[quote]By that logic wouldn't your terrible genetic disease be just as much a part appointed by God as you blue eyes? If it is wrong to doctor your appearance then it would be wrong to doctor the disease.[/quote] 
Well 'doctor' has two meanings there. But if we take a theological look at it... 
Jesus healed people of diseases, and told others to do thus. But it's also gospel that God creates man into who he/she is, not other people. 

[quote]It seems to me that appealing to randomness to make you not feel bitter about ones parents decisions is a weakish argument. Sorry but I really don't see much to go on here other than 'its not natural'. Your parent already exercise some control as to your physical appearance via the choice of partner. It is the same distinction between naturally selecting crops and genetically engineering them. Maybe you can restate this to clarify it for me?[/quote]
I think appealing to randomness so as not to feel bitter is just as good of an argument as a parent going 'I felt like it.' Or, I think it's a better argument because it's the child's feelings on their own features that are put into main account, not the parents. 

My main concern is the ethics of it, and while that is subjective, I already admitted it's just my opinion. 
 
[quote]How does the fact that it dosent matter to the child lead you to 'well the president could make the decision'. Parents (mothers prebirth IMO) are responsible for decisions effecting their child and just because it is unimportant dosen't magically give the president a right to interfere. Pretty sure people would get up in arms if Trump started mandating genital mutilation although it is a little hard to tell with his supporters.[/quote] 
I was simply reiterating the logic that if it's the same with the parents choosing as it is with natural selection, then take away the legal part of it, it'd be the same if anyone chose it. 

If random chance effects a child just as much or as little as parental choice, then a doctor choosing the child's physical traits will effect the child the same as the other two. What you were talking about is the child wouldn't see it differently so why does it matter? I'm simply adding onto that and saying, in this fictional universe with this fictional technology, what if there was no law against the head of state or the doctor choosing the child's traits? I think for a parent to say "but it's my child" can easily be debunked by the child going "but it's my face" if they could.