Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Are Autistics whom are Pro-Abortion hypocrits?

Page 2 of 26 [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 26  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

04 Mar 2011, 2:31 pm

Awesomely Glorious:

Avoid slips:

"as long as the opinion is informed" ?!

Informed by what, by whom? The door lies open, the camel's various body parts are all too near.

Cover thy soft spots, compagnon.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Mar 2011, 2:34 pm

Philologos wrote:
Awesomely Glorious:

Avoid slips:

"as long as the opinion is informed" ?!

Informed by what, by whom? The door lies open, the camel's various body parts are all too near.

Cover thy soft spots, compagnon.


Glad I'm not the only one that noticed that.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 2:41 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Mar 2011, 2:56 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?


Considering the abortionist have no reason to keep or provide the information and every reason not to it would be kind of hard to find out one way or the other.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Mar 2011, 3:00 pm

AG is basically correct; being autistic does not compel anyone to hold a given stance on any particular political issue. An autistic could consistently support abortion of autistic fetuses. Additionally, it is completely possible to have a consistent stance which considers DS and autism differently, supporting selective abortion of DS but not autistic fetuses. Even further, it is possible to be pro-choice but opposed to the use of abortion to selectively eliminate either autistic or DS fetuses.

So, there are at least three consistent stances which a pro-choice autistic could hold. This means the answer to your question is "No."

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?

I recall reading that upwards of 90% of DS fetuses are aborted in the US. I don't have a study on hand to back that number up, but I'm pretty sure it was from a reliable source.

It's still not really "eugenics," though, as aborting DS fetuses doesn't eliminate DS from the gene pool. DS most commonly arises due to spontaneous mutations, so nothing (genetically speaking) has been eliminated from the human gene pool. With autism, one could argue that it is somewhat different, as autistic traits are inherited, and they covary with a number of other traits, so selective abortion of autistic fetuses would much more clearly be eugenic.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

04 Mar 2011, 3:03 pm

Isn't DS more common to women who have children much later in life?


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

04 Mar 2011, 3:08 pm

Orwell wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?

I recall reading that upwards of 90% of DS fetuses are aborted in the US. I don't have a study on hand to back that number up, but I'm pretty sure it was from a reliable source.


Uh when you said that, you pretty much invalidated your entire argument and proved mine.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Mar 2011, 3:17 pm

Vigilans: Yes.

Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?

I recall reading that upwards of 90% of DS fetuses are aborted in the US. I don't have a study on hand to back that number up, but I'm pretty sure it was from a reliable source.


Uh when you said that, you pretty much invalidated your entire argument and proved mine.

No I didn't. I'm sorry that you don't know how to read, but I actually didn't declare any stance in my post; I simply enumerated a few possible consistent stances, none of which are "invalidated" by the statistic I quoted.

Let's take three hypothetical pro-choice autistic people holding the stances I mentioned as possible:
Person A supports the first stance (fine with selective abortion of DS or autistic fetuses)
Person B supports the second stance (supports abortion of DS fetuses, opposes abortion of autistic fetuses)
Person C support the last stance (opposes aborting for either DS or autism)

Here would be their respective reactions to the statistic that 90+% of DS fetuses are aborted:
Person A: So what?
Person B: We need to raise awareness that autism is different from DS so that the same thing doesn't happen with autistic fetuses, but the abortion of DS fetuses is not in itself anything to be upset about.
Person C: That's terrible, we need to change society's perception of the disabled so they are not aborted.

None of those stances are "invalidated" by that statistic, and certainly your stance is not proved. Especially given that any such opinion is a claim about what ought to be, not necessarily what is.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 3:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?


Considering the abortionist have no reason to keep or provide the information and every reason not to it would be kind of hard to find out one way or the other.


In other words... "I can't prove it either way so the other side *must* be covering it up!"

Yeah, I can see how that makes you more credible. lol


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Mar 2011, 3:25 pm

TEGH, follow this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836?dopt=AbstractPlus

Finding that took me approximately 18 seconds and an internet connection. They estimate that 92% of Down's Syndrome fetuses are aborted.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 3:27 pm

Orwell wrote:
AG is basically correct; being autistic does not compel anyone to hold a given stance on any particular political issue. An autistic could consistently support abortion of autistic fetuses. Additionally, it is completely possible to have a consistent stance which considers DS and autism differently, supporting selective abortion of DS but not autistic fetuses. Even further, it is possible to be pro-choice but opposed to the use of abortion to selectively eliminate either autistic or DS fetuses.

