat."
Judge: "Yes, quite. Well the records are all in order and certainly support your version of events. Case dismissed. . . do hope her younger brother can get over that limp!"

I recommend Gita Sereney's "Into that Darkness" to get a sense of where the mentality that sees certain homo sapiens as less than fully human and supports a euthansia program can lead.

I don't know if this story is apocryphal or not, but I do remember reading some years ago that in times past, when such a horribly deformed child was born, the doctor would whisk it away from the mother, and quietly strangle the infant. He'd tell the parents that the child was stillborn. As I said, I don't know if it's true, but I am conflicted. That's a lot of moral decision making by the doctor, but the child in this case is going to make his parent's lives miserable, as well as having a pretty miserable existence on his own. I wouldn't be at all surprised to read in a few years that the parents divorced; I personally don't think I could stand the strain.

It reminds me of the euthanasia debate, or people who ask for "DNR" orders, but there's a crucial distinction - those people are making a conscious decision to end their lives. Of course a newborn can't make the decision. I can see arguments either way; I'm just glad I never had to make the choice.

If someone wants to keep a mutant as their pet then fine, as long as it's at their expense. It's not the State's responsibility.

Why the sky's the limit.
Imagine it,

El argumento ad absurdum is invalid logic.
Any argument can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but that doesn't make it valid.

While I agree that these "parents" are monsters, I also unfortunately think they have a point (although it looks like they are going about it all wrong because they're terrible people)...

With all of the advances of modern medicine, there should have been no surprise when this kid was born. Ultrasounds, etc allow the Dr to tell what sex the kid is and if there are any birth defects. If they can tell if a fetus has any dangly bits or not they can certainly tell if it's missing any limbs! The doctor showed either MASSIVE incompetence for not noticing the deformities (or not even looking for them), or MASSIVE negligence by noticing the deformitites and not mentioning them to the parents.

Imagine this: you are a young pregnant couple excited about having your first child. The doctor tells you everything is A-OK with your pregnancy and that your baby is totally healthy. Because of the current advanced state of medical technology, you have no reason to doubt him so you go into labour happy and excited and fully expecting a healthy normal little boy or girl to come out.... And a deformed baby with no arms and 1 leg is born. How would you feel?

Again, not defending these parents, but the Doctor deserves to lose his license over this as well.

North of 60, look around the modern world and read Sereney's historical investigation. It's not an argumentum ad absurdum.

Next thing you know the liberal/ndpers will want to sterilize all the "problem people", Oh Yeah they did that back when Tommy the commie Douglas had power.

On a related note, when my brother and sister-in-law were pregnant with their 3rd child the ultrasound showed a "bumb" on the neck.

They were warned that there was a great possibility of the child having "downs" syndrome.

There was no choice in the matter and they pursued the pregnancy. A perfect baby girl(Eva) was born.

Now what would have been the consequences if they had taken the medical staffs diagnosis and aborted Eva, to eventually find out the baby was in perfect health?

My wife and I had ultrasounds with both of our daughters, and I am not lying when I say that I felt some what conflicted having done so.

"bump" not "bumb".

North of 60, look around the modern world and read Sereney's historical investigation.

Good population control. It's not like we have a problem with an underpopulated planet.

If someone wants to raise mutants as their hobby then good for them, just don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.

no60 you are the poster child for retroactive, thats for sure.

Yeah, yeah... and all of those who are too stupid to discuss the issues intelligently, can only spew their personal hatred for anyone who disagrees with their beliefs. That's called bigotry.

This kind of lawsuit is fairly common, actually. Its how the parents of crippled kids get the money to raise them. Abortion has nothing to do with it.

This pair of lottery winners scored $4.5 mil in the suit. More than half of that goes to the law firm. The rest (unless they smoke it up in crack) will eventually be spent on therapy etc. to keep this kid alive. Two million bucks is not a lot of money when you start in on custom wheel chairs, modifying houses, PT, OT, Speech therapy every week, assistive devices etc. etc. etc.

And of course don't forget that no insurance company in the universe is going to cover this kid. Pre existing condition out the wazoo.

So they sue, on whatever pretext they can scrape up. Lucky them, they won. Disgusting pretext, stupid judge, stupider jury, but cha-CHING baby, the lawyers got it done. Yay.

This is why American OB/GYN docs have malpractice insurance that costs five figures a year. Its not the medical malpractice that gets them, its the legal malpractice. In many states an OB/GYN doc is on the hook for a baby for eighteen years. Anything at all happens, lawsuit!

