Aspies For Freedom

I'm pro-choice, but this annoys the heck out of me. I think I may have asperger's syndrome, I'm also a lesbian (people are saying they may be able to test for this in the future), and I had genetic kidney reflux (had surgery when I was 3 years old, been fine ever since, but I have permanent kidney scarring and a propensity towards a latex allergy. don't worry about me, I'm fine!). Do you think if all 3 things had  been detected before I was born I would be here?

Also, why would someone abort a down's syndrome child? I've known several people with DS and they were wonderful.... I wish people would focus on their gifts rather than their handicaps.

My understanding of prenatal testing is that they look at the genes the fetus has, and project whether or not they'll have this or that. To me it seems at best it's like forecasting the weather. Seriously, you're taking the genes of a being that is forming, so what if they are projected to have DS or be gay right then, but the fetus is changing and building itself, so things are bound to change between when the fetus is changed into a full baby and born then from when the prenatal test was done. If anything this throws out the validity of prenatal testing because it's so innoficient.

So what if the threat is there? Right now it's like a specter, maybe it'll become like embrionic stem cell research, no one wants to fund it because it doesn't produce any results. I think the testing for autism will become like that, no one will do it because it's fruitless.

Peronslly I think many of the 46 chromesomes in beings are alreayd present in autism. It's not like an outside force planted the changes that make autism into the gene pool, no I think the chromosomes themselves evolved and to find a single or a couple genes that appear over and over again in people with autism. If it was that easy as that they'd have found the gene that causes autism alreayd and not be spending years doing this research; or press releases which sum up saying "we think we found the gene".

If it is just one or two genes then it is more simple, personally I think it's more complex. Who can honestly say that changing one or two genes in a person's genetic code won't have a dramatic effect on the person itself.

As for a cure itself, only cure that seems even possible is aborting the fetus. How can they even dream to change our genetic code to fit their desires, or that it would even work? If you change one thing about me in my genetic code that is not ment to be there, who's to say that cure won't put me into a coma or kill me brain because one thing is out of alingment. Why do people who have transfusions of blood have to get the same type of blood as theirs? Because if they don't the body will reject the blood that is not of the same type.

My brain is made to work exactly the way it is and to change something about it, no one can tell what effects it may have.

Evolution itself is a trial and error method, and those that were deemed best at that stage of development went on the pass their genes onto the next generation. It bugs me to do this but look at our own, those with autism; who on the entire spectrum will go on to pass on their genes and pass on the possibility of that autism from that person moving on to face the same trail in later generations?

The same goes for those that are outside of the autism spectrum.

For us, that has already happened. If we couldn't survive the radiation from our own sun (thank you ozone layer) we'd die, our species would fail and a species that is able to withstand the radiation would thrive and grow. Say the ozone layer gave way for some reason (not stating any here!) if all life were to die then that means no life on this earth is capable of living without the ozone layer and no one specimen of any species would be able to pass on their genes. Same thing with oxidation.

Sweet mother I have so many spelling mistakes when I get into things.

already*x2, chromosomes*, innificient*

Maybe the answer for me for this is to put what I type through a word processor first. I suck typing in the mornings.

Variety is the only key to survival, screening out abnormalities, even supposed 'disabilities' can have consequences. The autism gene may protect us against a future virus for example (A loose example).

Wow. This is the sort of thing I worry about with all this negativity on autism. I mean, checking to see if your child would be diagnosed with something fatal (i.e. Tay-Sachs Disease) is one thing, but I don't think autism is really anything all that concerning.

by playing god nt's will eliminate themselves they need us as we need them its like a circle they have helped us to under stand socialising and etc and we have made important scientific discoveries with people like newton and einstein destroy us and destroy discovery and difference

The horror...

http://www.ventura33.com/clock/

something seriously needs to be done about this before these idiots wipe us off the face of the earth

Genocide is multidimensional.  
There is out-and-out haphazard individual murders and organized murder, with or without the support of the state

There is abortion if a genetic test determines a certainty or strong likelihood of an unwanted syndrome (Down's, Asperger, autism, etc.), which is simply social attitudes played out in parents' minds (what kind of miserable occupational, social, romantic existence is he or she gonna have, relative to ours?)

Some people (Catholics) are going to think that simply preventing pregnancies with contraception or sterilization in couples that have a heightened risk is murder enough (relative to simply letting nature take its course, and if you look at it that way, you can see their point even if you think voluntary contraception and sterilization is a good idea); of course, in the last century, the Americans and Germans have forcibly sterilized some of their people with disabilities, which is something plenty of people are going to object to for reasons of choice

And finally, let's not dismiss the power of large-scale rejections in an individual's life and his or her suicide risk.  We have determined a single man's suicide risk over age 45 is considerable, as people age, their parents usually die, siblings may move, be too busy with their own families.  (You might not want to use the words drop dead to address unwanted romantic attention)

The society is the problem.  It makes the prospective parents get the abortion, or do the chelation, or if all else fails, makes the Asperger adult try suicide, or at minimum, fantasize about it.

When I started reading Emile Durkheim Rules of Sociologial Method, I had an academic appreciation for society trying to eliminate deviance (and address deviants) with informal and formal sanctions for nonconformity.  For a long time I smugly thought, well, no one is trying to kill the Aspergians.  

By themselves, anyway.

And as for the ones who live to the end, what life is that?  Life should be more than metabolism.

If you are a Christian, smile.  The Son of God hates society too, you know whose society it is, you know who tempted Jesus with all the kingdoms of the world if He would but worship him.  

Human culture as we know it is heading for the ash heap of eternity just as soon as Jesus gets back.

wasn't mr.genocide a spammer?

It is a spoof on Honda's advert, Mr. Opportunity, an animated character knocking on the inside of your TV screen.

ohhhhh!

thanks for clearing that up!

I saw something about this thing and speculation that he was spammer but oh well

For starters, the idea of eugenic elimination of autistic people is extrapolated from the existing practice of pre-natal testing for Downs Syndrome, among other things - It's not too much of a stretch to say that what is currently happening with Downs Syndrome would also happen with autistic people.

I'm not sure where you saw that abortion "is not being used as a tool to weed out anything, other than maybe fatal birth defects", but the statement is false. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndro...cal_Issues):

Research into pre-natal tests for autism are currently being funded. It may be possible that they will never succeed, but there is still a very real possibility that they will.

As far as the term "designer baby" is concerned, the term refers to pre-selecting genetic traits of a child - the example you've quoted above (selecting eye and hair colour, etc) is the most extreme form of this, but it's by no means the only form.

As far as the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the technology, this has nothing to do with any science-fiction concepts - but solely with the real effect of eliminating autistic people. If you see someone here protesting against genetically engineered zombie sheep, then by all means pull them up on it. Until then, I'd stick with responding to what people are actually saying.

About the only correct statement in your post above is that America has practiced eugenics in the past. This is true. I'll also add that they do so in the present, and will continue to do so in the future.

I cannot see how this fact furthers any of the other statements you have made. In fact, it strengthens the idea that eugenics would be used on autistic people.

So what tool was used to weed out the very NON-FATAL Down Syndrome, in that case?

We're on the genocide agenda's list, don't you worry.