Aspies For Freedom

Extract-

It takes considerable rhetorical agility to urge the public to support
screening programs so as to prevent the conception of handicapped
individuals while at the same time insisting that full respect
be paid to such developmentally disabled adults as are already
among us.
Is it possible for the same society to espouse the goals of including
people with disabilities as fully equal and participating members and
simultaneously promoting the use of embryo selection and selective
abortion to prevent the births of those who would live with disabilities?
As currently practiced and justified, prenatal testing and embryo
selection cannot comfortably coexist with society’s professed
goals of promoting inclusion and equality for people with disabilities.
Nonetheless, revamped clinical practice and social policy could permit
informed reproductive choice and respect for current and future
people with disabilities. In the first Section of this Article, I argue
that the typical justifications offered by practitioners and researchers
for prenatal testing are mistaken about the implications of disability.

In the second Section, I explain why I discount the claim that people
with disabilities have made great progress—notwithstanding the ad-vent
of prenatal testing. I conclude by proposing reforms to our cur-rent
prenatal testing practices that would meet the challenges posed
by many critics.
What has become known as the disability rights critique of prena-tal
testing has been formulated as follows:
(1) Continuing, persistent, and pervasive discrimination consti-tutes
the major problem of having a disability for people them-selves
and for their families and communities. Rather than im-proving
the medical or social situation of today’s or tomorrow’s
disabled citizens, prenatal diagnosis reinforces the medical model
that disability itself, not societal discrimination against people
with disabilities, is the problem to be solved.
(2) In rejecting an otherwise desired child because they believe
that the child’s disability will diminish their parental experience,
parents suggest that they are unwilling to accept any significant
departure from the parental dreams that a child’s characteristics
might occasion.
(3) When prospective parents select against a fetus because of
predicted disability, they are making an unfortunate, often misin-formed
decision that a disabled child will not fulfill what most peo-ple
seek in child rearing, namely, “to give ourselves to a new being
who starts out with the best we can give, and who will enrich us,
gladden others, contribute to the world, and make us proud.”
In these several contentions can be discerned two broad claims:
that prenatal genetic testing followed by selective abortion is mor-ally
problematic, and that it is driven by misinformation.

link

So interesting that while prenatal testing used for gender identification of a fetus which could result in an abortion if the fetus was female is practiced, although outlawed in India and some other countries.  Western cultures condemn this practice as misogynistic.  Ironically, those same western cultures approve of abortion in the cases of a child with a genetic disease or disorder or merely for the convenience of a women.  The convenience abortion is applauded as a "feminist right."

Thats what Ive been getting at in the other thread-there really is no reason AFAIC for prenatal testing of psychiatric conditions. But people here have become so anti-abortion that they think that even fetus's afflicted with fatal disabilities/birth defects should not be aborted.For the sake of the person forced to live in the body the fetus will become I think thats simply wrong.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again: I support a womans right to choose whether or not she wants to have a child; but I do NOT support a womans right to choose what kind of child she wants to have.

I would also like to point out to those of you who are totally against abortion-the outlawing of abortion HAS been tried and the results have been socially disasterous! Thats what happened in Ceasescu's Romania when he banned abortion. The result was thousands of unwanted children in overcrowded state-run orphanages.

But that was because the economy was in such a parlous state and because he wouldn't let people from other countries adopt some of these children. It had nothing to do with outlawing abortion. BTW, I do not think you could ever out-argue me on this issue.

Oh yeah, just How do you propose to care for all the unwanted children that would result from a complete outlawing of abortion? You realize that in fact there would be more of them then people willing to adopt them. We are no longer talking about selective eugenic abortion here-but abortion period(!).

NOT true DogBrain. Thats a faulty inference on your part.

tenaciouscj wrote:

This is what is called *** talk. You're talkin' out of your ***.

Dogbrain, hear! hear! Thanks for explaining it better than I ever could.

Hey no, I don't think so. See, I speak for myself. I don't need to speak out through a pet donkey. (I don't have one btw)

Do you 2 have any thoughts on what is to be done will all the unwanted children[here in the USA] that will result from outlawing abortion?

Yes, they will get adopted by all the desperate people who cannot have children of their own. I cannot believe the inanity and unoriginality of your arguments.

The arguments you trot out are all the classic boring old ones and can easily be refuted by somebody with even a modicum of intelligence. Some proper thinking and not just regurgitating pro-abortion propaganda would be far better.

BTW, if there was a test for autism and your mum decided not to have you, wouldn't that have been a very bad thing?

The question is moot as the situation simply will not arise.

No, because you really do not know what you are talking about.