We could likely avoid this entire discussion -- the entire lawsuit -- if the U.S. had some sort of healthcare policy that guaranteed the now child be taken care of and that the family not have to go into bankruptcy trying to go it alone. Instead we are forced to make black and white decisions with HUGE implications.

That's really a great point - from what I've read, many people sue in medical cases because they're going bankrupt from bills, and just need some relief.

Abortion aside, this has terrible implications. My argument against banning abortion has always been twofold. One, it won’t stop abortion; it will just cause women to get unsafe abortions. Two, it has the potential to regulate and therefore possibly criminalize pregnancy. It's the second point that must be given weight when considering this decision.

The law is all about president and it’s a very slippery slope. Do we want to live in a society in which pregnant women are forced under criminal penalty to take vitamins and eat certain foods? Taken to Orwellian proportions, this could mean mothers being held legally responsible for their children’s health problems if they had a history of drug use, chronic illnesses, or any number of health factors. Women could even be denied the right to childbirth based on their health. I’m not claiming any of this will happen. But from a legal standpoint, the court’s decision is dangerous, and in my opinion, it puts women’s rights in jeopardy.

There's no need to be paranoid here. This is about whether or not a person has a cause of action for prenatal injuries causing illness during their life. It would be hardly be just to deny someone any recourse just because the incident occurred prior to their birth, when the injury (illness, suffering, economic and other damages) occurs throughout ones lifetime.

On the one hand, there is a "claimant," and of course every claimant deserves "compensation." On the other hand, this particular claimant is that most undesirable of non-persons in the liberal universe: the unborn "fetus." In liberal cosmology, fetuses rank somewhere above Osama Bin Laden but below Dick Cheney in terms of their threat to civilization as we know it.

So I say to the ACLU, the AAUP, the DNCCC, ATLA, and of course Planned Parenthood; you all figure this one out for yourselves, and get back to us. But you have to choose. Either the fetus has personhood, so as to be a Plaintiff and have a guardian ad litem, or not. Either way, it's good by me. You just tell us when you have decided.

a fetus has no rights, at least none vis a vis its mother. The mother can terminate the pregnancy at any time during the first two trimesters. In relation to third parties, however, the fetus may have rights. Only the mother has a privacy right which allows her to end the life of the fetus. This particular case raises none of these issues, because it is not a fetus that is suing via its next friend, it is a seven-year-old child.

If, while pregnant, I was prescribed a drug that caused my placenta to rupture, and thereby damage the fetus, and it was later made clear that the drug manufacturer was fully aware of that risk, but knowingly concealed it from the public, wouldn't my family, and yes, ergo, my child have the right to sue for damages?

Are we more concerned about the fact that it's a child suing the city or the fact that they're suing a city and not an *evil* corporation?

If this were a class action law suit brought forth by the low-birth weight babies of mothers who smoked throughout their pregnancies (prior to the Surgeon General's warning labels) would we question the validity of the claim?

Elephantman: "On the one hand, there is a "claimant," and of course every claimant deserves "compensation." On the other hand, this particular claimant is that most undesirable of non-persons in the liberal universe: the unborn "fetus." In liberal cosmology, fetuses rank somewhere above Osama Bin Laden but below Dick Cheney in terms of their threat to civilization as we know it."

Read the story again. The claimant is not a fetus, it's a seven year old girl who was injured before birth.

If anything, this is a good argument FOR abortion. If the mother had known the fetus was damaged, she could have had an abortion and prevented the birth of a girl with learning disabilities.

I'm waiting for the first case where someone sues their parents because they knew their fetus was injured/deformed/whatever and did NOT get an abortion and thus caused a damaged human being to be created.

If, while pregnant, I was prescribed a drug that caused my placenta to rupture, and thereby damage the fetus, and it was later made clear that the drug manufacturer was fully aware of that risk, but knowingly concealed it from the public, wouldn't my family, and yes, ergo, my child have the right to sue for damages?

Why got hypothetical? Just substitute 'thalidomide' for 'a drug' in your scenerio.

it's a good point because people with learning disabilities have little or no value and should be exterminated before taking their first breath - if only the mother knew!

Life begins at Choice.

The moment a woman chooses to bring her fetus to term it should cease to be a fetus and become a child under the law.

This is the only logical way to settle the issue of when life begins.

Clearly at conception, given no action, and no miscarriage, a fetus will become a human. That a fetus is not yet fully human does not remove its clear potentiality.

You can argue that a fetus for purposes of abortion is not yet human, but once a woman has confirmed her choice to carry that child to term the full potential of that child should be recognized.

If a child is injured after birth we recognize the child's potential which has been impaired based on future possibilities not on their earning potential at the time. There is no reason to not apply the same logic to a fetus that a mother has chosen to carry to term.

Since the mother intends to have the child, the child's injuries should be considered based on their future potential, not their immediate potential.

In all honesty, a child who is six and dies or is injured by corporate malfeasance could just as possibly slipped in the bathtub of fell from a tree, but we don't let those who injured the child off the hook simply because the child could have died before their full potential was realized by other means. The same legal test should be applied here.

By placing life's start at the mother's choice to bring her child to term, you acknowledge a woman's right to choose without implying a lesser potential to the child simply because they are not yet fully mature.