April 21, 2014

Couple sues and wins $2.9 million because they would have aborted their little girl had they known she had Down Syndrome

Isaiah Shilhavy Couple sues and wins $2.9 million because they would have aborted their little girl had they known she had Down Syndrome

Isaiah Shilhavy

Health Impact News Editor Comments: We have three children, all adults now, and our oldest has Down Syndrome. He is pictured above in a recent competition for special athletes. He is an integral part of our family. We raised him at home, and he eats real food, the same food we sell to our customers. Even with the high quality organic food we give him, the costs in raising him in our home was about the same as our non-Down Syndrome children. Like the rest of our family, he seldom has to visit a health care provider.  He will never be independent and be able to fully care for himself. But he is God’s gift to us. Why anyone would value a person like our son Isaiah less other children, is a logic I will never understand.

by Rebecca Taylor
LifeNews.com

A couple in Oregon has been awarded $2.9 million because they would have aborted their little girl had they known she had Down Syndrome. Deborah and Ariel Levy told an Oregon court that prenatal testing they received said little Kalanit did not have Down Syndrome. The Levy said that they were devastated when Kalanit was diagnosed after she was born.

$2.9 million for saying you would have killed your child in the womb if you only had known.

The Levys insist that they were only suing for funds to help care for Kalanit. What about caring for her mental and emotional health? How devastating would it be to know your parents stood up in a court of law and told anyone who would listen that they would have ended your life if they had known your genetic make-up. And then were awarded millions.

The Levys also have 2 boys who are older than Kalanit. What about them? What will they think when they find out that their parents stood up in a court of law and told anyone who would listen that they would have ended your beloved sister’s life because of her genes. And then were awarded millions.

Wrongful birth lawsuits like these are just plain wrong. It would be one thing if the doctors caused an injury to the child, but to be awarded money because they did not afford you the information that would have lead to kill your child is simply beyond comprehension. No court should ever be able to rule that a citizen was wrongfully born.

A handful of states have laws against these kinds of lawsuits for this very reason. And without protection from legal action, doctors and other medical professionals are coerced into a prenatal seek-and-destroy mission. In states like Oregon where wrongful birth lawsuits are allowed, if medical professionals are not successful in finding everything that could possibly be “wrong” with a child, they may be sued. That is not health care. That is eugenics.

Wesley J. Smith wrote the following about this case in the Daily Caller:

The time has come to reverse course. We could begin with states prohibiting wrongful birth lawsuits as a matter of public policy. We may have a right to have a baby, but we don’t — or at least shouldn’t — have a right to the baby we want. Most importantly, none of us should ever be declared by a jury to be a wrongful life. May Kalanit never learn that her parents would have prevented her from ever being born.

In the meantime, we need to proclaim loudly and proudly the joy and happiness that people with Down Syndrome bring the world. We truly are better off with their love and kindness.

But don’t take my word for it. Watch this video from the International Down Syndrome Coalition for Life and you will want to award $2.9 million to each and every one of these families:

Read the Full Article Here: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/13/couple-wins-suit-doc-didnt-suggest-aborting-down-syndrome-baby/

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation

umcbookcover Couple sues and wins $2.9 million because they would have aborted their little girl had they known she had Down Syndrome

Free Shipping Available!

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’

Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Absolute proof is strictly the domain of logicians. In mathematics, for example, once a theorem is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. Mathematics, however, is not science. This is a point about which many are confused. Mathematics is a language used by science, but is not itself a science. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same thing at all.

Scientific proof is not really proof at all, in the mathematical sense, but is either verification or disproof. Since scientists deal with a universe that is not of their own creation, they cannot prove their laws absolutely as can mathematicians. Although scientists use the term “scientific proof,” what they really mean is that a particular hypothesis has been verified or disproved. They don’t mean “proof” in the mathematical sense.

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

What is better: natural or supernatural? Is the supernatural available to us today? How can one experience the supernatural life?

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

As shown in our recent documentary C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C.S. Lewis compared science to magic in three ways: (1) Science as Religion, (2) Science as Credulity, and (3) Science as Power. In the film, Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West explains that for many people, science (or better, scientism) serves as a quasi-religion. It gives their lives meaning. Evolution in particular provides an overarching, cosmic vision that many find satisfying: a view of something larger than their experience: the birth and ultimate fate of the universe, with mankind struggling against natural odds in its rise to dominance.

To further illustrate, here are a few recent cases from science news of evolutionary thinking serving in the role of religious faith.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!