Pray tell, why is denying an existence to a healthy child that could have been born instead of a partially or fully disabled child a better option?

You seem to be insinuating a line of reasoning that borders on fallacy. We don't know the full extent to which ALS is caused by the individual contributing factors. We don't even know if the genetic factors that seem to be partly responsible for it in many cases in any way contributed to his mental prowess. The same Stephen Hawking might have never developed ALS if his early life had been different. Given a slightly different prenatal and childhood development, genetically the same Stephen Hawking could have developed ALS without getting the brilliance in exchange. And many other people grew into brilliant minds without suffering from ALS.

There's no reason to assume that a yet-unborn child that to your knowledge will get born disabled or preconditioned for disability with certainty will have an offsetting factor (such as scientific brilliance) with any higher probability than that a healthy child would be gifted.

They matter. But show me one parent that would willingly choose a disabled child upon conception instead of a healthy one if given an option. Go on, just try.

...and have the authorities invade your life needlessly for years.

Probably because they never ask the children. Yes, it's personal, but the voices of those people who matter most are never taken into consideration.

Anecdotal evidence. Just because one child with a severe medical condition turned out right doesn't mean that diagnosing it in utero isn't a strong suggestion that "try again" would most likely bring into the world an equally brilliant person, only with fewer medical problems and with better quality of life.

I'm not sure. Adoption is a complicated and lengthy process, you're going to be scrutinized ruthlessly if you're going for it. In case of a fertility treatment, or even a complicated procedure such as this, you're just one of many biological parents of this world.

That's not implausible - quantum effects are directly noticeable in the way your ordinary bipolar junction transistor operates.

Or, you could - you know - simply create a network of sensors that will propagate their measurements at speed of light into all areas of interest. I'm not sure how fast the P-waves are these days but they are most certainly slower than light.

In this case, it's actually supposed to mean precisely that.

Of course I know. I've had her book on my desk since a long time ago. And it's Evi, not "Emi".

The second reason was adventure? So basically this guy was just like Bradley Manning who was self-avowedly in it for the thrill and the power trip.

This is basically the Icelandic Bradley Manning except 1. Nobody will die due to his leaks and 2. the exact same people who say there's some sort of duty to leak information from abusive and secretive organizations will vilify him for leaking information from an abusive and secretive organization (oh wait, Wikileaks is our new God-substitute and is above good and evil, sorry I forgot).

(Especially Italian scientists.)

Apparently, the opponents screaming "bloody unethical" got your sentence reshuffled as "The father would do a sister".

Around here, that's less heinous than not having Evi's book on a cherished spot in your library.

No problem. Ancient Egyptian queens solved this by means of a strap-on.

She's laughing at us while sipping coffee with Jim Gray on some remote island.