This seems like a very unfair use of the term eugenics. Traditionally, the term has been used to denote efforts to direct or encourage breeding by high status, socially dominant individuals in order to select for their characteristics, and discourage breeding by low status individuals (criminals, the insane, blacks, etc) in order to wipe their characteristics from the gene pool. For Ross to conflate that with parents who decide to abort infants with medically disastrous genetic mutations is a real stretch. The actual link he gives to prove the "the scale of pre-natal eugenics" offers this tidbit: "In Western Australia, neonatal mortality rates due to congenital deformities declined from 4.36 to 2.75 per 1,000 births in the period from 1980 to 1998." I don't even think that fits the definition of eugenics, which is "The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding." In any case, preventing infants from dying birth defects is really not what the Nazis were trying to do, and not what gave eugenics a bad name.
Now, I understand hat Ross thinks aborting children with congenital deformities is immoral and societally dangerous, and that's fair enough. But to suggest that that's the general understanding of the term eugenics, and thus progressives have eugenicist tendencies, seems quite unfair.
