"Shakespeare again== 
 :::Dear Nectar, I think you are misrepresenting Tom Shakespeare. The first of those two external links that you provided is written by someone other than Shakespeare and it only summarises his view in one (rather crude) sentence. The second external link doesn't say anything in support of your interpretation. However, if you read his book you will find that he unequivocally states: 
 ::::“The Human Genome Project has been hailed as the Holy Grail of future health. I would argue that it does not mark a radical departure from traditional approaches to the ‘disability problem’. While historical genetics operates at the level of populations, contemporary eugenics operates at the level of the individual and families. While the rhetoric speaks of improving health, the current reality is that detection and termination are the only option in most cases” (1995: 8-10). 
 :::Thus, Shakespeare recognises that new genomics ""does not mark a radical departure"" from old eugenics.  
 :I am sorry. I never saw Shakespeare's article toward the bottom of that first link . But still, I think Shakespeare may have been misrepresented. In the paper that Nectar kindly brought to my attention, Shakespeare states ""I do not think that we live in a society with eugenic policies, and i do not think that the reproductive decisions of men and women are eugenic. However, I do not htink that the problem ends there"". He then goes on to discuss the ""illusion of choice"" that is offered 'to men and women' in their reproductive decisions. For instance, he says that 'the conveyor belt of routine testing and anti-natal care removes the possiblity of informed consent, and drives people toward decisions that they may not have wanted to make'. So, because Shakepseare is currently misrepresented I will remove all reference to him from the article.  

 =="