Why wouldn't it be? It adds potential to correct all illnesses and severe birth defects that will negatively impact the child's life way more than the fact that it was gene-edited. It is imperative we prioritize human well-being and this is a way to tackle it before a child is even born. It seems to me to an efficient way that also puts less bear on the, already decaying, health system later on.

What change are you describing here? Who would agree to live with a life-long illness that could've been prevented with a procedure that is getting easier and easier every day? It seems to me to be more immoral not to do it. The person cannot agree to be born in the first place, does this change things so much or are you against it because it's a new invention?

Please, define the change, I have no way to respond to you if I don't know what change you are describing. I think it isn't risky, reproduction is the same afterwards and genes are genes. I will also ask again: if a person cannot consent to being born, why do you think this constitutes a bigger moral issue, especially with the point put forward that it can be used to cure people?