The nature of GLGT is such that changes made now will be passed down through generations. In making a decision today, one has made the decision for generations to come, and in doing so has disregarded the autonomy of children of the future. These children may face difficulties because of genetic alterations that were made without their input or consent. Consider a child who is a product of GLGT, who must accept all implications of a procedure performed generations ago. This personality dilemma could conceivably spawn anger toward her parents and any other proxy decision makers who may have disregarded her autonomy.
Genetic engineering has the potential to wrong or harm a person, perhaps even more than to benefit.
The maintenance of this separation relies purely on regulatory bodies, as the technologies are similar. While this theory might work in an ideal world, there is a risk that unscrupulous people may disregard regulations. The issue of who is to govern GLGT poses another ethical dilemma. Without a controlling body to limit the extent of genetic manipulation, there is substantial societal risk that scientists could alter genes as they see fit, perhaps indiscriminately. The answers can only be provided by an effective governing body, and none currently exists.