In other news, its starting to cost insurance companies in some states upwards of ten thousand bucks to get a baby delivered. Because parents of crippled kids win the lottery off the OBs all the time, and eight thousand of that ten is going for malpractice insurance.

Lawyers however have no downside. They win, they win. They lose, oh well, bit of time wasted.

As far as i can tell, North of 60 is the mutant who needs to be aborted - along with those disgusting things claiming to be "parents."

Abortion is the worst act of barbarism in human history.

north of 60

"""Yeah, yeah... and all of those who are too stupid to discuss the issues intelligently, can only spew their personal hatred for anyone who disagrees with their beliefs."""

they just prove my point that humans are emotionalist rather then rational thinkers

"""That's called bigotry"""

actually, it's called being a liberal

and the Phantom puts some lite to the situation

The state should counter-sue for wrongful reproduction. The parents' defective chromosomes have produced an offspring who is now a burden to the system.

Its all about living the free life even if you sacrifice your child to the god off greed. I mean its not new. They used to throw children on heated statues to die.

KevinB @4:09- I don't doubt it, although needless to say the fact that something has been done for a long time doesn't necessarily make it something conservatives ought to support (that's what reactionaries are for). As far as I can make out, doctors used often to euthanize patients. Read Sons and Lovers - no, wait, don't, D.H. Lawence is an awful writer, but IIRC he and his siblings are given drugs to hasten the end of their dying mother. When my own father was in a coma he wasn't coming out of, the nurses waited 'till everyone appropriate was assembled before injecting him with a very, very high dose of "painkillers".

I was reading around in Utopia the other day, and I was surprised to find this. And they made More a Saint.

I have mixed feelings about euthanasia, although my insincts tell me that codifying it is a bad idea. There's nothing nice at the bottom of that slippery slope. Same with legal decisions endorsing the idea of "life-unworthy-of-life".

The above case implies the officially recognized notion that some life is wrong in-and-of-itself; that some human beings are indeed "defects". It's Nazi-esque. I mean, technically, this case makes sense (assuming there really was medical negligence involved) if abortion is legal, but even enthusiastically pro-abortion types will turn green if you ask them "is it okay to abort just female fetuses? How about if they found that 'gay gene', and I don't want one of those? Redheads? I don't fancy a ginger kid" etc. Nobody's thought this through.

Well what do you expect from a society that embraces evolution and Darwinism? Where it is held and believed that only the strong survive - the weak and sick must necessarily be weeded out to ensure survival of the species - until all that's left are psychopaths in the end.

Having worked in several group homes, including those labeled 'intensive care' - not to be confused with an intensive care unit in a hospital, is a term for homes that care for the seriously challenged/disabled (cognitively, physically and/or emotionally) - from what I have witnessed the greatest majority of this sector of society is treated exceptionally well and are very happy individuals - much happier than many of us so called 'perfect' ones.

The main area of frustration with this group is just that - frustration - on both sides mainly in trying to communicate their needs/desires and in turn the caregivers trying to decode their needs/desires.

There are perceived victims in this world and self inflicted victims, but this child is truly a victim. The true victims are the ones who need society's help and rewarding the abusers of the system does nothing to help the victims but does draw attention to the disgusting nature of the abusers.
Sometimes, however, it is just too much.....
If you want to see a truly remarkable man, take a look at Nick

Don't be too hard on the parents. One of my daughters was born severly mentally and physically handicapped and we had no idea anything was wrong with her throughout the pregnancy. In fact, when we went in for an untrasound the week after they were due, she failed some of the tests and we had an emergency C-section. It wasn't until 3 months later after she had an MRI that we realized how handicapped she was.

One of the things my mother mentioned after this information came out was that we might consider suing.

I have to admit, the thought crossed my mind. When you go through an entire pregnancy with no indication that there are any problems, finding out your child is severly mentally and physically handicapped is quite devastating. The desire to blame someone, or find someone to blame can be powerful. I often think that perhaps if we had known about her problem we might have been able to do something. However, I would never have considered abortion.

We did not sue. I felt that everyone did their best and a lawsuit would be a betrayal of that. Also, with our socialized medical care, it was unlikely that we would incure large medical bills (ie. the rest of you would pay for her care). If we lived in the USA, we may have been forced to sue to ensure we could pay for her care.

Consider that fact before you condemn the parents. They may have been forced to make the abortion claim as part of their lawsuit, to increase their chances of winning. They may not be that heartless.