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

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Philosophy of Language
• Disability Studies

Background:

• Medical professionals offer prenatal genetic testing.
• The expressivist objection argues promoting testing for disability-selective abortion devalues disabled people.
• Existing formulations of this objection have shortcomings.

Purpose of the Study:

• To present an improved formulation of the expressivist objection using philosophy of language tools.
• To preserve core insights of the original expressivist objection.
• To argue that promoting prenatal testing for selective abortion can be ethically wrong.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical analysis invoking tools from the philosophy of language.
• Developing a revised "expressivist objection*" formulation.
• Examining the ethical implications of promoting prenatal genetic testing for selective abortion.

Main Results:

• The original expressivist objection is implausible in its current formulation.
• An improved "expressivist objection*" is presented.
• This revised objection maintains that promoting prenatal testing for selective abortion is sometimes wrong.

Conclusions:

• The promotion of prenatal genetic testing for selective abortion carries significant ethical concerns.
• The revised "expressivist objection*" offers a more plausible framework for ethical analysis.
• Bioethicists and medical professionals should consider the devaluing message conveyed by such practices.