Fine, aborted Stephen Hawking or stopped Stephen Hawking's gametes from... meeting.

To me the dividing line is so fine that it's pretty much non-existent anyway but fine, if you want to split hairs about terminology...

What I'm saying is that under your regime you could potentially be 'preventing the existence of' (which is equal to killing as far as I see it, in fact killing is a little better because you allowed the person to live for at least a little while) people who could potentially be brilliant. We know hardly anywhere near enough about genetic diseases to start trying to exterminate various 'defects' from our society.

And where's the dividing line? Where do you stop? Disease which causes pain to the recipient? Or which cause discomfort to families? How about people with high cancer risks, I reckon they should go too. Oh and those with high risks of obesity, that's hereditary often. And let's not forget those with relatively low IQs, much better for humanity if we breed geniuses only, as far as I can see it. Oh, and what about those with blonde hair and blue eyes? Much more asthetically pleasing, definitely, I think we should only keep them.