I'm noticing an interesting phenomenon on this topic. People are saying they an objection X, but upon inspection, it becomes clear that the actual fear has nothing to do with X.

For example the objection "this isn't a useful mutation," may be true, but it wouldn't justify outrage. It's the absence of a positive rather than the presence of a negative.

Or, for example, "the parents weren't informed properly," if true, might justify better communication with parents in the future but shouldn't slow down such genetic mutations on a wide-scale with informed consent. I imagine there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people willing to give informed consent.

I imagine it's something much more general like fear of the unknown, which is reasonable. But we should strive to be authentic in our arguments.