It's definitely possible to establish reasonable thresholds - you could draw parallels to abuse/neglect laws. There are things that many people may find grotesque and objectionable that aren't considered abuse/neglect. There are definitely historical and modern examples of those laws being applied unfairly, particularly to the disadvantaged. Boundaries may flex across regions or cultures, But it's fair to say society as a whole supports abuse/neglect laws, and that they're generally beneficial for children.

I’d rather see better detection and genetic therapies, myself. Inform the parents and let them come to their own conclusion about whether or not to have children.

A perfectly reasonable take, but even that falls in-scope of eugenics.

My brother in christ, the conversation is explicitly about eugenics, I don't need to see shit!

Nah, not necessarily imperative. An individual can still be a eugenicist without external support. The only reason the old beliefs that often get credited as "eugenics" were mostly wrong is because they were mostly just ignorance and masked racism, not actual genetic analysis.

All it takes to be a eugenicist is to believe that certain people shouldn't have children because you believe their genes are bad. That's it. It's literally just:

Eu: Prefix meaning "good" Gene: Relating to genes ecist: Believer (not totally sure on this one as search results to verify my beliefs mostly returned "-ition" results, with no explicit statements for -ecist or similar)

It's just a silly thing for a common fool to believe in, since genetics is complicated! Many confirmed genetic disorders are not inheritable. Many health issues are latent. You can have two totally healthy people birth genetic defects nigh 100% of the time. On the other end, someone with certain genetic disorders can absolutely have totally fine children with little extra worry. It completely depends on what genes are messed up and why.

Someone unfamiliar with the INSANE complexity of biology even in the basics of reproduction have zero right to hold a strong opinion on eugenics, IMO. (which of course immediately excludes 99% of conservative fuckwits who would happily call themselves eugenicists)