1. Why does the court majority hold that the parents could recover damages for hospital and medical expenses, pain, and suffering connected with the unwanted pregnancy, the loss of earnings by the mother during the pregnancy, and loss of consortium, but denies a recovery for the cost of rearing and educating a healthy, normal child?
2. The dissenting justice argues that the majority opinion is inconsistent. Explain the inconsistencies.

Glassman, Justice
In April of 1984, the plaintiffs, Roxanne and Steven Macomber, filed a complaint against the defendants, Carter F. Dillman and the Webber Hospital Association. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that as a proximate result of the defendants’ negligent and careless failure to comply with the standard of care of medical practice in the performance of a tubal ligation on Roxanne for the purpose of permanent sterilization, Roxanne was not permanently sterilized and had conceived and given birth to a child, Maize. Although the plaintiffs did not allege in their complaint that Maize is a healthy, normal child, they did not allege otherwise, and the parties have agreed to these facts. Plaintiffs sought damages from defendants “including, but not limited to, the cost of raising and educating Maize May Macomber, the medical and other expenses of the pregnancy and childbirth, the medical and other expenses of a subsequent hysterectomy for purposes of sterilization, lost wages, loss of consortium, the medical and other expenses of the unsuccessful tubal ligation, permanent physical impairment to Roxanne Macomber resulting from bearing Maize May, her sixth child, and physical and mental pain and suffering resulting [therefrom].” ..