[Citizen Blade]

I think the genes should be extinct because nature thinks they should be extinct. Not eugenics - nothing could be more natural. 100 years ago, those genes would cease.

100 years ago, a case of appendicitis had a good chance of killing you. 100 years ago, children born a couple of months prematurely were as good as dead.

The fact that, in the past, we were not able to cure or treat certain illnesses and disorders isn't an argument for stopping the advance of medical technology.

What is your rationale? Because science can do something, we should?

If science can improve the human condition, then yes.

[MHGinTN]

“If science can improve the human condition, then yes.” Your demigod, ‘science’, can kill off a few hundred million humans and improve the conditions for the remainder. How telling that you would favor that, apparently! How revealing

[thefrankbaum]

I don't disagree with that. However, I'm not the one arguing for the supremacy of nature. Those arguing for IVF are claiming that propagation of genes is natural, and therefore good. I don't believe that something is good merely because it is so in nature.