Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Kralizec]

I wasn't really upset or anything, just curious about everyone's thoughts on the subject. I referred to my post in case anyone missed it.

Yet I agree with your premise, so as you correctly point out, the first definitely presents grounds for trial.
The second is ethically problematic. Professionally, I would opine that it should be litigated under the argument that the child is simply a patient harmed by the medic's actions. However, the optimal solution, or at least the one preventing headaches, would be to my mind to always attempt to fold the case into the parents' wrongful birth lawsuit and basically demand for their damages to be calculated by taking into account the full life span of the human being they brought to life, seeing as it will always remain in their care.

I have no issues with the first case (wrongful birth). My objections against the second (wrongful life) have more to do with the way the decisions are framed than ethics (allthough the implied reasoning is ethically unsound). I suspect that the real reasoning in the Dutch precedent is that, as you say, parents will feel emotionally obligated to care for these disabled children long after they've reached maturity. The courts thus seek to reimburse the parents' costs and efforts which are to be made. However, the claim was made on behalf of the child, and therefore the discussion is about wether the child can be said to have suffered because of the doctor's mistake.
Clearly the only logical way you can argue that the child has suffered because of the mistake is to argue that, for the child, non-existance is preferable to the life he has. The Dutch courts refused to go this route and simply evaded the issue by using bogus reasoning. However, if I recall correctly, France specifically banned "wrongful life" claims because the unspoken reason is implied in the verdict - that is, honouring damage claims on behalf of the child implies that said child would have been better off if he had never existed, no matter how much the courts may deny this reasoning. Another factor the French parliament took into account before they decided on the matter was that France (and western democracies in general) have social services which can give disabled people like this the care they need. I've never actually read the French literature on the subject directly, maybe I'll dig it up when I have the time.

Article 1. As a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception.

Article 2. Each human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until death. Science gives different names to these stages, including zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult. This does not change the scientific consensus that at all points of development each individual is a living member of the human species.

Article 3. From conception each unborn child is by nature a human being.

Article 4. All human beings, as members of the human family, are entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and to protection of their inalienable human rights. This is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international instruments.

There's no logical link between points 1-3 and point 4. "Human being" in the biological sense of the word is not necessarily the same concept as "human" (as in, an individual) in various treaties.

As the site mentions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says in article 6 that every human being has an inherent right to life. I've seen it been used by pro-lifers to argue that abortion is illegal under international law before. However, if you read the entire article, it's clear that the article was aimed at the death penalty, which it explicitly mentions. It says something about (not) executing pregnant women, but nothing about abortion as such. If it had, lots of countries would simply have refused to sign it.

1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.

5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.

6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.