In In Defense of Evil part 2 of 3: A Wide Scale Eugenics program would be beneficial to the U.S.A

Thank you to con for your arguments.Definition,I agree with con's definition as it is extremely inclusive. I will use a much narrower definition while arguing for eugenics. I'm referring to genetically improving the human species prior to birth or conception.What I'm not arguing for,I won't attempt to defend how eugenics was used 75 years ago. This is the 21st century and eugenics is going to look a lot different then it did in the 1930s under Hitler and earlier in the United States. Rebuttals,Keeping in mind I'm only defending how eugenics would work under the theoretical eugenics program I proposed not under Nazi Germany, I will now go into rebuttals.The morality of eugenics,Perfection is subjective,I agree. The aim isn't perfection. Each parent who opts for in vitro fertilization as opposed to just rolling the dice with the fate of their children would be given a choice of healthy embryo's. Genetic predispositions will just affect overall statistics which is all we're after. These statistics will have a real world affect on the quality of everyone's life even those who choose not to participate. Even though there may be disagreements as to what perfection is we can all agree on some things we'd prefer for our children. Everyone pretty much agrees they would prefer their children not have Tay Sach's disease, Cystic Fibrosis, Sickle Cell Anemia or Down Syndrome. Everyone would agree they would prefer a smart child as opposed to a dumb child. Perfection is not the goal. The goal is a better society for everyone and for children not to have to endure needless suffering just because they were born with defects in their DNA. Coercion, No coercion is necessary. Just subsidies and a rather large public awareness campaign. Some laws enacted to ensure large scale genetic testing on fetus's would be helpful as well so gene therapy becomes more common. The racism of Nazi Germany would also not apply to this type of eugenics. This type of eugenics program would actually help different races instead of eliminate them. Black people would have less cases of Sickle Cell Anemia under this eugenics program. Jewish people would have significantly less cases of Tay Sachs disease under this program. White people would have significantly less cases of Cystic Fibrosis. These genetic diseases are race specific (mostly). So instead of different races being victims different races are actually made to suffer less. Equality, This would actually create more equality. These technologies Are available and if we don't legalize and subsidize them, then the rich will be making designer babies in secret. We need to make these things widely available and cheap so everyone has the chance to participate in them. Gene therapy, PDG and other uses for genetics to reduce the chance of disease and mental retardation aren't going away. We should make sure everyone has access to them. Technology and medicine in the 21st century, My opponent would prefer to wait until after a kid is born to deal with his genetic disease. This type of reactionary medicine just won't cut it when there are ways to prevent them prior to birth. Why would parents wait to see if their kid has Tay Sach's disease to do something about it? Why wouldn't they just do some simple testing to avoid this scenario to start with? Actually since what I'm proposing is already being used, then why would we go back 50 years and make these technologies unavailable? Modern technology isn't an excuse to be against preventive medicine (eugenics), it's a reason to be for it. Modern technology allows for eugenics to finally be the ethical option. My opponent plagiarized, My opponent has plagiarized by cutting and pasting his argument from the sources he used. The only things that it looks like he didn't plagiarize are his closing sentence and his opening sentence as well as his argument that eugenics is playing God, which is the same argument people likely used to oppose heart transplants. The plagiarizing is made worse by the fact that one of the sources goes out of it's way to specifically state that they aren't opposed to the form of eugenics that I'm proposing. It's his source number 4. Here is a quote taken from it. "It is, however, a different matter for couples to undertake their own efforts to use genetic technologies and knowledge to improve the potential of their offspring. " So by the article's own admittance the points con made aren't valid against the type of eugenics I'm a proponent of. As a matter of fact most of con's points aren't valid. He discusses the history of eugenics and modern technology. Con's arguments are baffling as how none of them really oppose the form of eugenics I'n arguing for.