Is it wrong to take Baby Teresa's life so she can donate her organs to others in need even though she can only live for a few days? Although some might argue that it is morally wrong to take an innocent person's life, she could be saving many others' lives by donating her organs. I will be defending the Benefits Argument in this paper, and I will argue that transplanting the organs will indeed benefit other children. I will first present a general overview of the Baby Teresa case, and then I will present the facts to my Benefits Argument. I will then present an opposing argument, how someone would attack my views, and then I will defend my argument from the objection. Finally, in the conclusion I will give certain highlights and restate important facts of this paper.
             Teresa Ann Campo Pearson, also known as "Baby Teresa" was born with a rare congenital disorder known as Anencephaly. This type of disorder is sometimes referred to as "babies without brains". Important parts of the brain such as the cerebellum, the cerebrum, and the top of the skull are missing. Because there is a brain stem, autonomic functions such as breathing and heartbeat are possible. However, the baby usually dies within a few days after birth. Baby Teresa's parents, along with her physicians agreed that her organs and eyes should go to other children who could benefit them. Because her organs included her kidneys, liver, heart, lungs, and eyes, this could benefit at least a few children who are in need of transplants. At least 2000 infants need transplants each year, however, because there are not enough organ donors, many children die. Although Baby Teresa's parents agreed to donate her organs to other children, the Florida state law denied this operation because the law states that the donor must be dead before they can donate their organs. Baby Teresa died 9 days after her birth and because her orga...