Willravel

Y'mean like right now? No, I'm making dinner.

Put my vote in the "yes" column. There are always going to be complex and dividing moral questions surrounding the forward march of scientific discovery, but there are times when emotional, perhaps illogical arguments find their way in along with the legitimate arguments and then you've got a big mess. There was once a time when transplants were considered immoral because of the assumed sanctity of the human body. The problem with that argument is once I'm dead I won't exactly care what happens to my heart or lungs or kidneys. Or my brain, my delicious, delicious brain.

For those 3 people on TFP still unaware, I was born with a life-threatening deformity of the cardiovascular system requiring dangerous heart surgery. Had the deformity not been discovered, it's very likely that I would have dropped dead years ago, saving you all from years of flame-baiting and quasi-intelligent posts. (Yeah, a little self-deprecating humor to draw them in, now get to the point!) Had the technology to artificially alter my development been around in the early 80s, I might have been born in perfect health. The cost for that cure would have been that my birth would have been to some degree artificial. If you're still with me, what's the difference between changing a few thousand genes to make me a healthy baby and finishing the job and artificially making all the genes? So long as the person that's born is allotted the same rights and freedoms as every other human being, what's the harm?

I'm down.