I see no problems with that.  For me, the ethical issues only arise when people start selecting for cosmetic reasons.  And in that situation, while I find it icky in general, the specific issue is for the child who may feel they were "designed" by the parent, and therefore feel as if they were property of the parent.  I know that some parents instill that feeling anyway, without any scientific intervention, but being a "designer baby" would increase the pressure on that front.
 

It is hard to argue in favor of blindness, so I'm not going to.

But I wonder if we have learned any lessons from history about unintended consequences of making a decision about Mother Nature simply because we didn't understand the bigger picture. Is removing a gene like this similar to introducing a wonderful new plant to the Americas that cattle just love to eat and that would secure soil in the dust bowl? And then Kudzo proceeds to swallow the South.

And then I think of selective breeding of animals, like for example, the bulldog, that have been bred to be a certain way and are unhealthy for it.  Can you imagine what people would do if there are no limits?

I think we need to be cautious with IVF gene editing.

Eliminate the genetic condition. If the kid doesn’t like being sighted, they can always blind themself later. It’s all about giving them choices.