From a debate called “Making Better Babies,” a passage in which Oxford ethicist Julian Savulescu argues that is not just an option but an obligation that we genetically modify our descendants:

“So if we accept that we should treat diseases and use genetics to prevent disease in our offspring, my argument is that we should also value those traits and the genetic contributions to those traits which affect how well our lives and our children’s lives will go.

Now I have in the past controversially argued that we have a moral obligation to do this. Currently it’s legally impermissible to select these sorts of traits in Australia, and I think this is profoundly wrong. However, more strongly not only do I think that people should be able to do it, they should do it.

Why do I say that? Well, if I said to you, people should protect their children from disease, it’s uncontroversial. But if disease is only important because it makes our children’s lives worse, so too parents should choose those genes or choose those states which will promote a better life for the child. 

We have many obligations. We have an obligation to provide good diet and education to our children, to stop climate change, to alleviate global poverty. We have obligations to ourselves and our families. We have many competing obligations. One of those obligations is to try to ensure that our children have the best lives possible and the best advantage when they start life.” (Thanks Practical Ethics.)