.

My son is an IVF baby. It is pretty cool what can be done. We did genetic testing as a five day old blastocyst. Already the cells are differentiated enough that they can take a couple cells from what will eventually become the placenta (this creates a small error rates as the code in the placenta can be different from the main cells that form the embryo). We were only testing for the "normal" panel of genetics as we have no specific history.

What I found somewhat interesting at this stage is that part of the goal with getting genetically normal embryos is that this reduces the number you are transferring in that are completely pointless as most of the genetic disorders are just not viable for life or even pregnancy, so you are saving the money by genetically testing.

Anyways this doesn't answer the OPs question, but I thought I would share anyways as it gives me at least a bit more respect for the power of the science.

That is quite the cool coincidence.

Thanks for the info, I actually did not know that it was more prevalent in specific ancestries.

Pro Athletes that have Menza IQ's who are all great looking.

And then there is that one country, with normal, unattractive, unathletic, dummies but proud of their principles.

It's a treatment.

In my nephews case with the severe cleft lip from birth through his first 7 years of life so far he has been going through these corrective surgeries as his head grows and adjustments are made.

It is definitely his struggle, his trial and his test. He is a great kid but very shy compared to his siblings, and the family believes it largely due to the physical deformity and feeling different. Hopefully he over comes that.

Surviving struggles is good and it does contribute to character but it does not always produce a superior result to not having that challenge.

I would save my child that type of challenge every time.

Are you religious IHIV? It seems to me you are in the camp worried this may be too close to 'god's' area and man should not be playing here?

This will probably be expensive, too. To avoid widening the achievement gap between rich and poor, do we put the government in charge of payment and delivery? Is the list of cheat codes for government-sponsored gene editing shorter than what you can get at a private clinic? Maybe the government only allows correction of medical abnormalities, but GeneCo Inc. in the big black glass tower will juice your kid up to max stat rolls, GATTACA-style.

Of course, it's all fun and games until they figure out the gay gene. Wokester battle for the ages.

What a fun little thought experiment this is.

I'm an agnostic, skeptic, individualist who believes in principals over ideologies, and seeks objective truths. I would not be much of an individualist if I started messing with another person's genes and aligning them according to my own preferences, but I'm not necessarily opposed to treatment to ease suffering. I don't know where the line exist where it's personal preference and treatment, and if we can distinguish between the two.

Inso0 as they say 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'.

I think that will apply to areas of 'medical abnormalities' as you say. Thankfully my nephew is a Canadian getting his multiple corrective surgeries in Canada. I can't imagine what a US family with inadequate healthcare would do as the expense would be massive. I guess the kid would live with the minimal necessary surgery.

Like with everything yes this will even more advantage the rich and disadvantage the poor as I suspect if Western Nations fight this and ban 'designer babies' (improvements for improvements sake) you will see an industry of 'Pregnancy Travel' spring up where couples quietly take a "Vacation" and come back to birth the "perfect" baby.

If the evidence is clear, in other countries allowing it that it is not only safe but does exactly what is in the fine print ('smarter', 'better looking', 'healthier'...) I will bet parents with discretionary income, will travel to get that benefit.

So you are correct that until gov't (healthcare) makes it available to all, it will only increase the problems. But economically I would bet it would be a positive, even with the non-necessary procedures in. Having a society that is overall healthier from birth on will result in mass savings to society.

Ya, I think the bolded is the debate.

If I know my kid will be born with Down Syndrome and I can correct it, out of principle I am not going to let him 'deal with it' to 'build character' or to 'preserve his individual rights'.

But between 'correcting down syndrome' and 'adding 2 inches to my kids height because I was great at basketball and if only I had two more inches I may have made the pro's and I want my kid to have that chance' ... is going to a very robust and fair debate.

Oh, I'm on board with preventing diseases before they have a chance to manifest.

I just don't think you're considering that your definition of what constitutes disease might differ from other people.

Some of the most impactful humans the world has ever known were undeniably "broken" in some way. Who knows how those lives might've turned out if not for some early struggles.

The whole idea of gene editing is a, "This is why we can't have nice things" situation waiting to happen.

In a world where people can literally choose their own skin color, imagine the ridicule some would face for their parents having made the "wrong" choice, or maybe not even have had one.

...there are more ways to add inches to people if you get my drift. Thoughts?

I don't see down syndrome as something you correct, as in I don't see it as being incorrect. I think those who have down syndrome are some of the greatest humans in the world,and at least to me they appear to be some of the happiest. It has nothing to do with building character either. Our idiosyncrasies is what makes us individuals. some of those idiosyncrasies are more challenging than others. If you want me to continue to interact with you. I advise you not to continue to take what I say and present it in in the most uncharitable/cynical way.

I have not. I think I have been totally respectful of your views and largely agree the issues you have selected are the correct ones and there will be debate and difference and that is ok.

For me, while I have known a few people with DS and agree generally with you characterization there is not even 1 chance in a Million, I do not correct in my pre-born, if the tech is available.

My reasoning would be that I think DS is very limiting, and yes while the person can be very happy living within that reality, I would still want them to have the full potential the rest of us get, even if within that is the risk they might not be as happy.

Can't really disagree with any of this. I wonder what happens when the parents disagree My bil's sister wanted another kid(had 2 already) and her husband didn't so she went and did in vitro behind his back and had triplets lol I can definitely picture some editing squabbles.