Agreed 100%.

Why assume it's going to lead to some dystopian future when technological progress has shown that advances like this come down in cost immensely over time. Even an insurance system would want in on subsidizing these procedures if it meant an upfront cost versus long term or lifelong expensive treatments.

Edit: Why even assume it would be an insurance subsidy -- the government has a strong motivation to reduce health care costs for >= 65 year-olds and if you could eliminate or reduce costs through early genetic engineering the argument can be made that the government itself should subsidize as a public health initiative.

Just look at the past. Remember when doctors and scientists came up with ways to prevent polio, smallpox, measles, etc. and the result was just that rich kids enjoy immunity while the poor suffer?

Wait a minute....

Exactly. Treating chronic genetic disorders might require expensive biologics over the span of a long time to only partially treat. And since the disease is genetic, there is always the risk it comes back.

Ethically we should to born humans. Absolutely do the good and the great. Unborn embryos never except what is medically to save the live of the fetus. We are not talking about medical but genetic and equality. We could no longer say "All Men are Created Equal."

Exactly. Another reason why we need seasteading...