Talk politics.

I agree with this, though I see the hypocrisy in it, too. Where do you draw the line for "suffering"? Should parents be able to avoid autism? Asperger's? What about dyslexia? Our education system caters to one specific way of learning, and children who learn differently are underserved and may struggle - do we select against kids who would suffer in our arbitrarily-created education model? I think there's things we would all agree we would like to select against (say, cystic fibrosis), but it would be difficult to agree on a cut-off. Is physical suffering "worth more" than emotional suffering? Is a physically disabled person with a healthy mind better or worse off than a physically-able but mentally disabled person?

I don't know. Ultimately, on the above poll, I have to say "none of these." I think it's dangerous to mess too much with genetic diversity. Things like hair, eye and skin color, height, athletic prowess - why would you want to limit those things according to very fleeting standards of beauty? This is what proponents of racial eugenics seemed to forget. Genetic diversity protects species from extinction. It provides solutions to small problems before they become species-wide. Bottle-necking our gene pool for short-term interests like "looking pretty" and "being good at sports" is... I don't know, I don't really have words for it. Outrageous? Ridiculous? Sad?