05-06-2005, 09:55 AM
05-06-2005, 10:11 AM
My view on the matter is that if a parent is so averted to autistics that they are willing to abort a child that might be autistic, then perhaps the child would have had a horrible childhood with those people.
I know that there are people who "come round" to their kids eventually but I also think that people are far more likely to SAY that they "wish they could have aborted" a child than they would actually have done.
Autism awareness is of course the key here - the more people know that autism isn't the demon possession some make it out to be, and the more information and support is available (for example relief workers for parents, education on how to deal with us without making the problems worse or traumatising us etc.), the less people will feel that autism is something that needs to be "got rid of".
I know that there are people who "come round" to their kids eventually but I also think that people are far more likely to SAY that they "wish they could have aborted" a child than they would actually have done.
Autism awareness is of course the key here - the more people know that autism isn't the demon possession some make it out to be, and the more information and support is available (for example relief workers for parents, education on how to deal with us without making the problems worse or traumatising us etc.), the less people will feel that autism is something that needs to be "got rid of".
05-06-2005, 10:36 AM
The problem is that parents will be hugely influenced by "experts and professionals" who point out all the negatives and costs, as is done for Down's, so that parents are scared of burdening themselves and society for the whole of the child's life.
The will be given worst case scenarios as doctors would not want to be sued later on if a child had more severe difficulties than expected.
The will be given worst case scenarios as doctors would not want to be sued later on if a child had more severe difficulties than expected.
05-06-2005, 04:43 PM
Oh no 
05-06-2005, 05:56 PM
Ein kleines Gedankenexperiment. A little thought experiment.
For your consideration. Be as honest as you can, in view of the high degree of speculation involved:
Think about your own mother, as objectively as you can.
Imagine that when she was pregnant with you, there had been a prenatal test for autism markers, that your mother had taken this test, and that she had been told that the results showed there was a high probability that the baby she was carrying would have autism. Sure, she might also be told about the differerent manifestations of autism, about all the highly creative people who are thought to have autism, and so forth . . . but it's hard to get past that scary word, isn't it? AUTISM.
Do you think she would have carried the pregnancy to term?
Do you think the answer would have been different if she could have also somehow seen into the future to glimpse how you actually would turn out, what you would really be like, and if she could have ever gotten past that scary word?
What does this say about the desirability of a prenatal test for autism?
The mere fact that something can be done does not mean that it should be done.
For your consideration. Be as honest as you can, in view of the high degree of speculation involved:
Think about your own mother, as objectively as you can.
Imagine that when she was pregnant with you, there had been a prenatal test for autism markers, that your mother had taken this test, and that she had been told that the results showed there was a high probability that the baby she was carrying would have autism. Sure, she might also be told about the differerent manifestations of autism, about all the highly creative people who are thought to have autism, and so forth . . . but it's hard to get past that scary word, isn't it? AUTISM.
Do you think she would have carried the pregnancy to term?
Do you think the answer would have been different if she could have also somehow seen into the future to glimpse how you actually would turn out, what you would really be like, and if she could have ever gotten past that scary word?
What does this say about the desirability of a prenatal test for autism?
The mere fact that something can be done does not mean that it should be done.
05-06-2005, 08:04 PM
I think that the statistics for down's abortions shows that most people given that knowledge during pregnancy do choose termination.
I cannot guess what my mother might have done, I cannot ask as she is deceased.
I personally would not have made a different decision about my children if a test had been available, even though I knew little of autism when I was first pregnant. I am against pre-natal testing having studied embryology and midwifery and I know the many faults of such tests, I refused them all during pregnancy.
I cannot guess what my mother might have done, I cannot ask as she is deceased.
I personally would not have made a different decision about my children if a test had been available, even though I knew little of autism when I was first pregnant. I am against pre-natal testing having studied embryology and midwifery and I know the many faults of such tests, I refused them all during pregnancy.
05-06-2005, 11:16 PM
This is where it becomes a pro life issue.
05-07-2005, 04:12 PM
Amy wrote
Quote:
The problem is that parents will be hugely influenced by "experts and professionals" who point out all the negatives and costs, as is done for Down's, so that parents are scared of burdening themselves and society for the whole of the child's life.
