(11-11-2012, 05:12 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: This and abortion (for disabled fetuses or otherwise) are not the same Pandora's box, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Even though I disagree with you politically most of the time, I am very surprised that you of all people here support this crud, and don't see the dangers in it - unless you are just playing Devil's advocate (which I hope you are). I do not see how any reasonable person that doesn't wear a swastika sign can advocate this. Defending capitalism is one thing, but this isn't tenable.
I do not oppose people dying their hair. So why should I oppose them changing their hair colour genetically? I believe in giving people robotic limbs or organs in replacement for ones damaged by disease or genetic disorders, so why should I not support the use of biotechnology to solve those problems? I believe we should provide special education for children with disabilities, so why not fix those disabilities in the first place? The immediate future of genetic engineering is not in creating some science fiction dystopia, but in making some first steps towards solving genetic disorders.
The wealthy always have better access to goods and services, since that's the definition of wealth. But if you want to improve the lot of everyone, you have to develop scientific knowledge and technological applications, and then roll them out as we understand them and they become cheaper. In the 1910s, motorcars were only for the incredibly wealthy. In the 1950s, a television set was a major purchase. In the 1980s, a cellular phone meant you were a high-flying executive. Hell, in 1500, SUGAR was only for the upper classes. Everything is for the rich, until it isn't.
Your own argument has implications about "weeding out the undesirables." A child with Down Syndrome is aborted because they are undesirable. Because they put a severe burden on the parents, or on whomever must raise the child. It puts a burden on the state, to provide support for the child through schooling. To never have such a person born is socially convenient. It leads down exactly the same roads as genetic engineering (strictly speaking, it IS genetic engineering). But you're okay with that, so why not other things?
I do not think we should regulate against egoism, selfishness, or shallowness. I do not think we should regulate against things because I find them repulsive. To do so would be reactionary and oppressive, imposing my personal preferences on society's laws. I strongly oppose this.
-Jester