You may have been "Woosh!"ed here... doesn't two-factor auth usually send the verification code to your phone?

You are claiming that the extreme sun sensitivity to which many redheads are prone is not a serious problem.

You are also claiming a person whose huge contributions to humanity have made him rich does not deserve special consideration, even if he is the individual who invented the correction from which he would benefit. Your motive here is nothing but jealousy of those better than yourself.

I'd think that it shouldn't be long before biocompatible limbs can be grown from a small tissue sample; there have already been significant steps in that direction. Not all problems are looking for a GMO solution.

If a DNA sequence is bad then find the people that have it and correct it.

You going to do that at gunpoint?

You are attempting to conflate science with scientists, and you're not going to get away with it. Once people, a body of knowledge, and the scientific method, are all properly identified, your post becomes gibberish.

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? No amount of genetic manipulation will eliminate laziness. The lazy person earns less, and from among the lazy who earn less some will be jealous of and pissed off at those who earn more. Some will turn to violence or crime.

People don't even need real differences to cause malicious harm. Just look at riots after soccer games.

In all likelihood, people will be better. Just don't think that everything will be fixed.

To some extent, beauty is an absolute, not relative. Beauty is indicative of health, and health is always pleasing to the eye. Considering the opposite, if everybody were scarred and oozing pus, nobody would be beautiful.

13 years ago, I moved from Los Angeles to New Hampshire. Middle aged LA women are more attractive than NH by a small margin, but NH girls are much prettier than LA girls, on average. This distinction remains after 13 years, so it's not just what I've gotten used to, it's an absolute based on such considerations as proportion and symmetry.

Moral being religious, as that is the only argument against being paid for sex.

Commercial sex is bad from a public health standpoint, and the more widespread it is, the greater a problem it is.

There's a reason beyond religion that it's an insult to call a person a whore.

There's a reason beyond religion that it's an insult to say "Johnny has to pay for it."

High selectivity is a mark of a person worthy of respect, and a prostitute accepts all comers. It's not indicative of a healthy mind.

We can't design wings that work - on Earth. In a closed dome on the moon at 1 atm, why not?

Eye sensitivity can be boosted by about 10x - reflective layer and wider pupil - at the cost of acuity. Cyborg eyes will someday allow the replacement of rods & cones with silicon, good for maybe a 6x improvement. Neither sounds like a particularly good choice, although a silicon replacement for a blind eye could be very good.

It's possible that a modification will result in some horrific disease.

Yep, it's possible, but only in those who were undergoing a repair attempt in the first place. That's going to be a very small number of people, everyone else on earth is unaffected.

Can't we practice on the undead instead?

Are you aware that the Amish are growing in number far more rapidly than the general population?

Once drugs come off patent competition usually drives the price down. Also, FWIW, there are many countries that extort drug companies into much lower prices in those countries, refusing to recognize the patent.

Accidents, properly defined, fall outside the realm of ethics.

At best, risk levels can be defined, and a cost-benefit analysis performed. Generally speaking, we're talking about serious people consciously and conscientiously evaluating an important decision, not some fool deciding the daughter must have yellow feathers even if it means a bird-brain.

In principle, the decision to take a risk with genetic engineering does not differ from deciding to drive a car.