Prenatal Autism test
17 Nov 2011, 3:46 pm
nostromo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Mack27 wrote:
I can see people saying these same things about autistic fetuses even though here we all know that there's really no comparison.
Same. The fact is that people are making stupid comparisons between autism and down's syndrome. In the end autism isn't clear cut anyway. An autism prenatal test would kill not only absolutely fine children with disabled children but would basically be nothing more than self-centred eugenic in quite a few cases.
Speak for yourselves. Im not sure what your getting at there, but the comparison is meaningful for me because my autistic child is lower functioning than down syndrome children I have seen - and while that may not be palatable to you - there it is and it's what's relevant for him and for me.
And so you would have aborted him given the chance rather than actually find a cure? That's weak, and it's a betrayal.
nostromo wrote:
Perhaps you could explain why you think Down syndrome and Autism are not valid comparisons in that context?
Because Autism is a giant, hard to process mess where many of the negative characteristics occur because of the social environment for many, and comparing low-functioning autistics in with others seems to assume that there is not some other disorder or issue at hand that isn't the junk taxon of autism.
OrangeCloud
Snowy Owl
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: West Midlands England
17 Nov 2011, 4:47 pm
Down syndrome is much more clearly defined than Autism, so there are some senses in which the comparisons are invalid. Without a clear understanding and definition of Autism, the results of a pre-natal test would be meaningless and could lead to unethical consequences.
I am not really for a pre-natal test for autism at all, but if it's eventual development were inevitable, then there are two measures that would help to avoid disastrous consequences. One would be to clearly define what Autism is apart from it's co-morbids. The second would be to explain this definition clearly to the pregnant woman who may be carrying an Autistic child.
But I do not believe that there will ever be pre-natal test for Autism, that isn't flawed and probability based, due to the current meaninglessness of Autism. And societies bigotry will ensure that it will remain meaningless.
aspie48
Veteran
Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: up s**t creek with a fan as a paddle
17 Nov 2011, 5:59 pm
vermontsavant wrote:
i definatley agree autism and the trisomy disorders are very very different.i would not agree that abortion is ok for downs or edwards syndrome.
eugenics is a prejudiced and terrible thing to advocate. by saying you are not ok with your kind being aborted but are ok with others having the same treatment you are putting yourself above them, i would agree with vermontsavant on this one.
17 Nov 2011, 7:08 pm
Gedrene wrote:
nostromo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Mack27 wrote:
I can see people saying these same things about autistic fetuses even though here we all know that there's really no comparison.
Same. The fact is that people are making stupid comparisons between autism and down's syndrome. In the end autism isn't clear cut anyway. An autism prenatal test would kill not only absolutely fine children with disabled children but would basically be nothing more than self-centred eugenic in quite a few cases.
Speak for yourselves. Im not sure what your getting at there, but the comparison is meaningful for me because my autistic child is lower functioning than down syndrome children I have seen - and while that may not be palatable to you - there it is and it's what's relevant for him and for me.
And so you would have aborted him given the chance rather than actually find a cure? That's weak, and it's a betrayal.
No, he was never going to be aborted; "over my stinking dead corpse" is the phrase that comes to mind with regards to the possiblity of that.
Gedrene wrote:
nostromo wrote:
Perhaps you could explain why you think Down syndrome and Autism are not valid comparisons in that context?
Because Autism is a giant, hard to process mess where many of the negative characteristics occur because of the social environment for many, and comparing low-functioning autistics in with others seems to assume that there is not some other disorder or issue at hand that isn't the junk taxon of autism.
But as it stands he is classified 'Autistic', and until he is classified something else then the comparison is valid for me when you use the word 'Autism'. Perhaps AS would be a better word (acronym).
OrangeCloud
Snowy Owl
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: West Midlands England
18 Nov 2011, 4:34 am
claudia Wrote:
Quote:
even if there's not a post natal test, a good specialist can diagnose Autism when a child is about 1 year old. I agree, early intervention makes a huge difference, it really changes everything! I'm pretty sure that my son's autism is genetic since my husband and me have Aspie traits. The main problem for me, if i will have another child, is money... in my country I can provide appropriate education to my son only if I can pay for it
But with regressive Autism, the traits don't start to appear until as late as the age of 3, even a good specialist won't be able to diagnose them before this time. I think that a genetic test at birth could be beneficial for this type of Autism but I'm not convinced of the benefits for other types.
I am not convinced that what I have, and what these children have (CDD?) is the same at all. I think that these children should be studied genetically in isolation from other cases. That way the definition of Autism would become clearer and the genetic model would be biased in favor of those who need to use it.
