Genetic diversity is precious and should not be touched, even with the overwhelming temptation to do so. The gathering of genetic knowledge does not guarantee wisdom in deciding about human diversity. (Suzuki, Genethics, 345-346)
A generalization must, then, occur. Every decision involves human beings as the decision makers and these persons must live with the consequences. Also, most decisions involve choices between different outcomes and humans are likely to place different values on different outcomes. (Kieffer, Bioethics, 45) For human beings, the ethical drawbacks of genetic engineering overpower the benefits.
What if the couple (or the government) is permitted to monitor embryos so that any with an Ôundesirable’ genetic trait may be aborted is this the first step towards creating Hitler’s master race through eugenics (i.e. preserving only genetically superior’ people) What if tests show there is only a 50 percent possibility of contracting an incurable debilitating disease? What if the disease is not necessarily life-threatening, like cerebral pasly or multiple sclerosis? What if genetic screening shows that a baby will be blind or deaf? What if it shows the baby will be a boy and not the girl the couple wants? Under which of these situations would abortion be moral?
The origins of this variability are behavioral as well as genetic. As human acestors evolved, accumulating hominid technology gave our biological variability an accelerating push. But before technology could have much impact, our evolution was also helped along by the human tendency to migration and the resulting geographic isolation of different hominid groups .
Separated in space, hominids evolved into regional variants that are sometimes treated as different species. Genetic variability within hominid species, and uncertainties in fossil reconstruction or geological dating, make these distinctions controversial. They are also somewhat beside the point: early humans were a restless species evolving at a breakneck.