Do you avoid morphs with known genetic flaws?

[Serpent_Nirvana]

There are still hundreds of combos that don't have problems. Someone correct this if it's incorrect, but none of these morphs have problems, or their combinations:

Piebald -- Historically poor eaters (AFAIK, this has largely been eliminated through careful and selective outcrossing); possible immunosuppression (I don't know that I believe it, but it's been suggested in some case reports)

Albino -- I have read a few accounts suggesting that albino x albino pairings may result in genetic defects (anophthalmia, jaw deformities). I don't know quite why, from a genetic standpoint, that this should be the case, but I've read enough to suggest that it may be more than just hearsay.

Het. blue eye leucistic complex -- Nothing with the hets, but since homozygotes may have ophthalmic issues, from a purest standpoint, propagation of these should likely be avoided.

8 ball complex -- Homozygotes have a propensity towards kinking and mild jaw deformities ("duckbill")

The list is ectremely long, without the added problematic morphs. Try combining 3 of those, much less 4+ genes. The problem-free combinations are practically endless.

The other problem is that some problems pop up in combinations of morphs that are unseen in the single-gene heterozygotes. The champagne, for example, seems to do fine on its own (AFAIK), but fails to thrive when combined with certain genes such as sable and spider. Does this mean that we should cease production of a morph as soon as any defect is discovered, even if it's only in a combination or heterozygous form?

That is why, much as it's tempting to, I don't believe that I can think of this issue in such a black and white fashion.

This statement:

You can't breed animals into specific brain functions. It's not that simple. You can't breed a ball python to learn how to go through a maze. Brain function is too delicate and intricate.

Doesn't make any sense. (No offense.) Of course you can breed for specific "brain functions" (eg, behaviors). Look at dogs: some are bred for herding, some for guarding, some for retrieving, etc., etc.. You are even contradicting yourself, as you are proposing to select for behavioral traits in your ball pythons such as good appetite and lack of stress in captivity.

You can't just 'breed down' an animal with neurological affects, without expecting it to also affect something you didn't think could happen.

If you're arguing that all selective breeding carries with it inherent risks, then you're right ... But then you would be arguing against all selective breeding, for any purpose, and that's just a shame IMO. (A very popular argument with certain groups for whom I hold no affinity, but not a belief that I subscribe to.)