OrangeCloud
Snowy Owl
Joined: 24 Jul 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: West Midlands England
18 Nov 2011, 5:04 am
AspergianRyan Wrote:
Quote:
I consider myself to be moderately pro-choice as well as pro-neurodiversity. I am opposed to prenatal testing research for all high-functioning conditions whether it be autism, Asperger's, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, dyslexia, schizophrenia, personality disorders and learning disorders. I think if these conditions were allowed to be prenatally tested for then it would demean the value of human life. However, these conditions are indistinguishable from personality itself, and are only considered "disabilities" as a social model: since they do not conform to societal standards they are considered to be "disabilities".
Just as well, if autism were used as the basis for an abortion, it would be the same as a prenatal test for Myers-Briggs personality types. In essence, it would also discount the benefits of having these people in society: people who have anti-social personalities make good lawyers and businessmen just as those with autism are good with technical work. On the issue of Down's syndrome, I think that it is a justifiable reason for abortion.
Although I might be accused of making a double standard for autism and Down's syndrome I disagree: it should be based on the needs of the mother, the needs of society in relation to the utility of the child's intellect and the likelihood of the child to have a meaningful life. For example, anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus is born without a forebrain therefore negating the child's probability of ever gaining consciousness, would be justifiable for an abortion, as the child has no utility toward society and it would be pointless to keep the child alive.
Justifying abortion for Down's syndrome would be no different than allowing abortion for those born in lower-income, crime zones: because these children are more likely to be involved in crime, it should be at the mother's discretion to decide for an abortion to be performed. In fact, statistics show that the 1990s crime epidemic was stalled as a result of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Just as well, if autism were used as the basis for an abortion, it would be the same as a prenatal test for Myers-Briggs personality types. In essence, it would also discount the benefits of having these people in society: people who have anti-social personalities make good lawyers and businessmen just as those with autism are good with technical work. On the issue of Down's syndrome, I think that it is a justifiable reason for abortion.
Although I might be accused of making a double standard for autism and Down's syndrome I disagree: it should be based on the needs of the mother, the needs of society in relation to the utility of the child's intellect and the likelihood of the child to have a meaningful life. For example, anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus is born without a forebrain therefore negating the child's probability of ever gaining consciousness, would be justifiable for an abortion, as the child has no utility toward society and it would be pointless to keep the child alive.
Justifying abortion for Down's syndrome would be no different than allowing abortion for those born in lower-income, crime zones: because these children are more likely to be involved in crime, it should be at the mother's discretion to decide for an abortion to be performed. In fact, statistics show that the 1990s crime epidemic was stalled as a result of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
I agree with alot of this, but there is a pro-eugenics undertone to it that I dislike. I particularly dislike the part that I have highlighted. The moment that the level of a child's intellect, their use to society, or whether or not they are likely to be a criminal become factors in the choice as to whether or not a child gets aborted, the door to Fascism and tyranny have been opened. Who decides what is "useful to society"? Who decides what is a crime? Legislation enforcing these considerations would be a tyrants dream. For those in power, society then soon become nothing more than a self-serving status quo, and a crime would become whatever poses a threat to it. Pro-choice yes but only for the individual concerned, and only with their personal considerations.
18 Nov 2011, 5:48 am
nostromo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
nostromo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
Mack27 wrote:
I can see people saying these same things about autistic fetuses even though here we all know that there's really no comparison.
Same. The fact is that people are making stupid comparisons between autism and down's syndrome. In the end autism isn't clear cut anyway. An autism prenatal test would kill not only absolutely fine children with disabled children but would basically be nothing more than self-centred eugenic in quite a few cases.
Speak for yourselves. Im not sure what your getting at there, but the comparison is meaningful for me because my autistic child is lower functioning than down syndrome children I have seen - and while that may not be palatable to you - there it is and it's what's relevant for him and for me.
And so you would have aborted him given the chance rather than actually find a cure? That's weak, and it's a betrayal.
No, he was never going to be aborted; "over my stinking dead corpse" is the phrase that comes to mind with regards to the possiblity of that.
Exactly. I think the fact is that many children who are more able than your son would be killed by a pre-natal test too. They have no problems caused by themselves.
nostromo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
nostromo wrote:
Perhaps you could explain why you think Down syndrome and Autism are not valid comparisons in that context?
Because Autism is a giant, hard to process mess where many of the negative characteristics occur because of the social environment for many, and comparing low-functioning autistics in with others seems to assume that there is not some other disorder or issue at hand that isn't the junk taxon of autism.
