If we can eliminate any hereditary diseases then this is great. Do any of you complainers understand how much misery this could save? Have you ever had a family member with a terminal, congenital disease?
It's eugenics. The debate is familiar. It was an extremely contentious and well-tread topic of discussion for many decades from then end of the 19th century onward.
There are thoroughly developed arguments that highlight its conceivable benefits when applied in way that someone judges ethical, and thoroughly developed arguments that highlight its conceivable threats and horrors when applied in a way that someone judges unethical.
The application of eugenicist principles to justify ethnic genocide during WWII, and the public surfacing of eugenicist policies put towards economic and racial oppression by the West when it was openly self-reflecting during the 60's and 70's, pretty much tabled the public debate because it provided evidence that convinced many that the threats and horrors were inescapable.
So yes, many "complainers" probably do understand exactly what you wish they understood, but they also understand the counterarguments and find them more convincing. You don't have to agree with them, but don't underestimate their breadth of their understanding just because they don't agree with you.
If it's eugenics to choose, without coercion, certain traits for your child, then eugenics as a term is meaningless. Am i participating in eugenics when i don't have children with my sister? Am i doing eugenics when i take a test for cystic fibrosis and use that to decide to have children or not? The entire debate you are referring to centers around the use of force and coercion to control what others can do, and if they can reproduce or not. This is not that.
