Well, you want shades of grey? For me the following examples has some...

1. Our medicine can save lifes of babies that weren't born alive or would have died short after birth without it; a mother won't have as many children anymore and there would not be a harsh selection as it was about some hundred years ago without modern antibiotics, surgery and so on
2. Having those babies alive and letting them reproduce will probably bring more illnesses into human race (if you accept the presumtion of evolution being true) that will have to be treatet by even more modern medicine in future generations, because it's no more "survival of the fittest", but survival of the first-born


So what would be ethical correct = white? To save as much lifes as we can, just because we can and don't matter what this will do to humankind and what damage might be done to our genetic pool?
Or to let children die if they can't survive without modern medicine?

For me both ways are wrong and I don't know a solution. I would not accept to let someone die if it can be helped, but I don't think it's right the other way round, either, for it might damage future generations and weaken humankind to extinction.

So for me what we do is grey, but I don't see a white way - do you? At least without just ignoring the consequences that might be...

I'm not very good in translating examples into english, I'm sorry. But for me there's a lot of human interaction where I only see shades of grey. That's a lot of politics - there's always someone who will have to suffer without any fault and unrightful because of some political decisions.

Sibylle