The context here is that there's evidence crispr CAS-9 can be used to repair damage to the genome by specifically targeting and deleting the extra third chromosome inside a living cell. I don't know why you'd assume I'm talking about abortion.

I actually think it's reasonable to accept terms as they are if their definition has a long history. If eugenics means a system of forced sterilization intended to unfairly prevent certain people from having kids, (and it has for over half a century) that's fine. I can come up with another term to refer to practices such as embryo screening and we can all agree that eugenics was a very bad thing and would be bad if we tried to bring it back in the future. What I object to is then using a very loaded term outside of that original context to smear people that are making very hard choices, like parents trying to conceive a healthy child

If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.

Is "birth defect" a eugenically-charged word? I've never heard it used in such a manner, just as a matter of fact.

Only a few percent of Down’s syndrome cases result from Robertson translocations and may be inherited.

If the mother carries the translocation, the rate of recurrence isn’t much more than 10%. If it’s the father, it’s significantly less.

Can't agree here. Regarding gypsies it boils down to the culture and rates of stunting, as evidenced by families who broke off the former and prevented the latter.

The way people with trisomia function in society is also a product of our nurturing culture. It's only recently, when such people started living longer lives thanks to advances in medical science, that their intellectual development gained more attention and it was revealed that they can actually be more independent than commonly believed.

That being said it all requires a huge amount of effort and if a person with trisomia has siblings, they're very likely to be deprived of attention. Additionally, if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this. That is what makes it a net negative.

People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II.

I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.

A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"