Sue because your designer baby has the wrong DNA

[fromderinside]

Why should that be so hard. She had expectations based on her selection sperm from a white donor. The company didn't perform. She is damaged by having to adjust to caring for one she hadn't chosen which requires extra effort and acceptance beyond what she is obviously unable to provide. Unwanted conditions puts her in a position likely to damage her reputation as a caring person which would not have occurred if the baby were only ugly.

so this is about her reputation...whether she cares for the baby whether she is caring of that baby..
this is stupid.

No. This is about actual damages she's going to face based on previous decisions she's made prior to the donor company fucking here over.

 

[none]

No. This is about actual damages she's going to face based on previous decisions she's made prior to the donor company fucking here over.

If she loves the baby there wouldn't be any undue burden, it is called taking responsibility as a parent.
now maybe I can find the "nuance" in previous posts.

 

[doubtingt]

No. What is being said is that the clinic which behaved in such a careless manner that it unnecessarily imposed burdens and costs on its patients should bear some financial responsibility for those costs. Some cannot be quantified or assigned a dollar value easily. That does not make them any less real.

I'm seeing the burden being describe as racism, why should the donor bank have to pay for that?
is the product the woman ended up with less valuable than the product she thought she was getting?

The value of the "product" is irrelevant to their liability. It is not the product she wanted. That is all that matters. It is essentially similar to a hospital that gave a person a sex change on accident. Whether the result is subjectively better or worse is an irrelevant issue to the hospitals liability. Even if there were zero social problems that arise from the sex change, the hospital still owes the patient millions.

If she were an extreme racist who aborted the fetus rather than bring another black person into the world, the sperm bank would still be liable for massive damages. The damages are to her, not to the child. Arguments that the child is going to have a hard life because now it exists rather than not are absurd and would set an insane precedent. Any court should reject such arguments. The sound argument is the damages and hardship to her. Any valid argument would need to apply if she were black and the child white, or to any other donor-trait besides race.

 

[none]

I'm seeing the burden being describe as racism, why should the donor bank have to pay for that?
is the product the woman ended up with less valuable than the product she thought she was getting?

The value of the "product" is irrelevant to their liability. It is not the product she wanted. That is all that matters. It is essentially similar to a hospital that gave a person a sex change on accident. Whether the result is subjectively better or worse is an irrelevant issue to the hospitals liability. Even if there were zero social problems that arise from the sex change, the hospital still owes the patient millions.

If she were an extreme racist who aborted the fetus rather than bring another black person into the world, the sperm bank would still be liable for massive damages. The damages are to her, not to the child. Arguments that the child is going to have a hard life because now it exists rather than not are absurd and would set an insane precedent. Any court should reject such arguments. The sound argument is the damages and hardship to her. Any valid argument would need to apply if she were black and the child white, or to any other donor-trait besides race.

its bullshit, parents assume responsibility for their offspring or they don't, I don't see the grounds for litigation.

 

[doubtingt]

The value of the "product" is irrelevant to their liability. It is not the product she wanted. That is all that matters. It is essentially similar to a hospital that gave a person a sex change on accident. Whether the result is subjectively better or worse is an irrelevant issue to the hospitals liability. Even if there were zero social problems that arise from the sex change, the hospital still owes the patient millions.

If she were an extreme racist who aborted the fetus rather than bring another black person into the world, the sperm bank would still be liable for massive damages. The damages are to her, not to the child. Arguments that the child is going to have a hard life because now it exists rather than not are absurd and would set an insane precedent. Any court should reject such arguments. The sound argument is the damages and hardship to her. Any valid argument would need to apply if she were black and the child white, or to any other donor-trait besides race.

its bullshit, parents assume responsibility for their offspring or they don't, I don't see the grounds for litigation.

You also assume responsibility for your own body, right? Well if a doctor gave you a sex change instead of an appendectomy he would be liable, right?

 

[none]

its bullshit, parents assume responsibility for their offspring or they don't, I don't see the grounds for litigation.

