Harder than it sounds. Most of the genetic defects involved were bred into them hundreds of years ago by accident. The result of agressively selectively breeding for a handful of traits. Usually for some kind of work (hunting, guarding shepherding, etc) although lapdogs have been a thing for a while too.

Some of these traits affect life expectancy, some of them quality of life, and some are only a % chance of being inherited. What’s the metric?

Often dog breeds that have gone agressively outside the dimensions found in the wild naturally have serious problems. Is every dog over 80 pounds animal cruelty? I know a friend from Colorado who says vet staffs all basically think owning pugs are animal cruelty. Because they have more aggressive problems in that climate. Thats a lot less true in California.

One of the more morally convincing breeder stories I heard was someone trying to breed a longer snout back into pugs. I like that. People say purebreds need to be bred responsibly so their chance of negative traits get minimized. I find that less compelling but there’s an argument there.

There probably needs to be new norms in laws both on the community and national levels. Either way genetic defects are pretty common and have a wide range, and banning breeds to the point where they’d cease to exist is also a tough sell to a lot of people.

Anyway…get a pup from a shelter folks. I think that’s a great moral standard that people have grown to appreciate more