In the case of Julie and Jin, they are informed that their fetus is carrying a genetic mutation causing pre-lingual deafness. Through the perspective of Newell in “Disability, Bioethics, and Rejected Knowledge”, he argues that “people living with disability remains a form of rejected knowledge” (273) and the politics involved in post-screening decisions are framed by the dominant hearing community (276). He would state that it is morally impermissible to prevent disability after screening. Contrary, in “Disability, Prenatal Testing, and Selective Abortion”, Steinbock argues that respecting the rights of women to respond to the results of prenatal testing is not inferring that they are not devaluing the lives of the disabled (26). She would …show more content…
She explores several questions surrounding disability such as whether it is a neutral form of variation and if it is socially constructed or not. She considers if disability is not necessarily worse, but just different. She compares disability to conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes and asks whether these are also just variations. Steinbock’s conclusion to this question is that disability poses real limitations and this would not be a plausible position to take. Then, she moves onto whether disabilities are best seen socially constructed – whether a disability becomes a handicap depending on society. An example posed by Steinbock is ‘Martha’s Vineyard” where the number of people born deaf was abundant enough that hearing residents found it beneficial to learn sign language (12). Similarly, many people who live near the U.S. – Mexico border find it beneficial to be bilingual in English and Spanish (12). The deaf individuals in ‘Martha’s Vineyard’ had no barriers to overcome, and were not considered in any way handicap. Despite this, Steinbock states “Not every disability can be overcome by social adaptation” (13). In the Julie and Jin case, Steinbock would be in disagreement with Newell, she would say that it is morally permissible for Julie and Jin to prevent disability through genetic screening. Because the ‘Martha’s Vineyard’ example does not …show more content…
I argue with a hybrid defense of both Steinbock’s argument and with slight agreement with Newell. I think that parents are the best judges of their competences of raising a child and they should have the choice of preventing disability through prenatal screening. I do not think that it is morally permissible when parents’ decision is based on superficial and ignorant grounds. I think that less imperative disabilities can be comparable to sexuality. Parents’ do not have a way of knowing what a fetus’ potential sexuality will be. If the disabled are seen as abnormal because of their imperfect functioning in society, then it should be seen that homosexuals do not serve their human “purpose” meant to be reproduction. A variety of everything can all be applied to not serving a “function” but this does not follow that these minorities are not important for a prospering society. It is seen throughout history that societies adapt to changes and people proudly become representative of them. For example, it is evident in gay pride events when it was strongly shunned upon in the past. Again, you cannot prevent certain sexuality in a fetus and it would surely be wrong to prevent a particular sexuality. But if we lived in the past where it was not as accepting and accommodating as the present-time, it would be seen as applicable to prevent certain sexualities of a fetus -