Aspies For Freedom

I found this paper written by a student, his views are encouraging, here are portions of it, and a link to the full paper-

Who Should and Who Should Not Inhabit the World?
Jabeen Obaray
My initial interest in this topic came about as a result of an English class which I am currently taking on the subject of disabilities. The issue of abortion itself is not an easy question with a black and white answer, however, in terms of disabilities, there is a particular need for addressing this potentially dangerous issue. Scientific prenatal testing of disabilities (i.e. Spina Bifida, Down's Syndrome) has become an important issue with the increase in medical technology. However, if we were to develop a test which allowed for the detection of skin color prenatally, which would allow for racially mixed parents to have light skinned children, wouldn't most people would be outraged? And if the explanation for such a test were that it is difficult to grow up African-American, and we wanted to spare such "suffering", wouldn't people retaliate saying it was using scientific means to propagate racial prejudice? Yet, we perform tests which enable us to take steps toward the prevention of allowing a disabled life into the world, in the belief of reducing "human suffering", and with the idea that health and physical prowess are a source of human worth. The rise of eugenics (Greek for "well born") in American and Great Britain, has been linked to the racial hygiene movement in Germany. Hitler's ideas were, in fact, taken from the eugenics movement in the U.S. The extermination policies which came about in Nazi Germany began with a large - scale elimination of individuals with disabilities. The eugenic ideology underlies what has happened in the past, and the techniques that are currently being developed, but now instead of being forced, individuals are being given the tools. Do we have the right to determine who should and should not inhabit the world?

The concept of aborting individuals with potential disabilities was preceded by ideas on the extermination of already existing individuals with disabilities. Peter Singer, a contributor the field of "bio-ethics" maintains that there is no justification for regarding infants as having any more rights animals and that the parents of babies with certain disabilities be given the right to order the death of the infant. (1) In 1942, the American Journal of Psychiatry published a debate on the "Ethics of Killing Children with Severe Disabilities", in which one individual stated:

"I believe when the defective child shall have reached the age of five years - and on the application of his guardians - that the case should be considered under law by a competent medical board; then it should be reviewed twice more at four-month intervals; then, if the board, acting, I repeat, on the applications of the guardian of the child, and after three examinations of a defective who has reached the age of five or more, should decide that that defective has no future or hope of one; then I believe it is a merciful and kindly thing to relieve that defective - often tortured and convulsed, grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish, and entirely undesirable - of the agony of living." (1)

Here, we clearly see the idea that the non-disabled are "merciful", and are doing the disabled a justice in reducing their suffering.

Prenatal testing, is in essence deciding who should and should not inhabit the world. A woman diagnosed with a child with a potential disability (though the severity of the disability is unable to be determined), is not "forced" to terminate the pregnancy, but the "choice" she is given is between not terminating the pregnancy (for which she becomes "responsible" for the consequences which her child and family will take on, as well as being the "cause" of the physical and social pain of the child), or terminating the pregnancy due to chance of disability. A woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, but must also feel empowered not to terminate it, confident that the society will do what it can to enable her and her child to live fulfilling lives. We must not, once again, allow scientists and physicians to determine whose lives are not worth living, and then for us to live in this world as is constructed by these individuals. This has already happened in China, where since July 1996 pre-natal testing has been made compulsory as has the abortion of any "abnormal" fetus. (10) Often times, a disabled individual will express that the "real" challenge in being disabled lies far more in terms of the discrimination which is a resultant of it, rather than the actual physicality of the disability. ) Doesn't the answer then arise in changing the societal implications of being disabled?

"It is not the impairments that disable us, but society" (10)


The issue of selective abortion raises many issues, such as what about those disabilities which can not be detected prenatally (along with the disabilities which are acquired, as well as those disabilities which can not be detected [i.e. Autism]), what then happens to these such people? Do they not then become even more stigmatized? And what of the numerous amounts of work which has come from these individuals, in Art, Literature, Music, Science, etc., do we not then eliminate those who have contributed greatly to our society? (6) And as in the case of Nazi Germany, where the eugenics movement began with the elimination as well as sterilization of the disabled and then eventually led to a full-fledged Holocaust, how do we know where to stop? The aborting of a disabled fetus does not provide an answer or a cure for the disability. So isn't this just a temporary band-aid, and a bad one at that? And because there is no "specific" gene that leads to any specific disorder, we can not "produce" individuals without these disabilities, because what else would we be taking away in the process? And is all this really worth a homogenous society lacking in genetic diversity?

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b10...aray2.html

No easy position is there? I'm firmly of the position that anyone who wishes to terminate their own existence should be allowed (and assisted) to do so, but no one else should be given the power to make this decision (except where the subject is a clear and proven danger to others, and even then, there's the "mental health" conundrum).

What then of those who cannot make or express such a decision? Some very sick and disabled people have managed to state such a desire, so it's a fair bet that many others would if they could, and that some would have prefered never to have lived at all. With most though, the clear consesnsus, however disabled or however pained they are, is that they wish to live, and even more say they would prefer to have experienced life, to some extent (what's the meaning of life? "Life" itself of course, and all the justification required). Unless there was a condition which was proven to cause unremiting agony, in which every known subject said they would have prefered to have been aborted (I know of none such) then I cannot see any possible moral justification for eugenics.

This issue really scares me because of the number of people not brought into this world because they're not considered 'perfect'.  When I was pregnant everyone was so concerned about Down's Syndrome because of my age and made a huge deal out of it.  I shudder to think of all the DS babies aborted...

