I hated this one. It was less of a story and more of an ethics rant with cardboard characters pinned to it so that it could be classified as a story. It would've made a great blog post to get a great ethics argument going, but as a story it left something to be desired. I listened to the end in the hopes that it would redeem itself, but it never did.
The big climax of the story was centered around the breakup, but I never really cared about either character, so their breakup didn't really hit home. They apparently only see each other as breeding stock, so why do I care if they break up?
There's a fuzzy boundary between what's ethical and what's not with this sort of screening. The story would've been much better if it had chosen a grayer area of child traits to use, an area closer to the boundary. Instead of artistic talent and IQ, if it had tested for some painful and debilitating disorder, then maybe I could see the other side of it, even both sides of it. In that case, if you chose not to have the kid then some would call it murder, and if you did have the kid could some would call it torture.
But deciding not to have kids because they might not have blue eyes, or might not be above average intelligence? That's far beyond the fuzzy boundary, and is bordering on the Nazi ideal of "the perfect race", a scary thought. And I shudder to think what some parents would do with this power--the sort of parents who force their kids into grueling training, be it for athletics or beauty pagents, when they're only a couple years old. The kids hate it hate it it, but mommy or daddy says they have to go. I can just see those parents now "God damn it, Carly, we paid good money to make you pretty, so get out there and smile! You're just lucky I didn't pay extra for the five year guarantee or you'd be on a bus to GenetixxCorps, so help me!"
And I firmly believe that genetics has very little to do with creative ability and intelligence. Of course if there's a mental disability, that's one thing. But if you take a "creative" person at random from the general population and take a "non-creative" person at random, I don't think there's going to be any markers that differentiate one from the other in terms of intelligence. Genetics may somewhat affect your ability to learn, but not how you apply that ability. Intelligence and creativity are much more influenced by your environment. If your parents went to college, there's a pretty good chance you'll go to college. If your parents were creative, then you're more likely to be creative. And I think it has much more to do with environmental factors, what you see happening around you as a child then any inherent genetic trait.
Not only that, but the definition of intelligence and of creative ability are so subjective! Who is doing the judging? For instance, I rarely love abstract art. I tend to want art to look like something, even if it's a distorted view of that something. One can throw a bucket of paint at a canvas and call it art, and some would agree and some would disagree. The same goes for intelligence. intelligence seems to often be measured by what you know, but that's not a genetic thing. You still have to choose to learn. If a child has a high intelligence rating, but isn't interested in learning, then it's not making much difference.