Genetic manipulation to spare people suffering or eugenics?

I read this article today. It discusses how a British couple had their child screened for the breast cancer gene (BRCA-1) in order to ensure that their child did not have the gene. It goes on to say that they would not have implanted that embryo into the mother had it contained the gene. So, we have finally come to it. The Gattaca scenario (a Hollywood motion picture for those of you who don't know the reference). Basically put, eugenics. Yes, picking and choosing our children's genetics. Now, I've listened to passionate, reasonable arguments for terminating a pregnancy when a known debilitating disease is present that will certainly have lifelong impacts on the child born with it, even causing severe problems and extremely short life spans. Whether one agrees with abortion in these cases isn't really my point. The point of this post is to point out that there is a hugely different mindset involved between choosing to terminate a child that WILL have a horribly debilitating disease versus choosing to terminate or "not implant" an embryo/fetus because it contains a gene that might someday have some sort of negative impact on the child that may or may not include death. See the difference? No? The easy answer here is to prevent all abortions and destruction of in-vitro embryos. In today's world, I don't think the easy answer is a real choice anymore. Therefore, it is up to those of us who might question eugenics and the results it would create to fight this kind of thing. Shall we draw a line in the sand and say "this far, no further"? Some may be asking what the big deal here is? After all, we are preventing the possibility of a child having a gene that causes a horrible disease in 50-80 percent of those that have it. Okay fine. Think about this. Would you consider it okay to pre-determine the eye or hair color of your child? Perhaps not, but then what is stopping you from choosing their skin color? Yes, we want a lighter or darker child please? Where does the slippery slope stop? Remember, the Germans tried this already, I'd like a blonde hair, blue eye, white child that looks of Germanic descent. Would you cheer this type of selective genetics? Oh, but we are only talking about diseases you'd argue? Sure, now that might be the case, but considering the cost of this kind of procedure, even with diseases we are creating inequality. I've always argued that equality ends at birth due to the situations we are in at birth and the choices we make and others make for us. However, you end even that kind of equality with this scenario. No? Right. In fact, you'd make it possible for the rich, educated haves in the world to have their choice of child while the poor, less fortunate and uneducated persons would end up with whatever God gave them. Hmm... sounds like a way to advance the elites even more over the poor. So, my question then becomes, why is it that the "liberals" tend to favor this type of thing while "conservatives" are generally against them? There is more to it than the abortion issue isn't there? Well, if one accepts abortion as a given, then this type of genetic manipulation would not seem wrong at all, I'd argue, would it? So, should we really be following the current crop of "liberals" who would lead us all down this path? Probably not.