EDIT: Ok that was argumentative, but really children do not have a choice to be thrown into this world, and to think that there is someone who knows better about how this should be done is the absolute highest hubris.
Ummm, have you seen Gattaca? Let me spoil it for you: it doesn't end well. Every reasonable scientist working in CRISPR is against editing the human germline. Here is a good piece on it:
https://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1...
Also note, why do you assume that "we" would be in control? Suppose a government took control of your genome? Or a private company? Given the expense there is almost no way it would be democratic.
"We" will be in control because embryos cannot be edited without a process that is essentially IVF. If governments are going to force this on women, we have bigger problems to deal with. It will be as straightforward as a couples using the technology to select for and against certain straightforward traits.
In the world of Gattaca we see that only a few religious nut jobs inflict natural conception on their children. They are called god-born because they are the product of religious extremists. Genetic engineering is common and accessible to all classes. For example portable genetic testing services so ubiquitous that they are available at company party.
As viewers, we should take away what I means to choose to cripple another human permanently. You should think long and hard about winning Jesus points for a second life by consigning a real person with the same ability to feel and dream to Hell in this life.
Argument from fiction doesn't work, because the evidence is fictional.
I don't understand precisely how "reasonable" is defined here. It's a subjectively loaded notion as it is, and I feel compelled to express a lot of skepticism toward any claim of "every reasonable person is of the position I'm currently taking".