[quote=@Penny]
Equally true in the case of natural random distribution.
So? It isn't any worse than allowing a random distribution.
[/quote]
No one made the decision with random distribution. Therefore there is no blame. 

[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.[/quote] 
It would only be a false dichotomy if you misread the wording, or if I just didn't type clearly enough. I should have put 
1) They [i]believe[/i] it is good for the child.
2) They [i]believe[/i] it is good for the parent. (Though it'd be hard for them not to know) 

But there is no other alternative for the dichotomy that I can see. My hangup is the parents taking a choice into their hands they shouldn't have. But if it's ok for the parents to do it, then arguably it's ok for the president to choose the physical features of american citizens. Or an older brother getting to choose the physical features of a younger brother in the womb. The citizen or the brother can't decide, so why not them?

[quote=@Penny]
<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I saw GATACA, didn't love it :P
[/quote]
*Googles* Aw, it wasn't good? I've not seen it. 40K has that too, and so does Shadowrun and the Dredd series...I think. Lotta stuff.