Philosophy
Conceiving a Child for the Wrong Purposes
It is wrong to conceive a child for the purposes of saving another. There are cases in which parents only conceive a child to save the life of another. It is unfair to the child conceived because it was not made out of love. The child was conceived for instrumental reasons. In a case presentation called “A Birth to Save a Life” there are several focal points that discussed the arguments of conceiving a child for the wrong purposes. The movie My Sister’s Keeper is based on a true story of a family who conceives a child to save the life of the oldest sibling who has leukemia. People may think that it is fine to do it in order to save another child’s life. However, it can deprive the future of the newborn because the operations and transplants can cause harm his or her development. It is sad that parents are not thinking about the child they are bringing to life that are using as a tool for an older sibling. Parents should let nature take its course to create a child the normal way. No child should meet any specific genetic requirements. Children are not toys that parents can customize the way they desire. It is wrong to conceive a child for the purposes of saving another. The case presentation “A Birth to Save a Child” is about a baby named Molly Mash who was bon with fanconi anemia. Molly’s parents decided to conceive another child with the same genes to help the sibling’s life. There was a fear that Molly would die from leukemia. When Adam Nash was born, he became his sister’s primary donor because they were compatible in every way. Basically, Adam was only created and brought to this world for the purpose of saving Molly. In my opinion, it is outrageous that two parents would agree to bring a child to life to save another not realizing that it can harm both children at the end. Biochemist Jeffrey P. Kahn (2000) said “We’ve crosses the line that we really never crosses before, selecting based on
It is wrong to conceive a child for the purposes of saving another. There are cases in which parents only conceive a child to save the life of another. It is unfair to the child conceived because it was not made out of love. The child was conceived for instrumental reasons. In a case presentation called “A Birth to Save a Life” there are several focal points that discussed the arguments of conceiving a child for the wrong purposes. The movie My Sister’s Keeper is based on a true story of a family who conceives a child to save the life of the oldest sibling who has leukemia. People may think that it is fine to do it in order to save another child’s life. However, it can deprive the future of the newborn because the operations and transplants can cause harm his or her development. It is sad that parents are not thinking about the child they are bringing to life that are using as a tool for an older sibling. Parents should let nature take its course to create a child the normal way. No child should meet any specific genetic requirements. Children are not toys that parents can customize the way they desire. It is wrong to conceive a child for the purposes of saving another. The case presentation “A Birth to Save a Child” is about a baby named Molly Mash who was bon with fanconi anemia. Molly’s parents decided to conceive another child with the same genes to help the sibling’s life. There was a fear that Molly would die from leukemia. When Adam Nash was born, he became his sister’s primary donor because they were compatible in every way. Basically, Adam was only created and brought to this world for the purpose of saving Molly. In my opinion, it is outrageous that two parents would agree to bring a child to life to save another not realizing that it can harm both children at the end. Biochemist Jeffrey P. Kahn (2000) said “We’ve crosses the line that we really never crosses before, selecting based on