When are humans going to realize, that just as life finds a way, so will disorders and disease. Just when you cure one, another comes along. That's just life. Trying to erase autism will only bring about a newer, quite probably more lethal combination of neurological/biological defects.
Think of this...parents kill their embryos until they find THE PERFECT FERTILIZED EGG. Egg is implanted, becomes human, is born, grows, learns, becomes a superhuman adult that realizes that HIS OWN PARENTS ARE LESS ADEQUATE THAN HIM -AND KILLS THEM!
Hmmm...what an amuzing thought.
Well it's not like it's not practically hard coded into human nature. Even with all the built in systems basically encouraging women and men to work together, most things indicate once the transients die down low intensity wars between the two parties is common. Ditto sufficiently different thinking individuals of the neurotypical conglomerate like the proverbial jocks vs nerds or arts vs sciences conflicts. Would one either group not be sorely tempted if given the chance to remove the others mental hardware quirks from reality?
Humans have a fundamental need to feel right with themselves. People that don't conform endanger that, and so the Jews have been persecuted throughout history to a large extent just because they wouldn't conform. While I am not qualified to speak for others on the spectrum, if my experience is any indicator we by our very nature are basically heretics to a neurotypical. Although it's subtle enough in nature, it's not exactly immediately apparent.
The ironic thing is I expect those of us on the spectrum aren't so much delayed as we're being made to do a task more difficult then that the neurotypical is, despite them externally appearing the same to a neurotypical. Humans in general tend to like to flock to similar minded people. People on the spectrum are so rare and otherwise it's not really practical to find like minded people in the same sense, so the person on the spectrum has to fundamentally deal with unlike minded people and compensate for them. How many NTs would be able to make bridges like that? How many of the NT nerds would be able to look the Jocks in the eye if they didn't have to? How many of them would be able to operate with a social interface with them without being awkward?
The reason I'm not doing that example also in reverse is the Jocks tend to have an advantage over the nerds similar to the one NTs have over people on the spectrum.
I remember reading a positive list of attributes of people on the spectrum before and one of the ones I remember was a tendency to not be racist. While part of that is no doubt from the shorter minicolumns not allowing us to entrench ourselves in the same way so easily, part of it might be we can't really just isolate ourselves in our own little quasi-self-contained group without having to really deal with and try to understand people who aren't like us. Although we can certainly do better in those regards.
On the other hand, given the common perception put out there of the extreme case this could go forward with just a misplaced compassion. Naturally this is combined with being able to insulate themselves from the reality, preventing them from being forced to acknowledge the reality of what they're really doing. It's not uncommon and it isn't consciously malicious, but that doesn't make it right or not be a threat.
I see problems with actually being able to cause the NTs to really acknowledge what they're doing. They think they're helping and doing the right thing, so the tendency would naturally be to see any opposition as evil and basically ignoring what contradicts them. Human's perception is their reality, up to the point reality slaps them and even then they usually have to be smacked a few times to begin to properly respond. Ara ara, there's time when I can be indignant about the way humans are put together.
That's what they did in Hitler's Germany. Surely we have learned something from that?
We're talking the same people who had used appeasement to make Germany a real threat, getting their cities razed and an entire generation of people slaughtered for it, only to turn right around and practically do the same thing with the Soviets. It took Reagan to straighten that whole mess out, and the people with other ideas still only grudgingly sort of acknowledge he was right.
That said, you shouldn't invoke that so easily. Most people would invoke Godwin's law on you declaring the debate over in the process, and you can make the point without it.
THis just proves that we are unwanted by most of NT society. Most NT parents would rather not have an autistic child if given the choice. The question is, should these parent be forced to have an autistic child if medical technology is developed which would allow them to make this choice? To them, pregnancy with an autistic child would be the same as an unwanted pregnancy.
in that case morally speaking any step to ban any form of abortion is positive not negative progres and is the sign of wise legislation.
So what, I understand but i saidif thatis the case, which i hope it's not, I don't see how the individual deserves to decide that, I mean let fate, at the end, I sopported abortion bieng a good thing, by this rate I have been proven wrong, how is it a good thing when people abort even based on the gender of their, child since when is negative judgement a human right you don't know the child, if you change the child you change the child, and if gender personality statements of transvestites which they make about their own mindsnot about their childrens minds, is true, then that effects them, and I disaprove of allowing both the people to check for the DNA, the fact that this will cause mild inbreeding in humans is to me far more of a relivent issue then the individual who just doesn't wantto rear the child, drop put the baby up for addoption, cows have been bread to the state that the milk is relatively unhealthy thou races have been wiped out it is like any other inbreeding. We do not know what the healthy genes, are people say don't tamper with the genesof future generations, I think that chossing to abort because of a genetic difference, is not better and aborting is the pill option to offering up to adoption. the conventional aproach to just giving the child to somewhere underpopulated in siberia, does a-lot more real and percieved good to society. that's me, it's like saying, I want to walk left to my toilet, when the toilet is just the same distance.
