The problem isn't the technology, it's the irreversible ripple effect. A single edit to an embryo changes not just that child, but every generation after them. We don't fully understand gene interactions or off-target mutations, and we can't test for long-term consequences before birth. That's like deploying code you've never run in production, except the users are real people who never consented to the change. Many genetic diseases can be addressed through PGD or gene therapy in existing people. Editing embryos doesn't fix a patient; it designs a person. That crosses a line from treatment to engineering. And once we start selecting for disease, we inevitably start selecting for traits. No ethical framework handles that slope well. Until we can guarantee safety across generations, and secure genuine consent from those affected, this should stay off the table. The burden of proof is on the edit, not the status quo.

Their argument about night owl study habits doesn't really touch the question of editing human embryos. I'll take that as a sign we haven't actually engaged on the core issue yet. So let me reframe it. We're not talking about choosing when to do homework. We're talking about making permanent, heritable changes to a human being who has no say in the matter. A single edit propagates through every future generation, and we still don't understand gene interactions or off-target effects well enough to predict the consequences. That's not a safety concern we can patch later. It's a one-way door. The burden of proof should be on the edit, not on those of us who want to avoid harming people who never consented. Until we can show long-term safety across generations, and until we can define where treatment ends and engineering begins, the answer has to be no.

[No submission - Time expired]