October 22, 2014

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

pin it button 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

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Pin It

One of the important and counterintuitive insights that C.S. Lewis offered was his observation that far from encouraging skepticism, the mention of “science” can call forth a perilous gullibility, not least from educated, intelligent people who should know better.

Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Knowledge is advanced and new discoveries are made by challenging scientific results and testing alternative hypotheses.

Lewis recognized, though, that science can also promote an uncritical acceptance of views that are said to be backed by science or wrapped in science-y language. In Lewis’s time, most scientists supported eugenics, or the belief that the gene pool of humans should be improved, and they argued that their views were supported by science. These views led to policies such as forced sterilization of those deemed to be of less worth, such as criminals and the handicapped. These policies were not only popular in authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, but in democracies such as the United States and England. Anyone who opposed what the vast majority of scientists were saying must be “anti-science,” it was argued.

So what has changed since then? Are we supposed to believe that just a century ago, elite opinion in science and in the culture at large was so terribly fallible and vulnerable to being misled by prejudice — yet today, it cannot err?

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Pin It

We have previously reported how Dr. Paul Offit, the mainstream media’s go-to doctor to support vaccines, has huge conflicts of interest, and is a very dangerous man. We mentioned how Paul Offit wants mandatory vaccines for every single child in the United States, and he feels his voice in the matter should over-rule parental choice.

So with the mainstream media giving him basically a free pass to preach his message, Offit has attacked anyone who dares to question his view on vaccines. Earlier this year, he publicly stated at the Health Journalism 2014 meeting that journalists should NOT be balanced in their reporting about vaccines. He wants only one side reported, his side, and he stated publicly that journalists who publish the other side should go to “journalism jail.”

Offit thinks that only medical exemptions should be issued for vaccines, and has campaigned for ending religious and philosophical exemptions. Allowing only medical exemptions would give complete control of America’s school-age children to the medical system in regards to vaccines.

So should doctors like Offit be considered authorities on religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines? He claims science trumps philosophy or religion. So if you object to things in vaccines such as cells from aborted human embryos, monkey kidneys, aborted calf fetus blood, mouse brains, etc. – too bad. According to Offit, only doctors should make those decisions.

For a response to Dr. Offit by another doctor, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, we republish with her consent a previous rebuttal she wrote to Dr. Offit below. Turns out that not all doctors agree with Offit after all…

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

Pin It

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Pin It

It’s a struggle out there. You have to be fit to survive. When the pressure is on, nature favors the ones who can take the heat.

It’s a theme that has been drummed into our heads since school. It’s a cultural meme. Social Darwinists used it to justify atrocities. Today’s kinder, gentler Darwinists downplay the violence in the struggle for existence, yet the fact as they see it is inescapable: environmental circumstances select random genetic mutations that confer fitness, i.e., survival, by allowing organisms to adapt.

That in a nutshell explains the development of complex life forms. We’re assured there are gobs of evidence for it, too.

Looking into a recent paper in PNAS about evolutionary fitness tradeoffs, you have to feel sorry for a team of five evolutionists from UC Irvine who did their level best to produce clear evidence for the favored story.

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

Pin It

The evolution of consciousness is presently inexplicable: Can we really understand a transition from the excrement-throwing ape to the early cave paintings as a long, slow series?

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!