PhysicsGirl:

Parents make medical decisions for their children becuase children aren't capable of thinking everything through. If you asked a kid whether he wanted a shot, the answer would be no. So I do not see why it is perfectly find to not give children a choice in all these other cases, but then claim they should have a choice in this.

Yes, parents make medical decisions for their children, but those are for the child's benefit. The parent is usually acting in the best interest of the child receiving the treatment.

PhysicsGirl:

How hysterical. You can't claim that it is the "sole" reason the parents have brought the child into the world. It's never that simple. For instance, they may have planned on other children prior to finding out the medical condition of the first child. Even if they didn't, the parents aren't going to simply throw away the child after the procedure is done.

It may not be the "sole" reason, but it certainly is the primary one, or they wouldn't be going through so much trouble to sort out incompatible embryos. And of course they aren't going to throw the child out, because legally they can't.

PhysicsGirl:

Stating that they're only bringing it into the world to "inflict pain" ingores the fact that there is a specific reason for "inflicting pain". Another issue is that you've arbitarily decided which procedures are necessary or unnessary based on your personal preference. There isn't one right answer in this case.

They are being brought into the world to suffer pain for unnecessary procedures. It's not my preference. They are unnecessary for the health of the child. They are specifically being done for the benefit of someone else. Where exactly is the line drawn? What if the parent needs the donor tissue/organs? Is it OK then to bring a life into the world for your own spare parts?