You also assume responsibility for your own body, right? Well if a doctor gave you a sex change instead of an appendectomy he would be liable, right?

lets try and stay on topic instead of bringing hair brained analogies to the table here.
if you can't find an sound way to express a counter argument then just keep quiet, like a kid with nothing to say.
if anything using your logic the baby should sue not the mother. on grounds that it shouldn't exist as a bi-racial baby at least half the DNA of the child should be eligible for recourse and compensation....

 

[Shadowy Man]

...I am just trying to figure this mess of litigation out...

Honestly, it does not appear that you are.

Or, if you are, it does not appear you are doing a good job at it.

 

[none]

...I am just trying to figure this mess of litigation out...

Honestly, it does not appear that you are.

Or, if you are, it does not appear you are doing a good job at it.

so now this thread turns to whining... fucking great

 

[none]

I can foresee the trial now... The plaintiff explains that she and her baby gets funny looks from racists and that is an undue burden and bring to the stand a racist who says "I look at the baby funny".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Honestly, it does not appear that you are.

Or, if you are, it does not appear you are doing a good job at it.

so now this thread turns to whining... fucking great

I'm sorry that you took my post to be whining. I was just pointing out that it wouldn't have taken much effort on your part to read about this case and find out the facts for yourself if you are actually interested in "trying to figure...[it] out". Or, you could be more receptive to the posts of those of us who have done that. Your responses seemed to indicate that you did not know the facts of the case or were understanding the nature of the plaintiff's complaint.

ETA: your last post is a good example of this.

 

[none]

so now this thread turns to whining... fucking great

I'm sorry that you took my post to be whining. I was just pointing out that it wouldn't have taken much effort on your part to read about this case and find out the facts for yourself if you are actually interested in "trying to figure...[it] out". Or, you could be more receptive to the posts of those of us who have done that. Your responses seemed to indicate that you did not know the facts of the case or were understanding the nature of the plaintiff's complaint.

ETA: your last post is a good example of this.

now you are making excuses for your whining, wow.
look I get it.
the woman got the wrong sperm and found out 4 months into her pregnancy.
the woman had the baby and it is bi-racial and racist people look at her funny.
make the connection between people looking at her funny and the donor bank CUZ I DON"T SEE IT, I admit it, I am not seeing the connection.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:staff:

 

[Axulus]

If she were an extreme racist who aborted the fetus rather than bring another black person into the world, the sperm bank would still be liable for massive damages. The damages are to her, not to the child. Arguments that the child is going to have a hard life because now it exists rather than not are absurd and would set an insane precedent. Any court should reject such arguments. The sound argument is the damages and hardship to her. Any valid argument would need to apply if she were black and the child white, or to any other donor-trait besides race.

Why "massive" damages? How are you defining massive?

Also, if the "defect" in the "product" can be fixed (i.e., if there is a way to make the baby's skin white, bleaching the hair, and using chemical hair straighteners), then the company, from a legal standpoint, would only be liable for the cost to fix the "defects" and maybe some small damages for emotional distress (regardless of whether the mother chooses to implement these "fixes".

This is the road we must go down if we are trying to argue from the standpoint of damages due to a "defective product".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I have a couple of things I have to say

1. Having a brown child is not the end of the world. Everyday women all over the world give birth to brown babies in bigoted countries, states, counties, towns, families. And somehow the world holds together.
2. All children, from time to time, doubt if their parents wanted them. Imagine growing up surrounded by press clippings and video tape that prove you were not what your parents wanted?

And one more thing

If the child had been born blind, deaf, and missing limbs, would there be a lawsuit or national coverage? What if the child had been stillborn? Is a white woman having a brown baby worse than any woman having a stillborn child? We are one sick country, and the problem here is ours, but that child is gonna pay the price for our sin.

 

[Toni]

I have a couple of things I have to say

1. Having a brown child is not the end of the world. Everyday women all over the world give birth to brown babies in bigoted countries, states, counties, towns, families. And somehow the world holds together.
2. All children, from time to time, doubt if their parents wanted them. Imagine growing up surrounded by press clippings and video tape that prove you were not what your parents wanted?

