Technologically there is a huge difference. But what is the difference that makes one immoral, and the other (presumably) morally acceptable?
To answer my own question, I guess you could say it's wrong to make *some* permanent alterations without a person's consent. That is, if a trait is the type that can be altered later in life then it might be wrong to lock someone in to just one choice. Like in my facial hair example, I think you can argue that it would be wrong to deprive your unborn son of the choice to grow a beard, because as an adult he may decide that he'd like to have one.
Is that why the Church would oppose (most? all?) cosmetic genetic changes? Or are there other reasons as well?
I was pointing out that shaving, cosmetic surgery, etc., are quite different than the genetic and reproductive science discussed, and therefore leaning off topic.