The evolution of technology has gone hand in hand with human subjugation of the earth, but the question persists: when does the use of technology go too far? Advances in medical science have greatly improved the average human lifespan and the quality of life of individuals. Medical science and biology are constantly coming up with new ways to make humans superior through the use of advanced genetic alterations. This capability raises the question of how should this new technology be used, if at all? The idea of ​​human enhancement is very general, as humans constantly “improve” themselves through the use of tools. When I talk about human enhancement, I am referring specifically to the use of genetic intervention before birth. Julian Savulescu in his “Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Improving Human Beings” argues that not only is it permissible to intervene genetically, but it is morally obligatory. In this article I will argue that it is not morally obligatory to intervene genetically, but it can be permitted according to the criterion established by Savulescu. I intend to argue that the argument used by Savulescu in favor of the obligation of genetic intervention is not the same as the obligation of disease prevention and treatment. The ability of humans to intervene genetically is not sufficient to provide a moral obligation. In order to fully argue against Savulescu it is necessary to first explain in depth his arguments for the permissibility and obligation of genetic improvement. The first argument put forward in favor of the permissibility of genetic improvement is the “negligent parents” postulate. Savulescu considers the case of two types of parents, negligent parents and lazy parents. Neglectful parents have a chi...... middle of paper ......and free from disability or illness. Therefore, any attempt to exceed the normal range of human capabilities would be considered an improvement and not the treatment or prevention of disease. Savulescu's argument for the moral obligation to improve treats the normal range of human capabilities as an obstacle to one's opportunities for a better life. This is evident in this statement, “unless there is something special and optimal about our children's physical, psychological, or cognitive abilities… it would be wrong not to improve them” (Savulescu 420). To view the natural range of human capabilities as an obstacle to an individual's ability to live a better life is to call for the elimination of natural variance in the human population. It does not follow that the moral obligation to treat and prevent disease implies an obligation to value children.