'How much would you be willing to pay?' is a different question than the one you originally proposed.
Prima facie, your original question is moronic: "If you could afford an extremely desirable item, would you purchase it?" Assuming that it isn't controversial to partially define extremely desirable items as items one would purchase if they were affordable, the question is vacuous.
One way to make your jumbled posts interesting (+ non-moronic, non-vacuous) is to place them in the context of a wider issue: is it "moral" to wrest control of our destinies from purely biological processes via the utilization of ever more advanced technologies? There are surely some who uphold what we might call a 'purity principle' whereby they reject some or all forms of tinkering with nature for the purposes of enhancement. But it seems to me a rather extreme stance to deny children the chance at an illness-free start to life and thereby increase the probability of their suffering just because it would require modifying the natural world a bit.
Yes, that would have been an interesting question.
And that would lead to the discussion of the "line" between "necessary" and "elective" enhancement. Making your child perpetually immune to all childhood diseases is great. But what about obesity? What if your child will always be a muscular 10% BF? If society increasingly wants to see obesity as a genetic disorder, would the eradication, with the intentional aesthetic result, be preferable? Or would the purists have fault with that.
The same could be said for homosexuality, or alcoholism, or dependency-disorders.
Where dies it end?