And one more thing

If the child had been born blind, deaf, and missing limbs, would there be a lawsuit or national coverage? What if the child had been stillborn? Is a white woman having a brown baby worse than any woman having a stillborn child? We are one sick country, and the problem here is ours, but that child is gonna pay the price for our sin.

You are right: these things happen all of the time. Being a parent means opening yourself up to the fact that you cannot--you absolutely cannot--control who your child is or what happens to your child or who your child becomes.

The child is not defective. Her parents are not claiming that she is defective. However, they deliberately made choices that they thought would help them do their best to raise a child in what were already going to be challenging circumstances as a lesbian couple in a small minded area.

Their choices are not necessarily the ones I would have made. I understand the impulse, the desire to have offspring that resemble the parents, even if the parents are not the biological progenitors. For one thing, you never, ever have to explain that that beautiful child who looks completely different from you in every way is really your own child. It's just one layer of shit you don't have to deal with. You can keep the particulars about conception/genetic lineage/procreation of this child on a need to know basis. I understand why people want that.

Of course, sometimes there is a surprise and the offspring looks little or nothing like any known genetic relation.

As far as: what if the child had been born with some congenital condition that had a serious impact on his/her health? That happens. Every day. Often to parents who had no idea. But also to parents who knew and were able to prepare themselves for that possibility. And who chose to do it, even if it was a harder path with potentially greater sacrifices. Parenting is about sacrifices. It's about choices and about chance, about well laid plans and flying by the seat of your pants, sometimes all in one sentence.

BUT here's what I am looking at: A clinic which is so careless with their procedures cannot be trusted to have done proper health screenings for the donor. What if the donor had HIV? The recipient could easily become infected. What if the donor was carrying Huntington's Disease? Or some other serious mutation which would predictably lead to a serious or lethal condition? What if the combination of the donor's genetics and the recipients would predictably result in a child with serious or even fatal conditions? What if the donor and the recipient were close relations? What if they didn't even bother to correctly identify blood type?

It is a really, really sad thing that this family must worry not only that people will question how they became parents or if the child is related to either but also, on a daily basis deal with the terrible reality of raising their child to face racism within their own family.

Look, I am pretty sure that I would have no problem writing my extended family off and relocating so that contact would be very limited if I were in their shoes. But: I almost completely severed relations with my father years ago but we didn't quite get to that point. I know what I would have lost. So did he. We were really careful with one another after that. I can understand why they might also think really hard about what this will mean. In a perfect world, the eyes and hearts and minds of their family and their community would open wide and be filled with love and acceptance.

It ain't a perfect world. Who can blame them for not wanting to have their child pay for our racial sins?

 

[none]

now I am getting that the woman made deliberate choices, choices that she felt were prudent for the well being of her child in a racially charged environment where bi-racial isn't readily accepted.
and now she can't do that, and that is unfair.

 

[doubtingt]

If she were an extreme racist who aborted the fetus rather than bring another black person into the world, the sperm bank would still be liable for massive damages. The damages are to her, not to the child. Arguments that the child is going to have a hard life because now it exists rather than not are absurd and would set an insane precedent. Any court should reject such arguments. The sound argument is the damages and hardship to her. Any valid argument would need to apply if she were black and the child white, or to any other donor-trait besides race.

Why "massive" damages? How are you defining massive?

Also, if the "defect" in the "product" can be fixed (i.e., if there is a way to make the baby's skin white, bleaching the hair, and using chemical hair straighteners), then the company, from a legal standpoint, would only be liable for the cost to fix the "defects" and maybe some small damages for emotional distress (regardless of whether the mother chooses to implement these "fixes".

This is the road we must go down if we are trying to argue from the standpoint of damages due to a "defective product".

