Genome editing in a fetus is negative.

I saw that some of my arguments aren't very well exposed. First of all, I didn't talk about beauty as being skinny or athletic, as there is a lot of controversy, due to the fact that everyone taste is different. If everyone could have their facial genes modified, which is possible, facial beauty would be impossible to achieve, and this is why. It is scientifically proved that the more one's facial features are "normal". the more he/she is beautiful. Ugliness is given by the abnormality of facial feature. Since this is scientifically proved there is no point in arguing about someone's taste for facial beauty. Second, there could be a strength gene involved. Just read this article: http://www.gizmag.com... Moreover, cloning, another "brother" of genome modification, could lead to abnormally powerful people. Animal genes can in fact be used with human genes to create hybrids, as this article states: http://www.dailymail.co.uk... I know this is a stupid example, but imagine if there were people with the ability of protecting themselves with armadillo like shells. That would be devastating. I wanted to spend some words on your rebuttal which states that "The countries which enslave children to fight their wars...". Wait, I never mentioned slavery. I just mentioned how genome editing could lead to GMO soldiers. I didn't even say that Third World countries wouldn't be able to afford them. Obviously, if a country like Uganda or Nigeria fought against a country like the US or the UK now they would lose instantly, let alone if the richer countries, US and UK, have an advantage of almost immortal soldiers. You also talked about the case in which a Canadian newborn died because of his parents not treating him, to rebut my religious referral. I would like to further talk about the case. If God let the newborn die, maybe the newborn's purpose was to die, because his parents would then be jailed. If the baby hadn't died because of that, such conservative parents would have probably made him go through even tougher times than not even realise he died. Another argument I would like to talk about is my blind people statement. I do not find it irrelevant, as genome editing made the people able to see. I could however see some irrelevance in the statement, I hoped it would have supported and showed my position better. REBUTTAL: "Free Will" I am certainly sure that parents haven't acquainted their fetus yet, so why should they take life-changing decisions for their baby? Choosing the babie's future school is an irrelevant statement. There's definitely a difference between the two circumstances. Imagine if Sam Berns's parents could have cured his progeria when he was a fetus. Surely one of the world's youngest activists wouldn't have existed, as he would have chosen another lifestyle. Also, the progeria research foundation his parents established after his death would have made progeria impossible to cure in first place. "Vaccines" I must admit I didn't fully understand this argument, but I understood that my opponent thinks that being able to cure diseases with vaccines is the same as modifing genes. If a newborn could become immune to a lot of diseases with vaccines, how would we be able to implant genes that make us immune to a disease. Vaccines are small doses of inactive virus that help our body produce anticorps against it. How does that make vaccines similar to geonome editing. If I had to edit the human genome why would I permanently implant a virus in a fetus. Research is fundamental when stating an argument.