Heads up:

[laconicsax]

For those interested, the OP of this thread has finally chimed in.

[enlightenment]

1. Interesting.

Not going there; I don't know enough about Dawkins' work (or evolutionary biology or formal logic, for that matter).

Question: Don't we already make 'designer babies'? Gene therapies to fetuses to correct birth defects or genetic disease, etc? Seems like I read about some new, amazing stride science is making every day.

Isn't that eugenics?

[laconicsax]

2. In a sense.

Eugenics is selective breeding (artificial selection) when applied to humans instead of domesticated animals.

It's an interesting dichotomy where its acceptable to discuss making 'designer babies' through gene therapy and selection of specific gametes but the idea of using traditional selective breeding is strictly taboo.

[enlightenment]

3. Hmm -

So, all those people who want specific sperm (and these days, ova) for their artificial insemination and/or in vitro aren't practicing selective breeding?

These folks protest too much, methinks . . . but I guess I just don't understand the fuss. People can - have - and will - do bad things with an idea. That doesn't make the idea 'evil', just the people doing the bad things with it.