Aspies For Freedom

Thanks for showing us that Kev.
The problem is that a 100% reliable test for autism isnt needed in order to have a prenatal test in use.

Look at the test for down's, that is far from 100% accurate but is still in daily use.

Even something as simple as the amniocentesis tests which show higher levels of testosterone for babies who later were diagnosed autistic (Prof Baron-Cohen did those studies) could be enough for mothers who were tested to abort out of fear. Especially if those mothers already had one child with autism, we know of mothers stories on the internet, who have aborted simply because a second child was male and therefore statistically more likely to have autism.

There are few treatments, tests, that are 100% accurate and effective, over 50% risk of something serious seems enough for people to take action.

rocobley, its 90% of those detected prenatally, they are official figures.
If a woman does not have the prenatal test then she wouldnt know about the downs, and therefore be put in the position of whether to abort or not.

Some babies who are born with downs, and have major heart and lung defects are left to die, as is it seen that it would be 'extraordinary care' to treat them.

If this is not mentioned on a down website I can thoroughly understand why, if kids with downs, or adults with downs, saw the figures splashed around it would be quite distressing.
You have to search for statistics on abortion, its a sensitive matter, and not something people want 'in their face'.

I'm sure you're right, Amy, but maybe if the figures had been 'splashed around' 30 years ago, it wouldn't still be happening.

Being quiet and polite and sensitive and avoiding distressing conversation are not virtues in the face of genocide.

Yes, I think the way the downs test was first promoted gave a certain impression that it was going to help parents plan for having a downs child, and help them in that way.
Of course we know the real application in most cases.

Sorry, but your logic and reasoning is way off. There used to be many people with downs around, when I was a girl it was common to see downs people, and there were downs schools, now there are hardly any.
When you say that the only women that would have a prenatal test are those that would want to abort, you are wrong, the test is standard procedure. You have to actually opt out of having it, and you will be asked numerous times to reconsider (I know this too well currently being pregnant).
If a woman is given the results from her blood test that she has a high chance of having a downs baby, she will then be offered the amniocentesis test and told how important it is.
I cannot imagine why you think that women in the same position but with an autism test would not abort in 90% of cases.
We already know of women who re given the option to abort a child if its a boy, because of the higher risk of it having autism.

Ok.

When you say that the only women that would have a prenatal test are those that would want to abort, you are wrong, the test is standard procedure. You have to actually opt out of having it, and you will be asked numerous times to reconsider (I know this too well currently being pregnant).

This is teriible when I was pregnant with my two children I was offered this test once and I was told on both occasions by different midwives that if the blood test count was high the next test that they would carry out would be invasive and increase the chances of miscarige. I was also told that it would not tell you how severe the condition would be. Its makes me angry that mothers to be are being pressured into having this test.

We already know of women who re given the option to abort a child if its a boy, because of the higher risk of it having autism.
Amy I haven't heard of this before. I'm shocked! Is this happening in the UK or abroad?


I know this too well currently being pregnant

Congratulations :grin:  When is it due.

This is my experience in the UK for all of my pregnancies.

Um.  If you want to state a statistic as true, please also state precisely where it came from, and include any caveats originally presented alongside that statistic...  otherwise the statistic itself is meaningless...  And keep in mind no study has ANY value unless it is replicable.  That is to say, if your results cannot be reproduced by other researchers, your results are worthless.

Basically, all these numbers people are throwing around, please say where you got them, since a statistic reported in a reputable psychiatric or neurological journal carries more weight than something off the pages of the National Enquirer.

ASDs are WAAAAY too complex for a single or even multiple gene test to be useful for some time, if ever.  We've been hearing about 'autism genes' for years, and still not a single solitary genetic test.


Again, PLEASE say where your information comes from, where you read it, who told you...  If you read it in Time magazine, a newspaper, or saw it on TV, IGNORE IT.  it is PROBABLY a load af hooey.  And if it comes from a political organization, I shouldn't have to tell you to chuck it into the garbage bin.  Ditto goes for "this guy I know said X" and similar tales.

As to the fact that ASDs appear linked to many chromosomes, well, no surprise.  ASDs are very complex, and part of that measn being influenced by a great many genes.  Chromosome 17 doesnt surprise me, ADHD is closely linked to 17, and ADHD is highly comorbid with AS (28%).
(This information comes from peer-reviewed articles published in scientifc journals... meaning its NOT bull)

Nem, fair enough if this was a scientific journal, but its not, and very few of us are scientists or researchers.

People can give a link, if possible to where some information came from.

You may feel that a test for autism might never be available, but Art Caplan, the bioethicist, has said he feels it will be within 5 years for a prenatal test for autism.

I have no reason to doubt what he says, as he is a Professional who is constantly studying the information.

The problem is that these tests do not have to be 100% accurate to be in use, such as the tests for Downs are not 100%, and pro-life groups have stated its more like 80% accurate.

I did a search of MEDLINE using the terms "autism AND DNA" and it produced dozens of new research papers published over the last year or so. So there's a big research effort and lots of money going in, for sure.

Suppose they find a gene that looks the way a clock looks when it explodes in a cartoon, all springs and cogs flying out....  will my life alone and marooned in Portslade-on-Sea change in any way? As there are all but no services for autistic adults as it is, it's not easy to see how the discovery of such a gene would make any difference.

This research looks like a new way to smuggle disreputable Nazi eugenics in through the back door. Parents "at risk" of having an autistic child will be identified by a test of some sort, and in utero testing of conception products will be undertaken to detect future autistics. Abortion would follow a positive finding. We would be no more.


Stella

Well many with Downs have autism too, pro-life groups study such information in great detail, and in my experience give out info that governments dont want people to see.

Just because pro-life seem to be political, doesn't mean they dont have access to facts, after all governments are political, and we can believe them can't we? Well.... :?

I know in the UK that a reason has to be given for each abortion and such statistics are kept on record.

In the past I have, and there were no discrepancies. (Embryology has long been a special interest).

In the UK we have the NHS, not private healthcare, which probably creates quite a different effect in record keeping than in the USA.

The government keep close tabs on where money goes.