When is the Promotion of Prenatal Testing for Selective Abortion Wrong?

Gomez, Javiera Perez

doi:10.1353/ken.2020.0001

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it is usually clear from the context that the objection being raised is a moral one and that something along the lines of P2 and C are implied. 4 Second, while we are framing the argument as applying to individual choices of whether or not to select against disability, scholars who discuss the argument frequently remark that an expressivist argument would have more force against laws or policies that in some way promote selection against disability (Kittay 2000: 181;Asch & Wasserman 2005: 172;Perez Gomez 2020). That may be, but the above action-focused argument has received most of the attention in the literature and will be our focus here.…”

Section: The Expressivist Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expressed Ableism

Campbell

Stramondo

2023

Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With increased frequency, reproductive technologies are placing prospective parents in the position of choosing whether to bring a disabled child into the world. The most well-known objection to the act of “selecting against disability” is known as the Expressivist Argument. The argument claims that such acts express a negative or disrespectful message about disabled people and that one has a moral reason to avoid sending such messages. We have two primary aims in this essay. The first is to critically examine the standard Expressivist Argument, which we analyze in terms of the expression of ableist attitudes. We distinguish three interpretations of the argument and argue that each version faces serious objections. Our second aim is to articulate two closely related arguments that also pertain to expressed ableist attitudes. The Expressive Harms Argument maintains that there is a moral reason to avoid actions that give rise to the perception of ableist attitudes in cases where this is likely to have negative consequences for disabled people. The Ableist Motivation Argument speaks against selecting against disability in cases where one would be motivated by ableist attitudes. While these two arguments face various objections, we seek to establish that they are more promising than the most natural interpretations of the Expressivist Argument.

show abstract

Section: The Expressivist Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Ableist Motivation Argument is broader, simpler, and speaks directly to the ethics of selection. For other arguments in the ballpark, see Gyngell and Douglas (2018) and Perez Gomez (2020).…”

Section: The Ableist Motivation Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expressed Ableism

Campbell

Stramondo

2023

Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When prenatal testing could have originally been designed out of preference for the able-bodied in society, this testing sends a devaluing and "disparaging message...that disabled people's lives are not worth living" [45]. This is especially poignant when respected medical practitioners and science professionals are at the foundation of such message, reinforcing stereotypes and medicalized stigma "that constructs disability as irredeemably tragic and/or unfathomably burdensome" [46].…”

Section: Disability Vs Defect: Defining a Livable Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

The Pro-Life Paradox of Pregnancy Termination and Disability Exclusion

2020

GWHC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The debate over the use of genetic testing to inform expectant mothers regarding fetal anomalies, with the intention of enabling her to decide whether or not to terminate pregnancy based on testing outcomes, is arguably deemed by many physicians and scientists to be major medical advancement. Proponents of testing believe that this information prevents the potentiality of lifelong suffering for of the unborn child, as well as encourages a healthier population. There are, however, scientists, geneticists, theorists, and disability advocates, who disagree with this theory. Furthermore, pro-life allies appear to take very differing stances on this topic, from opposing any termination of pregnancy, even in cases of severe disability or a likelihood of infant or maternal mortality, while some may believe abortion is acceptable under these unique circumstances, even if they oppose others. It is difficult to understand how the criteria is evaluated, particularly in cases of the former, when support and resources for disabled persons are greatly lacking, which can lead to a more challenging life, and when the stigma of bearing and raising a defective child is widespread. Thus, it is a crucial topic in women’s studies to understand when there is a pro-life paradox of disability exclusion is and how it may inform decision-making and advocacy regarding selective termination of pregnancy

show abstract

Review of the Interlinked Environmental, Economic and Social Realms of Sustainability

Kealy

2024

Green Energy and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When is the Promotion of Prenatal Testing for Selective Abortion Wrong?

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Expressed Ableism

Expressed Ableism

The Pro-Life Paradox of Pregnancy Termination and Disability Exclusion

Review of the Interlinked Environmental, Economic and Social Realms of Sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About