Strange that after pasting those definitions which clearly show that what I am arguing for is not eugenics you still think otherwise. As you can see the definition is about using controlled breeding and artificial practices. Essentially the opposite of what I am advocating for. I am saying that we must stop messing with breeding using artificial things such as legal mandates enforcing vaccination.
dysgenic: pertaining to or causing degeneration in the offspring produced.
Laws enforcing vaccinations, mandated medical intervention, which is what the original article is very clearly meant to be justification for, does just that.
I am against that, thus I am an anti-dysgenicist.
You are not bringing any arguments to this discussion. You have not countered anything I have said. Your only tactic is to wrongly call my arguments eugenic, which is not only wrong, but irreverent.