Abstract Despite impressive advances, the consensus remains that we cannot yet justify creation of genetically modified babies. This paper raises a puzzle for the consensus to the extent that it rests on concerns about risks to those modified babies. Although it is hard to justify disabling someone who already exists, I argue that it is presumptively permissible to create a disabled person who would not otherwise exist. So, which kind of metaphysical risk does early editing pose? A hard to justify risk of disabling someone, or a presumptively permissible risk of creating someone who happens to be disabled? I will show how clinical and metaphysical considerations push in opposite directions, creating a dilemma for the consensus: The stronger the case that editing risks serious disability, the stronger the case that it would be an identity-altering, presumptively permissible instance of creating a disabled person.
Mark E. Greene (Sat,) studied this question.