[quote=@POOHEAD189] 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] There would be little theoretical difference between changing hair color and editing the gene which causes a genetic disorder. They are both physical features and it is simply genetic information. This seems to unduly privilege visible physical features. [quote=@POOHEAD189] 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. [/quote] How is 'I felt like it' any worse than 'its just random'. A child's feeling on their features are emergent in either case. If your kid hates the way it looks you can just throw up your hands and say 'hey its just the luck of the draw'? [quote=@POOHEAD189] 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. [/quote] I'm still not sure what your trying to say here and how it is in anyway relevant other than as some sort of weird dystopian aside. The parents choose to make the child (hopefully). There are all sorts of decisions they make that affect its future success (diet, maternal age ect) how is hair color suddenly a bridge to far for parental control?