A Birth to Save a Life
A Birth to Save a Life
1. I think that it is morally wrong for a child to be created for "parts". Donor children are often referred to as "savior siblings", "spare part sisters", or "bred to order brothers". These names create the assumptin that the children are created merely for instrumental reasons, or to serve as a donor for the sick sibling, and not for their own sake. Same goes for clones, as soon as a clone (or any other human being) has achieved personhood, it deserves the same respect as any other being with those dispositional capacity. The ethical principle of equality demands no less.
2. There are many reasons not to have children, such as responsibility, less free time, money, relationship stress, ect. There are also many reasons to have children, such as love, entertainment, re-living childhood, ect. There are also pros and cons to reproductive technologies. Technology makes families that are unable to have children, able to have them. The con, on the other hand, is the fact that there are so many children in the world who need good parents to adopt them.
3. Choosing embryos for a variety of traits is very similar to creating whatever kind of child you want, which I believe is wrong. A person should be thankful for whatever their child comes out like, naturally. It angers me that people would want their children to come out a certain way. It's almost saying that they will only love a child if it turns out the way they want it to. This is similar to cloning in the fact that I believe they are both morally wrong.
4. Abe and Mary Ayala did something very similar to the Nashes. They created a child to use for a donor for their daughter, who had been stricken with Leukemia. I don't see many differences between what the two families did. To me, they are very similar in moral wrong-ness and situations.
5. Of course they are going to love their child, whether or not they produced it for donor parts. It's a child and it's part of the family. I
1. I think that it is morally wrong for a child to be created for "parts". Donor children are often referred to as "savior siblings", "spare part sisters", or "bred to order brothers". These names create the assumptin that the children are created merely for instrumental reasons, or to serve as a donor for the sick sibling, and not for their own sake. Same goes for clones, as soon as a clone (or any other human being) has achieved personhood, it deserves the same respect as any other being with those dispositional capacity. The ethical principle of equality demands no less.
2. There are many reasons not to have children, such as responsibility, less free time, money, relationship stress, ect. There are also many reasons to have children, such as love, entertainment, re-living childhood, ect. There are also pros and cons to reproductive technologies. Technology makes families that are unable to have children, able to have them. The con, on the other hand, is the fact that there are so many children in the world who need good parents to adopt them.
3. Choosing embryos for a variety of traits is very similar to creating whatever kind of child you want, which I believe is wrong. A person should be thankful for whatever their child comes out like, naturally. It angers me that people would want their children to come out a certain way. It's almost saying that they will only love a child if it turns out the way they want it to. This is similar to cloning in the fact that I believe they are both morally wrong.
4. Abe and Mary Ayala did something very similar to the Nashes. They created a child to use for a donor for their daughter, who had been stricken with Leukemia. I don't see many differences between what the two families did. To me, they are very similar in moral wrong-ness and situations.
5. Of course they are going to love their child, whether or not they produced it for donor parts. It's a child and it's part of the family. I