So -- what happened to ‘law’?

<tongue in cheek>Annihilate the embryo, otherwise the child born will feel the discomfort of prejudice. How nice for the lawyers to care so for children’s sensibilities when from Down’s syndrome that they file that the preferred treatment is death.

Several things that never mix well:

* oil and water
* lemmings and any high cliff
* the Clintons and any compassion
* politics and religion
* al Qaida and the U.S.
* Pepé Le Pew and -- anybody
* lawyers and ethics
* hamsters and cats
* beaches and tourism
* the public and handicapped children on display
* caramel-coated popcorn, peanuts and a prize -- no, that’s pretty good
* Humpty-Dumpty and any wall
* sofas and stairwells
* smokers and Maryland
* Al Gore and the facts -- any facts
* ketchup and vanilla ice cream
* me and winter
* Capitol Hill and the people
* our Xerox and any paper
* President Bush and any science

BTW, should Hawking have been aborted?

Christopher Reeves’ life got suddenly complicated, and very expensive. Maybe he should just be put to sleep.

Oh, no! Those are ‘thinking’ humans -- complete with followers and MONEY. We mustn’t do anything to anyone who can legally defend themselves. Kids, though, and especially embryos, are much better targets, especially if ‘The Firm’ can convince the parents and parent’s-to-be that they can and will be adequately compensated for using their faulty genes to create faulty people.

The posted article is a sadly humorous misfortune in genetic chance that sends people, along with all their dirty linen, into the public limelight for casual perusal in The Times over a morning bowl of Frosted Flakes, a fate many would likely prefer to never encounter. But it remains very real, and very tragic -- and the implied argument will get nastier and uglier

The bottom line, however, is this:

Raoul. Do you know if medical doctors in France are legally (not ethically, but legally) liable if they do not inform parents-to-be regarding potential defects in their offspring? I don’t know, but that, and that alone, should be the argument. And if there is such a legal inference, a law, a charter even, or just the remote precedence from some small claims case in favor of the wronged (imagined or otherwise), I would say this doc is quickly wading out (or more likely being dragged) into deeper, hotter waters.

This one is puzzling as well. Rather than granting a defendant monies from the doctor who birthed them (in lieu of a living/surviving doctor, are medical facilities to be hosed as well?), it would seem far more corrective -- and cheaper -- to simply have the complainers shot. The moochers are apparently dissatisfied with life anyway.

Did anybody feel the ground tremble just now -- or was it just me...?</tongue in cheek>

Cheers,
Dan