Designer Babies: Where is the line?

In the 21st century, the role technology plays in life is ever-increasing. Through genetic engineering, that role could evolve to include not only how we live, but how that life is created. Intelligent people on both sides of the issue argue the pro's and con's regularly. So, the question becomes: are the many negative sides to genetic engineering worth risking in order to acheive the positives that could result?
There is a line that is fairly blurred between where genetic engineering should be and where it should never attempt to go. Many can agree that on one side is the elimation of autism and downsyndrome, the lessening of risks for cancer and other genetic diseases, and numerous other hereditary mental and physical illnesses. However, even those things toe the blurry line a little too much. The average cost of this kind of genetic engineering is much more than an average couple could afford, let alone a lower income couple. A rich family, however, would have no trouble paying the bills that would come along with designing their own children. Because of this, autism and the other related diseases would not be completely eliminated in any way. They would just be less prevalent in upper class America. The rich generally choose causes which in some way are relevant to them to support and donate money to. If the rich could genetically alter their children to be disease free, all the diseases they no longer have to deal with would have much less funding for research. In the long run, even the biggest positive genetic engineering has could potentially be a negative that seperates the classes even more than they presently are.
On the opposite side of that blurred line, where the obvious negatives reside, is where much more can be found. Not everyone in the world is fit to be a parent, and even less are fit to design the child they would be a parent to. The term designer baby conjures up images of a factory spewing out blonde haired, blue eyed beauties by the bus load. They would all be disease free, with great personality traits, and the best genes money can buy. Except of course for that one child, with the crazy parents, who created a sociopath. That, and much worse, could be possible as a result of genetic engineering. As if parents don't live vicariously through their children enough to begin with, they now get to create the perfect child. They get to make a baby that is, essentially, what they've always wished they had been. The role of a child could change over time from a human being that requires love and attention to a thing that is required to live up to the expectations put on it at design. And while the designer child might not have disease or physical flaws or personality traits that make life more difficult for them, the pressure to be the perfect creature they were created to be might end up too great.
There is a blurred line. However, even the blurriness cannot hide the dangers genetic engineering poses. The cons outweigh the pros in a large way, and even the pros have their flaws. In order to perfect genetic engineering, boundaries must be set that prevent some of the great threats it has.