[mostlyundecided]

I wonder if the next slip down the slope will be that if a mother knows she is having a handicapped child and doesn't abort, then the state and the insurance company will not be responsible for the care of that child, telling her since she chose to have the baby then she is financially responsible for the care of it as she is being neglectful in not getting the abortion. Does it go both ways?

[highpockets]

Money will always lubricate any slide it happens upon.

[lsee]

What if the child is born normal, but then has a terrible accident or illness that renders him/her severely disabled. Can abortion be retroactive? Can the mother sue on the basis that the doctors should have been able to put him/her back together again, like Humpty Dumpty? When is it too late to trade the injured child in for a new one?

As a taxpayer, I have no problem with helping to pay the expenses of supporting a severely disabled person, especially if this person has no other means of support. We already do this in the form of social security payments for disabilities. America also has special funds to help pay for treatment and research for rare genetic disorders and other diseases. Orphan drug programs exist to produce rarely needed medications and hospitals regularly write off the expenses of caring for indigent patients.

I'd be very interested to know exactly what lifestyle these people will now enjoy and whether there are any stipulations that these funds revert to some charitable trust upon the man's death. We shouldn't treat disabilities like a lottery. It seems to me that the woman alone would not provide all the genetic clues needed to produce a healthy baby. Her husband or the biological father should have been half the equation. Sometimes two recessive genes can produce extraordinary defects which could not have been predicted in the first place. The lawsuit was hogwash.