Although it is not apparent from the dictionary definition, the word has a pejorative connotation, and is frequently used in reference to governmentally driven policies to limit reproductive freedom. Knowledge-based decisions made by individuals or couples to avoid the birth of a child with disease or disability, so long as they are not unduly influenced by coercive governmental, institutional, or other policies, are acceptable. Many public health practices to improve the health of living or future people have been implemented to achieve laudable goals. Examples include newborn screening programs to identify infants with disorders for which early treatment is beneficial, the provision of prenatal diagnostic services, maternal vaccination for rubella, addition of folic acid to food to reduce the risk of certain birth defects, and warnings on alcohol or cigarette labels about the potential for damage to the fetus. The American Society of Human Genetics views prenatal screening and diagnostic programs, including those undertaken with the knowledge that an individual who chooses to be tested may seek selective termination of pregnancy, as acceptable so long as individuals are not coerced.
Many nations have a history of eugenic thought or practice based on perceived genetic risks.
It is important to note that such practices were based on little or no scientifically defensible beliefs. Some have tried to keep gene pools separate by forbidding unions between members of different social groups. Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States, which appeared as early as 1630 in the colonies and existed until they were struck down as unconstitutional in 1967, were premised in part on the erroneous notion that interracial marriage produced children of reduced genetic quality. Galton used the word eugenics to characterize efforts to produce children who would be well born. However, he did not merely desire that as many infants as possible be born healthy.