To answer my own question, I guess you could say it's wrong to make *some* permanent alterations without a person's consent. That is, if a trait is the type that can be altered later in life then it might be wrong to lock someone in to just one choice. Like in my facial hair example, I think you can argue that it would be wrong to deprive your unborn son of the choice to grow a beard, because as an adult he may decide that he'd like to have one.
Is that why the Church would oppose (most? all?) cosmetic genetic changes? Or are there other reasons as well?
I think your reasoning here does affect the dignity of the person.
But my reading, and limited capacity, gives me a more complex view. You start with the basic morality - dignity of the person, the sanctity of life, natural law, not becoming God in governing human creation, etc. Applying these, you get into more complex guides on the science.
The way I see it, imperfectly and somewhat partially of course, is that intent comes in quite strongly also. I’d point to four points in the article above:
1) Before Implantation.
“Preimplantation diagnosis…is directed toward the qualitative selection and consequent destruction of embryos, which constitutes an act of abortion... By treating the human embryo as mere ‘laboratory material’, the concept itself of human dignity is also subjected to alteration and discrimination…Such discrimination is immoral and must therefore be considered legally unacceptable…”
2) Therapeutic, after licit pregnancy.
Procedures used on somatic cells for strictly therapeutic purposes “are in principle morally licit…
3) Genetic engineering to “improve” the human race.
With regard to the possibility of using techniques of genetic engineering to introduce alterations with the presumed aim of improving and strengthening the gene pool, it must be observed that such interventions would promote a “eugenic mentality” and would introduce an “indirect social stigma with regard to people who lack certain qualities, while privileging qualities that happen to be appreciated by a certain culture or society; such qualities do not constitute what is specifically human. This would be in contrast with the fundamental truth of the equality of all human beings which is expressed in the principle of justice, the violation of which, in the long run, would harm peaceful coexistence among individuals…
4) ‘Genetic Engineering’ in a larger scale.
“Finally it must also be noted that in the attempt to create a new type of human being one can recognize an ideological element in which man tries to take the place of his Creator” (n. 27).
If you look at questions with all of this in mind, I think answers to specific questions become more easily. If your motives and methods avoid the restrictions, then you are on more solid ground. An additional point, as far as cosmetics, is the risk to the child in order for what could be a trivial or vain purpose.
I worry more about the broader risks. As man becomes more powerful scientifically, he quickly outpaces his wisdom and morality. I don’t think we can or should make decisions affecting the orbits of the universe, the weather of the planet, or the creation and evolution of species. Or, if we do, we should be extremely wary. God and nature are full of unintended consequences for the proud and the vain.
So, I’m quite conservative on these issue; heck, I oppose cosmetic surgery except in extreme cases. :)
thanks for your reply..