Principle Q can be viewed in a consequentialist paradigm with dangerous implications. If the only morally permissible option is the one with the best consequences, then Michael Phelps and Michelle Obama could be morally obligated to have the best superhuman swimmer, amazing armed babies. Assuming one is morally obligated to mate with the best gene option tiptoes the line of eugenics too close for comfort. However, the defense of Q wherein parents are only obligated to produce the best children that they are able to produce solves this issue.
But, what does “that they are able to produce” mean? That’s entirely subjective. Does it mean that the couple is able to produce? What about those looking for a sperm donor? Is one morally obligated to find the fittest sperm donor with the least gene imperfections? Is picking a sperm donor with known gene abnormalities morally impermissible? Where is the line to draw on obligation vs. ability?
Additionally, I think Q can be contrasted with the anti-abortion argument of a Future-Like-Ours. The Future-Like-Ours argument dictates that abortion is wrong because you are unjustly taking away the future of the fetus that would have entailed playing on a swingset, going for a run, eating a donut, and various other pleasures. Is cloning wrong with a Future-Like-Ours mindset because the clone will have significantly less future than a non-clone? Or-is denying the clone a life worse than giving them an opportunity for a future?
