How you can interpret that from a comment supporting the elimination of hereditary disease by genetic engineering is astonishing.
For Science grad you're surprising poor at verbal reasoning. Let me help:
Sickle cell anaemia serves an odd advantage in some countries since it provides near total immunity towards malaria. Genetic engineering to prevent things like Huntington's chorea or cystic fibrosis is a different kettle of fish towards attempting to create a master race as the Nazis were hoping.
Decomposed as: Statement A. Statement B is different to Statement A and Statement B implies a move towards Statement C.
Where Statement A = Sickle cell anaemia serves an odd advantage in some countries since it provides near total immunity towards malaria.
Statement B = Genetic engineering to prevent things like Huntington's chorea or cystic fibrosis
Statement C = attempting to create a master race as the Nazis were hoping.
OK so far?
Then you follow up with
You misunderstood-I would wholeheartedly agree with gene therapy or engineering to eliminate such diseases.
Or, I agree with Statement B (Genetic engineering to prevent things like Huntington's chorea or cystic fibrosis)
It is therefore logical to conclude that given that you approve of Statement B and that Statement B implies a move towards Statement C, you approve of the move to Statement C.