Up to 40% of natural conceptions are spontaneously aborted, often before a woman knows she's pregnant. This is typically the body's way of rejecting embryos with severe genetic abnormalities. This natural process provides a powerful biological precedent for the practice of pre-implantation genetic screening.

Government subsidies for genetic screening could solve the problem of genetic inequality. However, this policy forces citizens who morally or religiously object to the technology to fund it through their taxes, creating a fundamental conflict between promoting equality and respecting individual liberty and conscience.

In the U.S., support for embryo screening for disease is nearly double that for intelligence, while in Singapore, support is equal. This gap is attributed to Western taboos from WWII-era eugenics, creating a moral distinction between selecting against negative traits and for positive ones that is less pronounced elsewhere.

Fears of a return to 1940s-style eugenics are misplaced when focusing on individual reproductive choices. The critical distinction is between government-forced programs and individuals making informed decisions. Preserving individual autonomy is the key safeguard against the historical horrors of coercive eugenics.

We often think of "human nature" as fixed, but it's constantly redefined by our tools. Technologies like eyeglasses and literacy fundamentally changed our perception and cognition. AI is not an external force but the next step in this co-evolution, augmenting what it means to be human.

Standard IVF practice involves a doctor visually selecting the embryo that appears most "normally shaped." This is already a form of selection. Polygenic screening simply replaces this subjective "eyeballing" method with quantitative genetic data for a more informed choice, making it an evolution, not a revolution.

Polygenic embryo screening, while controversial, presents a clear economic value proposition. A $3,500 test from Genomic Prediction that lowers Type 2 Diabetes risk by 12% implies that avoiding the disease is worth over $27,000. This reframes the service from 'designer babies' to a rational financial decision for parents.

Attributing traits to either genetics or environment is a false dichotomy. As the genetic disorder PKU shows, outcomes depend on the *interaction* between the two. Believing a trait is purely "in our genes" wrongly dismisses the power of environmental interventions, which can completely alter outcomes.

The ability to select embryos fundamentally changes parenthood from an act of acceptance to one of curation. It introduces the risk of "buyer's remorse," where a parent might resent a child for not living up to their pre-selected potential. This undermines the unconditional love that stems from accepting the child you're given by fate.