No matter which genes we pick, we can still not pick which will be the dominant ones.  If a parent is incapable of loving their children for who they are, they cannot possibly love one they try to engineer, as that child just will never be good enough.

I won't even begin to get into the moral implications...

@grim_truth - But they start off better, no matter how you look at it, the results will be better. Weaker children, less intelligent, more violent prone born to these same hypothetical bad unloving parents are going to be worse off, then a child how is born prefect. and these genetically prefect children will pass on better genetics

lol this subject was largely explored in the 70's :P Huxley and Assimov most famous works are on this topic...

my thoughts? yeah I do believe a lot of "us" comes from genetics I also believe that the environment affects greatly our development as in a "normally" wired person can get really fucked up while growing up in an abusive home and works also the other way around, a barely functional person can live a productive satisfactory life is he/she has the proper support.

Again, what do I think? We will sure find a way to screw things up anyway LOL 
I do think that discipline and struggles shape stronger characters than having everything done and fixed for you so nope, I don't think that'd be a better World cuz it'd lack of struggles and challenges.  

A world full of super intelligent people, and nobody is going to want to pick up the trash. Better to keep some of those types around too. 

Genetic purity could very well lead to extinction or at least a mass death of most of humanity. We still have very little knowledge of how genes relate to each other. So genetically screening for beauty, strength and intelligence might have the same detrimental effects as inbreeding.

@xXxlovelylollipop - I loved Brave New World. The idea is an old one, but genetic research does seem to be following the idea of building better people. But simple screening of your own embros seems like something that could be done now as opposed to actuality changing DNA . As DNA is better understood the results of this screening would just keep getting better

@PrisonerxOfxLove - That could would be allowed for you are only screening out defects not making a single genetic line. Still traditional coupling and genetic mixing. But only the best of that mix being allowed to develop

@TheMushyPear - I have never found that smart people are lazy. 

@trunthepaige - yeah technology if finally catching up a bit with 70's sci fi. For good or for evil ethical concience is also reaching levels never known before so I bet the debate will be more ethical than scientific when the time comes.  Like how ethical it is to extend indefenetely human kind period of life? never occured when the health programs to do it were launched...you see those changes have been happening trough our society since forever, now we can prevent polio, chicken pox but also we can prevent down syndrome in our children and many other conditions...this type of changes usually happen slowly without us even notice.

@trunthepaige - define better?  When one really thinks about it, if we start wishing our children to be perfect like our reports that we turn in at work, they become mindless little drones. At that point, what do genes matter?  The human species may be genetically "perfect", but humanity would have been lost.

not to mention, I think God would want to smack us upside the head for doing things like that.

@grim_truth - Well there is that 

@xXxlovelylollipop - Ethics are based on what? if the greater good then they could never justify not allowing genetic screening. They are already doing it with amniocentesis I am just taking about doing a more advances screening and not letting the defective embryos reach a state where they need to be aborted

I think I'd say no to it merely because it squashes an idea of developing one on their own. Sure, it seems like a child might have a better start, but, at the same time we wouldn't know what they would choose on their own verses how much of it was engineered.

It makes me think of my favorite movie... Gattaca ^_^

@trunthepaige - That's still selective breeding which could put the general population at risk for certain diseases or maladies.  Just like dogs.

@trunthepaige - Ethical codes are usually based on cultural background and personal sensibility so very bumpy track actually as it's very subjective when it comes to discussion. I don't have one bit of a problem with science improving way of breed for those who want to, if you ask  me I'd never delete one feature out of my children though, I see them perfect as they're (cuz I'm smug and have perfect kids :P) 

Genes account for part. But I think/know how a parent raises a child has a lot to do with the outcome.

I think it's an interesting idea in theory, but I think the Nazis already tried that and failed the application.

@PrisonerxOfxLove - not really mate still is still natural. The genetic diversity would not shrink. Unless you talking about losing genetic defects

@tgwiy - no they only bred for racial purity and did they very well producing blonds with blue eyes. They did not have access to genetic screening back then.  Again I am not taking about telling anyone who to produce children with like the Germans did. Just simply screening for best possible results from the naturally and voluntary chosen couples . We are doing it now to screen out downs syndrome, what I am talking about is simply being more proactive and sophisticated about it

@LKJSlain - the difference is  what you would be doing is not changing anything, but selecting from what is naturally produced. Its like having 1000 children and only keeping the best ones. 

The idea you are posing could not possibly eradicate the sin nature, otherwise Christ would not have had to die for our sins.   As long as people are born into this world as it is and have not been born again, the world will not change in moral behavior.   Social engineers have tried in vain to play God in this and other areas, only to find that they are not omnipotent and cannot possibly manipulate enough things simultaneously to get the results they were aiming for.    God is sovereign and has a plan for humanity that was in place before creation that ultimately, in His time, will produce the perfect world with perfect people.

@quest4god@revelife - oh are you saying man has a sinful nature? 

interesting... Genes play a huge roll in even the smallest things, like I have the laugh of an Aunt I barely knew, among other things.

In the context that you speak of I wouldn't have a problem with this. Of course if this would actually be implented some person or agency would take things to far and start encouraging/ensuring only the "best of the best" be born. Then the issues would arise comparing "naturally born" children vs "naturally selected". Great theory but especially in these times it would eventually do more harm than good. Excellent Post!

Peace and Love

@diditdreaming - SO you see it as a slippery slope issue. DO you have issues with it being allowed but not encouraged? The government is to stay out of it?