CRISPR doesn't care about your framework. But your framework decides what CRISPR does next.

Gene editing to eliminate hereditary disease. Utilitarian calculus says yes — reduced suffering at scale. Kantian analysis asks whether we're treating future people as means to our vision of health. Disability rights advocates ask who decides what counts as a "defect." Religious traditions disagree about whether the genome is sacred.

The Ethical / Religious Lens holds all of these simultaneously. The Social Lens adds: who gets access first? The Economic Lens adds: who profits from the patents? The Political Lens adds: which regulatory body has jurisdiction over editing the human species?

You're not looking for an answer. You're looking for the complete map of the disagreement. That's what bioethics is.