Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.
Of course it is non-binding. That's the whole point. You're trying to assert that there must be absolute morality, because relative morality cannot be absolute. Your argument is irrational. Morals are relative because there is no basis for absolute morality.
It is often necessary, however, for a society to come to an agreement on what actions should and should not be permitted, or considered correct/moral; specifically on issues of actions that have consequences that reach beyond the individual taking said action. Societies exist because of the benefits of working together. Thus they promote the interests of the group as a whole, and so group consensus is important when dealing with matters which affect the group. The result is often a unified sense of morality; but it is still important to remember that morality is not universal. Rape is almost always considered immoral, and rightly so. If you weigh the pros and cons I think that one is fairly easy to judge; but not all issues are so simple and when you take a position of universal moral absolutes, you prevent the discussion that is necessary to reach well-considered decisions about the more complex moral issues. You are correct that many people take contradictory and hypocritical positions when discussing morally complicated issues; but the failure of certain individuals to maintain objectivity and discuss issues impartially does not negate the need to have such discussions. You are right to point out that issues such as deforestation or nuclear energy should not be approached from a position of moral absolutes, and that in fact makes my point.
Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.
Au contraire. Parents with good morals want what is best for their child, without brining harm to anyone else's child. The trick is, as always, balancing the interests of the individual against the interests of society.
