Really what's being said is that nobody should be allowed to use their resources to improve their offspring beyond the level of random chance. This mentality isn't about ensuring that anyone does well, it's about preventing anyone from doing better, like crabs in a bucket.
I'd like to know what's scientific about it and who reached that consensus. There are a plethora of things to define before we even begin this discussion. What constitutes an enhancement? Isn't removing recessive genes aka "curing genetic deceases" an enhancement? If some people already have these "superior" genes, is it just to keep others from getting them? Who decides what genes are good or bad anyway? What's fundamentally different between trying to improve the germline by these means and the "natural" way of choosing best mates? We are choosing genes in both cases, in case of CRISPR we are trying to do it with better precision and certainty.
Wow, that's a huge deal if it's accurate. (I don't know much about the science involved so I can't judge whether it is.)
Forget racism, what happens when a country can actually make it's people "better" (faster/smarter/live longer/stronger) by significant margins?
Unlike how a lot of science fiction portrayed it, it really does not look like genetic modification is going to be individually costly once it is "production ready". A lot of the fears are of creating an underclass of genetically inferior humans, and then the usual argument is you have to ban improvement based modifications for that reason, but why not just promote not having unmodified births the same way we somewhat incentivize aborting fetuses with significant defects already?
All it is moving the bar higher, so that the "average" natural birth just becomes acknowledged as a defect. This is not new - centuries ago children born with even some of the most debilitating mental retardations could still be useful as manual laborers doing the most simple tasks. The abolition of most of those tasks has made is so extraordinary mental deficiency is almost always absolutely crippling, to the degree parents often do decide to abort over it.
The bar was raised then. People only seem content with it because it is both uncommon and a burden to them to support the deficient. When we have superhumans, are regular humans not then also a burden?