A very difficult question. In modern terms the contentious issue is if you should allow parents to abort their child based on pre-screening their genes. I'd say there's a big grey area here which depends on the specific case, but I can list some cases and my views on them
Screening IVF embryos to choose one which will not have a major genetic disease (eg cystic fibrosis, Huntingdon's) - OK. Only some of the embryos created in IVF are going to be born, might as well make it the ones who won't suffer crippling diseases. I don't think anyone would object to the eradication of these diseases either.
Allowing the option of abortion following screening for less major genetic diseases - Mixed feelings. Down's syndrome is the major one here since it's easiest to screen for, and I'm not sure it's something we should seek to eliminate. I'd still allow couples to do it but I wouldn't make the decision to myself.
Allowing termination of pregnancy based on sex of child - Bad. Causes major social problems. Hard to regulate but in principle I'm opposed, and if it became a major problem (as in India) it could be something to take measures against.
Although unless you actively made a program to do these things you probably couldn't really call them eugenics. They could end up having similar effects though.
selective breeding really is the world's bigger ongoing Eugenics experiment, and is still going on today
This isn't reaaaaaaally eugenics unless you stretch the definition. If it is then it's no different to choosing a partner you find attractive anyway