So the reason I changed the emphasis on defects is that while certainly many things considered birth defects are very debilitating, not all of them are so its an unfit generalization, and on top of that its just not a very nice thing to say; I work with children and we do not refer to them as defective or any other way that compares them unfavorably to, oh I don't know what word you would prefer here, 'normals'? 'Regular folks'? 'Superior genetic specimens'? I don't find the concept especially useful but I suppose for you it is essential to have something to refer to people whose traits you would prefer were in the gene pool. But I understand this is just a professional thing and a fact of working with children, they are especially sensitive, I have friends with cerebral palsy who feel condescenced to by that sorta thing, but who also suffered massive hits to their self-esteem from rhetoric like that when they were younger so. Its a balance.

The Nazis had bad science then, sure, but they were motivated by eugenic logic. Foolish Nazis would have failed doesn't make me less upset they tried. And if the Nazis had gene therapy and advanced screening, I do not think their eugenic project would have been more principled. I think gene therapy is fine, I think abortion for reasons of birth defect is fine. No problem with people making decisions like that. So if you insist those are eugenics, and a person making those decisions in their own life is practicing eugenics, you can satisfy yourself by loudly proclaiming you are a eugenicist. But see how far that gets you, people are going to hear "I love eugenics" and assume you are talking about a social project. Maybe find another word for your thing

Also sorry you're so ugly