But what about the rare cases where the child eventually overcomes their symptoms?
In that case, a potential person is not brought in the world, much like happens every time you are fertile and don't get pregnant, or the fact that more fertilized zygotes spontaneously self-destruct than actually get implanted into a uterus. I think it's a little too broad to deem it a tragedy that someone who could have existed doesn't exist. Shit, if you want to get really philosophical, the consequences of little insignificant actions we do every day a part of a series of cause and effect that he resulted in thousands of people who exist and also thousands of other people who could have existed instead of the ones that do.
Sure, if a woman is pregnant she may be emotionally invested in it, and if she was optimistic and joyful about the possibility of bringing a child into the world, finding out the pregnancy has a huge risk for or confirmed defect and deciding to abort it, that is tragic. But it's tragic for the woman and the father and all the people who are currently alive, it is not at all sad for the little fetus who never was because the little fetus who never was can't care because it can't think.
It's just so unnecessary, why can't they just live the baby as they are? Why waste loads of money on making your child look "perfect"? It interferring with nature too much in my opinion. It may not "hurt" them in any obvious way, but I think creates indirect problems for society if this kind of practise became common. There would be the "designer babies" of the people rich enough to afford them, and then the "normal" babies of everyone else. I think life would become far too much like a sci fi movie if people start altering everything about their unborn children just because they can.
Our species has spent its entire existence interfering with nature, the fact that we alter nature is what defines us, it is the reason we are actually significant and not just another primate subspecies roaming around the jungles.
Your entire quality of life exists because people have spent thousands of years interfering with nature to give you doubled life spans from your ancestors, to make you taller, to cure diseases that would otherwise kill you. In fact, interfering with nature is what reduced infant mortality from staggeringly high numbers to a relatively rare thing.
I like futurology. I like 200 year lifespans and artificially enhanced muscle mass and genetically engineered purple eyes, shit let's start breathing underwater and lighting shit on fire with our minds. Sure, it's crazy now, but little white things that do more to curing disease than cutting open someone's skull was crazy at one point.
Or maybe we'll all nuke each other and go extinct, or peak oil will end civilization and we'll turn into a sad parody of Mad Max. But, you know what, as long as mankind can continue to unfold its powers, I say it's all very interesting and should be encouraged in general.
In that scenario, nine times out of ten it'll be the other way around http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...
Having read everyone's replies, I think I'm just a little bit more against it than I am in support of it. Sure, if was used to detect and get rid of things like cancer, leukemia (Did I spell that right?) etc, it'd be great. But where is the line gonna be drawn? Will a line even be drawn at all? I agree with Yvonne, we'd end up in a sci-fi movie if it was let progress far enough. I believe medical research will eventually find a cure for such diseases, and when they do, who's to say that a way of preventing it from happening at all wont be discovered?
Our modern lives are our ancestors' proverbial sci fi movie.
Either we as a species deserve progress, in which case it will continually enhance our quality of life, or we don't, in which case we'll destroy ourselves. But we can't sit back stagnant and say 'enough is enough'.