"if you failed hard enough to endorse coercive eugenics"

This might be found a bit too controversial, but I was tempted to come up with not-so-revolting coercive eugenics system. Of course it's not needed, if there is technology for correcting genes, but let's say we only have circa 1900 technology. It has nothing to do with the point of Elizer's note, it's ust my musing.

Coervie eugenics isn't strictly immoral itself. It is a way of protecting people not yet born from genetical flaws - possible diseases, etc. But even giving them less then optimal features - intelligence, strength, looks - is quite equivalent to making them stupidier, weaker, uglier. If you could give your child healthy and pleasent life, yet decide to strip him from that, you are hurting him - it's not like his well-being is your property. But can you have YOUR child, while eugenics prevent you from breeding? Not in genetic sense, but it seems deeply flawed to base parent-child relation simply on genetic code. It's upbringing that matters. Adopted child is in any meaningful way YOUR child. But there are two problems - you can't really use "good genes" people for producing babies for "bad gene" people and "bad gene" mothers may have problem caring newborns without hormonal effect of birth. Way to make eugenics weaker, but overcome these problems, is to limit only mens' breading. When a couple with "good gene man" wants children - let them. If couple with "bad gene man" wants children, then future mother is impregnated by some (possible hired) "good gene man". Normally the couple have protected sex.

It is by no means perfect. But the price for relative well-being of future people is only for a woman to have sex with not her husband, and for husband to be "cheated on". While it seems quite unsettling, it's mainly our cultural norm. While this might be unpleasant for both, it isn't considerably worse then not being able to drink and smoke for woman through pregnancy. Therefore, such coercive eugenics would gradually improve gene pool, while not being considerable more evil then forbidding pregnant woman to smoke cigarettes.

I don't mean to say that such a system would be a good choice. But simply that it would be trading the rights of alive for the rights of not yet born.

I apologize, if above was inappropriate.