[Martinus]

Whilst there is an acknowledged risk (by those familiar with the process on even an intermediate level) you are assuming a lot Mongoose. You are basically riding on humanity being amoral at best or immoral perhaps and just going to the most extreme of genetic specification. People don't work like that.

Religion still holds a big enough sway to ensure that this will creep along slowly. Only when it's either been proven to be so hit-and-miss to make it a bad decision or so advantageous that it unquestionably benefits people will religion push its advocates to 'ban' or endorse this. Also, the poorly educated are prone to jump on any bandwagon that is fed to them via the media and you can bet that enough conjectural horror-stories will be presented to ensure "our tax-money won't be spent on that!". Just look at the reaction to the large hadron collider; a fairly significant number of people were genuinely worried that the world was going to end.

At some point (probably not too far into the future) it is likely that we will have a good understanding of the nature and organisation of the human genome and will be able to manipulate it with more finesse than the current method. IVF's success rate is a big factor in how 'wasteful' of potential viable embryos this is (and I would like to interject to point out that the 'traditional' method of conception is responsible for countless numbers of embryos being discarded that seems to garner no similar moral dilemma) improvements here will reduce or remove the need for more than one fertilized egg.

We have almost reached the level of advancement that allows us to mitigate a large proportion of the chance involved in having to live with a drastic illness. I do not consider anyone who has not had to live with muscular dystrophy or a life-time's fear of hereditary disease to be able to claim that genetic modification should not happen without being biased. Yes, people with severe debilitating genetic diseases do have a potentially better quality of life now but at great expense to those who have to care for them who simply wanted a normal child. The quality of life they might enjoy now is mostly a consequence of living in a developed country; third world or developing countries have no infrastructure to support long-term survival or even survival with a minimal quality of life, babies are often simply discarded.

The possibility of not having to see suffering due to something that could feasibly be fixed rather than ignoring it because I've been told it's not the way of nature strikes me as by far the more moral choice. People are people and no law will ever be able to remove all possibility of someone using genetics for questionable reasons. I just trust that those among us who are vigilant and want it used for beneficial ends will be there to ensure that the chances of needless experimentation as close to zero as is possible.

[Mongoose]

Whilst there is an acknowledged risk (by those familiar with the process on even an intermediate level) you are assuming a lot Mongoose. You are basically riding on humanity being amoral at best or immoral perhaps and just going to the most extreme of genetic specification. People don't work like that.

My own experience of humanity leads me to have both great hope for our future and great doubt that we will be able to realize said future.  Our development as a society has given us great potential to further expand our horizons, but at the same time, we all-too-frequently manage to turn this potential against ourselves, to our own detriment.  (A certain sort of weapon comes to mind.)  I look at developments such as this in the field of genetics in the same light, tempered by my own ethical standards.  I think that this technology holds fantastic potential to alleviate suffering in many people, but I can also see many, many ways in which it can be misused to the detriment of society, which tempers my enthusiasm for it and leads to my urging of caution.

And if you'll allow me to swing off-topic just for a moment to address a particular point...

(and I would like to interject to point out that the 'traditional' method of conception is responsible for countless numbers of embryos being discarded that seems to garner no similar moral dilemma)

The fundamental ethical difference here is that procedures like IVF knowingly and willfully involve the destruction of embryos, whereas spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) occur without any knowledge or action by the parties involved.  The doctor performing IVF and the couple who is patronizing that doctor are fully aware that they will be discarding a number of spare embryos in the process.  In contrast, a couple normally having sex has no control over how (or if) the fertilized egg will develop.  As with any number of ethical issues (and such legal issues as murder, for that matter), the intent of the parties involved is as important as the end result.