ABSTRACT
The question we must ask, then, is whether any coherent reason can be given for denying choice to prospective parents. If respect for autonomy does not succeed as a convincing argument against choice, then we must consider, in turn, the other ethical rules that might be infringed. Contemporary bioethics, as we have seen, typically lists a number of core principles that must be weighed in evaluating controversial actions. The influential ‘pluralist’ approach espoused by Beauchamp and Childress was concerned with, respectively, respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. Considerable weight is also still accorded, in some circles, to the socalled categorical imperative, broadly construed as respecting persons as ends in themselves, rather than as mere means to some other end. As we will see, ethicists differ on the question of which of these broad principles is most important, and even those philosophers who agree that, say, justice matters most can disagree greatly about what exactly that concept involves, or how it should be applied in particular cases.