But as it stands he is classified 'Autistic', and until he is classified something else then the comparison is valid for me when you use the word 'Autism'. Perhaps AS would be a better word (acronym).
18 Nov 2011, 11:17 am
OrangeCloud wrote:
AspergianRyan Wrote:
I agree with alot of this, but there is a pro-eugenics undertone to it that I dislike. I particularly dislike the part that I have highlighted. The moment that the level of a child's intellect, their use to society, or whether or not they are likely to be a criminal become factors in the choice as to whether or not a child gets aborted, the door to Fascism and tyranny have been opened. Who decides what is "useful to society"? Who decides what is a crime? Legislation enforcing these considerations would be a tyrants dream. For those in power, society then soon become nothing more than a self-serving status quo, and a crime would become whatever poses a threat to it. Pro-choice yes but only for the individual concerned, and only with their personal considerations.
Quote:
I consider myself to be moderately pro-choice as well as pro-neurodiversity. I am opposed to prenatal testing research for all high-functioning conditions whether it be autism, Asperger's, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, dyslexia, schizophrenia, personality disorders and learning disorders. I think if these conditions were allowed to be prenatally tested for then it would demean the value of human life. However, these conditions are indistinguishable from personality itself, and are only considered "disabilities" as a social model: since they do not conform to societal standards they are considered to be "disabilities".
Just as well, if autism were used as the basis for an abortion, it would be the same as a prenatal test for Myers-Briggs personality types. In essence, it would also discount the benefits of having these people in society: people who have anti-social personalities make good lawyers and businessmen just as those with autism are good with technical work. On the issue of Down's syndrome, I think that it is a justifiable reason for abortion.
Although I might be accused of making a double standard for autism and Down's syndrome I disagree: it should be based on the needs of the mother, the needs of society in relation to the utility of the child's intellect and the likelihood of the child to have a meaningful life. For example, anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus is born without a forebrain therefore negating the child's probability of ever gaining consciousness, would be justifiable for an abortion, as the child has no utility toward society and it would be pointless to keep the child alive.
Justifying abortion for Down's syndrome would be no different than allowing abortion for those born in lower-income, crime zones: because these children are more likely to be involved in crime, it should be at the mother's discretion to decide for an abortion to be performed. In fact, statistics show that the 1990s crime epidemic was stalled as a result of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Just as well, if autism were used as the basis for an abortion, it would be the same as a prenatal test for Myers-Briggs personality types. In essence, it would also discount the benefits of having these people in society: people who have anti-social personalities make good lawyers and businessmen just as those with autism are good with technical work. On the issue of Down's syndrome, I think that it is a justifiable reason for abortion.
Although I might be accused of making a double standard for autism and Down's syndrome I disagree: it should be based on the needs of the mother, the needs of society in relation to the utility of the child's intellect and the likelihood of the child to have a meaningful life. For example, anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus is born without a forebrain therefore negating the child's probability of ever gaining consciousness, would be justifiable for an abortion, as the child has no utility toward society and it would be pointless to keep the child alive.
Justifying abortion for Down's syndrome would be no different than allowing abortion for those born in lower-income, crime zones: because these children are more likely to be involved in crime, it should be at the mother's discretion to decide for an abortion to be performed. In fact, statistics show that the 1990s crime epidemic was stalled as a result of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
I agree with alot of this, but there is a pro-eugenics undertone to it that I dislike. I particularly dislike the part that I have highlighted. The moment that the level of a child's intellect, their use to society, or whether or not they are likely to be a criminal become factors in the choice as to whether or not a child gets aborted, the door to Fascism and tyranny have been opened. Who decides what is "useful to society"? Who decides what is a crime? Legislation enforcing these considerations would be a tyrants dream. For those in power, society then soon become nothing more than a self-serving status quo, and a crime would become whatever poses a threat to it. Pro-choice yes but only for the individual concerned, and only with their personal considerations.
The fact that the mother's choice governs that it is the deciding factor in the usefulness to society. A child born into a lower-class area is more likely to be unwanted, and thus aborted. Overall, the mother's choice, derived from her moral, political and religious beliefs, is the deciding factor in the abortion. I think if we mandated that abortion be mandated on all those who were of lower-income origins then it would be just as reprehensible as the religious pro-life movement arrogantly imposing their religious beliefs through legislation on a woman's body.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| im doing a test campaign as a dm any tips |
16 May 2024, 12:47 am |
| Boing Streamliner Launch tonight.Test flight |
Today, 11:54 am |
| What is Autism? |
04 May 2024, 10:07 am |
| Having Autism |
14 May 2024, 5:32 pm |
