The Quest for Designer Children 149

correct. Many might follow a stereotype: intelligent, tall, thin, of moderate temperament and personality. There are often societal pushes to do many things in life.

It does not seem likely that parents will love their children, any more or less, for who they are, regardless of their abilities or talents, whether the children result from the biological lottery or are engineered in an effort to make them what their parents want them to be. Furthermore, the parental choices will lead to as much or even greater diversity as presently exists. A technology proponent asserts: “One thing we can count on, though, is that any combination of personality and temperament that predisposes people to embrace biological selection and enhancement will be highly represented among those who use genetic enhancement.”*? Thus, with the technological choices offered, children will probably be as diverse and unique as they are now.*

It does not seem to me wrong to trust ordinary people who want the“best” genes for their children. If we have safe and effective choices, why ought we to passively accept our fate as embodied in our genes? Why not let parents strive for healthier, smarter, more physically and emotionally attractive children? Because they will appreciate being healthier, somewhat smarter and more attractive, most children will thank their parents.

DISTRIBUTIONAL FEARS RAISED BY GENETIC ENHANCEMENT ARE OVERBLOWN

Critics emphasize distribution concerns and socioeconomic disparities, focusing on a lack of equity in access to the new technologies, thereby magnifying the current social inequities and class divisions in American society. Couples who can provide their children with an optimal environment would also acquire the best genes for them, further advantaging their progeny. The widening gap between the haves and have nots may ultimately lead to the