Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Systematic societal screening for disability traits sends... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The social offer of routinized prenatal testing expresses a negative evaluation of the lives of existing people with disabilities

    Systematic societal screening for disability traits sends a message that disability is undesirable

    BioethicsMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityBioethics

    Related

    Prenatal testing, when routinized by society, communicates which kinds of lives ...The social offer of routinized prenatal testing expresses a negative evaluation ...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Selective abortion based on disability screening is morally problemati...77%The social offer of routinized prenatal testing expresses a negative e...76%CEA-based preference for non-disabled individuals is morally troubling...75%Rejecting a fetus specifically due to a disability characteristic cons...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: eugenics
    View source passageHide passage
    The expressivist argument is often defended by theorists who are staunchly pro-choice about abortion; they typically defend a woman’s legal right to choose abortion for any reason but present a moral argument against particular reasons for selective abortion. In making this distinction, they rely on the “any/particular” distinction proposed by Asch (2000): a woman who does not want any child because she is not ready to be a mother is different from one who is eager to be a mother but then reject

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective