Is there a real difference between curing a sick child and designing a future one? I think there is, and that difference is the whole ballgame. Let me be clear about what we're discussing. We're not talking about editing a living person's cells to fix a disease. We're talking about germline editing — changes to embryos that get passed down to every future generation. That's a permanent alteration to the human gene pool, made without the consent of the people who'll inherit it. Here's my framework: medicine fixes problems in people who exist. Embryo editing redesigns people who don't exist yet. That's not treatment, that's engineering. And it opens a door we can't easily close. If we allow it for fatal diseases, what's the line for deafness? Or height? Or intelligence once we figure out the genetics? The other side will say we can cure terrible suffering. I'll grant that. But we're not just curing one child — we're changing the blueprint for everyone downstream. That's a burden no one voted for. We should be cautious with permanent changes, not eager.

[No submission - Time expired]