Ok that's a fair point, and one that I agree with. I think we also both would agree with the statement 'You should sometimes NOT use gene editing' without further qualifier. Here's the issue as I see it. There is a population of people, a LARGE population of people that are opposed to ANY AND ALL modifications to the human genome. This same population is also largely ignorant of the realities of genetic drift/flow and natural selection causing genomic change. Those people are unquestionably wrong. You and I both agree that there are cases in which genetic modification is the morally correct thing for a parent to pursue (Tay-Sachs, HTI, things like that) and that there are cases in which it is morally questionable to pursue. (Changing someones sexual orientation, as an example) Can we have this debate again once we have gotten rid of Tay-Sachs, HTI, and a few other diseases?Answering "You should sometimes use gene editing" is a valid answer to the original question.
The problem is that "getting rid" of diseases like this may well have consequences down the line, ones we do not understand, and will not be aware of until they occur. The only way I would support the "eradication" of these diseases is if that happened naturally through editing the genes only when it is known for sure that the child is going to have it, not as a preemptive measure to end some people's genetic lines because it has a higher chance of that disease occurring.Can we have this debate again once we have gotten rid of Tay-Sachs, HTI, and a few other diseases?
Why is it impossible for you to conceive of the possibility that there are some variations in the human code that are purely bugs, and which have no latent feature? I totally concede that we need to tread carefully, but we still need to take some steps.