When discussion turns to the possibility of human genetic engineering (HGE), some experts advocate a “wait and see” mentality or label anyone who asks questions or voices concerns as a technophobe. Certainly, it is impossible to perfectly predict the possible outcomes and secondary effects of HGE—a technology that does not yet exist. It is possible and advantageous, however, to make informed predictions, as well as challenge those already put forth by people most apt to gain from the broad acceptance of HGE technology. Proponents of HGE describe a future where disease will be diminished, if not eliminated, where we will live longer and more active lives, where parents will have more control over reproduction, and where children will be spared the trauma of low IQ, homely appearance, athletic inaptitude and social awkwardness. On a broader level, HGE enthusiasts paint a picture of the future in which HGE will all but ensure the fulfillment of our "inalienable rights." In light of this, it seems fitting to use these as a framework for evaluating the possible fruit of fully embracing HGE. It is my opinion that no matter how much "benefit of the doubt" is given to the use of HGE technology, in the end it will not only be found wanting in how it delivers on what it has promised, but if embraced to the extent currently proposed, will also contribute to the deterioration of the very inalienable rights it both seeks protection under and claims to increase. The HGE debate encompasses numerous internal debates--the status of the embryo, ethics of "designer babies," autonomy of reproductive rights, and safety of HGE--just to name a few. This paper will not attempt to sort out or even comment on issues pertaining to the ethics, necessity or good of developing HGE technology. Rather, the focus will be on evaluating the predicted impact of widespread use of HGE, should it be developed.