[gavinray]

  > The ethics and long-term risks here seem huge.

Do they?

If we have the ability to screen embryos to determine which ones are likely to have the least health problems, and to live as fulfilling and successful a life of possible, do we not then have a moral imperative to do this?

Supposing it were free: to choose NOT to do it, would be to say, "I don't care if I bring avoidable pain and suffering into the world."

[culopatin]

Every time I talk to my gf about this we get to the “where do we draw the line” question. You can keep expanding the list of filters until you have people with money taking off not only in opportunity but now also genetically.

[trod1234]

Also, lets not forget the key concept of counter-party risk.

What assurances and real resolutions do you have that what they market is actually true; and the baby your gf is carrying isn't in fact a mini-musk with no related DNA from you. Like a cuckoo bird.

Interestingly the term cuckold, referring to a man whose wife was unfaithful, originates from the Cuckoo bird, where the bird is tricked into raising children biologically not their own; as happens with brood parasitism.

These advances bring into question long-term fitness and survivability. We know mono-cultures die out quite easily.

Before long we might have a "Surface" event, like what happened in that TV show. There are things that cannot be undone, and there are blind people more than willing to ensure those things are full steam ahead.