If we assume that this editing doesn't incur any significant risk and it's financially viable, then yes. In fact, regarding illness, deficiencies, disorders, abnormalities, impairments, etc.—basically any problem that can reduce well-being, which can be edited out in this scenario—then it would be immoral not to do so.

I agree with your concerns. The unseen negative consequences, long-lasting or possibly permanent, and the ramifications, and from what I've seen from CRISPR, I also agree that it's still at an early development stage. I don't disagree with anything that you've said. However, the prompt says, "Should editing human embryos be allowed?" It doesn't specify its current technology editing or imply it's editing that doesn't work or is rife with problems. A debate on "Should we allow X? But X doesn't actually work and can't be applied properly" isn't a reasonable prompt.  Political or moral prompt premises are supose to be assumed true in the hypothetical in order to have the debate on the "should" claim. In this case, you've assumed so many problems that it's not really editing anymore but a different prompt, "Should attempting to edit human embryos, fraught with problems, be allowed?".  Given all of this, it's expected instead that we assume editing is reliably possible with minimal or no risks. The point is to argue the "ought" not so much the "is" or "how". Restating my reasonable assumption, that this editing doesn't incur any significant risk and it's financially viable. Then I'd say it is morally neutral for cosmetic editing and immoral to not edit problems that have proven to reduce well-being. The former seems to me to only be argued from a religious worldview. The latter due to intentionally causing harm. If it's reliably and financially possible to edit, then not doing so can only mean the intention is to cause suffering and, worse, to the most innocent person possible. If we could remove problems like Alzheimer's from the gene pool, we would be preventing that suffering for everyone in the future. It's a pretty big moral imperative.

I understand the concept of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." I agree that gene editing can affect the entirety of the human species. And that "tinkering" with something so consequential without knowing the consequences is illogical and immoral. If trying to improve the species results in damaging it instead, then it would be contradictory, and it shouldn't be allowed. Nevertheless, you're assuming that the prompt "gene editing" means people not knowing what they're doing. Which defeats the purpose of debating "should" claims. You're essentially changing the prompt to be "Should X bad thing be allowed?" Well, of course not then. You've loaded it with the answer; it's not really a debate. What I'm arguing is that if the risks are reasonably known and the costs of removing suffering from future generations don't outweigh the benefits, then it's immoral not to do it. The analogy you've offered of removing every "imperfection" of a plant doesn't map on the case since "gene editing" doesn't necessarily mean degradation of the immune system; it could very well be the opposite. Also, it doesn't necessarily mean reducing genetic diversity. It seems to me that the important mutations that give us genetic diversity we need occur around fertilization. Unless this process is specifically targeted by the "gene editing" which would be contradictory because we need the process. Being another case of "Doing a bad thing is bad". "Gene editing" is a tool; how it's used is what can be good or bad. In general terms, we've long been selecting for certain genes, not just in us but in many other living beings. Natural evolution or selection is no longer in play. We already increased efficiency in agriculture and increased its yield 5 to 10 times from the last centuries via some form of gene editing. There are other examples of this tool being used for good outcomes. It's progress and impossible to go back or stop without a catastrophe. The logical progression of this inevitably leads to the "gene editing" the prompt refers to. The questions are about on what should be edited, not if the tool of "gene editing" should exist. It's my position that the tool should exist, that in some cases it would be immoral not to use it, and also that it's inevitable. I'll also agree with you on preventing any editing that causes harm and would argue for restrictions like making animal/human hybrids, for example.