by Sixstrings » Sun 24 Apr 2011, 11:47:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')here is nothing good about genetic flaws. Nature's way of weeding them out is not a prescription for happy living.
Much better to have control over that whole process. Eliminate all that suffering if possible.
Eh..
Dude that sounds like eugenics. Who's to say what traits are desirable and what aren't? "Eliminate all that suffering.." you're painting with an awfully big brush there, who's fit to live and who isn't.

Example.. Stephen Hawking. Horrid, terrible, debilitating genetic disease. He's also one of the most brilliant minds ever. Now.. how do you REALLY know his disease hasn't made him the man he is? It could well be that his extreme disability has allowed him to focus on physics in a way that a "healthy" able-bodied person couldn't.
And what about something like bi-polar. If we breed that out, then we'll have far fewer brilliant artists, writers, scientists. Should Van Gogh have never lived, since he wasn't a perfect "designer" human? And who will be making these decisions, what is perfect and what is defective.
Bottom line.. what you think you WANT your child to be is not necessarily what is good for humanity at large. This is short-circuiting evolution, removing nature as the arbiter of what counts as success.