I don't see anything wrong with genetic engineering humans per se, as long as it's done responsibly. In fact, it addresses a problem Darwin noticed a century and a half ago; namely, the fact that our species is busily trying to exempt itself from natural selection using technology. If we don't want to be practicing eugenics, and presumably we don't, genetic engineering offers us a morally tolerable way to continue to improve our species.

The important thing is to ensure that genetic engineering on humans is done in an equitable and responsible way. It would be very easy to end up with a society in which the rich are genetically engineered superhumans while the poor are locked in poverty and unable to escape. We should be planning how to avert that scenario, now, before it gets started. And of course, we will also need extensive testing regimens to make sure that we don't create a new generation of "thalidomide babies" through ill-considered gene tweaks.

I don't get this "eugenics" and "master race" stuff.

Every dyke or straight woman I have known who has gotten herself fertilized by donor sperm looked for the smartest, most academically gifted, most athletic, most facially symmetric and handsome donor they could find (as long as he was on their approved racial list, of course).

I don't know a one who selected average sperm from an average man. By my measure, none of the donors had less than an advanced degree (or was in an advanced degree program).

Clearly, when given a choice, pretty much all women will selectively breed their babies for superior looks, physical stamina and intelligence.

That isn't "eugenics"? That isn't a "master race"? Of course it is! Women are doing to themselves what dog breeders have done for thousands of years to produce the radically different breeds of dogs.