I don’t at all disagree, Kathryn, that there are lines to be drawn. (Though you & I would probably draw them in different places.) If “eugenics” includes killing off unsatisfactory 3-year-olds, I doubt you’d find many takers for it. If, however, it means tweaking a gene sequence here or there by chemical intervention, I’m fine with it. And even if I wasn’t fine with it, it’d happen anyway, because the demand would be great and the objections so abstract & theoretical it would he hard to get anyone to care about them.
My only point was that “eugenics” is such a hyped-up scare-word that even the merest, most benign gene-tweaking would have to be renamed by the folk marketing the process. Which I am sure is true.
As to the notion–I don’t atribute it to you, but I am sure there are right-to-lifers who cleave to it–that the killing-off of unsatisfactory 3-year-olds could be sold to the American public if cleverly packaged… Well, I think better of the American public than that.