Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?

[Astonished]

It's a compulsion with you. 

Thousands of years of secular ethics, ethics which found their way into your own magic book...but you just can't see how anyone who doesn't believe in fairies might justify some ethical position any way other than "might makes right".

Really?

In any case, it's true that people aren't all that good at family planning (gee, I wonder why that might be, lol) - but also that we do have a poor track record with central control.  If you wanted to offer a more accurate criticism, rather than the usual shitpost, it would probably meander along the lines of the ethical thinking that leads one to such a conclusion is valid and sound, but that we have little practical ability to do so and a track record of worst case scenario failures.  It's not thew thought you're really railing against, but it's implementation.  If we were better people, it would be a fantastic idea...but we're not..so, for now, it isn't.

There's nothing about an ethics that sharply criticises our reproductive choices or even our ability to competentlky make them that leads, inexorably, to collectivist fascism.  There have been fascists who made similar observations, though. / shrugs

Personally, I think the world needs more of us.  Just choke the ever loving shit out of this rock and the next one, and the next one, and the next one -ad infinitum.  Genetic engineering can certainly help us do that, if we don't use it to shit all over ourselves first.  Ultimately, GE is just a shortcut to what we've been doing this whole time selecting our partners.

I think it's deeper than that, he just doesn't want to give that kind of power to anyone but his corrupt, phony-baloney fucking god.

I don't see what's wrong with something like,
"Hi, we're here to have a baby."
"All right, welcome to the lab. Just fill out these forms, please."
"Certainly."
"All right, just let me check your income and education levels...oh good, at least one of you is qualified to provide the adequate financial means of a family of three. I assume one of you will be the primary at-home care provider for your infant?"
"That's right!"
"Ah, it says here you two didn't take and/or pass the prerequisite parenting examinations to learn how to be good parents."
"Oh, is that a requirement?"
"Yes, absolutely. I mean, just look at history and how much child abuse occurred. This helps minimize both parental inadequacy and delinquency in the children they raise."
"We see...that sounds fair. Can you sign us up for that exam?"
"Sure thing. It's a class that takes place over the course of a couple of weekends for the next few weeks. It also gives couples time to think it over really hard before they make such a big decision."
"That makes sense, don't want to get into something binding with a partner it might not work out with."
"While you're waiting for all the paperwork to get itself in order, you can fill out this form for the sort of characteristics you want your child to have. There's a basic package, immunity to most diseases, increased intelligence, metabolism that would help prevent obesity and promote muscle development and cardiovascular health, and dampening of the hormones that trigger aggressive behavior. Other available refinements can be selected at the discretion of the parents. And yes, 'None of the Above' is an option for those who don't wish to give their children advantages and decrease their chances of dying or becoming sick and suffering."

I mean, is that in any way unreasonable?