THAT Holocaust was voluntary, in Germany and elsewhere. It was encouraged by the N*zis, but it had rather extensive support from the population.
You forgot to mention that women were the overwhelming demographic who chose to elect Hitler.
Women by nature are fascists. The fact that Hitler was a failed artist showed his effeminate side was besmirched and hence he took his artistic skills towards a theatrical scale of the Third Reich.
Let sleeping does lie.
I was going to argue with you, but ATM said everything I was even thinking of saying, and much more efficiently too - kudos to him.
I have only this to say.
You are a very lonely, angry, sad little man, and I pity you.
[quote=Heyoka]
The tone of your post seems to suggest you're looking to provoke more than to debate...
So what's wrong with my original argument? Why are you against people having CHOICE in their life, especially the choice of aborting AS fetuses?
Does a woman not have a right to her body?
I'll take that one.
We are NOT against choice. I myself believe that if a woman should wish to have an abortion, it is her right.
HOWEVER, I do not believe that abortions should be carried out for the sole reason of the possibility of Autism. Nor do I believe it is ethical to portray only the most exaggerated and negative end of our condition - which is not even accurate. for every lucid yet stupid aspie, there is an Amanda Baggs.
HOWEVER, I do not believe that abortions should be carried out for the sole reason of the possibility of Autism.
Women get abortions for a lot less reasons than that. Nowadays, she simply has to say "I don't want it" and that's enough.
Are you now pushing for 'reasons' and a committee to thus debate the merits of an abortion?
Oops, I think I just asked a question which would merit a real answer.
I feel that a woman's body is hers to do with as she wishes.
I do however, as I said, protest the image of Autism which is most often pushed aggressively - namely, that we are all faeces slinging 'tards.
If a person makes the decision to abort based on that alone, then they have made the decision based entirely on false information.
I will reiterate. If a woman says "I do not want the baby" and goes for an abortion, it is her business.
If a person makes the decision to abort based on that alone, then they have made the decision based entirely on false information.
Would you then support/endorse the rules for an abortion to be changed to prevent such from taking place?
If a woman knowingly and openly admits that she wants to have a potential AS fetus aborted, would you support government denying her the right for an abortion?
No, I would not. I would, however, seek to educate said parent about the realities of autism - namely, that many of us are highly intelligent, even if some of us are nonverbal.
No, I would not. I would, however, seek to educate said parent about the realities of autism - namely, that many of us are highly intelligent, even if some of us are nonverbal.
That would be like throwing a quarter at a sheet of metal. Do you honestly think women base their decisions on logic?
No amount of reason would convince her that her child would not develop/born mentally retarded/down syndrome.
You and I both know AS is nothing like that...however there are *other* clear and outright obvious issues with having AS.
I think a woman has the right to be informed of all potential issues her fetus might develop into and thus...the right to choose for an abortion.
I agree to a point. however, I would disagree with your assumption that the parent would not listen. I know many parents who would love an aspie - some of them already have autistic children, some have seen well raised autistics.
At the end of the day - the parents will be making their decision based on a false premise - that Autistics are doomed to depression, suffering, being trapped inside their own heads etc etc. Whilst it is true that bi-polar is a fairly common comorbid, that in of itself is not autism.
I agree that parents should have information, but I also believe that abortions should only be performed with informed consent.
Dogme is right in that it is difficult/impossible to reconcile support for abortion on demand with opposition to the abortion of a foetus because a (yet to be developed) test shows that the child will be autistic.
In terms of public perception, I personally have yet to encounter anyone who has the extremely negative images of autism which I see spoken of here.
No, he raises a good point - being prochoice and antieugenics can lead to an impossible conflict between two diametrically opposing and opposite viewpoints.
Dogme, I can sympathise, really I can, particularly re the beatings, etc received when young. But I'd also say: if something is broken, it needs fixing. And *we're* not the broken ones, it's society. At least in my view. Our numbers are growing as we find each other and breed true to type. So I look forward to a future where Autistics are the majority humans. Then it will be the NTs who need to fit in with our culture, rather than vice versa, as currently. So don't sterilize, don't commit eugenics. Get out there, find a Cousin or another AU and breed like bunnies!
Alison
Inbreeding is your answer?
Cousin as in Capital C. It means one who is not related biologically, but who is non-judgemental towards Autistics. Often they have a first-degree relative who is autistic, as well. They are very helpful in dealing with the NT culture.
For instance, my husband is a Cousin, I believe. His (biological) brother is Autistic.
Inbreeding has nothing to do with small c cousins. I'm of Scottish descent originally, whereas my husband is an Indian Ocean Islander.
Alison
Inbreeding has nothing to do with small c cousins. I'm of Scottish descent originally, whereas my husband is an Indian Ocean Islander.
Alison
Oh, I should just add: my apologies for using confusing language. I'm so comfortable using the term "Cousin" to refer to people who are not actually biologically related to us that I didn't think how it would be interpreted by somebody not "current" with the Aspie culture's language.
Alison
Perhaps we can find a gene for obnoxious jerk?
I'm sure there is one and it must be a dominant gene too.
Dogme is right in that it is difficult/impossible to reconcile support for abortion on demand with opposition to the abortion of a foetus because a (yet to be developed) test shows that the child will be autistic.
In terms of public perception, I personally have yet to encounter anyone who has the extremely negative images of autism which I see spoken of here.
No, he raises a good point - being prochoice and antieugenics can lead to an impossible conflict between two diametrically opposing and opposite viewpoints.
Old post, but i'd like to point something out here. There is a huge difference between positive and negative eugenics. Negative eugenics is the practice of removing the "weak" (based on your subjective criteria of who is weak), while positive eugenics is purely introducing enhancements and/or selective breeding.
You can practice positive eugenics by going to a singles club and choosing someone who has the best genes to reproduce with.
But would people going to singles clubs necessarily have the best genes to reproduce with?
But would people going to singles clubs necessarily have the best genes to reproduce with?
I suppose it all depends on what you're looking for in a mate and future children.
Alison
If you wanted bright children, you'd go to something more upmarket like a museum.
Quiet, sensitive, artistic and bookish kids -- don't go find a mate at a rave party!
Alison