I just find it annoying to work out random slang that I've never encountered before.
Desinger baby talk was all the rage a few years ago on the early morning news couch-talk, if I remember correctly. There was seems to be a massive hubbub over thngs like this, that parents would be so fickle as to choose their future child's hair or eye colour or that the any geneticist will do it for money. Personally I find the idea of choosing your child's tones, I suppose to's best to call them, is pointless and, at worst, bordering tyranical. Though you are the parent, who are you to say that your child would prefer blue eyes over brown or even the much rarer violet (or even the reverse, would you willing subject your child to years of self doubt by making them an obsucre quirk?).
I see and agree with the need for screening when it comes to genetic defiencies: recently a woman had her a child who was free of an hereditary gene which greatly increases the risk of contracting breast cancer, that's a worthy cause.
Of course, when it comes to inheretiable and genetic conditions, some people would want Down's Syndrome while other's would be vehemently against it, for a vareity of reasons on both sides. You can't really say who is right and who is wrong in ALL cases, as for the most part it's circumstancial. In my current condition I couldn't look after any sort of new born, let alone one which was disabled, either mildly or severely. Of course there are those who have 'learnt to cope' or who have 'struggled through', but it's not my place to talk on such things. I guess for such things I take a more Utilitarian point of view, which could come as somewhat cold and emotionless. I'm now just realising this is niether here nor there.
Should genetic screening or actual genetic tinkering become easier and cheaper to do, it is more than likely that it would be heavily controlled by any government (or outright banned). Though it goes against some of my beliefs, I'd have to agree with the controls. I wouldn't want to live in a world where every man was straight and every woman bi because it panders better to whatever chauvanistic zeitgeist happens to be in fashion at the moment. I can see an arguement for choosing hair colour arising, seeing as the natural blond/es and red heads are actually disappearing and preserving them would preserve our race's genetic heritage in a way.
Really, genetic screening and tinkering should be approached in a much similar way to abortion, I feel, as the two are, surprisingly, somewhat similar. A woman and her partner (as I believe that any who is having a child should involve the father or whoever might be helping to care for the child in any and all desicion making) might have an abortion because of severe disabilities in the future child (this is easier than just calling it an unborn baby of feotus, it reflects the sort of 'suspened' nature of the subject, without attaching too many emotional ties or removing them) they might also screen for the same reasons. What I'm getting at is that in cases where it is likely that a faimly has an hereditary disease or condition that would greatly diminish the happiness and welfare of all involved then genetic screening or tinkering could be a viable option to have. It should not, I believe not ever, be used to choose the sexuality, skin/eye/hair colour, fitness level (unless we are talking something along the lines of genetic obesity which can't be combated most other ways) or any other trivial matters.
A society is made of individuals, not clones. It should forever remain this way.
(I mean not to offend anyone with this post, I was just speaking my mind.)
