So go shoot the next person you see with cancer. Put him out of his misery.

1) Is this person a four year old in incredible amounts of pain?
2) Is he being abused?
3) Is he starving?

Obviously, if a person wanted to live, we would have no right to kill them. The question isn't about putting someone out of their misery, it's preventing potential FUTURE misery.

I just can't understand the logic behind NOT fixing a curable ailment before it becomes a problem. If you KNOW your kid will have Down's syndrome, or leukemia or whatever, why would you NOT want to fix it? Because it's cheating? But it doesn't HARM anyone. Who benefits from letting a kid be born with a disease that could have been avoided? Certainly not the kid.

Who decides what is "wrong" with somebody?

You've got to remember, the medical system isn't based on what people want, but what is in their best interest.
Ever see the PSP episode of South Park where Kenny was kept on life support? Thats pretty much the way things are.

Who decides what is "wrong" with somebody?

I do. My opinion is the only one that matters.

Also, I'm in with everyone else that's said "who gets to decide what's wrong with someone?". The idea of "what's best for them" is also vague and therefore scary.

The last thing humanity needs is the belief that we need to breed the perfect beings.

Hitler, anyone?

The problem with Hitler, though, wasn't that he wanted a race of perfect beings (although of course his idea of a perfect being was rather messed up); it was the way he went about it. Hitler advocated the extermination of other races; I don't think anybody here is advocating that.

It's not about getting everyone to "march to the same drum," it's about getting rid of needless problems. Cancer, Down's syndrome, Alzheimer's, whatever, if they can be cured with a little bit of genetic tampering, I do NOT understand what makes that morally wrong.

Like it or not, those things are problems, and if you have one there's something wrong with you. I didn't decide that, medical science did.

If a problem can be solved, I think we are morally obligated to do it.

I throw Down's in with cancer because they are both illnesses that can potentially be fixed before birth. Why should we show preferential treatment for cancer but not Down's?

Cancer will kill you, which is obviously worse, but Down's syndrome is nearly as debilitating. Once again, why would we not want to correct a problem like that? I can't accept that Down's syndrome, or cancer or even a gene that causes obesity, could be considered an important part of evolution.

If a condition has negative effects OF ANY KIND, fatal or not, and it can be solved, there isn't any reason not to.

Does every Down's patient have amazing musical, artistic, or acting skill? Aren't we just as likely to just have those skills without Down's syndrome? What I mean is, are we sure that it's the disease that causes those skills, or might they just have those talents anyway.

What about the thousands of Down's patients who don't have any special talents that make them "fascinating?" Should we just forget them? Let thousands of people live substandard lives for the sake of thirty or forty who can act well?


And as for cancer, how will curing cancer kill us just as much as cancer, barring some unforeseen "everyone who was genetically engineered starts to degenerate horribly in their mid-20s" thing? There's no way to know that now, but with the information that we DO have - that we could potentially cure illnesses and fix mental disorders, with no known negative effects - I don't see a reason not to do what we can.

I laugh at you stupid sods with your silly morals, trying to stand in the way of science. Why don't you try relying on medicine as it was before people started desecrating corpses in the name of medicine? I'm sure the leeches and skull-drilling will help you plenty.

Also, I'm in with everyone else that's said "who gets to decide what's wrong with someone?". The idea of "what's best for them" is also vague and therefore scary.

Well yeah, this is the Internet, after all.

Cancer, Down's syndrome, Alzheimer's, whatever, if they can be cured with a little bit of genetic tampering, I do NOT understand what makes that morally wrong.

I laugh at you stupid sods with your silly morals, trying to stand in the way of science. Why don't you try relying on medicine as it was before people started desecrating corpses in the name of medicine? I'm sure the leeches and skull-drilling will help you plenty.