|
|
|
|
|
|
by hhjinks
1 day ago
|
|
|
Neither the OP nor you give a reason for why that's bad. I want my child to have all possible advantages in life. I'm sure most people want that. Why shouldn't we select for that? I'm interested in hearing an argument that doesn't go into anti-abortion territory. |
|
|
Access to the tech is probably unequal if it's done privately, which leads to polarization of society where rich people get even more opportunities than poor people. If you want equality of opportunity and an approximately meritocratic society then building a system to prejudice outcomes before kids are even born isn't ideal (although money and education already does this to an extent, those can be countered a bit by government policy; literally growing humans with genetic advantages can't.)
There's a world of potential for choosing foetuses based on criteria that are ethically catastrophic (no girls, no people who are 'impure', etc). You can argue that it's still parental choice even if the parents are terrible people, but normalizing the tech could be a disaster if a future fascist government gets into power. Imagine if the choice was removed from the parents and taken over by the state.
The foetus doesn't get a choice. This is straying very close to anti-abortion rhetoric admittedly, but if you believe that people should get a say in the outcome of their life, then aborting pregnancies based on a possible outcome that might not manifest for decades is very questionable. A baby that gets terminated because current medicine can't stop an aggressive cancer is having the opportunity to wait for medicine to improve taken away from them. Even ignoring the abortion side of things, you can question whether it's right to make that decision on their behalf.