If no mother had a child after the age of 25 you'd also see a significant drop in Down Syndrome rates with a similar effect to abortions (although obviously not the 100% which abortions could in theory achieve). Effectively that would be doing the same thing except without the controversy of abortion but few would call that eugenics. What's the difference? Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger?

> What's the difference?

The difference is a personal choice versus a government campaign to influence peoples' choices with the goal of eliminate those classes of people the state has deemed "undesirable".

> Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger?

Probably, if the change was due to the government trying to convince people older than 25 not to have children.

You know, aside from your choice of framing and that you called it concerning. But no you didn't outright express a literal binary opinion.

The eugenics aspect is concerning, that was my opinion, and many who have similar concerns (hence it is controversial).

My opinion on the merits of an individual making personal choices about reproduction and medical treatment for themselves and their offspring was not offered.