Is the practice of eugenics ethical?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Is the practice of eugenics ethical?
Position1 of 2›: Eugenics is unethical
Argument1 of 3›: Eugenics is unethically abused

Modern eugenics calls to mind the dark past of the eugenics movement during the 1900s. Between the abuse that took place in America and and the horrors of Nazi Germany, it is clear that eugenics can only ever be abused.

The argument

The introduction of human eugenics in the United States led to negative consequences. Involuntary sterilization, discrimination, and widespread support of euthanizing children became commonplace during the eugenics movement in the United States. Even after sterilization support died down in the 1970s, women were still involuntarily sterilized because it was never outlawed. The lack of regulations following the eugenics movement raises the ever-present fear of eugenic practices being abused again. Additionally, the way that eugenics was abused in Nazi Germany raises concerns. After World War II, the Nuremberg court revealed men that were involved in killing disabled people. One argument made in the court was that they were only supporting the eugenic ideals that stemmed from America. Although this probably was not the intention of America, it became an unintentional influence that was abused. Therefore, eugenic practices are unethical and will only ever be abused.

Premises

[P1]The US eugenics movement led to involuntary sterilisation, discrimination, and widespread support for euthanising children. [P2] Even after support waned in the 1970s, involuntary sterilisation continued because it was never outlawed, leaving the door open to future abuse. [P3] Nazi Germany's eugenics atrocities, which defendants at Nuremberg traced partly to American eugenic ideals, show how readily the practice is abused. [C] Therefore, eugenics only leads to negative consequences and is unethically abused.

Counter-arguments

Since the eugenics movement, more guidelines have been instituted to ensure that the procedures involved in eugenics are ethical. Despite the dark past of the Holocaust, eugenics has broken away from those practices. Modern eugenics is focused on changing the genes of a person, not eliminating others that do not have a specific trait as Nazi Germany did during the Holocaust.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The historical record is accurate and damning, but the argument moves from what a movement did to what a practice must do. "Only ever" is a claim about every future case, and a list of past abuses cannot establish it. [Rejecting P2] That involuntary sterilisation was never outlawed supports a case for regulation — which is what the counter-argument proposes — rather than showing the practice to be wrong in itself as opposed to dangerously ungoverned. [Rejecting P3] The Nuremberg point is the weakest link. That defendants invoked American eugenics was a plea offered in mitigation by men on trial, and citing an influence is not the same as demonstrating one; the argument half concedes this in allowing that it "probably was not the intention of America". The counter-argument also raises a distinction never addressed: whether contemporary genetic medicine is the same practice under a new name or a different one sharing a label.