As genetic technologies involving prenatal diagnosis improve and more disabilities are made identifiable before birth, it is becoming increasingly common practice for parents to undergo prenatal genetic diagnosis (PGD). Subsequent selective abortion appears to be the rational course of action following PGD that reveals a fetus that carries certain markers for a disease or disability. However, many disabilities rights advocates, such as Marsha Saxton, argue that this practice is harmful and morally problematic because of what it implies about the value of those currently living with conditions that would likely be selected against. In this paper, I will present Saxton’s Expressivity Argument, as well a few of the most persuasive counterarguments to her stance, and then explain why I am not compelled to discredit the Expressivist Argument by these objections. Saxton’s Expressivist Argument takes the following …show more content…
He essentially claims that whether or not the Expressivist Argument “necessarily” expresses a negative or discriminatory attitude towards people with disability is inconsequential. As he puts it, “The expressivist objection would have the same force even if it was just a matter of contingent fact that the present practice of prenatal diagnosis often expresses a discriminatory attitude towards disability,” (25). As the old adage goes, actions speak louder than words. The expressivist argument does not contend that people who practice PGD and selective abortion due to disability explicitly speak out against people with disability; however, it is by virtue of their action that they express the message of devaluation towards people with disabilities. This remains true if the negative devaluation is necessarily expressed or if it is merely a contingent fact. In other words, Holm would respond that it is conflicting to support PGD and selective abortion while also supporting people with