Is the practice of eugenics ethical?

Eugenics is ethical when it is controlled by the individual

Question: Is the practice of eugenics ethical?
Position‹2 of 2: Eugenics is ethical
Argument1 of 3›: Eugenics is ethical when it is controlled by the individual

When decided by groups of people, eugenics used to single out and abuse others. If a patient or parent decides to use genetic engineering to change one person, it is ethical.

The argument

When decided by an individual, eugenics is an ethical practice. In the past, eugenics was seen as unethical because groups of people were discriminated against in the name of science. If an individual decides to undergo a genetic treatment, it is clearly ethical since it is by that person’s choice. People should be allowed to improve their health through gene therapy as they see fit. Additionally, parents should be allowed to decide the genetic makeup of their children in order to ensure a healthier lifestyle for the child. When a child is in the womb, the parents have authority over the child and their health. These decisions may include altering their child’s genetic code in order to prevent the child from inheriting or transmitting genetic disease. If the parents are well informed and choose this for the health of their child, their practice of eugenics is ethical.

Premises

[P1]Eugenics was unethical in the past because groups were discriminated against in the name of science, against their will. [P2] When an individual freely chooses genetic treatment for themselves, it is ethical, since people may improve their health through gene therapy as they see fit. [P3] Well-informed parents may likewise choose to alter their child's genetic code to prevent genetic disease, exercising their authority for the child's health. [C] Therefore, because eugenics is ethical when controlled by the individual, the practice of eugenics is ethical.

Counter-arguments

It is unethical for parents to intervene with nature and change their child's features. Parents could abuse eugenics by using it for more than health purposes. This can lead to physical enhancements and appearance alterations based upon the preference of the parents. This can be influenced by negative motivations such as conformity with society. Widespread conformity such as this can be abused and lead to discrimination of those that are not designer babies.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise locates the wrong of historical eugenics in coercion alone, but those programmes also rested on a judgement that certain kinds of people were defective. The criterion, and not only the compulsion, is what the objection is usually aimed at, so consent removes one wrong while leaving the other untouched. [Rejecting P2] Gene therapy on a consenting adult is not eugenics in the sense the question uses. Treatment of a patient's own cells is not heritable and changes nothing about who is born, so it cannot serve as the ethical model for a practice defined by its effect on the composition of a population. The premise draws its plausibility from substituting an uncontroversial medical case for the contested one. [Rejecting P3] "Parents have authority over the child and their health" does the work here and is the least defended step. Parental authority is generally understood as exercised on the child's behalf and is limited where it conflicts with the child's interests. This decision is made before there is anyone to consult, is permanent, and passes to descendants who cannot be consulted either — which is a different kind of decision from ordinary medical consent, and from which the counter's worry about selection for preference rather than health follows directly.