Editing human embryos is a controversial topic of discussion. In essence, the debate revolves around whether or not we ought to stray from our natural programming in order to advance ourselves. As I am arguing for the editing of human embryos, I would say yes. For one, gene editing can be immensely beneficial to people with any form of inherent disabilities (be they physical or mental). Although the possible negatives of exploitation do pose a threat, the net impact is overwhelmingly positive. Second, it is due process for us to evolve and shed our skins. We see this in nature all the time, and see it in ourselves as the case of technological advancements time and time again, and while they come with negatives, the positives outweigh them.

Although the very first instances of gene editing might turn out to be slightly ambiguous, the net result would be, as I said, overwhelmingly positive. While yes, it could indeed be "scary" to see a human get edited, it is no reason not to edit the human's genes.

This starts as a slight naturalistic fallacy: assuming that because something is natural, it is right. For gene editing, this is not quite the case since we have clearly defined parameters by governments, intergovernmental institutions, and others that define what a disability is. And again, with gene editing, there ought to come tightened laws around it. The argument was framed around whether or not the act of gene editing should be allowed, so to talk about "who decides this", while can be a good argument if framed well, doesn't really work here. Lovely argument though!