Aspies For Freedom

Researchers at the University College Hospital London have applied for permission to begin using pre-implantation diagnosis (PGD) to screen IVF embryos for possible autism, even though there is no reliable test for the condition.

Opting for what one commentator called a "close enough solution," the reasoning goes that since 90% of autism sufferers are males, the answer is to allow only embryonic girls to be implanted in families with a medical history of autism. This, they say, will allow families with autistic children "to have a daughter free from the condition."

Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People pointed to the inherent eugenic principles behind the application. "Screening for autism would create a society where only perfection is valued." In the brave new world of the researchers, it is reasonable to fear "that anyone who is different in any way will not be accepted," Aspis said.

Bioethicist Ben Mitchell said, "If unborn children are being eliminated for a genetic disposition to autism, no one is safe . . . Today autism, tomorrow intelligence below 70 I.Q., the next day male pattern baldness. When will this madness stop?"

US columnist Chuck Colson, writing in Townhall about the British Researchers' application for the PGD screening, quotes Business Week saying, "the social cost of accommodating [their] birth is increasingly being seen as exceeding [their] worth."

This rhetoric from Business Week of the "social costs" of allowing the unfit to live and reproduce is identical to that of the early 20th century eugenics movement, led by abortion and contraception zealots such as Planned Parenthood foundress Margaret Sanger.

Colson makes the point, "Oh my! This utilitarian view of life inevitably leads us exactly where the Nazis were creating a master race. Can’t we see it?"
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06080407.html

I don't think the idea of rejecting males embryos in an attempt to prevent the birth of autists is anything new. I've heard of it being done years ago. It is an absurd idea. I don't believe autistic females are anything near as rare as they are made out to be, so families who think they are going to have a stock-standard neurotypical brood by selecting only females could have some surprises in the future.

I think autistic females can in some cases be more socially troublesome than autistic males, as they often superficially don't appear to be unusual due to being talkative and having animated body language, which means they themselves often don't realise how different they are to everyone else, and they may not be diagnosed, but they can be significantly impaired in communication ability, and hugely ill-equipped to take on the stereotypical female role of the warm, welcoming wife and mother and supportive friend within female social circles. An autistic in a dress and apron can create more chaos than a wolf in a hen house. I hope these families enjoy their autistic daughters.  :wink:

also, there's a sterotype for women to try to get married becuase everyone else is doing it, and just to copy their peers.  i tended to not copy my peers, and that can get alot of us in trouble.  i patucally don't really like to dress up too much, and never wanted to get a boyfriend.

Quite often in this forum I have assumed that another regular contributor is male, only to be surprised when they reveal in the things that they write that my assumption was wrong. I had assumed that you were male, Bravesj858 (I don't mean to offend).

I hope this is rejected.  Not least because the researchers must know that their claim to guarantee "a girl child free from autism" is very implausible - there is probably between a 1:5 to 1:10 ratio of male to female aspies. They will be sued to hell if they allow girls through on that basis, and then one turns out to have autism.

I find that to be a very stupid idea. I don't think there is any way to guarantee that a child will be free from autism, regardless of gender. I refuse to believe that males are autistic more often than females. I think it's pretty equal, only that the girls are taught to be "nice and quiet", and therefore the signs of autism are discovered later, or not even at all.

I agree with you, Lili Marlene - I hope they enjoy their autistic daughters. Personally, this desire for normality makes me sick. A good parent will love their children, autistic or not. Besides, even if they could pretty much make sure that a child won't be autistic, it may very well be born with some other sort of disorder, or other "abnormalities". If you aren't willing to risk having a child that is unusual in some way, you shouldn't have kids at all. That is my opinion, and I will stand for it.

/Zelda - a loud, proud female Aspie.

Thinking about it further, I realise that this calls for a poll

I hope they like their autistic daughters, as gender is no guarantee that someone won't be on the specturm. Even then, girls are often diagnosed in adulthood, as in my case. Growing up, I never met the qualifications of classic Kanner's autism, and it wasn't until the late 90's that anyone in the US heard of Hans Asperger and AS.

This is rediculous. Countries like China and Japan, that had perferred boy children over girl children, now are in a situation where they have too much of one gender. So there aren't enough girls for the guys. This is the same thing, except with perfering girls over boys. It's just as ignorant as a solution as anything else they've come up with.

....I'm an autistic female.

I never knew I was so special...  :shock: