Procreative Beneficence Argument Analysis

An implication of Procreative Beneficence is that we are morally obligated to genetically engineer our children. One of its argument supports that we need to select certain traits and remove other traits to produce the best life possible for a child. Its application is to produce healthier children and children more prone to success, as said by Savulescu. Habermas argues that Procreative Beneficence violates the autonomy of a child and raises an issue of blaming the creators for the child’s actions. In this essay, I will be analyzing the implications of Procreative Beneficence suggested by Savulescu, arguing against Procreative Beneficence in the manner that it violates human autonomy, along with my personal opinion of the immorality of creating

Choosing against disabilities because it would create the best life for the child is an excuse, people want an easy life, choosing against disabilities will make it less hard for the parents to raise and provide care for the child. A healthy child is less responsibility. My argument is supported by the Kantian theory. Kant’s categorical imperative requires us to follow the general rule or universal law. We cannot treat people as a means to an end, genetically engineering babies to create a child without disabilities is a thought of a parent who is only thinking of making his or her life simpler. Disabled children require extensive care and the parent is trying to avoid this by creating a healthier child. It also applies to parents who want to fulfill desires such as having a smart child or athletic kid. These acts violate the imperative. The parents are treating their child as if they are less of a child and more of an object. In this sense, it instrumentalizes the child because of the selection of traits that are made. It violates Kant’s rule of never treating a person merely as a means, in this case, a child to fulfill the desires by imputing certain traits and eradicating other traits for the ease of