Uh, Partymember - I think I can see where you're coming from there, but you might want to think about phrasing it a bit differently. The way it reads now seems to suggest that you're against the concept of medicine and the healing of the injured, sick and disabled altogether because you fear it dilutes the gene pool, and I know you can't possibly mean that...
As for this issue, I really don't know what to say. The idea is very unsettling on a conceptual level, yes, but I tend to avoid making judgement calls on divisive issues such as this, because they're such moral minefields. Do the ethical concerns outweigh the medical ones? Are the odds weighed in favour of its potential benefits, or its potential risks? I don't know about anybody else, but I don't feel qualified to answer that question, and quite frankly I often wonder if anybody truly is...
PS - To all of you non-UK residents, a word of warning; though this particular article is presented fairly innocuously, I would advise you to take anything you read in The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday with a pinch of salt, being as it is a very partisan right-wing tabloid who tend to favour polemics and unabashed rabble-rousing over objective and even-handed journalism. They're just the sorts of people who will take a complex, shaded, multi-layered debate, make your judgement calls for you, and spin it into a black-and-white issue to further their own agendas. They demonstrate very little respect for the political and moral intelligence of their readers, and I have very little time for them.
