Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?

[Neo-Scholastic]

... as all ethical topics should be worth debating properly with logic... rather than closed off by absolutists who think X, Y and Z are moral/immoral in and of themselves without actually provided logic for their consqeuestnalist reasons for being  moral/immoral.

Consequencalism doenst's work without some kind of moral realism already in place. Unless there are moral absolutes every ethical system is just a thin cover for power dynamics. In my experience, atheists generally fear that positing any form of realism opens the door for a theistic foundation. That fear is not entirely unfounded.

It is all well and good to say any given technology is morally neutral and that the proper use of something like gene editing needs ethical guidelines. So the bigger question is the often debated 'objective morality'. Personally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It's like Wimpy saying that he will gladly pay for the hamburger he eats today. You want to charge forward with using the technology knowing full well that you haven't a clue about what or even why there should be limits.

---

People simply aren't capable of being responsible for their reproduction.

Therefore what? Put that power entirely in the hands of an elite central planning authority? See guys, this is just the kind of "ethical" thinking that leads to collectivist fascism.