I believe that all of the points you make are valid, but while medical advancements continue to be made, human nature still remains the main factor in many decisions made in government and even in science.
Genetically altering genes for the purpose of choosing how your children look and behave would eventually render the population of the civilised world into a bunch of blond-haired, blue eyed, 6 foot tall muscular male doctors and slim, big breasted woman lawyers. Well, not literally, but I'm just trying to get my point across.
The 'super-race' mentality is still a VERY chilling thought and brings up memories of Hitler's ideal of society.
Also, as a rule, humanity has more or less reached it's peak for longevity at under 150 years. The human brain and body can only go so long before it finally breaks due to extended use. At a point, if a memory and emotions can be saved and transplanted into a computer allowing to continue having a sentient existance, that would suck. Who would want to live in a computer, anyway? Immortality is, for the most part impossible.
'Breakthroughs' continue to be made, but a person cannot just die of nothing.
There will always be a painful illness or physical condition that will cause a person to die, therefore sanctioned euthanasia, at the request of the patient (let me stress that) will always end up being an option.
I agree with you that we should keep the advancement of artificial intelligence in check. Machines should remain our tools, not our equals. There is NO need for intelligent, artificial life.
Let me say that I am extremely glad to see a somewhat intelligent debate going on here.