IT is not a defective product. That is the wrong argument (even if it is somewhat the argument the mother is unfortunately making). There is really no argument needed beyond the clear cut fact that it is not the product she wanted, and because it is a human being and not an inanimate object there is no way to correct or undo their screw up. Again, it is no different than if a doctor gave you an irreversible sex change rather than the vasectomy you ordered. The issue is not that you are now "defective" or "inferior", and it is totally irrelevant whether you are able to find a way to love the new you. The doctor's liability would still be massive, and by massive, I mean in the millions.

 

[doubtingt]

I have a couple of things I have to say

1. Having a brown child is not the end of the world. Everyday women all over the world give birth to brown babies in bigoted countries, states, counties, towns, families. And somehow the world holds together.
2. All children, from time to time, doubt if their parents wanted them. Imagine growing up surrounded by press clippings and video tape that prove you were not what your parents wanted?

Hey, we agree on something!!! Good luck getting anyone to acknowledge your second and very important point about the psychological harm this lawsuit will do to the child. I have twice pointed out that this is really the central issue in whether she should sue, not the legal merits of the suit which are quite clearly in her favor. As you can see, Toni raised valid points about why the suit has merit, but ignored your second point.

And one more thing

If the child had been born blind, deaf, and missing limbs, would there be a lawsuit or national coverage? What if the child had been stillborn? Is a white woman having a brown baby worse than any woman having a stillborn child?

This part I don't quite follow. There would be a major lawsuit and massive coverage if a sperm bank gave sperm that was certain to lead to a deaf, blind, or deformed child. Many of the arguments being made for and by the mother imply that the black child is "defective" in a manner one might argue for a deformed child, and the arguments against the lawsuit wrongly assert that she only has a case if the child is defective or inferior to what she wanted. However, read my prior posts for why this is the wrong argument and all that matters is that they essentially performed a different medical procedure on her body than what she agreed to and thereby made her morally and legally responsible for life for a child that is different from the one she "ordered". As callous as it sounds, that is all that matters for the sperm banks liability.
It is basically the same as if they accidentally inseminated her during what was supposed to be and appendectomy. She might and should still love and care for the child now that it exists, but the sperm bank is still liable.

If she sues, she should win on that ground alone. But like I said, I don't think she should sue due to the same point you raise about the harm it will due to the child to have clear cut proof that she was not the child the mother wanted and in fact she was X dollars away from being the child her mother wanted.

 

[none]

IT is not a defective product. That is the wrong argument (even if it is somewhat the argument the mother is unfortunately making). There is really no argument needed beyond the clear cut fact that it is not the product she wanted, and because it is a human being and not an inanimate object there is no way to correct or undo their screw up. Again, it is no different than if a doctor gave you an irreversible sex change rather than the vasectomy you ordered. The issue is not that you are now "defective" or "inferior", and it is totally irrelevant whether you are able to find a way to love the new you. The doctor's liability would still be massive, and by massive, I mean in the millions.

I think the argument hinges on undue burden, what is the woman's undue burden?
having a bi-racial baby is an undue burden?

 

[doubtingt]

IT is not a defective product. That is the wrong argument (even if it is somewhat the argument the mother is unfortunately making). There is really no argument needed beyond the clear cut fact that it is not the product she wanted, and because it is a human being and not an inanimate object there is no way to correct or undo their screw up. Again, it is no different than if a doctor gave you an irreversible sex change rather than the vasectomy you ordered. The issue is not that you are now "defective" or "inferior", and it is totally irrelevant whether you are able to find a way to love the new you. The doctor's liability would still be massive, and by massive, I mean in the millions.

I think the argument hinges on undue burden, what is the woman's undue burden?
having a bi-racial baby is an undue burden?

It does not hinge upon undue burden other than having a fetus she did not agree to put inside her body that she then had to either deal with the emotional trauma of killing it or birthing it than giving it away, or must now caring for. The fact that she agree to have a different fetus put inside of her does not alter this any more than the fact that a person agrees to one type of surgery eliminates the liability of a doctor that mistakenly gives them a different type of surgery (e.g., sex change or plastic surgery). Even if by everyone's subjective opinion including the patients, they are as or even better looking after the surgery, it does not eliminate the liability of doctor.