Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

New research brings autism screening closer to reality

Page 2 of 14 [ 211 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

11 Jan 2009, 9:11 pm

DadX4 wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
DadX4 wrote:
If 90% of the people choose abortion for Downs Syndrome, then probably at least 80% would choose it for autism.

The result? Within two generations the underpinnings of our technological society would come crashing down. Humanity could enter a new Dark Ages that will last until the last lab technician that knows how to run these murderous tests dies. Eventually, in say 200 years or so, humanity would start to rise again. Killing off the best and brightest will doom us.

This would not be an advance to society, it would be a HUGE setback. Our society would be committing slow suicide if this is allowed to be done.

Your assuming we will become so apathetic that we will actually allow them to do this. I certainly think we should be prepared to bring the society to its knees ourselves as retaliation.


Well, I would raise Cain about it, but I wonder how many would join in. Very few did when they started aborting Downs babies. We now have only 10% or so of them being born today than we did 20 years ago. I hope this is never allowed to happen to our future generations, but it won't be because I didn't try to stop it - and apparently you too. Let's hope the outrage would be heard. Our apathetic society is a question mark on whether anything would really be done if the scientists and politicians allow this to occur.

Unlike the people with downs, we certainly have the people and resources on the spectrum who could do a lot about this. If the scientists and politicians don't willingly fold, then we might have to force their hand. It could get pretty ugly realistically - not that we would have any real option otherwise. Well asides sing "we shall overcome"



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

11 Jan 2009, 9:11 pm

NocturnalQuilter wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
It still does not mean that they could not abort more arbitarily - as in getting rid of someone for just having autistic tendencies.


So? There will (without any doubt in my mind) come a time when babies will be "made" or aborted based on undesirable characteristics such as height, weight potential, color of eyes and hair. That is eventually how it will be. Get used to it.

There is a difference between having the technology and being able to use it.



garyww
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,395
Location: Napa, California

11 Jan 2009, 9:11 pm

1984


_________________
I am one of those people who your mother used to warn you about.


Xanderbeanz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 627

11 Jan 2009, 9:11 pm

i'm highly misanthropic but even i'm not elitist enough to say that the entire technological world depends on autistic spectrum disorders...i will be sad however if some of the beneficial AS genes aren't given a chance to seep their way more into society x



undefineable
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: UK

11 Jan 2009, 9:14 pm

garyww wrote:
There are those who think that we don't provide the bulk of technological progress for one reason or another. I'm not sure why people think this way.


Lack of evidence perhaps? :wink:

If you're right, why should we force our technology (lol!) on society if they'd rather just go without having to deal with us?



animal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 282
Location: Vic.

11 Jan 2009, 9:14 pm

undefineable wrote:
neshamaruach wrote:
animal wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
8O http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/ ... ing-health


Quote:
Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the research team, told the Guardian that it is now time to start considering where society stands on the issue.

"If there was a prenatal test for autism, would this be desirable? What would we lose if children with autistic spectrum disorder were eliminated from the population?" he said. "We should start debating this. There is a test for Down's syndrome and that is legal and parents exercise their right to choose termination, but autism is often linked with talent. It is a different kind of condition."



I dislike Baron-Cohen's statement here, becaue he seems to be implying that people with autism may be more worth saving than people with Down's. As though not having a socially recognized 'talent' means your life is worth less than someone who does have a socially recognized talent, such as mathematical skill. I disagree with the current talentocracy. People with Down's have equal rights as people with autism, who have equal rights as the so-called normals.


Amen to that.

The more I read of what Baron-Cohen says, the more I dislike it.


I think AliG's coz was trying to point out that removing autistics could cause society major problems whereas removing those with Down's Syndrome would not.


Yes, but why should that be an appropriate criterion for keeping a foetus vs. aborting one? My point is this: why is it that only the things that are seen as 'beneficial to society' are seen as worth having? Someone can have virtually no impact on society as a whole, or contribute to wider society in any way, and yet still have a great and positive impact on just a handful of people. Is that person's life worth less than the person who can do complex calculations or network affectively?



garyww
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,395
Location: Napa, California

11 Jan 2009, 9:15 pm

Don't be to sure about the issues of inventiveness of AS people in society as in most cases it is some unknown nerd or group of nerds working in the background who make the 'leaps' in any particular field. The credit then goes to the politically correct department heads who get the public credit. We seldom see the actual technologists themselves. Do an indepth study of the development of wide area networks (internet) by Bell labs for a very good example.


_________________
I am one of those people who your mother used to warn you about.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jan 2009, 9:19 pm

The last paragraph is horrifying. I'll include the last three paragraphs for some context.

Quote:
Vivienne Nathanson, head of ethics at the British Medical Association, agreed a debate was needed. "The question, then, is are we comfortable with [testing] for a disorder which is life-limiting in terms of opportunities and experience, rather than life-ending?" she said.

"My guess is that society would look at it like Down's syndrome," she said. "There are people who wouldn't approve of terminations and people who would. If you talk to parents of people with autism, however much they love their children, they find it very difficult. They agonise over their child's limited life opportunities and some of them say it would have been better not to have had the child and some don't."

The more complicated ethical issue would be that of treatment in the womb, she said. "You get to the situation where you have a very great difficulty if families say we wouldn't want to be tested. As a society, do we accept that people can refuse tests when the outcome can make a difference to that unborn child?"

The head of ethics at the British Medical Association is actually discussing the prospect of *compulsory* treatment to reduce/eliminate autism in the womb if such were scientifically viable (which it might be in a few years). The head of ethics, folks, and she's talking about forcing a treatment on us. This is a problem. She takes it as a given that it would be acceptable to allow us to be wiped out the way Down's Syndrome was, voluntarily by parents who don't want to deal with the difficulties. She then goes a step farther and says "curing" autism in the womb could become compulsory.

