... describes the belief that an intuitive (or "deep-seated") negative response to some thing, idea or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that wisdom may manifest itself in feelings of disgust towards anything which lacks goodness or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such 'wisdom' may not be immediately explicable through reason.(Thank you, Wiki)
The term remains largely confined to discussions of bioethics, and is somewhat related to the term "yuck factor". However, unlike the latter, it is used almost exclusively by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. It is thus often viewed as loaded language, and is primarily used by certain bioconservatives to justify their position.
The wisdom of repugnance is often used to justify so-called "knee-jerk" negative reactions to cloning (particularly of humans), genetic engineering, and other contentious subjects. One who adheres to this thesis may consider it unnecessary ("in crucial cases") to examine an issue logically, or to debate dissenting arguments.
The term has since migrated to other controversies, such as same-sex marriage, abortion, pornography, and alternative sexualities. In all cases, it expresses the view that one's "gut reaction" might justify objecting to some practice even in the absence of a persuasive rational case against that practice.
So. Wanna see something? This is footage of a still from Patricia Piccinini's "We Are Family" installation.