I'm sure I'm going to be further unimpressed moving forward in this thread by the way you write but could you please tone it down?
How am I supposed to know that retard and wheelchair are no longer acceptable words? I'll use "handicapped" if you inst.
We already do this to some extent (given parental income) with genomic sequencing (if I have that right).
Exactly.
I honestly don't have a stance on this conversation but a thought about these questions: many people find it visually disturbing and some find it socially abhorrent. A pregnant woman often is showing in that period and then has to explain to her peers (who, let's just say, can have a very wide range of responses to this topic) what happened to the baby.
Hence why I mentioned the thing about shaming earlier.
I think a problem for you in advocating your position here, here or anywhere, is that the actual starting conditions aren't this conversation - you'd spend your whole life consolidating this position (which is what H and Wilshire are asking of you) and then facilitating the social conditions to enact it in the world as it is (fighting the same fight that the "pro-choice" camp has already been fighting for years) but also people would vehemently oppose you with much less grace than is shown here.
Sure, I don't actually believe this will ever be implemented in the West, for the same reason people are morally opposed to genetic modification. Countries with less restrictive views on human nature like China will march ahead, and in North Korea they already kill all disabled babies AFAIK, although North Korea is definitely not a good role-model.
I just don't believe in high-holy-evolutionary-dice-rolling. IMO, better to take a more direct approach, even if it takes a few centuries of botched jobs to get the hang of it.
If you think about it, these are actually not separate things ontologically speaking.