Note that whenever I say I’m for negative eugenics, I also add “to a certain extent.” This means that I’m not saying, “Rahg. I want to kill babies. Die babies die! I want to kill all ‘inferior’ peoples. I want to eat babies so they won’t poison the gene pool. Arg. I want to create a race of superhumans so I can take over the world.”

Negative eugenics is only the deletion of harmful traits, not adding new traits to make humans uber-powerful. I want to help people. The only way this can happen is if the benefits of a certain method outweigh the harm. That means that strict controls on everyone’s reproductive rights are out of the picture. In fact, some things may not be possible until the near-future. Current controls could limit the reproductive rights on the mentally disabled, but that still makes people squeamish, so I can really only suggest technologies for the future.

Nanobots would be ideal. For example, they could find sperm or egg with an abnormal number of chromosomes and destroy them. People would have a hard time arguing the ethics of this.

Pre-natal screening needs to be improved so much so that the screening of infants is automatic. This would mean the rate of aborted babies due to the testing is extremely low. I suggest legislature to make it mandatory at that point. At that point, it would seem ridiculous to resist. However, when the baby is found to be defective, abortion should be the automatic response. Some people are against abortion. My idea is that the testing is done early enough so that the fetus’ nervous system has hardly taken any form.

The options of screening fetuses and nanobots I don’t think infringe on the rights of people. These methods are ideal and would help the human race progress.