Firstly, I do not believe the conversation has changed context. Answering "You should sometimes use gene editing" is a valid answer to the original question. I made it clear from my first post that there are specific times gene editing should be used, and that there are many times that it should not.

When people answer "yes" to a question like the article, it automatically implies "yes, always", which is not something I am willing to say.

I highly doubt that a single switch flips causing both life-destroying schizophrenia and whatever benefits there may be.

That's the thing, a single gene probably controls not only things with Schizophrenia, but also changes areas of the brain to make someone more creative, or to make them more observant. While these genes can be a predictor for schizophrenia, those who do not develop the illness due to some reason, such as environmental, epigenetic, or other factors, can greatly benefit directly from having the genes that cause the disease.

This isn't necessarily true, but it's very much a possibility.

I don't get where you are coming from when talking about the problems when "an expensive intensive, and time consuming procedure becomes mandatory". I was assuming moral choice, if we should morally choose to edit genes. As for mandating or not mandating it, people should always be free to choose, as individuals, what to do.