> Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. I would be interested to know if there is any scientific justification for the limit that isn’t si

> Clinicians have already made the informed estimate for me. I would be interested to know if there is any scientific justification for the limit that isn’t simply eugenics in disguise. It might be an empirically informed estimate guided by morally objectionable principles. Or it might be a round number someone pulled out of their ass. If you just want to trust that the limit has a sound basis, then that’s fair enough on a personal level. You are certainly not obliged to persuade random people on the internet otherwise. > The court are not even looking in the area you're so concerned about, and nobody is thinking of making any laws in that area. That’s my point. No-one in general is trying (yet) to stop particular pairs of humans procreating based on estimates of the chances of birth defects in their children. So what’s the justification for doing it in this case? I understand that there are no ‘couples’ involved in a romantic sense, but the sperm and egg don’t know the difference. If the concern is a genetic one, it should apply equally in either situation. As I said before, there are probably lots of other reasons why what this guy has done is bad. I just don’t think this can be the reason.