92% agree, except for the part about having a child just for their organs. Unless you were just giving an example...?
It's a semi-common event.
Sometimes if a young child has a life-threatening illness that effects organs like the kidney or liver, then finding a transplant can be difficult, due to the lack of donated organs of children, and difficulties that may arise due to bloody-types.
As a result, there have been some cases, where families have had an additional child in the hope that it will provide a compatible organ. Organs like the kidneys or parts of the liver can be safely removed from the new child, without affecting it's health, and can be given to the older child to save its life.
It doesn't mean that the new child is disposed of or not cared for, since it just becomes a normal child as part of a family.
It's not exceedingly common, but it is an event that happens. And it is obviously a lot cheaper, and more natural, than cloning organs (or a person) to transplant into the sick child.
There's a slightly different method, which does have more ethical implications, where parents may decide to conceive a child in order to produce stem-cells which can be used in the treatment of the sick older child.
In this scenario the child is not born, and raises ethical questions based on the view of when does life begin.
Some would say that a life starts at conception and therefore taking stem cells will kill the baby, making it murder. But that's just one view. It's essentially part of the pro-life/pro-choice argument.
Poll