Replacing a word that has become associated with questionable practices with a neologism doesn’t seem to accomplish much. Consider how someone might react to hearing about “epilogenics”. Once the unknown term is explained, even though the element of free choice is baked into the definition, the other person will still quite likely connect the dots and associate the new word with a term they already know: eugenics.
Also, on the subject of the definition itself, is it really that simple to discern between an act of individual free will and an act recommended by foreign actors? The state could push you into having polygenically screened children and maximising for specific traits, sure, but what about peer pressure from people with outlooks similar to yours? Would that then still be your own decision? Social factors shift personal preferences and so “choosing” genes might as well be about the genes that are considered “good”, blurring your proposed distinction. Also, you mention choosing an attractive spouse as an example of epilogenics, yet that has been the most accessible strategy of nurturing the genes of the übermensch in the German Reich, the country that comes to mind when invoking the word “eugenics” and giving it a lot of it’s bad reputation.
What it boils down to is this: the slope isn’t any less slippery if you invent a new term for the thing that hasn’t been well remembered in the past (maybe it becomes even more so). Aside from the general public, inquisitive individuals shouldn’t mind which term you use as long as your point agrees with their values and they find it agreeable. “Minor attracted persons” aren’t any more understood if they aren’t called pedophiles, as they are pretty much semantically the same, and so is epilogenics and eugenics. I guess the general public would be most affected by this sort of term distinction, but as I believe it is done quite subjectively (as mentioned before: what separates a choice from a good choice?), it probably wouldn’t stick that well.
Replacing a word that has become associated with questionable practices with a neologism doesn’t seem to accomplish much. Consider how someone might react to hearing about “epilogenics”. Once the unknown term is explained, even though the element of free choice is baked into the definition, the other person will still quite likely connect the dots and associate the new word with a term they already know: eugenics.
Also, on the subject of the definition itself, is it really that simple to discern between an act of individual free will and an act recommended by foreign actors? The state could push you into having polygenically screened children and maximising for specific traits, sure, but what about peer pressure from people with outlooks similar to yours? Would that then still be your own decision? Social factors shift personal preferences and so “choosing” genes might as well be about the genes that are considered “good”, blurring your proposed distinction. Also, you mention choosing an attractive spouse as an example of epilogenics, yet that has been the most accessible strategy of nurturing the genes of the übermensch in the German Reich, the country that comes to mind when invoking the word “eugenics” and giving it a lot of it’s bad reputation.
What it boils down to is this: the slope isn’t any less slippery if you invent a new term for the thing that hasn’t been well remembered in the past (maybe it becomes even more so). Aside from the general public, inquisitive individuals shouldn’t mind which term you use as long as your point agrees with their values and they find it agreeable. “Minor attracted persons” aren’t any more understood if they aren’t called pedophiles, as they are pretty much semantically the same, and so is epilogenics and eugenics. I guess the general public would be most affected by this sort of term distinction, but as I believe it is done quite subjectively (as mentioned before: what separates a choice from a good choice?), it probably wouldn’t stick that well.