152 Lewis D. Solomon

raising up the“bottom” through public sector funding and sponsorship.

[ would, therefore, allow individuals to make their offspring as they wish. Permit them to provide not only the best environments for their children but also the best genetic natures. Let parents strive to create what they regard as genetically flawless, errorless, perfect offspring, without warts and wrinkles, vulnerabilities and frailties. Parents want to facilitate their children’s possibilities for success, but even the best of genes and environments do not guarantee“success.”

THE BENEFITS OF GENETIC ENHANCEMENT OUTWEIGH POSSIBLE DISCRIMINATORY IMPACTS

Opponents point to genetic engineering as possibly exacerbating the prejudice against persons with disabilities or even those viewed as less than“perfect.”® Selecting offspring that conform

“best” to social norms, health and physical ability, appearance, and aptitudes may lessen society’s tolerance, at least so the argument runs, for those with genetic or congenital disorders, whether shortness, less than a normal IQ, or a different physical build. The genetically superior may come to be contemptuous of their“inferiors.” As Conservative Rabbi Dorff puts it,“[G]enetic engineering raise[s] the questions of whether in the future we will still appreciate God ’s creativity in making people different or whether we will instead try to make everyone the same, presumably like the majority of us.”*'

I would let individuals weigh the possible impact of their choices on social factors, such as discrimination, in deciding whether to avail themselves of modern therapeutic techniques. The potential good outweighs the possible harm. We have devices to help the disabled cope; why not avoid the problems in the first place? Why would anyone want to inherit a genetic disease?

If we diminish numbers of children and adults with a genetic disease, the argument runs, society would ignore those still afflicted,