Literature DB >> 28614604

'You are inferior!' Revisiting the expressivist argument.

Bjørn Hofmann.   

Abstract

According to the expressivist argument the choice to use biotechnologies to prevent the birth of individuals with specific disabilities is an expression of disvalue for existing people with this disability. The argument has stirred a lively debate and has recently received renewed attention. This article starts with presenting the expressivist argument and its core elements. It then goes on to present and examine the counter-arguments before it addresses some aspects that have gained surprisingly little attention. The analysis demonstrates that the expressivist argument has a wide range of underpinnings and that counter-arguments tend to focus on only a few of these. It also reveals an important aspect that appears to have been ignored, i.e., that people do not select foetuses based on chromosomes or other biological traits, but based on characteristics of living persons with specific disabilities. This makes it more difficult to undermine the claim that negative selection of foetuses expresses a disvaluing of persons with such disabilities. It leaves the expressivist argument with a strong bite still.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  disability; embryo; expressivist argument; foetus; objection; reproduction; selection

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28614604     DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12365

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bioethics        ISSN: 0269-9702            Impact factor:   1.898


  5 in total

1.  Fostering a prevention mindset for responsible gene editing.

Authors:  Karen M Meagher; Zubin Master
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 2.622

Review 2.  Human germline genome editing is illegal in Canada, but could it be desirable for some members of the rare disease community?

Authors:  Erika Kleiderman; Ian Norris Kellner Stedman
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2019-08-16

3.  Subsidizing PGD: The Moral Case for Funding Genetic Selection.

Authors:  James M Kemper; Christopher Gyngell; Julian Savulescu
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 1.352

4.  Why NIPT should be publicly funded.

Authors:  Eline Maria Bunnik; Adriana Kater-Kuipers; Robert-Jan H Galjaard; Inez de Beaufort
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Attitudes to prenatal screening among Norwegian citizens: liberality, ambivalence and sensitivity.

Authors:  Morten Magelssen; Berge Solberg; Magne Supphellen; Guttorm Haugen
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 2.652

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.