The immorality of eugenics was not in the positive selection for desirable traits, but in the brutally harsh measures taken in selecting against those with undesirable traits, and the racist metrics used to determine which traits were desirable.
All of that's largely moot in the age of CRISPR and germinal selection as elective procedures under the umbrella of reproductive health, but there still exist pearl clutching champions of disease, dysfunction and decay who decry as ableist any attempt at reducing humanity's ever swelling mutational load.
Such people say that their opponents are answerable, morally, for all the children with downs syndrome who never get the chance to be born because their condition was detected in utero, leading to their abortion.
However anyone who believes we're better off disabled than healthy, and stands in the way of CRISPR, germinal selection, etc. is answerable to all the potential healthy children that didn't get to be born because of them.
Humans are incredibly fertile, with no set reproductive period like most other mammals have. In every union of sperm and eggs there are trillions of possible combinations. Each one of those combinations is a possible individual.
In choosing, from all those trillion potential humans, for one with serious impairments to be born instead pf a slightly different version of that same person, product of a slightly different recombination of the same two genomes, is morally indefensible imo.