Aspies can take advantage of other aspies as well.
At the centre for AS people that I'm currently attending one AS guy (19) slept with an AS girl (also 19) within a week of him arriving at the centre. The girl in question has very little common sense and is very childlike and immature and I feel the guy took advantage of her.
I was taking a few days off when he started at the centre and the day I came back he passed me a note which said 'I think you're cute' and later that day he gave me another one which said 'wanna make out?'
He hadn't even been in the centre a week and I think he was still dating the other girl. Creepy little git.
Kai, I'll send you a PM. It's gonna be long, though.
I see what's happened here, if we just rewind to the start of the thread:
Kai knows that some NTs do take advantage of Aspies :cry: And matt is an NT and he thinks that kai is saying that ALL NTs are like that and he doesn't want to be thought of like that.
Well only NTs generalise! kai wasn't saying that ALL NTs manipulate Aspies, just that SOME of them do! matt is the one who is trying to see all NTs as bullies by misinterpretating what kai said.
kai did not say that ALL NTs are bullies. It's just that SOME people do. It's like saying, "Oh, Hitler used to breathe, and he was human, so that must mean that all humans who breathe are killers and dictators".
So matt, stop causing a row.
Perhaps she was also saying that there was an NT tendency to take advantage of our literal thinking. That doesn't mean all NTs do it, but it also means it isn't uncommon.
I would also agree that not all AS people are saints by any means and can also be capable of taking advantage of other people.
Babies aborted for not being perfect
The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects.
Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies had club feet, official figures show.
Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.
Such defects can often be corrected with a simple operation or physiotherapy.
The revelation sparked fears that abortion is increasingly being used to satisfy couples' desire for the 'perfect' baby.
A leading doctor said people were right to be 'totally shocked' that abortions were being carried out for such conditions.
Campaigners warned we are turning into a society that can no longer tolerate imperfection. Doctors were recently told they can now screen IVF embryos to try to weed out inherited cancers.
Ethical groups fear parents are opting for abortions because they are not told of the support and help available if they continued with the pregnancy.
Details of the terminations emerged as new figures revealed an alarming rise in the use of an abortion pill that has been linked to 10 deaths.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that between 1996 and 2004, 20 babies were aborted after 20 weeks because they had a club foot.
It is one of the most common birth defects in Britain, affecting one in 1,000 babies each year. That means around 600 to 700 babies are born annually in the UK with the problem, which causes the feet to point downwards and in severe cases can cause a limp.
However it can be corrected without surgery using splints, plaster casts and boots. Naomi Davis, a leading paediatrician at Manchester Children's Hospital who specialists in correcting club feet, said: 'I think it is reasonable to be totally shocked that abortion is being offered for this.
'It is entirely treatable. I can only think it is lack of information.'
Figures also show that four babies were aborted since 1996 because they were found to have webbed fingers or extra digits, which can be sorted out with simply surgery.
Remarkable pictures recently have revealed how at just 23 weeks baby in the womb appears to smile, yawn and flinch in pain.
In 2004 it emerged a baby was aborted at 28 weeks after scans showed it had a cleft palate. Curate Joanna Jepson tried to ensure criminal charges were brought against the two doctors involved but the authorities last year decided against prosecution.
She however vowed to continue in her fight to make terminations illegal after 24 weeks and to ensure cleft palates were not included within the term 'serious handicap' and used to justify late abortions.
Ms Jepson reacted angrily to news of the club foot abortions.
'The law was not designed for this,' she said. 'Actions like these are fostering a disposable attitude to human life and I'm extremely concerned it is going on.
'I am appalled that the medical profession is allowing or even suggesting abortions for these conditions.'
Sue Banton, founder of the group Steps for parents of children with foot disorders, said last year one couple decided to terminate a pregnancy at 25 weeks after discovering their baby would have a section of foot missing.
'We gave them other families to talk to, but they just didn't want to know,' she said. 'It is terrible.
'I know lots of perfectly nice people with this condition and you just can't imagine them not being here.'
Pippa Spriggs from Cambridge, whose son Isaac is celebrating his second birthday in July, was dismayed when as scan showed her baby had a club foot.
'Abortion certainly was not openly advised but it was made clear to me it was available,' she said.
'In fact he has been treated and the condition has now slowed him down at all.'
Julia Millington, of the Alive and Kicking Campaign, said: 'It is all about our perceptions of perfection.
'Increasingly things are moving along the lines where nothing is good enough.
'It seems we can no longer tolerate any imperfection.
'Babies are at the mercy of ultrasound scans and what they may disclose.'
Michaela Aston, from the pro-life group LIFE, said: 'One sympathises for many of the parents of these unborn children aborted after disability has been detected.
'What information are they being given by healthcare professionals so that they can make a truly informed choice?
'We suspect that many parents make the decision to opt for abortion in complete ignorance of the help and support available to children with disabilities and their families.
'For this, health care professionals must shoulder a large part of the blame.
'If, as a society, we are truly committed to equality for people with disabilities then such blatant discrimination against the disabled unborn must stop.'
But Jane Fisher of the charity Antenatal Results and Choices defended the right of parents to terminate pregnancies when defects are found. 'This is not part of a move towards designer babies,' she said.
'These are difficult and painful issues.'
This brilliant economist says more abortion equals less crime. Everyone knows we aspies are more likely to be involved in crime (sarcasm).
http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php
Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.
In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.
This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.
It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes-the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.
How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?
One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.
In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.
But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s-when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime-which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.
There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link.
The premise of this theory is that a person being born unwanted for whatever reason is more likely to be involved in crime. The reason could be autism, AS or something else. This actually could be true. Noone can force a parent to want their child so perphaps it would be better if the child is never born if they don't want it. The child would probably grow up abused by the parents.
I'm afraid the only way to stop abortions of autistic babies is to end legalized abortions. Most parents whould rather abort an autistic fetus and try again for a "healthy" baby if given the choice.
Obviously as a feminist I would oppose any restrictions on abortion. Nevertheless this is a serious problem but the only solution to it lies in fundamentally changing the attitudes towards supposed disabilities in our society.
Plus don't give out taxpayer subsidised funding for abortions. I think it's a ridiculous situation where other medical help is cut back because too much money is spent to fund abortions that occur for frivolous reasons.