For most people, the only way to conceive a child is through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman by placing the egg and sperm into a woman's uterus . In common practice, this is the only way to conceive a child. However, as time has passed, with parenting having changed completely thanks to assisted reproductive technology (ART), the usual norm of conceiving a child has changed dramatically in recent decades. Lewis Vaughn describes this process to “deal with the distressing problem of infertility and the strong desire that many people have for their children, especially children with whom they have a biological connection” (Vaughn 392). The methods of reproductive technology have always been understood in the scientific world, however they remain a controversial topic among people. Cynthia Cohen's article, “'Give me babies or I'll die!' New Reproductive Technologies and Harm to Children,” discusses evidence that reproductive technologies cause disease and defects in a small percentage of children. Cohen argues that it would be wrong to use reproductive technologies if they caused harm to children. There are proponents of this argument who advance the “existence concern argument,” according to which, even if reproductive technologies cause harm to children, they are still morally permissible because “it is better to be alive than not to be” ( p. .427). Cohen sees several problems with this argument as he discusses it throughout his article. Cohen's argument states that reproductive technology causes more harm and disease to children and, for this reason, shows that it is morally permissible not to use them, in which she calls this the harm to children... middle of paper... rather that not having life because the state of non-existence is neither good nor bad. This would appear to alleviate unjust living standards and insist on a reevaluation that does not encourage the use of reproductive technologies if they were shown to increase the number of individuals born with severe defects. Overall, Cohen's argument for why reproductive technologies cause health harm to children is not a bad one at all. He presents his case for why reproductive technologies are harmful and explains it well. The rationale he presents from both supporters and opponents of the topic leads to further questions and debate about whether such technologies cause impairments to children. Furthermore, this debacle leads to further investigations into the effects of the technology. However, he believes that the only justification the technology brings is that it produces children.