Thanks for your thoughts, Amber. In this article, I just used the term “eugenics” to mention my other article “Harmless Eugenics.” In that article, I do not advocate for using the term “eugenics” to describe genetic enhancement normally but I seek to find a way to deal with the accusation of being a eugenicist or advocating for eugenics. I thought it might be an effective move to ask people to find the harm involved and then provide some potential responses. From the article (bolding for emphasis):
...there are very few instances of people using the expression “harmless eugenics.” This is how I believe defenders of genetic enhancement should refer to the practice of embryo selection. When discussing the issue typically, they should use a term such as “genetic enhancement.” However, they will inevitably face the accusation of being a eugenicist. When this occurs, I believe the move will be to retort with something like, “the only type of eugenics I advocate for is harmless eugenics.” I think “it’s still eugenics” is a weak response, and so the temptation will be to try to find harm in the practice of embryo selection. This isn’t easy.
I agree with you that it may be better for optics to not just say “I like eugenics” or something along those lines. But if you do advocate for this voluntary procedure in which a woman is exercising her reproductive autonomy, you will be accused of eugenics. The issue I wanted to address was how to deal with that. I find saying “this is not eugenics” inadequate. So, I think a good move is to make your interlocutor find the harm involved. I address a bunch of possible responses.
Thanks for your thoughts, Amber. In this article, I just used the term “eugenics” to mention my other article “Harmless Eugenics.” In that article, I do not advocate for using the term “eugenics” to describe genetic enhancement normally but I seek to find a way to deal with the accusation of being a eugenicist or advocating for eugenics. I thought it might be an effective move to ask people to find the harm involved and then provide some potential responses. From the article (bolding for emphasis):
I agree with you that it may be better for optics to not just say “I like eugenics” or something along those lines. But if you do advocate for this voluntary procedure in which a woman is exercising her reproductive autonomy, you will be accused of eugenics. The issue I wanted to address was how to deal with that. I find saying “this is not eugenics” inadequate. So, I think a good move is to make your interlocutor find the harm involved. I address a bunch of possible responses.