Another issue is that someone who is on the edge of deciding whether or not to abort would make a definite decision of 'yes' because of prenatal testing.  I would have been aborted if not for my grandfather saying 'No' (in the 60's that worked) but if they'd known I had autism what would the decision have been?

I am against eugenics but pro choice.

I do feel strongly that people should take more heed to whom they mate with and use more intelligence in that area, though. As it is, all they seem to pay attention to is the very superficial physical appearance.

Here's an example:

I was very allergic as a child, to the point that my docotor told my mom I should never marry someone else who was allergic. None of my mates have been allergic, and I've always asked them beforehand. Had I ignored the doctor, I would only have perpetuated the problem and made it even worse for my children.

We also have a family history of sinus problems, and of faulty knees which in at least half the men, have required surgery before they're 50. Needless to say, I would think long and hard before choosing to marry and have children by a man with knee problems that were congenital (not injury caused).

However, I don't think  of autism as a defect, so I had no problem at all with mating and bearing a child with another aspie.  :smile:

Now this is scary.  I dated someone a few times before he found out I had poor vision. He promptly said goodbye, as he didn't want children with bad vision.  I was a less than perfect specimen. :shock: What kind of world would that be--people not being able to, or at least not wanting to marry out of love but out of pragmaticism? And have you had yourself genetically tested to determine what recessive genes you have?  You might marry someone with the same recessive gene as you and create a very sick child.

"Now this is scary. I dated someone a few times before he found out I had poor vision. He promptly said goodbye, as he didn't want children with bad vision. I was a less than perfect specimen."

Sounds like you had a lucky escape from him! There are no guarantees when you have children, its a case of loving them regardless of 'imperfections'.

Actually, I  have bad vision too. At first that was another criteria for me, because my eyes really are bad...if I used glass lenses they would be like Coke bottle bottoms! But I fell for a mate who also wore glasses, and he had enough going for him in other areas for me to drop that. Vision can be resolved easily with glasses or surgery, so it really isn't as big a deal.

But in regards to the allergies and knee problems...I am not speaking of one or two allergies: my sister had a very long list of allergens, suffered from athsma, wheezed a LOT, and her activites were restricted based on potential allergens. I had serious colic due to milk allergies, and overall have an easier time of it than my sister, but there are still alot of things that I either abstain from altogether or limit because they make me sick. I love animals, but am allergic to some of my favorite critters!     So I just don't think it would be wise to have children with someone who was also seriously allergic as a child. Even with these precautions in mating, I have a son who is allergic to: all dairy products, wheat, soy, corn, oats, and eggs. It's very hard to feed him a balanced diet, and sad when he can't have a treat that the others get.

The knee problems, again, are a serious enough issue that I wouldn't wish them on my child.

I don't see anything wrong with my making these decisions for myself- I'm not advocating that all people be forced to do so....I just want my children to be stronger than I am in these areas. It's sort of similar to the way that I usually select men who are as intelligent as myself or more, I want smart kids.

Breeding any animal, including the human one, is always a crap shoot. There are recessive genes, some traits skip a generation, and things you may not have noticed pop up in a more obvious form than in the parents. But you do the best that you can with the information you have...just like anything else in life. And of course I love all my children...my selection for strengthening these traits was due to love in the first place, before I had them. I'd just like to spare them certain problems if possible.

I see your point, chamoisee, and I feel your love towards your children--it is very unselfishly motivated.  My husband has very bad migraines regularly--they run rampant in his family (4 generations ALL FAMILY MEMBERS confirmed with migraines to a greater or lesser degree) and I worried when I was pregnant that our child would inherit them for certain, as well as some of my health problems (lost the child, maybe due to my poor health).  We did not intend to have children for those reasons and others, including a desire to take care of kids already here--we are 'aunt' and 'uncle' to a lot of kids so, viewing it from your perspective different from mine, I see where you're coming from.

Yes, a bit of a contradiction that.

No...actually I didn't put that the right way. I am totally against any sort of involuntary eugenics or action taken in that direction, i.e., removing someone's right to reproduce based on phenotype or genotype.

I am not opposed to denying breeding rights to people who have commited crimes against children and babies (raping a baby). The last thing anyone needs is some perv giving birth to or spawning a baby and then hurting it. In my mind, they lost that right when they commited their first atrocity.

I am also not opposed to a woman having an aboriton for any reason at all in her first trimester, or for worthwhile reasons (including severe birth defects) afterwards. In fact, I think it ought to be awfully expensive, but if there were a prenatal test for autism, I'd be sad, but in a way, woudln't it be better for soem fanatical curebie woman to abort the kid than to condemn him for life in an institution where he'll be subjected to electric shocks several times a day? I for one would rather die than to spend my entire life that way, and if these women hate their autie babies that much, I think it's be more humane to off thewm before they coem into the cold, hard, world.

It isn't that I think autistics should die, it's that other people do, and people like that should have the right to deprive themselves of the choice to abuse an autie kid.

(if it seems that my viewpoint has changed, some time has alapsed since I wrote the previous posts)

Well DogBrain, you've got an agenda. You're clearly disinterested in any sort of scientific facts; since you seem to think that a Zygote-not to mention a Blastula, constistutes a baby.

Ziyaret, it certainly doesn't constitute a puppy or a kitten (you might want to watch your spelling too)

Dogbrain, what's airstrip one?

What you have just stated is not a Fact, it is an opinion. I happen not to agree with that opinion and shall excersize my right to do so.

Ah I see. Thanks for enlightening me. I agree btw.