  Sparrow also questions the justification for the assumption that parents ought to have the best child they could have. If we are morally obligated to produce the best, and if any embryos we can produce are not likely to rank very high relative to those of others, wouldn’t there also be an obligation to use a donated embryo (or a clone of the embryo that is the best) (Sparrow 2011a)? To be fair, Savulescu argues that other moral reasons can trump prospective parents’ moral obligations to choose the best child, and some degree of reproductive autonomy will surely fit there. Nonetheless, the tension between parental choices and consequentialist demands is difficult to escape. Moreover, as Sparrow points out, even if advocates of an obligation to enhance – like Savulescu and Harris – deny any requirement for the government to coerce individuals to participate in genetic interventions for the sake of enhancement, governments might still be obligated to implement policies that are not strictly coercive, e.g., systems of incentives and targeted health campaigns. Doing so would be a form of state-sponsored control – even if only through non-coercive pressure – of reproduction, and thus much more like troubling old-style eugenics.