So, there are at least three consistent stances which a pro-choice autistic could hold. This means the answer to your question is "No."

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?

I recall reading that upwards of 90% of DS fetuses are aborted in the US. I don't have a study on hand to back that number up, but I'm pretty sure it was from a reliable source.

It's still not really "eugenics," though, as aborting DS fetuses doesn't eliminate DS from the gene pool. DS most commonly arises due to spontaneous mutations, so nothing (genetically speaking) has been eliminated from the human gene pool. With autism, one could argue that it is somewhat different, as autistic traits are inherited, and they covary with a number of other traits, so selective abortion of autistic fetuses would much more clearly be eugenic.


Exactly.

I'm not quite clear on screenings of fetuses for ASD, so I haven't commented on that. As of yet, there is not clear line as to what causes it like there is for DS, either.

Right now, all we know is there's most likely a genetic component but we aren't sure what that might be or even if environment plays a crucial role in the development of an ASD. So... I have no idea what it would take to attempt an elimination of ASD traits in children.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

04 Mar 2011, 3:27 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
For it to be eugenics, most of the fetuses showing signs of DS would have to be aborted. Even if this were the case, DS is a genetic defect and that can't be bred away simply by eliminating the fetuses that exhibit the symptoms. Many don't show any in the womb, and even of all did the genes for the potential can be passed to children that do not have DS.


Do we have any information that is suggests that most children with DS are born rather than aborted?


Do you have information that suggests most are aborted?


Considering the abortionist have no reason to keep or provide the information and every reason not to it would be kind of hard to find out one way or the other.


In other words... "I can't prove it either way so the other side *must* be covering it up!"

Yeah, I can see how that makes you more credible. lol


The less evidence available... TEH MOAR EVIDUNTS AVALIBAL!! !!!11one


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

04 Mar 2011, 3:28 pm

I thought this thread was going to be about Republicans preaching about the sanctity of human life on the abortion issue whilst supporting the death penalty and loudly beating the drums of war in Iraq.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 3:29 pm

Orwell wrote:
TEGH, follow this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521836?dopt=AbstractPlus

Finding that took me approximately 18 seconds and an internet connection. They estimate that 92% of Down's Syndrome fetuses are aborted.


Thank you, but I'm not the one that cared about the percentages. I was countering Inuyasha's question in an attempt to tell him "look it up yourself if you care so much".


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

04 Mar 2011, 3:31 pm

TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Exactly.

I'm not quite clear on screenings of fetuses for ASD, so I haven't commented on that. As of yet, there is not clear line as to what causes it like there is for DS, either.

Right now, all we know is there's most likely a genetic component but we aren't sure what that might be or even if environment plays a crucial role in the development of an ASD. So... I have no idea what it would take to attempt an elimination of ASD traits in children.

There is no clear genetic marker. In all likelihood, autism is the result of gene interaction across multiple loci.

Studies have found that autism has higher heritability (that is, the variation is more attributable to genetic factors) than any other psychological condition in the DSM. Obviously the environment plays some role, as it does for every human trait, but generally speaking if one person is autistic and another is not, it is because they are genetically different, not because they grew up in different environments.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

04 Mar 2011, 3:37 pm

Orwell wrote:
TeaEarlGreyHot wrote:
Exactly.

I'm not quite clear on screenings of fetuses for ASD, so I haven't commented on that. As of yet, there is not clear line as to what causes it like there is for DS, either.

Right now, all we know is there's most likely a genetic component but we aren't sure what that might be or even if environment plays a crucial role in the development of an ASD. So... I have no idea what it would take to attempt an elimination of ASD traits in children.

There is no clear genetic marker. In all likelihood, autism is the result of gene interaction across multiple loci.

Studies have found that autism has higher heritability (that is, the variation is more attributable to genetic factors) than any other psychological condition in the DSM. Obviously the environment plays some role, as it does for every human trait, but generally speaking if one person is autistic and another is not, it is because they are genetically different, not because they grew up in different environments.


Yes, I know. I'm just saying we don't know exactly what causes it like we do DS, so I cannot say whether aborting 90% or more of ASD fetuses would be eugenics or not.

For the record, I'm against aborting based on abnormalities. I would never do it, and think it's wrong. I just don't condemn women that end up doing it because I understand many of the factors involved in the decision to do such a thing.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.