148 Lewis D. Solomon

receive human growth hormones. It is not“immoral” to defy nature. We do it all the time.

Thus, I would allow parents to decide whether to take their chances on the traditional genetic lottery, using unaltered egg and sperm, realizing that their offspring may inherit“undesirable” traits or characteristics, or undergo corrective gene changes on their sperm, eggs, zygotes, embryos, or fetuses. Let parents decide whether they want to turn to genetic modifications to improve opportunities for their progeny. Again, a degree of realism is in order. As one commentator concludes,

[O]ne of the main reasons that couples have babies is to produce their baby, the product of their combined genes. Motivations don’t get much more basic than that, and I think it unlikely that the typical parents will want to distort the process too much. The popular uses of gene manipulation are likely to be the ones that avoid birth defects and ones that lead to improved overall physical and mental abilities. I find it hard to get upset about that prospect.’

As parents reflect on whether to use nontherapeutic genetic engineering, it is only natural that they want what is“best” in life for their children. Certain human abilities and characteristics are valued over others— height, intelligence, looks, an outgoing personality, and a stable temperament. Many parents, wanting to provide their children with the greatest advantage possible in life, will try to increase the odds that their progeny will“succeed” in life.“Good” genes are presumably correlated with“success” in our society. They want them to lead“better” lives. Others may want athletic ability or artistic and musical talents.*!

There may be social pressures to select certain traits or characteristics. Genetic interventions may be faddish or politically