Sure, why not. So long as you don't do something crazy that would have negative consequences for them. You might be tempted to argue that it's not right to choose for someone else, but did you get to choose your traits? From the perspective of the child what difference does it make whether their traits were chosen or not if they don't get a say in it anyway. At least with genetic engineering the child would have hopefully more good traits than they might otherwise have.

There is someone with the means to do that in dogs and he's being blocked by the FDA, an "at home" gene modifying procedure. He wants to alter the dna of dalmations with the Hyperuricosuria (uric acid stones) gene. Think about that, if you know what you're doing homemade gene splicing.
The dal clubs will probably have issues with that too. -_-

I would consider so-called "negative eugenics," making certain I didn't pass down known negative genes on to offspring. I'm a carrier for Infantile Tay Sachs and Phenylketonuria. Unfortunately, they only have "suspect genes" for a lot disorders I have I wouldn't care to pass on to offspring.

It's kind of an academic question for me, since with my extensive autoimmunity I would need to take immunosuppressants to get anywhere near viability, and since I have 2 Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders, taking immunosuppressants would probably kill me well before then. I will not be having children.

I think that is at the end a rocky road.

Great question. Difficult to answer.
Me, personally, I might consider it, if it's to correct a problem or defect. But what is a defect? Where is that line, and different people draw the line in different places. Some people might consider brown eyes and defect. Some folks might consider 'average' intelligence a defect, and modify for higher intelligence. Perhaps someone considers empathy a defect and genetically modified for psychopathic offspring...
I'm not a geneticist, but generally support the idea of learning more about genes & the human genome. I'm not opposed to the idea of GMO, but where would we draw the line, and who are we to draw lines for other people?
Thought provoking indeed.

Ive thought about this and the russian experiment with taming wild foxes. Im sure there is a way to eliminate the characteristic of violence from human behavior. Perhaps if we genetically modified our wild offspring we could get a human that is much less prone to using violence against others. Maybe if we eliminated wild offspring in humans in favor of genetically modified humans we could achieve world peace.

To select traits (eye color, height, etc.) No. If something had gone horribly wrong (compatiblity with life wrong) and they could fix it I can't say I wouldn't consider it if it ment my child would live.

I love topics like this! Our current understanding of human genetics isn't adequate enough to customize every possible trait, but research is being conducted with the eventual hope of being able to modify the DNA of humans in mind. I think all sorts of ethical questions abound when considering the altering of human DNA to fit a certain ideal, however there are aspects of this touchy discussion that I do agree with. If we have the power to fix genetic diseases, deformities, etc, in vitro--I would say we should.

If I could have stopped my son from having autism yes.

More brain capacity and fitness indicators

Yeah I'm all for GMO I'm all pro choice.