what characteristics should potential parents be able to select for?

[dead0man]

Examples of "real good reasons" for the sex one can include sex-linked hereditary diseases or they've already got 3 boys and they really want a girl.

"height minimum" means no shorties!

"no dummies" means no dummies, maybe average, maybe smart, but no dummies

"just smarties" means only smart kids, no average chumps

[parochial boy]

Hmm, I don't really know. Vague thoughts would be

 - For sex only with a good reason, to avoid ending up with a China type situation
 - to avoid clear negatives like genetic diseases seems fair enough. Sorry, but I don't think people should have to live with these things just cos "muh eugenics"
 - beyond that, we shouldn't do it until they work out the kinks because, well is the science there yet

anything else, only if it is equally accessible to everyone. I find the idea of rich people being able to create genetically "superior" offspring pretty horrific in terms of moral implications thank you very much.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I guess I’d go with 3, 13, and 15. Outside of actual impairments, if you want smart kids, there are two pretty large components there that one should look into.

[RINO Tom]

3 only

[Person Man]

3...maybe 8. I think if anyone wants to make cosmetic changes, they should have to decide it for themselves. I heard that the nature of some of the newer gene drives would allow for adults to alter their genes.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Eliminating certain genetic diseases(and autism that isn't really severe doesn't count in that).

[Cory]

1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, but also 14.

[Frodo]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....  

[Dr. MB]

None, we shouldn't play god. You're stuck with what you get.

[HillGoose]

Whatever they want to pay for lmao but I wouldn't want to do that, personally. Sounds expensive plus what is life without taking chances? If you got to design your child it would be boring to raise them I imagine.

Using this stuff to create literal Jurassic Park is a lit af idea tho.

[dead0man]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....   

picking qualities you want for your offspring is VERY VERY VERY different from preventing people that are not you from reproducing because they carry characterstics you don't like.  How is that not obvious?

[Intell]

sex
free of specific diseases or other medical conditions   

[Person Man]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....   

picking qualities you want for your offspring is VERY VERY VERY different from preventing people that are not you from reproducing because they carry characterstics you don't like.  How is that not obvious?

Well, it's not the taxpayers or the police making these decisions so...there's that.

[Frodo]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....   

picking qualities you want for your offspring is VERY VERY VERY different from preventing people that are not you from reproducing because they carry characterstics you don't like.  How is that not obvious?

From Britannica:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so different from what you are proposing here, it seems.

Again, let's not go down this road. 

[dead0man]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....   

picking qualities you want for your offspring is VERY VERY VERY different from preventing people that are not you from reproducing because they carry characterstics you don't like.  How is that not obvious?

From Britannica:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so different from what you are proposing here, it seems.

You're not wrong.  When I think "eugenics" I think of negative eugenics, which are very clearly bad.  Positive eugenics might be bad too, but if it is, the bad is much less clear.

[Del Tachi]

None, we shouldn't play god. You're stuck with what you get.

This ^

I wonder how all the Down Syndrome and dwarfism rights activists would react to the idea that their populations should be eliminated through gene selection.

[DC Al Fine]

None, we shouldn't play god. You're stuck with what you get.

This ^

I wonder how all the Down Syndrome and dwarfism rights activists would react to the idea that their populations should be eliminated through gene selection.

Well, the Downs Syndrome activists are already pissed that Iceland has "eliminated" Down Syndrome via abortion so..

[TPIG]

None, we shouldn't play god. You're stuck with what you get.

[RI]

None, we shouldn't play god. You're stuck with what you get.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Whatever the hell they want.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The only times parents should be prevented is if they're selected clearly detrimental traits (such as trying to have a kid with Down syndrome). If they're selecting for positive traits, it should be legal and subsidized.

[Person Man]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....   

picking qualities you want for your offspring is VERY VERY VERY different from preventing people that are not you from reproducing because they carry characterstics you don't like.  How is that not obvious?

From Britannica:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so different from what you are proposing here, it seems.

Again, let's not go down this road. 

By that logic, should we then not be able to choose who we have sex with?

[Technocracy Timmy]

Eugenics really isn't something we should be wanting to revive....  

picking qualities you want for your offspring is VERY VERY VERY different from preventing people that are not you from reproducing because they carry characterstics you don't like.  How is that not obvious?

From Britannica:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so different from what you are proposing here, it seems.

Again, let's not go down this road.  

By that logic, should we then not be able to choose who we have sex with?

Iirc studies that indicated humans on a mass average scale generally mate with those who happen to be close to them in terms of physical attractiveness.

If everyone only chased after the best of the best a ton of people would be single and wouldn’t reproduce.

[dead0man]

If everyone only chased after the best of the best a ton of people would be single and wouldn’t reproduce.

and we should keep letting them, we don't need a world filled with fat, ugly dum dums that are angry due to a lack of sex.

[Person Man]

If everyone only chased after the best of the best a ton of people would be single and wouldn’t reproduce.

and we should keep letting them, we don't need a world filled with fat, ugly dum dums that are angry due to a lack of sex.

I don't see how we're going to prevent parents from choosing whatever they want if the technology becomes commercially viable.

It's also important to consider that parents don't need a geneticist to select for particular traits. We already do this when we choose our partners. All of us do it, even you believe that you are an exception. Like all animals, we tend to be exceptionally good at noticing unhealthy traits in our peers.

Mixed feelings about it all, but I have very little sympathy for arguments against eradicating genetic disorders.

Well, I can't say I disagree with any of this.

I think a good policy would be
- Allow for prenatal and preimplantation vaccines against genetic disease. Subsidize their availability.
-Outside of genetic diseases, prohibit non-parental genetic material for being used in Conception.
- Allow for post-birth genetic alterations if and only if on those who can and do consent for cosmetic changes.
- No immediate destruction of embryos that were created but not used unless they are non-viable. Hopefully gene drives using cas9 makes embryo selection obsolete. Again no foreign DNA unless it's the only way to vaccinate a child from severe disease.