[quote=@POOHEAD189]

<Snipped quote>
Because the child didn't select it. 
[/quote]

Equally true in the case of natural random distribution.

[quote=@POOHEAD189]
Because it effects the child with no inherent goodness [i]towards[/i] the child.
[/quote]

So? It isn't any worse than allowing a random distribution.

 
[quote=@POOHEAD189]
Here is my point: Imagine if a parent needs to make a permanent decision about their child. There's two reasonings they would use for their decision. 
1) It is good for the child. 
2) It is good for the parent. 

If you have chosen number 2, that is inherently selfish imo. 

[/quote]

That is a false dichotomy.  Decisions maybe good, they maybe bad, they may be neither, they may have mixed results. The child will have a hair color, selecting it in advance dosent negatively effect the child. No other negative effect flow from that choice which might not flow from a random assignment. 

Is your hangup that a parent is making a permanent aesthetic choice for their child? Because the child doesn't choose in either case. Seems a little odd to give some sort of privileged status to a random selection over a parental choice.