more flowers

looked into the whole "designer baby" a little bit more. and I think I understand the "controversy" even less. okay, some of it I get...they may or may not end up destroying "embroyos". Depending on the individual, that may or may not constitute life...and it would require, I think, some serious study into a much deeper understanding of biology than I possess to presume to answer that question.
Sadly...the controversy does not seem to revolve around that. keeping in mind there are many instances of "selective reporting" that occur, both pro and con virtually any position, the quotes I came across, the objections I read...those all seem to have a common theme.
"My child is handicapped and it is a marvelous thing and nobody should be prevented from having this experience. In fact, society needs to change to be more accepting."
I am the last one to argue against society needing to change. I believe the very foundation of the way today's society is structured needs changed. I also believe many attitudes towards the mentally and physically handicapped/challenged/restricted/whatever other phrase you choose to apply needs changed.
But wanting more people to experience the pain and tragedy of watching a life lived with unneccessary physical challenges...I fail to see the logic behind that. Why would people believe it is better to leave a child crippled and possibly doomed to an early death when it could be prevented? Where is the logic there? Why the anger that people could conceivably select the gender of their child? Why is that a bad thing? I am a little lost here...
Medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds. Despite what many of us argue is the worst dietary habits in history, life expectancies are the highest in recorded history since the flood. More babies are born healthy, more crippling injuries and illnesses have solutions that allow "normal" life styles...and the tools to prevent others seem to be on the cusp of being available. Why prevent that? Why is that not good?
As Charlie descends back into the realm of Charly he leaves a record in which he is asked or simply chooses to write about whether he would have participated in the experiement knowing it would leave him dumber than before. Now, the caveat here is that this is a fictional character speaking, but...well, I tend to think it worked for him. At the risk of losing you all here, every time I read that book my eyes water. Just a little. Because it is sad. Thought provoking, but sad.
And to me it would be even sadder if someone in real life had to be Charly when they could be Charlie because someone thought the world was a better place because they could prevent medicine from healing someone before they got sick.