Originally Posted by Berry

You never have to accept other people's definitions, even if they do carry the force of law. For lack of better terms I will say there are disabilities and disadvantages. Having MS with uncontrolable siezures is a disability -- Having the mind of a five year old in a thirty year old body is a disability -- There is not a lot a person can do to get around these things.

On the other hand loss of a hand, arm, foot, leg, speech, hearing, smell, youth, are disadvantages that can and do happen to anyone at any age.

The question then becomes: "Should someone who carries a gene that makes an early disadvantage more likely be allowed to pass that gene on to future generations?"

Then there is the question that is always present: "How far should any government go in protecting its constituants? At what point does it cease to be protection and become persecution?"

I personally believe anyone effected/affected by a decision should have a voice in that decision.