Questions of safety and the possibility of making a mistake which would condemn an innocent to the possibility of some genetic disorder, why shouldn't parents be allowed to "custom design" their child? As long as they are going to nurture that child into being a well-rounded and fully-developed adult then who has the right to tell the parents that they cannot determine their child's skin color, eye color, hair color, or whatever other gene scientists think they can tweak however they want? Surely they don't think that mere outward appearance means anything, do they? No, no couple is going to willingly choose "albino" but would it hurt anyone if a Mexican and Korean couple decide they want a Caucasian child? Will it hurt anyone if a German couple decide that they want their child to have epicanthic folds? No, of course it won't hurt anyone, as long as the parental choices won't result in a detrimental condition for their child.The White House said Tuesday that an experimental process that alters the DNA of human embryos and passes along those changes to successive generations poses ethical issues that requires further review and should not be pursued at this stage.
"The administration believes that altering the human germline for clinical purposes is a line that should not be crossed at this time," John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in a statement on gene-editing.
It comes amid concern that the technology could be used to create so-called “designer babies,” offspring with characteristics deemed desirable by their parents.
Last week, The National Academy of Sciences said it would convene an international summit this fall to explore the ethical and policy issues associated with the research and appoint an international committee to recommend guidelines for the technology, which is called CRISPR-Cas9 and allows scientists to edit virtually any gene they target.
The technique allows researchers to artificially insert or remove parts of the DNA.
Nascent work in the field has already led to fierce patent battles between start-up companies and universities that say it could prove as profitable and revolutionary as recombinant DNA technology, which was developed in the 1970s and 1980s and launched the biotechnology industry.
But CRISPR has also brought ethical concerns. Use of the technology provoked strong criticism from some scientists last month, after it was employed in China to alter the DNA of human embryos.
Although the embryos were not viable and could not have developed into babies, the announcement led to warnings that such a step, which could alter human genomes for generations, was just a matter of time.
"Research along these lines raises serious and urgent questions about the potential implications for clinical applications that could lead to genetically altered humans," Holdren said in the statement on the White House website. “The full implications of such a step could not be known until a number of generations had inherited the genetic changes made — and choices made in one country could affect all of us."
Of course, detractors are going to bring up eugenics. Which traits are actually desirable for human beings, though? Skin, hair, and eye color are irrelevant and meaningless, as is height to a degree. However, what if scientists could tweak the genes for muscle density, bone density, or intelligence? Who wouldn't want a child who is athletically and intellectually gifted even though those are more a factor of practice and diligence rather than "natural" ability?
In my opinion, the only truly desirable trait is intelligence. Everything else can be left up to chance but if the parents want an olive-toned, brown-eyed girl then why not let them have one?
No one is going to genetically modify their kids to be the best damn middle manager or IT support on the planet.They'll be doing something amazing with their lives, things the rest of us *can't* do. 
