The disability-rights critique claims that prenatal tests used to select against disabling traits express a hurtful attitude about, and send a hurtful message to, people who live with those traits. Members of the disability-rights movement say that such tests increase discrimination against the disabled by reinforcing the medical model that disability itself, rather than social discrimination, is the problem. Selective abortion may be based on the assumption that any child with a disability would necessarily be a burden to the family and society and would therefore be better off not being born. The imagined reality of the future child with a disability is being distorted. In fact, recent research shows that aggregate patterns of adjustment and well-being are similar across groups of families with and without children with disabilities.
Disabled people can participate in and contribute to society.
Women or couples must be counseled and given access to good information about what disability is really like for children with disabilities and their families if they are to make truly informed decisions about prenatal diagnosis. Critics of the critique argue that selective abortion should not, and does not necessarily, carry a message of devaluation. However, they point out that a disabling condition is not a neutral trait or variation. Disabilities impose real limitations, not all of which can be overcome through changing social institutions and attitudes. They are not something to be hoped for but, rather, are to be avoided if possible.