The "Combating Autism Act"...

Post Reply New Topic

I don't really get this...What is it they're trying to do?

If I heard correctly on the radio, there are two parts to the CAA. There's one for improved education help, which I don't have a problem with, particularly for LFA. The part that erks me off, along with the others who object, is the part about finding a 'cure' for autism/AS, the concept of which makes it seem as though we're diseased or something, and could rob future generations of great minds akin to Einstein or Newton, who are believed to have had AS.

*snip* The part that erks me off, along with the others who object, is the part about finding a 'cure' for autism/AS, the concept of which makes it seem as though we're diseased or something, and could rob future generations of great minds akin to Einstein or Newton, who are believed to have had AS.

I'm also thinking that the prenatal screening suggests that maybe it would be encouraged to abort babies who could be autistic. That disturbs me.

That is an awful thought...

I want to kill all NT's for their imcompetence...

That is an awful thought...

Surely there would be an outcry if they said something like Combatting Down-Syndrome

Just out of curiosity - what do you think about parents aborting babies who test positive for Down's Syndrome and other genetic disorders. I happen to find it morally repugnant, but I know that there are two sides to this.

I think the people who want a cure for autism have the mistaken idea that there is a "normal" person behind the "mask" of autism when in fact it is an integral part of a person's make-up. Take it away, and they'd be totally different people. I really worry about what this cure is going to involve. Seeing as how we are probably a long ways away from having any workable cure for autistics who have already been born, something tells me they are going to go with the simplest "cure". I really, really hope this isn't true, but since this "cure" is already being used for other disabilities (I've even heard of cases where this "cure" was used for clubbed feet and cleft palate, which are both easily correctable with surgery), well, I can't hope too much.



Actually, I don't think there would. It's already happening; there are far fewer people with Down-Syndrome being born today. I think it is terrible and wrong; we're basically being arrogant enough to give ourselves the power to decide whose lives are worth living and whose aren't based on skewed perceptions of what it is like to have certain conditions and total speculations about what their lives would be like and according to the idea that personhood is something you have to earn. We've become such a performance-based and utilitarian culture that we only value people based on what they can do for us (i.e, accomplisments and the supposed joy of having an "ideal" child). We don't want to have to take care of each other or-heaven forbid-make sacrifices for each other. I'm sure there are some who would say that it's very difficult and people should have a choice and who are we to say what's right etc. etc. but I think that is a weak position to take because we're dealing with human lives here (and I think these attitudes are part of the reason the issue isn't being addressed the way it should be). If someone said the same thing about killing totally healthy individuals they would be considered crazy. I don't see why it is somehow different when the person is disabled. It's really a form of eugenics when you think about it. Only there are people-a professor at an Ivy League univeristy an renown ethicist-saying it's actually a good thing because it's voluntary (well, for the parents and doctors anyway, it's hardly voluntary for the child being killed), unlike previous forms of eugenics Sorry for the rant; I've been reading up on these issues a lot and it makes me really mad