[chrispenycate]

Genetic discrimination has been going on as long as… no,much longer than mankind; it's an essentialpart of natural selection. Mankind is now its own only serious predator, so if we wish to prevent species degeneration, there must be a pressure to improve (the definition of "improve" varies from person to person, the only common characteristic being that each one includes himself) If this can be done prenatally, by editing out genes that would otherwise be detrimental to the organism (in particular, several genetic diseases) then I, personally, consider this an improvement over culling after birth, the more traditional technique. While this would reduce our genetic diversity, I can't see in what circumstance haemophilia (as a random example) could be a useful trait
.
Selecting or editing for a desirable characteristic is another question, both morally and technically. Breeding for life in space, or underwater, could be done by purely traditional techniques (like developing a new breed of dog, wasteful but a mature technology) or gene splicing (with the problem that we can't estimate for a generation or two all the interelated changes, genes not being simple "this codes for blood oxygen transfer" units) Either has disagreeable side effects, particularly socially, but worse than "all blacks are animals" or trying for a final solution to Europe's jewry?

So, personal opinion? I don't think they'll be able to select for increased intelligence (a very complex question) before society has advanced far enough to absorb the change, even religions bending to the pressure from their more financially successful members. Though one or two of the simpler ones, like sex selection, might come up and bite us sooner than we think.