regardless of whether negative or positive [eugenics] policies are used, they are susceptible to abuse because the genetic selection criteria are determined by whichever group has political power at the time.

This is a very common lolbert talking point. The same tactical nihilism you anti-eugenicists apply to eugenics could just as well be applied to any type of policy backed by state power. The eugenics example of this argument with some other examples to put it into perspective:

• "Using state power to implement eugenics that promotes traits we deem good and selects against traits we deem bad is dangerous and hypocritical, because that would justify our enemies using state power to implement eugenics that promotes traits we deem bad and selects against traits we deem good if they ever take over the state from us in the future!"

• "Using state power to prohibit, restrict or deplatform white nationalist groups is dangerous and hypocritical, because that would justify white nationalists using state power to prohibit, restrict or deplatform antifa and BLM if they ever take over the state from us in the future!" (something someone who's on your side or is a concern troll who pretends to be on your side might say)

• "Using state power to sentence rapists and serial killers to death is dangerous and hypocritical, because that would justify rapists and serial killers using state power to sentence people who hate rapists and serial killers to death if they ever take over the state from us in the future!"

Of course, this lolbert argument is totally ridiculous and has no bearing in practical reality, since any serious politicians and elites who genuinely want to enact certain policies will do everything they can to achieve this, regardless of whether their opponents are as fanatical as themselves (such as people like me) or whether they are lolbert cucks and boomer cuckservatives who refuse to play their enemies' game because "muh principles" (hence why they will always lose out against their more machiavellian opponents).

.

Furthermore, many criticize negative eugenics in particular as a violation of basic human rights, seen since 1968's Proclamation of Tehran as including the right to reproduce.

LOL, the same "human rights" council that considers any form of "racism", prohibiting fags from adopting and molesting children, or pointing out that MTF trannies will never be real women "human rights abuses". Also, in a lot of countries, including the Netherlands, people who are more severely mentally disabled (around sub-75 IQ) are already de facto prohibited from reproducing, and in the rare occasion they decide to reproduce regardless the child is usually forcibly taken away and put up for adoption. So a lot of countries, the Netherlands included, already have a form of eugenics, albeit an extremely soft one. Maybe you can go cry crocodile tears at the UN "human rights" council and set up a petition for "free love for the retards" or something.

.

Another criticism is that eugenics policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, thereby resulting in inbreeding depression due to a loss of genetic variation.

Eugenics doesn't lead to a loss of diversity and inbreeding, you disingenuous prick. Inbreeding depression only occurs when you have a tiny, isolated population of less than 100 000 people, which definitely isn't the case with eugenics, as it would only prohibit a small minority of the population from reproducing and would allow for any genetic traits not deemed dysgenic to continue spreading.

The only way eugenics could cause issues with loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding would be if it was done in a similar way as how dogs were bred for specific traits, forcing generations of people with certain traits to mate with their siblings and cousins just because they also posess those traits, but that's a woke leftist strawman definition of eugenics that has no bearing in reality regarding the ways in which eugenics has actually been historically practiced from the late 19th century up to around the 1970s.

Actual eugenics in the way almost all eugenicists historically advocated for and how it was actually practiced is totally alien from your ridiculous strawman conception of eugenics as "breeding humans like dogs", instead it just seeks to prohibit a minority of the population with traits deemed dysgenic from reproducing and to positively incentivize a minority of the population with traits deemed good to reproduce the most.

.

Yet another criticism of contemporary eugenics policies is that they propose to permanently and artificially disrupt millions of years of evolution

If you're truly that concerned about millions of years of evolution being "artificially disrupted", you should be very upset at the fact that governments are, through incentives like non-discriminatory (or even low-income specific) child benefits and foreign aid to Africa, artificially enabling (or even rewarding) specifically the low-IQ and mentally ill in our societies to shit out as many babies as they want to like rabbits, instead of just letting them undergo sterilization but allowing to them keep their welfare in exchange. Many of those low-IQ and mentally ill people either would've had way smaller families or simply would've died off before the industrial revolution, but now that we have eugenics it would just be cruel to let them die off if we can also achieve the same outcome by simply paying them to get themselves sterilized.

But of course, you have no problem with that type of (actual) artificial disruption of evolution (dysgenics), you only have a problem with our type, the one that would actually improve and benefit humanity (eugenics). Whenever people (like yourself) insist we actively encourage and incentivize the dumbest, ugliest, weakest and most mentally ill members of society to reproduce the most, it's either ignored or applauded by Jewish leftists and other bioleninists (like yourself), but when people (like me) insist we do the opposite and actively encourage and incentivize the smartest, most attractive, strongest and most mentally stable members of society to reproduce the most, it's considered evil nazism and we're told that it wouldn't work and would "artificially disrupt" millions of years of evolution.

Also, if eugenics in favor of traits deemed positive would supposedly "artificially disrupt" millions of years of evolution, then by your own logic, so would any natural evolutionary selection pressures that had/have similar effects on humans (such as the selection pressure the Ice Age had on the humans that left Africa for Europe and eventually became modern-day whites), so this would mean evolution itself "artificially disrupts" millions of years of prior evolution, making your argument self-refuting.