You are advocating for medical experimentation on babies and unborn children. They cannot consent to being part of an medical experiment. Gene editing is not like giving a medication where you can discontinue of someone is having a bad reaction.
Doing something like this for any reason other than to cure a fatal disease would be a straight up crime against humanity - on par with anything the nazis or unit 731 did in WW2
"for any reason other than to cure a fatal disease" ... what about non-fatal but debilitating ? Sounds like you have a pretty absolutist view here ? What other reasonable exceptions can we imagine outside your rigid criteria ? Why should we not have nuanced discussions of the entire spectrum of reasons ?
Also hard to miss your implication of "agree with me or you are on par with a nazi"
Ask the question would you be comfortable allowing babies to be maimed or killed in a medical experiment to develop a treatment to some malady?
Make no mistake that is what we are talking about here. You are testing a therapy. Because you are editing the genome adverse effects of the therapy are irreversible and present at birth. Those adverse effects may include maiming or death.
So now that we have established what the stakes are, I ask again, what set of diseases do you think it is worth the risk of maiming and killing babies to develop a cure?
I think fatal monogenic diseases could be justifiable. But even there a valid argument could be raised about alternative approaches - ex. Cystic fibrosis.
Once you get beyond that things start getting dicey pretty quickly. Only a hop, skip, and a jump to nazi medical experiments on the “mentally retarded”. Check out the Belmont Report for more formalized ethical framework for medical experimentation on people.
Minimizing what the Nazis did is not cool and the suggestion that providing treatment for debilitating diseases to infants is ‘on par’ with murdering six million jews and millions more is honestly gross to me.
Keep your rhetoric in check before you start minimizing the Holocaust.
You might want to take a look at how these experiments inform modern ethical frameworks for biomedical experimentation; and learn what distinguishes ethical conduct of biomedical research from the stuff described in that link.
Your own claim was unambiguous: enrolling fetus/baby/infants (who cannot consent) in a trial for anything other than avoiding certain death is ‘on par with anything the nazis … did in WWII.’
I’m familiar with the Nazi medical experiments and how it informs modern bioethics. What you said is a significant step beyond any bioethicist consensus and trivializes the horrific mass murder that was the Holocaust.
This is really gross and there were 100 different ways for you to raise the ethical concern you're (charitably) trying to raise without comparing parents to Nazis.
Doing something like this for any reason other than to cure a fatal disease would be a straight up crime against humanity - on par with anything the nazis or unit 731 did in WW2