Zaunt wrote:Procreative relationships between close relatives could be argued to be unethical because of the likelihood of genetic problems.
Not your call. Not our call. Not the call of government.
Trying to make that call, for children and against the wishes of parents, is what gave Eugenics a bad name. Restricting the reproductive choices of people against their will is what gave eugenics a bad name. Because it is eugenics. It is Bad Eugenics.
Good Eugenics is giving biological parents the choice. A brother and sister, or a parent and child, seeking to concieve a child of their own should be considered no more and no less responsible than any other biological parents. Like any other biological parents, they should have easy access to pre-birth screening of embryos and easy access to abortion early in term (when unwanted heritable conditions can be detected if the pregnancy is planned and properly attended by doctors).
This is Good Eugenics: the biological parents decide. If they don't agree, the biological mother decides. They should be informed, and the services to inform them and to do their will should be state subsidized or free to them at expense of the state.
I know, I could shout myself hoarse about Good Eugenics, and all most people will hear is "eugenics" and decide that it must be bad because the Nazis did it. But I don't care: eugenics is happening already, at the choice of parents. It's happening in bad ways, because it isn't equally available to all. If you want to trust in your balls or ovaries to get it right, then good luck to you. The rich and the informed will outbreed you, with fewer but better children, and your children (or their children) will be disadvantaged in that future society.
Everyone should have access to Good Eugenics. This isn't just a matter of government getting out of the way, it's a matter of government levelling the playing-field for all prospective parents by
subsidizing or fully funding embryo screening and abortion on demand. Everyone should have it, to give all the advantages possible by their own genome and the genome of their chosen partner.
This is Good Eugenics. It is expensive to government, it is unnatural, but it is necessary. It is necessary because some have it now, by virtue of wealth and knowledge, and allowing them to leverage their genes with their wealth will impoverish the genetic diversity of all mankind. The improved and selected children will have a further advantage beyond the significant advantage of having wealthy and knowlegable parents. Ulimately, this will narrow the human gene pool, discarding many useful genes. It will also widen the already dreadful divide between children born lucky and children born unlucky: who their parents were.
Eugenics for all parents, if they choose it. Eugenics for no parents, if they reject it. This is Good Eugenics.
The word "Eugenics" is from the Greek "well born". Let's reclaim it from the Nazis and make it what it should be: a tool for parents to choose, with the advice of doctors, the balance of advantageous and disadventageous characteristics there child will have. We can't trust all parents to choose wisely, but that doesn't mean we should leave it only to the rich and well-informed to so choose. We should make it available to all parents, and restrict that later only if it proves necessary. Trusting parents to make the best decision on behalf of their future child is a pretty safe bet in my opinion.