That is a total straw man. The argument is that as a society we permit people to do lots of things to their children that have far greater ramifications that this gene editing. It is there for inconsistent to get upset about gene editing but not these other things.

It doesn't matter if it's inconsistent. If "lots of things" are immoral but permitted, and gene editing is also immoral, the correct conclusion is that all of them should be prevented.

If the opposite is true - that if "lots of things" are immoral but permitted, things that are equally or less immoral should also be permitted - then you're arguing for more forms of child abuse to be legalized, in the name of "consistency".

No. It is not inconsistent to get upset about any individual thing we do to children.

So gene therapy? Let's consider the consequences. Everything else? Let's also consider the consequences.

If people generally think X is worse than Y and X is legal then saying Y should be illegal is hypocritical to say the least.