The Eugenics of Personal Choice

I certainly hope so.As long as it can be shown that it's helpful.
If it's shown that it's detrimental, then by all means stop it.But don't stop it because it's "playing with DNA," that's just immature.
There's also nothing obviously unethical about it.The unethical parts only come up if you start doing things without some sort of factual foundation and/or intentions of harm.However, if the genetic manipulation is based on a sound factual basis, and it is doing helpful things (better resistance to disease, stronger muscles, more brain power...). Add in a monitoring system checking for any adverse side-effects and either correcting or stopping at those points as well as willing volunteers... then it would actually be unethical not to do genetic manipulation.

I don't think we should ever decide that there's absolutely no downside to this program.
That seems like a very un-intelligent thing to decide about any program, ever.My point is that the idea of possible-downsides does not necessarily outweigh the evidence of factual-goodsides.There are still many flavours... what are the gravity and probabilities of the downsides?
What sort of evidence is actually backing the goodsides (are they actually factual?)These sorts of things would be unique per situation, and should be taken as such."Eugenics" is a massive scope.
Sweeping generalizations in either direction are rather silly.Yes, it's certainly possible that future issues could occur.
It's also certainly possible that future issues could occur with setting and putting a cast on a broken bone.The ideas of "oh noes, the entire culture will go corrupt!!... so we can't go through with ensuring your baby has a maximally-healthy brain to start their life..." are just silly.The fear itself isn't so silly... it's the knee-jerk solution to calm that fear that is silly.
The fear that the entire culture will go corrupt is quite normal to have... but the solution is to be proactive about laws/regulations/monitoring systems that prevent "the entire culture from going corrupt." The solution is not "oh well, let's forget about helping people, then..."Systems that could be incorporated to resist the possible corruption are ones like RAZD already mentioned... ensure that such procedures are not exclusive to certain classes/levels of people. Ensure that such procedures are voluntary as opposed to mandatory. Those are great beginnings.And, of course, we may want to start with the corrupt governments we *already have* before we start worrying about future-corrupt-governments...

No.
Because you're wrong.You're trying to compare the "unforeseen consequences" of DNA tinkering with the "totally foreseen consequences" of bone tinkering. And that's the point I'm trying to make... the difference isn't that the consequences are possibly horrible... the difference is merely that the consequences are unforeseen.
If you actually compare the "unforeseen consequences" of both... you'll see that they both have just as many, just as dangerous, and just as big. They have to be... because they're unforeseen. It's like comparing the size of two infinite numbers...Yes, it's quite possible that DNA tinkering can be taken in a very bad direction.
It's also possible that bone tinkering could be taken in a very bad direction.We have a history of bone tinkering with volunteer subjects and access to everyone under monitored regulations.
We don't have such a history for DNA tinkering.It's also quite possible that DNA tinkering, given the same volunteer subjects and access to everyone and monitored regulations, could be just as helpful to people and benign to the corruption of society. Yes, of course. First off, I'm not advocating going "whole hog" in any manner. I'm advocating a controlled, monitored, volunteer-driven, accessible "hog."Secondly... you have yet to pick anything specific you want to discuss. You keep saying that "the issues" are being hand-waved away... but you won't specify any issues. What's a specific issue? You're going to have to get a bit more specific than "delicate ecosystem." That's exactly what should happen. We need to have many different personal and cultural biases give their opinions on such things. Otherwise we're only playing into our own personal biases.What kind of abuse are you worried about?
Can you give an example that isn't something that would very obviously not be allowed in a democratic society anyway?Like, obviously, "only people with DNA tinkered brains are allowed in schools so as not to waste public funding on the weak" is a possible abuse. But do you really think such a thing would actually fly? How would such a bill/law/regulation get through the voting process? Especially during this time when equality and fairness are things that are being politically stressed as baseline mandatory.So, name a specific, possible abuse that you're worried about and we can begin discussing how big of a worry it really should or shouldn't be. The same way we're not screened for "bad" IQ levels right now for such things.
The same way we're not screened for "bad" athletic prowess right now for such things.Some jobs will have minimum requirements... you could say that being a doctor includes certain screening for "bad" IQ levels. You could say that being a professional football player includes certain screening for "bad" athletic levels. But such things are reasonable and valuable. Therefore, perhaps it's possible that certain screening for "bad" genes should be done in certain circumstances as well. No.
Totally decreased genetic diversity of any possible variation at all is a bad thing in itself.
But just "a decrease in genetic diversity" is not a bad thing in itself. No.Like I said before, the questions themselves are not fearmongering. They're reasonable and understandable.
But anyone jumping to the conclusion of "we shouldn't do this at all" without giving any reasoning other than their fears of future possibilities... is fearmongering. (You may not actually be doing this, just saying...)

Made me do my homework: Grey GooThat's not the way I'd program them to work...

I've recently discovered that my thoughts on the matter fluctuate entirely depending on how much I've had to drink coupled with what movie I most recently watched.Just put the lives of millions in my hands, I'll at least include subtitles 😁

Yes, but I forget most of it at this point I don't plan on doing much trusting.A vigilant, monitored, regulated, volunteer-oriented system is the one I'd be behind. Anything else gets no "trust" from me. Right now, we don't have a lot of information to go from.
All we can do currently is wait and see what's around the next corner.We can have a plan in mind and be ready to react if anything seems to be deviating... or we can "trust."
We all make our own choices.