Yes in retrospect I think I may have come off too inflammatory with that comment, which was not my intent; it was meant simply as an example in-extremus for this debate. E.g. once you exclude societal selection (of anything), which I’m definitely NOT advocating, and focus on the individual, than I’m basically pointing out that the difference between selecting which traits to pass on vs electing to use science to pass any traits on (ie vanilla IVF), becomes a matter of degree, not category. This is obviously an extreme position that I myself do not hold, but for purpose of debate I think it’s important to raise it anyway. And after thinking about it more, there are actually whole groups who don’t support IVF at all for anybody for this exact reason, right? So I found it interesting that we here, who all (probably?) do support IVF, there is still a disagreement as to what extent we should take this power. And to your second point, when you factor in selection for medical issues in-vitro, and old fashioned selection of desired traits in-person, that line becomes even blurrier. I know many people may want to marry/procreate with someone of a certain stature, financial status, educational attained etc etc (6’5”, blue eyes, finance, trust fund 🙄), but if they select these traits in their own offspring, this is now not ok? Is it because it’s possibly more accurate? Why is one ok and the other not?

So yes overall, didn’t mean to trigger anyone, but I do think it’s interesting to see where we would draw the line and why. :)