All those who are not in favour of these genetic tests I can only say have never lost or watched their child suffer from an incurable genetic disorder. I have and if I could have another child free from the genetic disorder that killed my son at 2 days old I would.

Beth, Cambridge, Cambs

I am 25 and have familial hypercholesterolaemia. I've had it since age 3. I grew up in a hospital, taking experimental medication and attending cholesterol classes with the 50+ set. I have the 'mild' form of the disease. Everyone on my father's side has had heart surgery by age 35. They never had the luxury of statins or proper diagnosis, I did.

I am at the age where I am considering having a child. I plan on having genetic testing, just like the couple in the article above. Children born with the homozygous FH gene living beyond the age of two are incredibly rare. This couple's child is a large exception to the prognosis. The fact is, she is most likely on a massive dose of statins or experimental drugs and will be on some sort of dialysis in the near future. Most children born with the homozygous FH gene need urgent liver transplants.

Obviously, destroying the fetus which has a form like mine is ludicrous. But bringing a child into the world who will most likely die before 2 years?

Carla, London, UK

i am too doing a case study and beleive that people should not use pgd to designer their child. however i am a triplet and was produced by ivf treatment, ivf is still natural is not playing with genetic characteristics

rebecca, yorkshire, england

i think it is really mean making designer babys people should be happy with the child they get no matter what it looks like
im doing a case study for school at the moment about this and i just think its horrible

sammy, haywards heath, uk

This article is incredibly misleading - the HFEA have ONLY granted a licence for screening out of homozygous forms of the disease - something which the article fails to make clear. They are not suggesting that the heterozygous embryos- the same as the parents - will not be implanted. This development is not suggesting that people with the milder form should be prevented from being born or that such lives are unworthy.

Kirsty, London,

The age of drugs, vaccines, and surgery was our old science, and it took a while to get used to (Some never did.) The new medicine is genomics.

We all need to keep discussing these things in a thoughtful and rational way---so that we agree to make the advances that we need to make, and still feel comfortable with our social and moral compass. We can take on this new challenge with grace if we keep ourselves informed.

There doesn't need to be a dystopian slope to armageddon. It's new. We don't know what to make of it, yet. Time to get informed. It's our civic responsibility.

Jared P., San Diego, CA

Hitler would love this

Ginger, Iowa Falls, IA

Everyone just needs to watch Gattaca to understand the full consequences of these types of actions, I am a die hard liberal but this can turn into something really terrible, and fast.

Catherine, Boston,

While it it admirable that the parents wish to keep their child from suffering with the severe form of high cholesterol, isn't it pathetic that people think that life is not worth living if one is born with a high cholesterol disorder? Think of it. Here is the couple with the child who has the severe form of high cholesterol and they are controlling the disease well and the child is doing quite well. They would be murdering a human being if they took away their child's life. However, if an embryo, who would grow to be genetically similar to their child, were alive they would be allowed to kill that child who is simply at an earlier stage of growth. This is total lunacy! To characterize human life as valuable or not because the person has a disease, is like a life made up of waiting around for one's genetically predisposed diseases to manifest themselves. If this is what a scientifically examined life and scientifically prudential decisions entail they are monsterous values.

William R. Moore, Minneapolis, USA / Minnesota

I'm against abortion, but this only science taking care of what we used to do with natural selection, today we are a weak race of human beings with all sorts of aliments that normal natural selection would have removed, but we have moved on from nature and now must force science to do natural selection for us.

The best thing would be to allow a corporation to raise children for their own potential benefit, if the child after the age of 18 decides to continue on with the company great, if not they are left to their own devices, maybe the company would even have a investment arm that funded some of the kids who wanted to leave that had an ability that the corporation found favorable, if we are a race to survive our limited time on this rock called earth we are going to have become serious about getting off soon.

Billy Norton, San Jose, CA