In Stills v. Gratton (1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 698, the court held that a three and one-half year-old minor did not state a cause of action against a doctor by alleging the doctor had negligently caused him to be born illegitimate because the doctor had failed to abort successfully the plaintiff at the request of the mother shortly after conception. Relying upon decisions from the distinguished courts of New York, Illinois and New Jersey, the court noted several reasons for denying recovery. First, the court noted that such a tort had yet to be recognized by any court in any jurisdiction. Second, the court noted that "the issue involved is more theological or philosophical than legal." ( Stills v. Gratton, supra , 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 705.) Third, the court noted that the legal implications of creating such a new tort would be "vast, the social impact could be staggering," and that new litigation spawned by such recognition would be formidable. Finally, the court noted the difficult and unanswerable problem of measuring damages in such a case: " 'This court cannot weigh the value of life with impairments against the nonexistence of life itself. By asserting that he should not have been born, the infant plaintiff makes it logically impossible for a court to measure his alleged damages because of the impossibility of making the comparison required by compensatory remedies.'" ( Stills v. Gratton, supra , 55 Cal.App.3d at p. 706.) Noting that tort damages serve to compensate a plaintiff for injury caused by a defendant's negligent conduct and are awarded to the extent that a plaintiff can be restored to the position he would have occupied had the tort not occurred, the Stills court rejected the notion that damages should be measured by comparing plaintiff with a child born without handicap or illegitimacy. (Ibid.)