I agree it is.
And I would be skeptical of that had not a very similar thing just happened in 2019.
Actually the event here in UK included a much larger and far more unexpected leap than what I included there.
Humans are a pattern animal. And I believe in patterns, not in people. 
Wise words right there! 
You might have created a monster there!!
Albeit a very entertaining monster it is!
Iām not even sure it is should be posted here, but letās give it a go:
Public consultation opens today. You can give input if you feel like about the following text.
Context:
Interesting text for sureā¦
Iām not sure if I understood all of it (scientific english is not exactly my strengthā¦), but I was a bit surprised at the clear negative stance towards eugenics, while things like āmoral enhancement by drugsā seemed quite okayā¦ for me, itād rather be the other way round.
But definitely a nice paper worth discussing 
Exactly that came to my mind.
Itās full of people who are āexperts in ethicsā and not a soul doing anything practical. What the hell do these people do, concretely?
Exactly the same what I, myself do in this topic: waffel about things they themselves are uncertain.
The difference is that they get paid for it.
Eugenics is off-limit to serious research, and impossible to agree with since 1945. Whoever mentions it without immediately stating theyāre against it instantly commits social and professional suicide. Itās one of those subjects, and itās widely used for virtue signaling.
The whole paper is a field of egg shells, btw
Itās a lot of hot air, if you ask me.
But thatās just stupid, I thinkā¦ I do not agree with the bullshit some idiot pre-1945 did here. Not the least bit.
But if it is possible to prevent significant diseases by genetic screening etc., I think it should be researched a lot on that. And seriously, eugenics is not about ākilling people who are not worth to be aliveā (what this idiot dictator did) but rather about āgetting healthy childrenā, at least todayā¦
I have no opinion on the matter, on account of what I have posted.
Itās definitely a tricky line, and we need to be extremely careful, but I agree.
Stuff like that one gene that some people naturally have, that provides full HIV resistance, for instance. If we get to the point where it becomes easy to simply give someone that before their birth, why not, if there are no ill effects. At a certain point of medical advancement, the line almost begins to blur between adding natural resistance, and something like vaccines.
The same goes for as you mentioned, screening unborn children for genetic diseases. I saw a documentary a year or so ago, with a couple who had one child with an awful terminal illness, caused by a genetic diseases. The couple then performanced in vitro fertilization, and had 4 eggs fertilizated. Each were screened, and one was found to be healthy, without the genetic disease. So, that egg was used, and the couple had a healthy child. I took an anthropology class last year, about technological ethics. My professor had personally worked with that couple, and hearing her speak about their process made me tear up. Before they had such hopelessness, knowing that it was unlikely that they would ever have a healthy child, without just bringing more suffering into this world.
Thereās definitely a difference between giving someone blue eyes and white skin, and avoiding genetic diseases and other health issues.
IMO the slippery slope argument is silly in this case, when thereās a decently clear line, and the benefits for humanity are so, so huge.
I donāt like to pull the gay man card very much, but I would give so much to not have to take PrEP, for instance. The side effects are rough for me, but itās necessary for the long-term safety of me and my partners. Natural immunity to HIV would be incredible. Even with PrEP and other protection, thereās still always a chance.
In that case, as far as I know, they work with CRISPR/CAS - there are still some side-effects to this technique, as it sometimes ācutsā out too much or too little or just on the wrong spotsā¦ but I agree, if this can be done safely, it would be of great benefit.
Of course, all this is something to be used with a lot of caution - Iām against stuff like ādesigner babiesā and such, and obviously against all the racist shit this could indeed be used for.
But your example with the couple and their only chance to get a healthy child (meaning, one that is not affected by a terminal genetic illness) is just what I meant - I see nobody getting any disadvantage in that case. The parents are happy with a healthy child, and Iām pretty sure a child is happier as well if it can live a healthy life. Again - I would never ever say or think that someone with a genetic illness is āworth lessā than someone who is not affected by it, thatās just wrong and stupid. But I think every being on earth would, if given the choice, choose not to be sick. So if we can achieve that, fine.
This. And Iām a bit sad that this whole area of science is kinda blacklisted because someone just abused the terminologyā¦
The terminology is broad by nature.
The stress is on working towards a ādesiredā outcome. Regardless of the justification of selection.
In other words: whoās gonna decide wether having 8 tentacles is healthy, or being whichever sex is normal. And under what circumstances?? Once you work towards a desired there is a āgoodā or āidealā and there is a āwasteā or ābadā.
As Rosco mentioned, scientists donāt have the balls to draw that lineā¦for a very good reason. Neither do I!
But I donāt agreeā¦at least not yet. I need time to digest it.
