Aspies For Freedom

I suppose he suggests forced abortions, sterilization and institution of all autistics?  Catch us if you can, Mr. Watson  :twisted:   Someday you just might be the minority so you better be good to us  :evil:

James Watson was born in 1928.   I wonder how he feels about euthanasia?

This makes me think about the time when I was eating in a restaurant with a friend who has cerebral palsy.  She is the most fun and intelligent woman I know.  I just have to help her cut up her meat.  Some rude woman came up to us and just talked at me like my friend was an object.  She started saying how disgusting it was to look at my friend and that people like her should locked up in institutions.  I told her off and that if she didn't like looking at us she could just move to another table since we weren't going anywhere.  Later the manager of the restaurant came and apologized and gave us a free meal.  James Watson is being just like that woman in the restaurant.  

As to people who tell me "if I ever knew I was going to have a baby with ___________, I would have an abortion".   I say "Too bad your mother didn't have an abortion."

James Watson = ****    If his mother had aborted him, I'm sure Crick and whoever would have still discovered DNA.

I'm not in favour of using fetuses in any shape or form as part of our campaign - this is the kind of thing anti-abortion campaigns use, and speaking as a staunch pro-choice supporter I absolutely would not be willing to get in bed with them at all! Using fetuses to me means saying to those types: "Come on, hijack our cause!"

I have a question about genetics.  Does anyone know if they are any gene therapies in use for genetic diseases?  I know that the human genome project is mapping the entire human genome.  Some tests exist to confirm a diagnosis of a genetic disorder but are there any other uses for genetic mapping?

Most people who are diagnosed with a genetic disorder or genetic factor (they are a carrier) can receive "genetic counselling" that will give them the odds of whether their future children will receive the gene.  Most governments wouldn't force them not to have children.  In some countries knowingly or purposely having a "defective" child could mean the family would have problems getting health insurance.  Even some communicable disease such as herpes and Hepatisis B will void some people's insurance or immigration eligibility.

So why is all this funding being given into genome mapping when the results are people are being discriminated against, often by abortion?  It is made out that all these gene therapies are going to come about and a cure for cancer will be found.  When the truth is, most likely someone with a cancer gene will be denied health insurance and possibly employment.  

Yes, I can believe people are so stupid.

(1)  Gene therapy is in its infancy.  Someday it may be ready for prime time, but it's not there today.

(2) We won't make any headway with the general public by using the word "Holocaust" or by using images of fetuses.  No matter how strongly you may feel about this personally, I fear that in the big picture such tactics would be a P.R. disaster.

I agree that the use of fetuses or the word 'holocaust' would alienate all kinds of people that we don't want to alienate. Remember that every successful civil rights movement, including gay rights, anti-racism, etc. has built alliances with mainstream forces. Both gay rights and black civil rights activists built alliances with the mainstream (and not so mainstream) left and liberal forces e.g the Democrats in the US and Labour and Liberals in Britain.

Also, can someone tell me about the situation regarding Down's Syndrome? I heard on a TV doc that 9 out of 10 down's kids are aborted. Is this true? And why is it so high? I was startled when Amy back then said that if a pregnant woman tests positive for Down's, she is asked to have something done (didn't understand the technical term Amy used).

There were fifteen million holocaust deaths. That means that nine million weren't jewish. They must have been the largest single ethnic victim group but not even the majority. The holocaust affected many more people.

           But we can make our point without such a buzzword. BTW, the numbers I cite are posted in the lobby of the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles.

                                  Jerry Newport

The part in bold I disagree wholeheartedly with. But then, I never see anything at all as exclusively right/wrong. (I see doing so as a form of prejudice)

My personal view on abortion is this: (the first sentence could possibly, in rare individual cases, have exceptions)

If a child was not intended in the first place, then abortion is perfectly fine. If a child was intended, abortion should, possibly with a few exceptions for *extreme* conditions, not be used as a means of controlling the child's characteristics.

A pretty simple view that defines when abortion generally is and isn't ok without being hypocritical nor stating that it is always right or wrong. As you see, AFF could be neutral towards abortion as a whole, by presenting something like "Abortion should not be used as a means of controlling children's characteristics.".

Hence why I think it would be for the best for AFF to remain as neutral as possible towards any and all not directly relevant issues, and concentrate on the specific thing that we all want to prevent.

To sum it up: to me, it doesn't matter whether it's "murder" or not; it is just an irrelevant label. There is not much more to say, and there is probably no point in continuing this little side-discussion.  We would hardly come to an agreement about this, as what we are arguing is now at the level of pure opinion, and both of us have strong, differing opinions.

A misunderstanding is by far the single most frustrating thing I can imagine happening. Since Uschi have drawn back from not only this discussion, but the thread as well, I guess there's not much I can do in her case. As for other people, I will clarify my views once more by quoting my first post on this issue, as I do not want more people to misunderstand my views:

"My personal view on abortion is this: (the first sentence could possibly, in rare individual cases, have exceptions)

If a child was not intended in the first place, then abortion is perfectly fine. If a child was intended, abortion should, possibly with a few exceptions for *extreme* conditions, not be used as a means of controlling the child's characteristics."

