No one considers eugenics science. Just because some guy in the 1800s said it was science doesn't make it so. Next you'll say Scientology is science... Or astrology, or whatever. We have a pretty defined view of what science is today and any random person calling something science doesn't discredit actual science.
No one considers eugenics science NOW, but it was considered science back then and we're commenting on modern scientific studies that would be adopted wholesale by the eugenics scientists of the time.
It doesn't matter what you call it, if it walks like eugenics, if talks like eugenics it is eugenics even if that word was thrown out as politically inconvenient. Go back to my first comment in this thread and understand it in this light.
> Just because some guy in the 1800s said it was science doesn't make it so.
It continued well into 1900's up until WW2 and it was a social theory as scientific as any other at the time, otherwise it would not be used for justification of government policies.
This is definitely not true. There are hereditarian scientists working to rehabilitate "eugenics"; this comes up a lot with the people working on embryo selection.
Eugenics is a simple concept that is morally neutral. Embryo selection or forced sterilizations are implementation details that are absolutely not morally neutral. But when most people say "eugenics" it seems like they are usually referring to the particular implementation with forced sterilizations.
