Abstract

Since the early 1990s, one of the most prominent objections to the use of prenatal or pre-implantation testing to prevent the birth of children with disabilities has focused on the negative judgments it expresses to and about existing persons with disabilities. Commonly known as the expressivist objection, it is based on the conjunction of two key claims: (1) the use or provision of tests to select against disability in offspring expresses negative judgments about existing persons with disabilities; and (2) the expression of these judgments itself constitutes a wrong to those persons. Despite depending on both claims, however, philosophical discussion of the expressivist objection has largely centred on the first: while commentators continue to debate whether disability screening does or does not express negative judgments, relatively little attention has been paid to explaining how the expression of those judgements wrongs persons with disabilities. In this paper, I argue both that whether or not the expressivist objection succeeds will ultimately depend on whether a plausible explanation can be supplied for how persons with disabilities are wronged by the expression of negative judgments, and that the existing literature surrounding relational egalitarianism can provide such an explanation, albeit with important limitations.