The other side treats gene editing like just another medical treatment, but embryos aren't patients consenting to therapy. The real problem is we can't yet prove safety: off-target edits, mosaicism, and unpredictable downstream effects. In medicine, we don't expose people to interventions without evidence and consent. Editing embryos crosses a line because the person affected can't consent and any harm is inherited. Somatic gene therapy is ethical; germline embryo editing isn't. Until it's safe and just, the answer is no.

We agree serious genetic disease is a real target, and preventing suffering matters. But my opponent's case rests on safety being solvable later. That flips medical ethics: we don't first edit embryos and promise to monitor later, because harms are inherited and irreversible. There's no consent from the future person, and off-target edits or mosaicism can't be undone. Somatic therapy edits only the patient, with consent and oversight. Germline embryo editing should stay off the table until it's demonstrably safe and just. That's not fear, it's evidence-based caution.

My opponent's IVF comparison actually undercuts their case. IVF changed how an embryo is made; it didn't rewrite the embryo's DNA in ways that pass to every future generation. That's the difference evidence-based medicine cares about. A lab can refine technique, but it can't undo a germline edit once a child is born and has kids. So the precautionary principle applies with unusual force: no consent from the future person, no way to roll back inherited harm. Somatic editing stays ethical because consent and reversibility are possible. Germline embryo editing still isn't. That's my line.