In other words, taking action to make changes is a crucial difference when compared to inaction, even if the outcomes are similar.
Also this is not a case of arbitrary experimentation, the parents ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue, which is something that so far has been ethically acceptable so far, for embryo selection.
The parents THINK they ARE preventing an inherited genetic issue. I would not dare mess with "god's creation" /evolution. Too many unknowns once you start mix and matching and there's no going back. We know very little...
Nope, whatever happens it's the natural way: mistakes, mix, match and all.
If you believe in the possibility of trait selection in this manner to an advanced level, it is vital that this happens. A tyrannical father may demand his children may be atheists, and prevent them from going to church now. A tyrannical father in the future may have the ability to edit the God gene (assuming one exists for the sake of argument) right out before birth, never allowing the chance of it.
And this is the best case, in which the effort to design doesn't saddle the child with a host of other conditions.
Do you think parents can consent to this sort of experiment on behalf of an unborn child?