Sample Argumentative Essay Paper on What is “the principle of procreative beneficence”? Explain Savulescu’s argument in favour of “procreative beneficence”. Do you agree with Savulescu? Why or why not?

There has been a lot of discussions going on with respect to Julian Savulescu’s argument on procreative
beneficence. The author alleges that it is a moral obligation for all parents to have a best child. That is, parents
have an obligation of having a child that is best to their imaginations. Therefore, prospective parents should
have a best child of the children they are to have. Although there has been a lot of heated debates to the issue,
there has not been any argument that has succeeded in refuting this argument. The author proposed the principle
after alleged possibility of parents having to choose between multiple embryos. Through vitro fertilisation,
parents can select among embryos and thus can possibly select a best’s child. In addition, rise in technological
advances has enabled the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD which allows for detection of any
defects as well as colour. Therefore, couples have tended to make use of the advances to ensure they reduce
risks of diseases, as well as bad traits in their children. The technologies have thus been used in selection of
gender as well as selection of non-medical traits.

Noting this, Savulescu’s thus argues that in most cases, existence of bad traits, like having diseases makes one
not lead a best life. Therefore, parent have a reason to use available information to get the best. The author adds
that parents have all information at their disposal and thus should select an embryo likely to live a best life.
Thus, making use of the genes of intelligence and gender, the author argues that parent should select the best
although he recognises that it could lead to social inequality. Therefore, well stated, the author calls on parents
to select a child, who is their best selection, form the possible children they would have, ensuring that the child
would lead a possibly good life, given the available information. The author this supports the argument since
parents recognise existence of technological advances, and they are doing all this since they care for their
children and it’s their duty to want the best for their kinds.

Therefore, I support the argument of Savulescu’s. This is because, all parent are rational human being. They
naturally want the best for their children. Culturally, most parent have gender concerns with some wanting a
mixed gender, while other have preference for males. Therefore, making use of technological advances, as well
as moving with time is an important aspect. Information is vital in development, intelligence is a vital aspect of
leading a good life in the current age. Therefore, the argument that parents should select a best’s child leads to

life self-satisfaction on the side of the parent as they are concerned about the welfare of their child and a good
life for the child. In addition, technological advance should be seen as tool to development, in this case, they
lead to reduced risk of worse and increase reproductive choices and thus strengthening the principle.

Anderson suggests that commercial surrogacy contracts should not be “enforceable”. What does
Anderson mean by this, and what is her argument for this position? Do you agree with Anderson? Why
or why not?

Elizabeth recognises that in the recent past, there has been a rise in surrogacy which has been seen as a mean
through which parent who could not have children previously can have. She describes commercial surrogacy as
when a woman, is paid to bear a child and on delivery surrenders the child to another woman who becomes a
sole owner thus terminating their parental rights. Therefore, leading to raised arguments that women productive
capacity has been treated as a good that can traded while the market has not been well scoped. Therefore, the
author regard commercial surrogacy as an activity that regards children as durables and women as baby
factories. Consequently, it undermines the beauty of procreation and women reproductive capability.

Therefore, the author dictates that surrogacy should not be allowed under the natural laws of the land. She
argues that surrogates should not give up children they have developed a bond with. Thus, alleges it should be
illegal as it degrades women dignity, leads to children trafficking, and subjects women and children to a
possibility of exploitation. The author argues that the beauty of being a woman is the ability to labour which
should not be seen as production of any other commodity.

The author in her argument also recognises that commercial surrogacy is against human morals, and social
justice. Although it has been supported, Elizabeth argues that it raises ethical issues and invades into the norms
of good market practice. She alleges that treating women labour as a commodity, leads to degradation of
women capability. In addition, children are also degraded, and their value diminishes as they are treated just
like any other commodity. Looking at the children aspect, she argues that the transfers, interfere with trust and
love that parent should have for their children. The norms actually change from trust to those of property rights.
The surrogate, gives up her parental rights for monetary gain which contradicts the norms of parenthood and
unconditional trust. This leads to loss of child value as it can be traded and a price tagged to it. Therefore, could
as well be substituted. In addition, it lead to conditional love which should not be the case. Also, surrogacy
leads to loss of freedom as the surrogate mother is denied parental right and any attachment is broken in

whichever means. On the part of women, they would be exploited and the beauty of labour is undermined.
Since they are seen as baby factories, the natural beauty of carrying the baby to labour is not acknowledged.

I support the argument of Elizabeth. This is on ground of human dignity and moral norms. Although
technological advances have made things more realistic and applicable, humans are valuable pieces that cannot
be at any instance compared to a good. They cannot be priced nor traded in a market place. In addition, morally,
creation is Godly, and thus should be treated as so. Humans should not interfere with the reproductive process.
In this regards, God chooses who becomes a mother and thus humans don’t need to exchange children at the
market. In addition, the value of a child cannot be determined. Hence the thought of having a fair price for it is
against the market norms and human dignity.

In cases of severe shortage of supply of (and high demand for) life-saving medical resources, should age
be considered as a factor when determining priority in access? Why or why not?

There is a rising recognition that people in need of immediate medical attention has risen. All economic
resources are scarce and in most cases demand outweigh supply. Leading to the principle of opportunity cost
and choice. In the health care facilities for instance, resources are rationed and thus they are not available to
some patients. Rationing has not been avoidable. This is attributed to the limitless needs. However, how the
rationing is done and the factors attributed to the rationing becomes crucial since it portrays the value placed on
a society. It also has an implication of life possibility of an individual.

On bases of economic growth and development, as well as on bases of cost, age should be a factor that should
influence allocation of life-saving resources. The lifesaving resources like ICU facilities are scare in most
countries. For instance, in the case of COVID-19, giving priority to people below the age of 75 would be more
useful as they can contribute to reshape and rejuvenation of the lost resources unlike taking care of past 75 who
actually depend on the government for aid.

A lot of economists and researchers in other fields agree that younger people are bale to fight disease and
respond more quickly. Therefore, the scarce medical facilities can be used by another patient faster as compared
to if they had earlier been used by the elderly. Also it has been noted that economies are driven by the energetic
younger individuals. They also respond well to medication which lead to costs saving. Research has also shown
that the aged have many other health complications and thus may require also to attention which makes them a
less priority group in use of the lifesaving facilities.

Although it is recognised that all life are equally important. It is also important to assess their viability as well
as the productive capability. For instance, younger persons can be able to withstand harsh environments, they
contribute to economic development, and costs less to care for them. Unlike the young, the old past 75 are
already retired and thus are spending on their retirement benefit as well as extracting benefits from others. After
recovery, they have to be taken care of which calls for attention from people who would have otherwise been
busy doing things that lead to economic development. Therefore, it should be necessary that lifesaving
equipment be given priority to person that can drive the economy and thus age should be a factor in
determination of who gets to use the