Thinking about this line "If more people are disabled, the response is expanded access, not stricter eligibility" and I think it makes sense, however I wonder would you pick, via prenatal screening, an intentionally "disabled" embryo to further the act?
If someone chose a disabled embryo, that would be their decision, like any other reproductive choice. People already select for traits they value. I think disability is only controversial in this context because of ableist assumptions i.e. The real question is why certain traits are deemed acceptable to choose while others aren’t; what conditions shape that judgment in the first place?
Thinking about this line "If more people are disabled, the response is expanded access, not stricter eligibility" and I think it makes sense, however I wonder would you pick, via prenatal screening, an intentionally "disabled" embryo to further the act?
If someone chose a disabled embryo, that would be their decision, like any other reproductive choice. People already select for traits they value. I think disability is only controversial in this context because of ableist assumptions i.e. The real question is why certain traits are deemed acceptable to choose while others aren’t; what conditions shape that judgment in the first place?