So, why is eugenics wrong? I mean, from a rational perspective?
I can see how I would argue that it is bad if you make a broad based claim, like white people are better than black people, so black people should not be allowed to breed. I imagine I can show evidence that runs contrary to the basic premise that white people are 'better' than black people. The problem I run into is when you make eugenics smaller and more focused.
Say we outlaw breeding for certain very bad genetic traits, things like that.
In a first world country, I would say that if the parents/families are willing to take that risk, it might bring them more happiness to move forward with the birth...and since it is a first world country, they probably have resources available to support the resulting child.
But what about the third world? Rationally, does it make more sense to push draconian population control / eugenics when the alternative is starvation and the death of healthy, due to resources consumed by the 'bad'?
I can also make a rational argument for not allowing eugenics stuff on existing people because it seems risky to myself in the long run. Who decides who is 'fixed', etc...I might end up on the chopping block. And I can argue against wide-spread eugenics by showing how genetic diversity is a good thing. So I suppose my overall point is about eugenics practices being employed before conception and at the fetus level, especially regarding non-wealthy societies.
I'm not sure if I was very clear, feel free to ask questions so I can clarify my own, hardly understood, question.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.