"Let's just state for the record: talking about needing 'population control' through ABORTION for the sake of CLIMATE is talking about EUGENICS," - some conservative idiot

no, it isn't. and, the use of caps lock doesn't help the argument.

eugenics is the idea that you can improve the genome through artificial selection, and shouldn't be seen as a blanket negative or a bad word. so, something we've been able to target and almost get rid of, for example, is tay-sachs disease, a debilitating condition with no potential upside. that is eugenics, and we should all support doing it. i understand why conservatives are afraid of this, as it challenges their religious perspectives, but we're walking into a future where gene editing via crispr will provide us with incredible opportunities to revolutionize the genome, and we should enthusiastically embrace this as a way to make us better. i support this, wholeheartedly.

in the past, what we've had is politicians driven by poor understandings of the science of genetics that have speciously done things like tie negative personality traits to base racial characteristics. there was never any science that upheld any of this, and the idea of tying their actions to science was always rooted in ignorance. these politicians were in truth usually religious and usually driven by the speciousness of calvinism and evangelical christianity in general; when they justified their actions using science-y language, it was always shoddy and always just a gloss to push forward their backwards religious convictions, more comparable to a contemporary anti-vaccine activist or anti-gmo activist than any contemporary concept of genetics. hitler himself was a roman catholic, not an atheist.

likewise, the idea that you can eliminate gay people or autistic people has always been pseudo-science. with the latter, it's not something to celebrate: if we could eliminate autism, we should do it, but you can't, and the science has never suggested you could. autism is currently understood as a series of mutations in real-time, not something you can flip in a test-tube. the danger has never existed with the actual science, but always existed with corrupt politicians that want to use pseudo-scientific theories to advance their pre-existing agendas. and, that's the irony here: these religious groups might think they're fighting against science, but they're really just fighting against their own ignorance.

providing women with real reproductive choices is not about artificial selection, although it could be argued that there's a basis of natural selection in undoing the existing systems of patriarchy and dominance. one of the reasons that religion needs to be destroyed is that the patriarchal systems it perpetuates are undoing the necessary role of women as gatekeepers of the genome, which is distorting the effects of natural selection. again: i understand that conservatives think "god" is making choices here, but they're wrong, and should be ignored.

so, this isn't about eugenics, and suggesting that it is is just alarmist demagoguery.