User:Roamorin/sandbox

= New eugenics = New eugenics, also known as neo-eugenics, consumer eugenics, and liberal eugenics, is a term coined by bioethicist Nicholas Agar used to describe the advocacy of enhancing human characteristics and capacities through the use of reproductive and genetic technologies. New eugenics references eugenics, an ideology that promotes the genetic improvement of a given population by excluding groups of people which are deemed lesser. In new eugenics, the enhancement choices are left to the preferences of consumers, in this case parents, rather than the public health policies of the state. Despite the growing trend of new eugenic practices, a lot of criticism has been made towards these practices. Furthermore, the use of the terminology "new eugenics" to describe these practices has been heavily critiqued.

Contents

 * Semiotics and history
 * New Eugenics practices
 * Ethics
 * Criticism
 * References
 * Further reading

Semiotics and history
Liberal eugenics is known as new eugenics, consumer eugenics, reprogenetics, or even designer progeny. The connotations of liberal eugenics are generally negative due to the history of eugenics being associated with dark historical times. According to the Harvard Law Review, the eugenics of the early 20th century were part of a false scientific justification for racism, class-ism, and colonial subjugation falsely concerned with genetic fitness.

The term name makes reference to an ideology called eugenics influenced by liberal theory and contrasted from the coercive state eugenics programs of the first half of the 20th century. The sterilization of individuals alleged to have undesirable genes is the most controversial aspect of those programs.

Historically, eugenics is often broken into the categories of positive (encouraging reproduction among the designated "fit") and negative (discouraging reproduction among the designated "unfit"). According to Edwin Black, many positive eugenic programs were advocated and pursued during the early 20th century, but the negative programs were responsible for the compulsory sterilization of hundreds of thousands of persons in many countries, and were contained in much of the rhetoric of Nazi eugenic policies of racial hygiene and genocide. New eugenics belongs to the positive eugenics category.

New Eugenics practices
The new model of eugenics advocates for genetic modification or genetic selection of individuals. The underlying idea is to improve the genetic pool of future generations and reduce incidence of genetic diseases or undesirable traits. Some of the practices considered to fall under the umbrella of new eugenics are: pre-implantation diagnosis and embryo selection, selective breeding , and human enhancement through the use of genetic technologies, such as embryo engineering or gene therapy.

Ethics
New eugenics was founded under the liberal ethical values of pluralism, which advocates for the respect of personal autonomy, and egalitarianism, which represents the idea of equality for all people. Arguments used in favor of new eugenics include that it is in the best interest of society that life succeeds rather than fail, and that it is acceptable to ensure that progeny has a chance of achieving this success. On the other hand, arguments against new eugenics suggest than the possibility of creating designer babies is not in the best interest of society as it might create a breach between genetically modified individuals and natural individuals. Additionally, some of these technologies might be economically restrictive further increasing the socio-economical gap.

Criticism
In addition to the ethical connotations, there has been ample criticism as to whether new eugenics should be considered as a resurgence of eugenic practices. For instance Dov Fox, a law professor at the University of San Diego, argues that new eugenics cannot be justified on the basis of the underlying liberal theory which inspires its name. He argues that heritable mental and physical capacities that are generally valued can be considered as alternative to John Rawls's social primary goods. In this case, natural primary goods. Dov Fox suggests that reprogenetic technologies like embryo selection, cellular surgery, and human genetic engineering, which aim to enhance general purpose traits in offspring are practices a liberal government leaves to the discretion of parents than like practices the state makes compulsory. Fox argues that if the liberal commitment to autonomy is important enough for the state to mandate childrearing practices such as health care and basic education, that very same interest is important enough for the state to mandate safe, effective, and functionally integrated genetic practices that act on analogous all-purpose traits such as resistance to disease and general cognitive functioning. He concludes that the liberal case for compulsory eugenics is a reductio ad absurdum against liberal theory.

In addition, the United Nations International Bioethics Committee wrote that liberal eugenics should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements. Regardless, they have stated that it is still problematic as it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new ways of discrimination and stigmatization against those who do not want or cannot afford the enhancements.