bad-acid

Well it's definitely remarkable to me that you've been able to keep such a handle on your private vs public life. That was the most interesting thing about your coming out to me. Thanks for that answer and congratulations on the engagement!

Where is the bottleneck for targeting things like, autism, down syndrome, or other severe physiological defects in unborn children?

Detection? Expense? Possibility? Ethics? Something else?

I love that "making humans better vs. making better humans" point. It's so succinct and powerful.

I think wondering at the morality between preventing a life-altering disability before it develops or intervening after it's manifested is such a fantastic and fascinating concept. It's one of those issues which at first glance seems easy to answer, but the more you think about it, the more nuanced it gets. Thank you ALL for your thoughts and answer!

Just a question dude, I said nothing about whether I believe it's a good idea or ethical to do.

Just a quick edit to clarify:

Let's say a man approaches a nuclear physicist and says, "Doc, I've heard there are enough nuclear bombs on earth to turn the world to glass and then some. What's preventing that from happening? Technology? Politics? Is it really true? How close are we to that threat? Is it really only ethics preventing it?"

And suppose the physicist replied, "why do you want to destroy the earth using all of our nuclear bombs?"

"What? I'm asking a question."

"You're asking if something is possible, and if the only thing preventing it is ethics! That must clearly mean you intend to destroy the earth!"

No, I don't think autistic people are "lesser," nor do I believe we should attempt to eradicate "unclean" things from the gene pool. But the question can be posed regarding what the technology can do, without any desire for me to execute it in that way.