Aspies For Freedom

Well, at least it's still only by request.

There are no clearly defined guidelines as to what does and does not constitute Autism or anything related. OK, so it can be identified to the extremes; however, there is a very blurred line between what does and does not constitue Autism. Therefore, does this mean that the vast majority of male babies are at risk?

The term "preventing babies being born with Autism" is VERY ambiguous. It can mean "curing them of Autism and letting them be born" or "not letting them be born" - very clever. Girls are not "immune" to Autism in the first place.

How about this - if males were 0.0001% more likely to "get" Autism than females, who would they wipe out then? Everyone?

I hope they realise that there is no "categorical" definition of who is and is not Autistic or who has or has not a risk of "becoming" Autistic. The more this technique is used, the wider the criteria for potential targets becomes. Therefore, many, MANY male babies are unnecessarily (ex)terminated. Eventually, the category will expand to "being male", and the planet will run out of men. Sounds farfetched, but it's possible with this programme.

I was told in another thread, that I was too agressive towards the NTs at Schwab Learning. Saying that they're supporting the aborting of Autistic fetuses. Well, do you think I'm being too agressive now?

A recent interview on BBC News said something similar to that, while potentially less in regards to Autism.

Most straights would not want a gay or bisexual child if given the choice.  That's what genetic screening will eventually boil down to--kill your baby if it doesn't fit your idea of what a "good person" should be.

That's.... genocide. DIdn't the world agree that genocide is wrong?

And a clear way to human extinction if all boys get killed because they're a but more likely to be Autistic, before cloning (which I am also against) wins the race.

*cries*

I guess the little boy in the politics joke is right. The Future is full of ***.

~*~
This is what I am talking about:

Once a little boy had to study politics for school. He didn't understand the subject much, so he asked his dad about it. His dad said, "Well, how about I compare politics to our household? I own the house, so I guess you can call me the President. Your mother works to serve you, so we can call her the Government. The maid keeps the house clean and cooks our food, so she is the Work Force. Your mother, the maid and I work to serve you, The People. And your baby brother is The Future."

The boy still didn't understand.

That night, he heard his baby brother crying and found that his diaper was dirty, so he ran to his mother's room, but she was too deep in sleep to be of any use. He ran next to the maid's room, but his dad was in bed with her.

The next morning, he said to his dad, "I think I understand politics now. While the Government is fast asleep, the President is screwing the Work Force, so The People are being ignored, and the Future is full of ***."

It is impossible to invent any technology which is completley foolproof as humanity keeps churning out better fools.

I suggest that among other things we start calling it what it is - genocide. Like I said on another Autism Site, My main concern is that

/

/

will slide into a bogus cure like the 'cure' that was used for judaism in WWII. (Apologies anyone who finds that comparision offensive - It was just what I could think of first.)

'It's different, let's kill it!' 'It's almost like we're spiders or something.'

But if we do that, the ant-discrimantion legalization becomes irrelavent.

I'm already strongly pro-life when it comes to NT foetuses...most of the time, of course there are a FEW exceptions.

However, judging from the behaviour of a lot of NT students in my lessons...I occasionally wonder if they have the right idea about WHO to screen for.

What I would like to see is someone write up a list of:
.The negatives for Neurotypicality
and
.The positives for the Autistic Spectrum.

And go through the list going
'Let's kill Positive trait 1.
Let's keep Negative trait 1.'

Wait for the uproar then explain why its happening.

It may not be plausible in real-life but I would like to see it.

Wonderful. Absolutely wonderful. That was the most beautiful thing I have read all day besides the 10th Series of Unfortunate Events book I have just finished for the bajillionth time.

I really hope someone does this.

Thanks.

We could work on it here. Do we have enough NT members to represent & explain that part of the population?

I don't see how a woman could be a good christian and believe in abortion on demand.

Batou456, guess what? I can invoke any example I darn well please. I used this example advisedly as there was such a push in those days to kill off anybody considered "imperfect" even when there were people prepared to look after them.

I take your point though that the Allies acted extremely unwisely in their policy of "appeasement" and I also concede that the extremely punitive reparations levied against the Germans in the wake of World War 1 set the scene for the devaluation of the Deutschmark in the 1920's and the rise of Hitler.

I'm never suggesting that there weren't faults on both sides but this was the only example I could think of in relatively recent times where there was a concerted attempt to wipe out whole races and groups of people.

It is inevitable and unstoppable. People will employ eugenics and euthenics if they are able to.

This does say a lot about how we are perceived by the NT world.

However, it is also an extension of the sort of pre-natal efforts which fastidious people undergo such as eating only organic food or doing special yoga asanas.

I hate to say this but what mother or father in their right mind would choose to have an autistic child unless they were some sort of masochist?

We can cause our parents a great deal of anguish.

So therefore it is logical that parents might choose to avoid having autistic children.

I would be concerned, however, that, in the future, the beneficial traits which may result from 'autism genes' would be screened out to the detriment of the population as a whole.

Science without morality is unpleasant, but in any case, our world is becoming increasingly unnatural. Children who would have died without advances in medical science are surviving to have children of their own whose children are also dependent upon medical science for the same medical reasons.

I am not sure if this is not worse than eugenics and euthenics.

I said that eugenics and euthenics were an extension of those sorts of pre-natal efforts, not part of them, so I agree with you.

Perhaps you did not realise that, since you are chewing my head off.

I am not in favour of the genocide of people with ASD. Where did I say that? Also, are people with ASD a separate people anyway? No, yet, you seem to be saying that our removal from the future population would be 'genocide' which is bizarre.

I believe that people with ASD should take the right to live, but that will not stop people trying to stop us from being born.

Anyway, I would not consider it a 'genocide' if they did, because I rather identify more with my race, family and nation than I do with my diagnosis.

Perhaps I should have been brainwashed not to by a bunch of communists.

Actually, they tried to. Looks like it failed.