Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: Daily Mail article  re embryo selection and autism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Thought people might be interested in today's UK Daily Mail front-page article:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...=NEWS&ct=5
One of the Reader-submitted comments there...

Quote:
Considering the contributions of autistic minds, trying to eliminate them is not only unethical, but incredibly stupid.

- Christian Dorn, Kelseyville, USA


How true!

Quote:
Around ten per cent of cases are thought to be hereditary.


???  Can anyone explain this a bit more?

Approximately one in ten cases of Autism are presumed to be inherited ("passed on") from one or both parents to the baby.

Interestingly, BBC News has been reporting this all day, and hasn't mentioned Autism much. There was one woman on a short while ago who essentially said that "disabled" kids were effectively being informed that they were sub-standard to everyone else.

EDIT:

At approximately 19:35 - Autism was briefly brought into an interview with the mother of a boy with Fragile X Syndrome.
If ever I have another kid (don't even go there), I do so hope she/he is autie/aspie.

Go the superior intellect :grin:
I've just been reading through the readers' comments on the Daily Mail news article.  Thankfully, a lot of them seem positive, but there are some curebie comments which really annoy me, such as:

Quote:
Anyone that would knowingly bring a defective child into this world, because of religious belief, when it is preventable, should not have the right to have children.

- Nale Hammer, Tulsa, Oklahoma USA


It annoys me that a child could be described as "defective", as if he/she is a piece of machinery!

Quote:
I'm not sure about 'perfect' designer babies, but I am sure that if the medical technololgy to ensure 'perfectly healthy' babies now exists, it should be employed. For the most part, the birth of genetically damaged people has been greeted with humanity and compassion by society at large. Unfortunately, the financial burden of supporting these people falls to the tax payer. If a family wishes to produce damaged children, where the technology exists to prevent it, for moral or religious reasons, fine, I can understand that, but let them assume the full financially responsibility.

- Mary Miller, UK


Here we go again, disabled people being described as a burden on society!  :evil:   Why is it that some people only think of a human life as being worthwhile if it is capable of economic production?  

Quote:
As a disabled person I thoroughly support embryo screening. Life as a disabled person is for me, very painful and restricting and I would wish that for no one. The services, support and access for disabled people is appalling. So let all these people who are against embryo screening get the services, support, access and financial upkeep for disabled people sorted before they complain about screening.


I find that one pretty ironic - that they are a disabled person and they still support embryo screening.  If the testing had been available when he was conceived, and his parents had chosen a different embryo instead of his, it wouldn't have been the same person, would it?  It would have been another child with a different soul.  Therefore, the author of the above comment wouldn't be here today. (Although I do find the concept of souls to be very confusing).

Quote:
We should wipe out any genetic disease and abnormality we can. In the mean time we should care for those who are less fortunate and cannot care for themselves.

I do not subscribe to the notion all life is valuable when clearly it is not. It is a hard reality to face but it is true. What is the point of propagating disease and genetic defects if we do not have to?

- Zarlat Absilok, Irvine, CA, USA


That is the worst one of all, and it was posted on a page (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...rtComments specifically referring to autistics.  I found that comment to be the most offensive out of all the ones I read, especially the bit in bold. (I added the "boldness" myself).

how digusting.  these people only value people as human under certian cirucatnces.  everyone has a right to live, and we're all human.

people are not computers...we all have value, and we are just varied.  what if people said that only windows computers were worthy of being used in the earth, and that all other types were defective?  this is just another plan to define humans under a tight constraint.

when you look at it, all of us have a defect somewhere, but we have benifits.

how about we give more support to all humans instead of ostrizing the majority.

Sparkle1984 Wrote:


I got to that article and tried to post the following comment, but I don't think it was accepted.  I avoided the issue of eugenics; 1,000 characters could not do it justice, even if I had already finished Martin Gilberg's book about the holocaust.  

Quote:
I'm autistic, and I don't believe my life is not worth living; I do not wish to be normal, because I would lose my rote memory, my perserverence, my joy in the abstruse and strange. Who are you to say otherwise?  

I do not suffer from autism, I suffer from prejudice.  I suffer from the store manager who does not like my posture. I suffer from the cashier who thinks there's something wrong with me. I suffer from the interviewer who thinks my body language shows I can't do the job right.  

There are some negative comments that I have only come to expect and (grudgingly) understand. But comparing Autism to HIV and Cancer is simply too rediculous. Autism is never, under any circumstance, fatal, and while it is true that some autistics have severe mental retardation as well, it is not the autism that's the problem, it's the mental retardation. Too many autistics go on to live productive, happy, healthy lives to justify such a comparison.

The hysterics have to end: we deserve a chance.

Quote:
I got to that article and tried to post the following comment, but I don't think it was accepted.


Maybe they have to be approved by a moderator first?  I would have posted a comment myself, but I didn't want to put my name and hometown on it.

Reference URL's