The not-morally-objectionable stuff that still gets called “eugenics” generally fits comfortably under the term “human enhancement.” You can also talk about more specific technologies e.g. embryo selection.
Your comments in this thread make it seem like there is a general consensus about what things are moral or not, and the problem is just using words precisely. But things like selecting embryos to avoid giving birth to children with disabilities is considered very objectionable by many—and the people who object do talk about eugenics, genocide, etc. For example, the “Autism Genocide Clock”. When there is a genuine moral disagreement, changing what word you use will not help.
Not that there’s a consensus—just that there’s a correct view.
Changing the word won’t magically win over the “Autism Genocide Clock” folks, but when you’re arguing with them you aren’t doing yourself any favors by framing your position is, “actually, I think autism genocide is great!”
The not-morally-objectionable stuff that still gets called “eugenics” generally fits comfortably under the term “human enhancement.” You can also talk about more specific technologies e.g. embryo selection.
Your comments in this thread make it seem like there is a general consensus about what things are moral or not, and the problem is just using words precisely. But things like selecting embryos to avoid giving birth to children with disabilities is considered very objectionable by many—and the people who object do talk about eugenics, genocide, etc. For example, the “Autism Genocide Clock”. When there is a genuine moral disagreement, changing what word you use will not help.
Not that there’s a consensus—just that there’s a correct view.
Changing the word won’t magically win over the “Autism Genocide Clock” folks, but when you’re arguing with them you aren’t doing yourself any favors by framing your position is, “actually, I think autism genocide is great!”