Having a Child to Save Another - by Patrick Gasda

In the Alaya case, the family had a child in order to save the life of an older sibling of the child. This was done in all the best intentions to save the existing child’s life. But there are so many risks involved to the new child that many say that it is not worth it to try this method. The other major snafu is that the baby was created as a means to an end rather than the “normal” reasons for having a child. But what are the normal reasons to have a child anyways? When a family wants a child, they decide to for any number of reasons. Having a child might bring risks to the mother, the family, or to the kid being born. The thing is, we all take risks and it is basic part of life. In fact, some might say we need to take risks in order to live a good life. I think it is well within the acceptable amount of risk to have a kid to save another.

Another major concern is if this last ditch effort did not end up saving the other child. Eventually, the new kid would find out, and might live with a bad feeling for the rest of their lives that they failed. They might also feel less human thinking that they were not born out of love or want of another kid (or other “normal” reasons), but instead for some other reason. Maybe they would have bad parents that would neglect the “bad” child or somehow be vindictive against them. I feel this would not happen under normal circumstances because most parents are not this irresponsible. I believe that since people live with their decisions and actions, they would try to the best of their abilities to make the most of their new child. Since now their other is dead, they can start with this fresh kid. Thus, overall, I think that having a kid for the sake of saving another’s life is morally permissible.