I think Amy is right about professionals emphasising the negatives of Downs (and why wouldn't the same be true of autism?) A few months ago I read a lovely and interesting feature article in a newspaper written by the proud mother of a Down's child, and she had a lot to say about the way the professionals made her fear worst-case scenarios in regard to Downs, that didn't come true in the case of her daughter. I got the impression that the fear and pity that everyone else had took away a lot of the joy of motherhood, and added to the stresses.
Amy, do you know if any of the prenatal tests for Downs or other conditions come up false positive if the foetus is autistic? Does autism give a positive result in the existing tests? Has this been researched?
05-07-2005, 07:55 PM
Your last question is excellent, as many people with Down's have autism too. I've seen percentages from 30-50%. There can be false positives for Down's, from the initial blood test to detect it, and the later amniocentesis test.
Women do get a termination and find out later that there child was not a Down's child on rare occasions, and the same for the spina bifida tests.
My cousin has Down's and is bright and lively, and has a great personality. I do feel that she has autistic traits too.
Women do get a termination and find out later that there child was not a Down's child on rare occasions, and the same for the spina bifida tests.
My cousin has Down's and is bright and lively, and has a great personality. I do feel that she has autistic traits too.
05-12-2005, 04:27 PM
I'm not very popular with many people on my views on prenatal testing for autism. I don't think it should be sought but I am admantly pro-choice. This applies to any women, whether or not they have an autistic child. So...this issue makes me a little...confused...
05-31-2005, 08:34 PM
I feel that it is a tragedy that women in society ever have to make that decision, only 3% are for reasons of an 'extreme nature'. The rest are made up of women who have financial problems, relationship problems, no support, no childcare, etc.
06-01-2005, 12:27 PM
Being a disciple of Darwin from way back, my personal atittude towards genetic selection of offspring is that I would consider whether the genetic difference that an embyro has could possibly be a useful evolutionary adaptation of some kind, or is just a random, sporadic mutation that has no future and no evolutionary past. By this reasoning, those chormosomal mutations that cause sterility are obviously not any kind of adaptive mutation that is found because it has proven useful in the past, so if a mutation of that kind caused some definite problems, I honestly wouldn't see much value in it.
06-01-2005, 02:13 PM
Lili Marlene Wrote:
I would consider whether the genetic difference that an embyro has could possibly be a useful evolutionary adaptation of some kind, or is just a random, sporadic mutation that has no future and no evolutionary past.
Given that we lack omniscience, how can we truly know?
Lili Marlene Wrote:
those chormosomal mutations that cause sterility are obviously not any kind of adaptive mutation that is found because it has proven useful in the past
It's possible that some mutations of this sort may be useful for group survival, even though the individual's genes aren't passed on.
06-01-2005, 02:43 PM
Bonnie Ventura wrote
Quote:
Lili Marlene wrote:
those chormosomal mutations that cause sterility are obviously not any kind of adaptive mutation that is found because it has proven useful in the past
It's possible that some mutations of this sort may be useful for group survival, even though the individual's genes aren't passed on.
those chormosomal mutations that cause sterility are obviously not any kind of adaptive mutation that is found because it has proven useful in the past
It's possible that some mutations of this sort may be useful for group survival, even though the individual's genes aren't passed on.
I think Richard Dawkins would rip that idea to shreds. If my memory serves me well, group selection is an erroneous idea. Evolution works at the level of the gene.
06-03-2005, 02:42 AM
Roderick, If you didn't have a brain you wouldn't have a mind, and if you didn't have genes for building a brain, you wouldn't have any thing to think with. I don't see our biological nature as an unpleasant thing to rise above. I agree with Dawkins' idea that a certain amount and kind of altruism is programmed into normal humans.
Haven't you noticed that a lot of your friends or family behave in utterly predictible ways? Once you know their personality, their mind and their prejudices you can pretty much predict their reactions and actions. The idea of free will is a lovely idea, but I think most of the time it just allows people to act in the way that feels the most comfortable to them, and those preferences are determined before birth.
Haven't you noticed that a lot of your friends or family behave in utterly predictible ways? Once you know their personality, their mind and their prejudices you can pretty much predict their reactions and actions. The idea of free will is a lovely idea, but I think most of the time it just allows people to act in the way that feels the most comfortable to them, and those preferences are determined before birth.
Pages: 1 2