More technically, that's euthanasia and it's optional, not government mandated, and no one is sterilized after. Eugenics would be sterilizing any parents that have any possibility of producing unhealthy babies.
I was a late-life child. High risk for Down's. My mother didn't get the test, which could've introduced more problems. She believed I was already alive, because I was, and I was therefore sacred to her, and the outcome of the test would be irrelevant to her choice. Notice in all of this, I didn't have a choice.
I'm glad she didn't abort me. If I don't want to be alive now, now it's my decision.
I guess you can keep arguing that killing unborn children diagnosed with Down's isn't eugenics but my perspective is pretty heavily informed by the fact that I'm alive thanks to my mother being bothered by the idea that she might kill me in utero if I had a developmental disorder.
I'd like to see you explain the position that a baby diagnosed with Down's should be aborted to someone with Down's, frankly.
Abortion is a horrible thing I wish didn’t exist. Given that it does exist, it’s a horrible choice I wish upon no one. Given that choice is ever made, it’s a horrible thought to consider punishing a woman for making it.
All of that said, as a society we have a responsibility to do better than almost a million abortions a year (~20% of all pregnancies) in the US.
I think a better male contraceptive choice would go a long way to reducing that number. As usual, I believe in a technological solution to societal ills.
I do think contraception is obviously a powerful tool to reducing elective abortion, as a matter of policy.