That's it. Autism is not the only exception; I am against abortion as a means of preventing any characteristic, whatever that might be, possibly with the exception of truly extreme conditions, like if the baby would be born one step from brain-dead.

And with that said, I guess this discussion is finally over.

I agree that we can all have our differing views and be able to work together (I *think* that's what your Kipling quote was about, Asp). I will add my own quote from Trotsky: "Walk separately, strike together!"

My main point in not alienating people comes from my belief that most of those outside the AS community who are likely to support us are likely to be on the left and not the right - this has always been the case, as the right has a poor record in supporting minority rights IMO! Just ask gay rights and black civil rights campaigners who was on their side during their struggles. Of course, most on the left are pro-choice, hence my concern about doing anti-abortion lookalike stuff like carrying pics of fetuses.

It's purely a matter of tactics.

         My problem with your opinion is the hypocrisy of it. You say it is only wrong to about us but not others. Are we some kind of chosen race here?

                               Jerry Newport

Ditto.

      JN:    No problem. I apologize for that carelessness. I got caught up in my frustration. I also fully recognize the responsibility on the male side, which is much easier to exercise. That is why I had a vasectomy in 1982.  It is too bad that women have become so brainwashed into thinking they have to give men what they want. They really don't.


I do feel that AFF in its official capacity should refrain from using potentially divisive images such as fetuses and Nazi concentration camps,

    JN:   The nazi thing is so overdone that it is almost a joke. Besides, no matter who died in the camps, numerically, any sympathetic value to be gained is monopolized by one ethnic group who suffered a plurality of the losses.

                                  Jerry Newport

I think there is too much public funding for people to have abortions and not enough on educating young people about being responsible for themselves.

     JN: That is because the men who still make most of the rules like it that way. Hate to beak it to you but men won the battle of the sexes ages ago by co-opting feminism to suit their agenda.

I also think that prenatal testing should only be allowed under limited circumstances eg. there is a family history of something such as haemophilia.

    JN:  Oh? I had a friend in high school who had that condition. He was the best two-miler in the state and is now 59.  He used to run cross-country in morbid fear of cutting himself in the woods but somehow, he managed.

JN, I had an unplanned pregnancy back in 1985 and can assure you I am not one of these S's you talk about and think it is a very objectionable to term to use against women who have unplanned pregnancies.

      JN: I already apologized. Maybe you missed that. I would be happy to see legislation passed to sterilize any man who fathers a child and refuses to support the child, along with mandatory paternity testing to identify fathers of deserted children. Same for mothers of crack babies and FAS babies. One strike and you are gone from the gene pool.

       The father wanted me not to have the baby but I said I am not going to endanger my health and mental state just so life can be more convenient for you! So he said, "right, you're on your own". It was not known then that I had AS and even if it was, I still would have gone through with the pregnancy.

This baby is now a beautiful, intelligent, young lady who has just turned 19 (10th June) and it just goes to show that women shouldn't let themselves get pressured into an abortion just because somebody else says so. They are usually just out for themselves, even if they are a medical practitioner.[/quote]

          Congratulations for doing the right thing! Shame on your father.

                                     Jerry Newport

I can not be against genetic testing totally.  I believe it can be helpful in treatment for certain disorders.  For example I know a young woman who at age 14 started menstrating for two weeks at a time and became very ill and anemic.  It turns out she is a haemophiliac.  It is extremely rare for a female to have this but it is x-chromosome related.  Her father and brother both are haemophiliacs as well.  This woman was treated by receiving hormone treatments (birth control pills continually) so she would not menstrate.  She can never have children herself.  

I have a problem when the treatment for a genetic disorder is abortion.  I would never want to be in that position as a parent.  If all abortion was banned then these down syndrome children would be put up for adoption.  Not many people will willingly adopt a baby that is not healthy or "normal".  There are a few great people who do.  I wish there were more people like that.  It should be made known that there are happy families who have children who are "different" and always have been.  It is not such a burden.  It just seems that the charities will make it sound that way as a pity laden  "fund raising tool".

Most women have abortions during the first three months of pregancy.  Not too many records of the reason for the abortion are made public.  From what I can gather from other people, most women have abortions just because a pregancy would be an inconvenience for them at the present time.  They will state that they don't feel they can financially support a baby, they are trying to finish their education, they are trying to start their career, or maybe they feel they have too many children.  Many people do support this type of choice.  So how can anyone convince them that a baby who is considered not healthy, not perfect, not "normal" is worth anymore than a baby that is "not wanted" or "not planned"?  

I remember seeing a news article about a woman crying on the beach after the tsunami  "My precious gems, I have lost my precious gems."  She was not crying about jewellry.  She could not find one of her eleven children.  Her children mattered more to her than anything in her life.  People often wonder why the poor have many children like it is something bizarre.