We have a serious problem here. Regardless of whether the science the article cites is accurate, eventually science will reach the level when these things are possible, and we've already seen the ethical go-ahead given to truly abominable policies. There is some serious work we need to do to turn around the public perception of autism before it's too late.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


NocturnalQuilter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Oct 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 937

11 Jan 2009, 9:20 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
There is a difference between having the technology and being able to use it.


In America, there is not.



undefineable
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: UK

11 Jan 2009, 9:21 pm

Kangoogle wrote:
Unlike the people with downs, we certainly have the people and resources on the spectrum who could do a lot about this.


Seriously now, doesn't any1 wonder y ppl with Down's haven't kicked up a fuss about their genotype's fate? Might it not be that they understand feelings, parenting, and even society better than us? {Also, every1 forgets that the 90% figure applies only to women who ask to be screened in the 1st place!}



Last edited by undefineable on 11 Jan 2009, 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jan 2009, 9:23 pm

animal wrote:
I dislike Baron-Cohen's statement here, becaue he seems to be implying that people with autism may be more worth saving than people with Down's. As though not having a socially recognized 'talent' means your life is worth less than someone who does have a socially recognized talent, such as mathematical skill. I disagree with the current talentocracy. People with Down's have equal rights as people with autism, who have equal rights as the so-called normals.

Incidentally, why is that criterion not applied to neurotypicals? Why do autistics have to justify why we should be permitted to live? It's degrading and frightening. I should not have to fight to demonstrate that I (and people like me) deserve life. Ordinary people don't have to. We shouldn't have to be held to a higher standard than the rest of society simply to demonstrate our right to exist.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


garyww
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,395
Location: Napa, California

11 Jan 2009, 9:26 pm

I really amazed to see people doubting the will of the government to do anything to stop nonconformity at all cost. Our entire educational system is based on this and a state funded abortion of a 'maladjusted' fetus is a cake-walk.


_________________
I am one of those people who your mother used to warn you about.


Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

11 Jan 2009, 9:28 pm

undefineable wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
[quote="DadX4]Well, I would raise Cain about it, but I wonder how many would join in. Very few did when they started aborting Downs babies. We now have only 10% or so of them being born today than we did 20 years ago. I hope this is never allowed to happen to our future generations, but it won't be because I didn't try to stop it - and apparently you too. Let's hope the outrage would be heard. Our apathetic society is a question mark on whether anything would really be done if the scientists and politicians allow this to occur.

Unlike the people with downs, we certainly have the people and resources on the spectrum who could do a lot about this.


Seriously now, doesn't any1 wonder y ppl with Down's haven't kicked up a fuss about their genotype's fate? Might it not be that they understand feelings, parenting, and even society better than us? {Also, every1 forgets that the 90% figure applies only to women who ask to be screened in the 1st place!}[/quote]
Because most of them have an IQ of under 70 and probably continue their lives blissfully unaware.



Kangoogle
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 903

11 Jan 2009, 9:30 pm

garyww wrote:
I really amazed to see people doubting the will of the government to do anything to stop nonconformity at all cost. Our entire educational system is based on this and a state funded abortion of a 'maladjusted' fetus is a cake-walk.

There hands can be forced - look how much it took to catch Ted Kacynski. Let alone hundreds of them - which are more than likely to materialise.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Jan 2009, 9:36 pm

DadX4 wrote:
Kangoogle wrote:
Your assuming we will become so apathetic that we will actually allow them to do this. I certainly think we should be prepared to bring the society to its knees ourselves as retaliation.


Well, I would raise Cain about it, but I wonder how many would join in. Very few did when they started aborting Downs babies. We now have only 10% or so of them being born today than we did 20 years ago. I hope this is never allowed to happen to our future generations, but it won't be because I didn't try to stop it - and apparently you too. Let's hope the outrage would be heard. Our apathetic society is a question mark on whether anything would really be done if the scientists and politicians allow this to occur.

Count in at least a third person in me- I'm not about to allow genocide against a group I identify with.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


undefineable
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: UK

11 Jan 2009, 9:45 pm

animal wrote:
undefineable wrote:

I think AliG's coz was trying to point out that removing autistics could cause society major problems whereas removing those with Down's Syndrome would not.


Yes, but why should that be an appropriate criterion for keeping a foetus vs. aborting one? My point is this: why is it that only the things that are seen as 'beneficial to society' are seen as worth having?


The issue is whether mothers should be encouraged or even allowed (given the late terminiation eligibility criteria) to abort. However, mothers just don't consider whether an abortion would be good or bad for 'society', unless of course they're forced to.

animal wrote:
Someone can have virtually no impact on society as a whole, or contribute to wider society in any way, and yet still have a great and positive impact on just a handful of people.


And you could probably do a lot more of all those things. If you can't, then atleast you're not short-changing any1 8)

animal wrote:
Is that person's life worth less than the person who can do complex calculations or network affectively


Worth more/less for what or whom? :? Anyway, we're in a 'depression', so the more people manage to help turn things around, the better. In that context, it's best not to worry about whether you're doing your best / if your best is good enough / if you'll be accepted.

And as for 'techie' auties,

garyww wrote:
in most cases it is some unknown nerd or group of nerds working in the background who make the 'leaps' in any particular field. The credit then goes to the politically correct department heads who get the public credit. We seldom see the actual technologists themselves. Do an indepth study of the development of wide area networks (internet) by Bell labs for a very good example.


this may be so, but just how autistic are they??_ _