> Nothing wrong with "considering medical advances that strengthen your offsprings genetic code" as long as other humans aren't killed in either developing or implementing the technology that will do so.
By that logic, no new medicines, surgical techniques or genetic technologies will be developed, as they all involve the substantial risk of death.
Both the Chinese and lawyers *love* that. Lawyers will sue, sue, sue, and the Chinese will watch the west fail to advance at the same rate. We'll soon be awash in geneticallty defective lawyers and genetically superior Chinese.
> It's called ETHICS
What you support isn't *ethics.* It's *arbitrary* *decisions.*
Uh, there's a difference between a VOLUNTARY risk of death for oneself, and death imposed by an outsider. The only legitimate instance of the latter is the death penalty imposed by court order.
"What you support isn't *ethics.* It's *arbitrary* *decisions.*"
There's nothing "arbitrary" about it. My position is based on two points---science (in this case biochemistry), and the premise that human life is valuable and should be protected.
It's YOUR position that is both arbitrary and specious.