the essay was a mess. makes me think of harry truman's comment about the need for a one-handed economist. in terms of principles vs. outcomes, the outcome orientation here is only proximate, the reference to 'social justice' implies other upstream principles. people should just elucidate their vision for a society so that everyone knows where everyone else stands. reading the essay i tend to suspect that the author is basically more sympathetic to a group ('community') as the basic atomic unit of a society as opposed to the individual. myself, i think it'll be a good thing when the disabled community goes extinct ;-) and of course, as is clear from the essay neo-eugenics isn't fundamentally a different impulse or inequality than what we have today with upper class folks investing in private school educations for their kids. many of the justifications for abortion are quite often about the quality of life a child can have based on particular circumstances.

The author is obviously not familiar with the 1948 SCOTUS ruling that reproductive freedom is an unfettered right. I believe that any legal restrictions on reproductive technology would be considered unconstitutional on the basis of this ruling.

If legislation can be passed that prohibits the use of reprogenetics to create "more intelligent" kids, then similiar legislation can be passed that would prevent the reproduction of the genetically "unfit" (of which the 1948 ruling was intended to prevent).

The point is that ANY government regulation of reproduction is, by definition, state-sponsored eugenics and is, therefor, considered unconstitutional by the SCOTUS 1948 ruling.

Now, the SCOTUS could overturn this ruling. However, it is unlikely. The reason is that if smart people are prohibited from gene-designing their kids to be smarter than average on the basis that it would result in inequality, the same arguments can be used to regulate or prohibit completely the reproduction of those whose offspring are likely to be "less capable" and thus creating inequality from the lower end.

Reproductive freedom cuts both ways.

Someday soon gay and transgender activists will be found chanting "It's a child, not a choice! in front of medical clinics.

/its inevitable

Well, it makes sense. When it becomes possible to make designer babies, everybody will be forced to make them, or their children will be left in the dust. It'll be like the rise of agriculture or the industrial revolution - participation will not be optional in any realistic sense. So naturally, people who don't want to go along with it would be smart to crush it for as long as they can.

Here's an interesting article which explores possible consequences of the ability to engineer ourselves in a deeper way than the one linked above:
http://www.nickbostrom.com/fut/e.../ evolution.html