Is it normal to wonder if eugenics really is a pseudoscience?

Nobody says this.

We do it for love. We look past having little fat kids with pug noses because we are human. I don't think it's a pseudoscience, but it's much more difficult for us to reproduce based on genetics because we are compassionate beings. We are too complex (or stupid) to make decisions based only on facts. We did not breed ourselves to become ethically flawless and I don't think we're ready to start now. However, sometimes our instincts do lead us to have beautiful, healthy children despite the "facts".

Anyone who calls it a pseudoscience is using those words wrong. However, that doesn't even come close to resolving the ethical debate.

We need to give eugenics a lot more thought nowadays, because there are far too many people suffering because of bad genes. Now that we have the technology to test for so many hereditary diseases, it makes sense for it to be made cheap enough for any couple who are planning a family to have access to testing. If I were contemplating having children, I`d want to know if there was anything nasty in my genes that I might pass on.

I didn't know anyone had ever said that it was a pseudoscience.

The whole science of genetics is tricky business though, both ethically and scientifically. It's not always 100% clear which traits can be offset or dominated by which traits which would make selective breeding for humans a less-than-exact technique if ever tried or implemented. Ethically, many people believe that selecting who should breed with whom to produce the most desirable traits would take away the element of individuality that makes us (essentially) human (which is a tricky argument because with selective breeding, who we are as people would be, in large part, decided by someone who feels that they have the right to make that decision and on the other hand, no matter what, we get no say in our genetic structure).

It is definitely NOT a pseudoscience by any means. Much of the field is very well researched and if there is an element of pseudoscience, it lies with the people who use eugenics to justify their own feelings against any particular race, creed or culture. I'm not getting into that.

Personally, while I believe in the human's natural ability to select mates who will produce genetically well and healthy offspring, I do believe people should be more consciously selective about who they have children with. Not just for the purposes of healthy offspring but to ensure that their offspring can enjoy the benefit of a stable and decent home. As far as creating the "best human being possible", what constitutes the "best" is dependent on the culture and the times. We could possibly be setting ourselves up for a race of people whose traits will be completely unappreciated later on in the future.

Who says it's pseudoscience, exactly?

It's ignorance coupled with propaganda spread during WWII, and continued by some politicized religious groups, postwar.

Did you know that the USA had, in fact, a Eugenics Program, prior to the aforementioned conflict, as well as adopting many other 'new' ideas that were originating in the 'Central European Countries'?

The creation of a master race is a nonsense. There are too many variables. Look at the royal families of Europe. After centuries of careful breeding what do you get? Prince f''king Charles!! lol

Eugenics is BS.

You can improve the human race by educating people, giving them a healthy nutritional diet and a better standard of living. At the same time, you can discourage them from doing things that would damage their health and thereby shorten their lifespan and the lives of others.

Check out your local library.

It's not.
Eugenics is the whole reason why dogs exist and are so lovable by humans. We removed the unappetizing traits and kept the good ones.

Perhaps they fear it would be abused to create more race wars much like Hitler. So instead of saying "No asthmatics, no aid patients, no poor vision and no def" that it will instead be used to say "No blacks, whites, yellow, brown so on". However honestly if you are considering having children you should consider what type of illness you pass to them. Why I not sure if I want to have kids based on my family history and ailments. Also who decides what is desirable traits? It would vary depend on who you are asking. Though from a scientific point if we want the best results we should at least mate with someone that will either balance out the ailments or if you have aliments to just NOT have kids. Also really you can not base such decisions on one race. Since all people and all races have different features. We need diversity. Some races are naturally taller, or smaller or more flexible. So lets say you want a person for sports most would probobly go for the very tall race not the very short one. However while certien people might be better designed for something does not mean they will care about or excel in that sport.

It's strange how people are generally much more concerned with the breed of their dogs and horses, than of their own children.

Eugene nicks his friend pedro's science project?

what the hell man.

you can't trust anyone these days.

It's a blatant -Ism of every proportion. You have to take into account the time period which it was popularized... the culture, ideology, and history of it. It is biased with emtoional -Isms.