It's like saying I am okay within breeding, fourteen generations or fifteen generations of inbreeding, wha'ts the difference i just say, and if people are removed from the genome, more people will be removed meaning more genes and so forth, they find the pervert gene they remove that and so forth, you have a million genes, if our personality is genetic what makes people who are autistic combined less important if only for our gene pool,[besides gender ratios are a defining part of birth rates more men compared to woman lower natural birth rate, i mean this can be a factor in the groth of population, aswheal, so if people in Siberia have their way their be only men, at the end but the populations go down and you end with, only men no future children which means that siberia has died out. But what they want is to put up their population who cares how many woman their are and how many men it's something you don't realise unless it's very extreme or very far away, and how are we less important as autistics, I mean were 0.1 but were men and woman, if think more differently we want to define ourselves as a culture, that makes us another part of the gene pool, regardless of whether or not all of us have children, in breeding causes damage.
to future generations imagine, let's say that you marry your sister and child and this is for 6 to 7 generations I don't think you would concider it, i mean your direct sister? okay but how long term is long term as we grow older time travels by quicker and quicker, and now till the end of our lives is also not forever.
however vast majority of people are not like that so it is fine to have abortion. take it as an if.
assuming my second argument is right their is tomuch legislation instead the doctor and the patient should make the choice, however I believe it should instead reflect negatively on the doctors who did not inform the parents on the details of autism, And it is important to also give alternatives like, adoption, however if possible one should take care and keep ones own child.
I wouldn't worry too much. Too many people think this 'designer baby' thing is morally wrong for it to get a strong foothold any time soon. Also we all know that scientists love messing about and doing the most frankensteinian things they can think of. There was a saying I heard, that says Scientists are so wrapped up in whether or not they could, they don't take a second to think about whether or not they should.
Scientists do not want to create monstrosities or perform diabolical experiments. I have no idea why people think that that is what scientists spend their time doing. Perhaps they confuse movies with reality.
Also, Science is just about expanding knowledge of the universe and everything in it. What to do with this knowledge is not the concern of Science. What to do with knowledge is the concern of other disciplines. For example, through my study of Chemistry, I know how to create Potassium Cyanide. There is nothing inherently bad in creating that particular compound. What I do with that compound, however, could be good or bad. I could use it to kill insects, or I could use it to kill people. What I do with it is the concern of some sort of ethical framework, not Science.
I wouldn't worry too much. Too many people think this 'designer baby' thing is morally wrong for it to get a strong foothold any time soon. Also we all know that scientists love messing about and doing the most frankensteinian things they can think of. There was a saying I heard, that says Scientists are so wrapped up in whether or not they could, they don't take a second to think about whether or not they should.
Scientists do not want to create monstrosities or perform diabolical experiments. I have no idea why people think that that is what scientists spend their time doing. Perhaps they confuse movies with reality.
Also, Science is just about expanding knowledge of the universe and everything in it. What to do with this knowledge is not the concern of Science. What to do with knowledge is the concern of other disciplines. For example, through my study of Chemistry, I know how to create Potassium Cyanide. There is nothing inherently bad in creating that particular compound. What I do with that compound, however, could be good or bad. I could use it to kill insects, or I could use it to kill people. What I do with it is the concern of some sort of ethical framework, not Science.
I'm honestly even less convinced now.
Oh dear jesus. They are acting as the Nazi's have during WWII. This is pure evil in its simplest yet most complex form. No doubt the Queen herself ordered this.
ok im new and i should probably put this in a different thread but I think that destroying unborn children because they have or may have autism is a positivley disgraceful idea. I feel that autism is more a different state of mind than a disability. I'd like other people especially medical officials to understand that just because we are different our rights to life are not so.
I know how horrible it feels to be labeled, I was 'labeled' as autistic at a young age now i'm 17 and 18 in July and have been in foster care since the age of 4 the whole time I was treated as though i was 'special' I have ideas lots of them but I'm not as smart as everyone thinks I am, so they expect a lot more than they get and I can't help that.
I just wish that people wouldn't be so patronising all the time just because I have this so called 'disability' I am concious, I can understand what your saying, why are you not willing to acknowledge that?