system
A chat on subreddit /r/PoliticalCompassMemes
human
It's actually consistent with opposition to suffering and harm reduction principles still held by the left. Why let people with conditions that only lead to suffering reproduce when you can stop it? Similar lines even now are used by pro choice to defend abortion access for the poor. Iirc it was only after the opposition to Nazis/scientific racism that it fell out of line.

Edit - I understand why it's wrong. I only meant to point how the progressives of the time thought it was progressive  by applying the logic used to modern progressive principles. 

Edit 2- opposition to eugenics rose out of the rise of postmodernism in the 70s is when it started; "no truth, only power"/punching up vs punching down. Eugenics is consistent with harm reduction, but *heavily* "punches down", which is why it was abandoned.
gpt
&gt; Why let people with conditions that only lead to suffering reproduce when you can stop it?

Several reasons.

1. Slippery Slope: Where do we draw the line on who can and can't have kids? How do we keep that line pinned where it is?

2. Racism: How do we keep racists from saying "People with family history of diabetes, heart disease, or hypertension shouldn't reproduce" and promptly ignore that African Americans have a higher rate of all three? How do we avoid a "quiet genocide"?

3. Human Genome Variation: Thanks to barely surviving **two** ice ages in the last 200,000 years the human genome has been choked to hell. Widespread eugenics programs *may* cause a temporary reduction in genetic maladies but it would be followed by a whole host of inbreeding related problems in the future.