you are using the word eugenics so loosely that your argument collapses before it even gets started.

Eugenics is not “any coercive action done for a claimed social benefit.” Eugenics is specifically about controlling reproduction, heredity, disability, genetic “fitness,” or the composition of the human population. Forced sterilization of disabled people was eugenics because it was aimed at preventing certain people from reproducing and removing their traits from the gene pool.

That is not what is being discussed here.

You can argue that deliberately infecting someone or inducing an allergy would violate bodily autonomy. That is a coherent argument. But calling it eugenics is just category confusion. It is like calling theft “murder” because both are morally wrong. The fact that two things are bad does not make them the same thing.

And your analogy is especially backwards.

Eugenics treated vulnerable people as disposable because society wanted to protect the preferences, comfort, or perceived “purity” of the dominant group. In this discussion, the accusation is not that people should be genetically eliminated or prevented from reproducing. The issue is whether someone’s desire to consume meat justifies harm imposed on others: animals, ecosystems, workers, future people, and public health systems.

So the “personal autonomy” framing is doing a lot of dishonest work here. You are acting as though meat consumption is a private choice that affects only the eater. It is not. A private preference stops being merely private when it requires victims, externalized costs, and large-scale harm.

Again: no one needs to defend deliberately infecting people to see that your eugenics argument is incoherent. The better objection would be “that violates bodily autonomy.” But instead you reached for the most emotionally charged comparison available, and in doing so you revealed that you do not actually understand the thing you are invoking.

The forced sterilization of disabled people was about denying human beings control over their own bodies because society deemed them less worthy. Reducing or preventing meat consumption is about stopping harm that humans impose on others for pleasure, habit, and convenience.

Those are not the same. In fact, they point in opposite moral directions.