I may remind you that even in mainstream ethics it is very often regarded odd to become involved in matters of 'trivial life' as an ethicist. Some colleagues prefer to engage in most abstract conceptual analyses, or in game theories, and even ridicule the old tradition of associating the philosopher with the physician, which still could lead us far beyond mere utilitarian reasoning, into a setting of responsibility awareness, where a bioethically significant ethics might better take place. I further submit that there is nothing like eugenics, as such, being good or bad. We always depend on a specific definition. For example, eugenics can indicate an attempt to improve the quality of our bodily constitution, which is fine if we think of hygiene or antibiotics.
Interference is inevitable for a natural being.
But we wish to realize what exactly we are doing. It makes a considerable difference to kill a population of bacteria, to reanimate a gene-sequence in charge of health, or to try to design a new germline. Obviously, all of these bear a different impact on the concerned persons and on society, with the latter also effecting on future generations. But there is no general innate ethical value in any of these. For an ethical statement we require additional conditions.