[robertpaulsen]

If a woman who doesn't want a child visits her doctor and tests indicate that she isn't pregnant, and she finds out (too late for a safe abortion or whatever) that she is, then I can see where some would say that the doctor is liable for all costs of raising the child. Even a healthy child. (Not that I agree.)

Or if she has her tubes tied, gets pregnant and carries the baby to term unknowingly (there are stories like that), then I can see where some would say the doctor is liable.(Again, not that I agree.)

But the argument can be made in the above case that the couple chose to have a child, and to abort only if the child was not normal. The couple was prepared to pay the cost of raising a normal child, had the test result been correct. The doctor should pay the difference.

That said, I do see your point. If, for example, the parents only had enough money to raise one child, so they therefore wanted that child to be normal, fine. Being forced to pay for raising an abnormal child precludes that possibility.

But the whole discussion is obscene. If there's a potential problem, adopt. If you choose to get pregnant, then you take what God gives you. Negligence is unacceptable, but doctors do make mistakes -- choose one wisely.

Obstetricians are being sued out of existence.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"But the whole discussion is obscene. If there's a potential problem, adopt. If you choose to get pregnant, then you take what God gives you. Negligence is unacceptable, but doctors do make mistakes -- choose one wisely.

Obstetricians are being sued out of existence."

---

I agree 100% with everything you said there. We need tort reform *now*.