Julian Savulescu's Argument Analysis

Julian Savulescu’s argument rests on the idea that it is morally acceptable for parents to select embryos going off the potential for disease and non-disease traits. Meaning diseases, intellectual capacity, behavioral, and physical traits that are present. Savulescu’s ideas point to beneficence, what he calls procreative beneficence, which states that it is the duty of the parent to do the most good for the child by selecting embryos that have the potential to have the best life possible. This point relies heavily on the theory of utilitarianism, in that the parents are increasing the happiness of the child, while reducing the unhappiness that could potentially come from lower intelligence, disease, and behavioral issues. He rejects the widely held idea that it is morally inadmissible …show more content…
One of the principles is procreative autonomy, which he explains as the parent or creator has the complete say in how to procreate, so that if they wanted they could choose an embryo that has predisposition for a disease (Savulescu, 6). Another principle he discusses is non-directive counseling, which is the idea that medical professionals could only tell parents the risks and ways to reduce risks. That is, the professional cannot steer the parents in one way or the other with regards to their final decision (Savulescu, 7). The final principle is going with what is in the best interest of the child, over the parent’s best interest (Tate, 17). One argument Savulescu puts forward is, should we choose an embryo that is not predisposed for violent behavior (Savulescu, 8)? Savulescu argues that since we are seeking what is the best for the child, we ought to choose embryos that are not prone to violence and anger simply because this would cause friction with the law and thus cause suffering for the individual (Savulescu,