New research brings autism screening closer to reality

Post Reply New Topic

Still not what a meritocracy is quite about. Its basically a form of socialism.

the right choices to further its cause of forward progression into a better future. If we do not stand against the wrong that is testing for autism on an unborn child, who will? If we do not stand up for the rights of those who are yet to come, who will? If we do not make sure society does the right thing, who will? We are the future, we are the past, we are the ones who can make this world what it was meant to be.

But how can we do this if we do not stand as one united community, in the face of threats that risk wiping out an entire race of people.

"What is the difference between gay pride and autistic pride?" Both are not liked by most of society, and both are very beneficial to the people involved.

I'm having trouble keeping up with this Let me begin by shuffling a draft over from another thread, the guy I quoted there being on here as well:



Being mildly affected by AS, I do find those things attractive, albeit out of reach, and experience their reality almost as an NT would. I see how they are a huge part of human life when set against what lower-functioning autistics experience of it. Your final statement ignores the vast scope of realities that human beings experience.

My point here connects with those last three paragraphs of the OP. To begin, with my emphasis:



To me, and I stand to be called out by the author if word reaches her , this says that she's noting how much of NT reality autistic reality misses, and drawing the obvious conclusion: While we autistics may not suffer because of our autism much more than NTs suffer because of their humanity, we also experience less happiness than NTs, and a lower level of fulfilment. Obviously, there's no way of testing this, but to an NT, I feel, his or her life is infinite and complete; it's not just the lens through which the world is approached, as it seems to be for us. Remember, our brains are no smaller than those of NTs; therefore our mental capacity is likely to be just the same, albeit harder to fill.



Here, she's making it clear that parents are concerned with maximising their children's happiness, hence the difficulty she refers to, given how hard we can be to figure out to begin with. Many people also believe (wrongly in my view, since a brain appears after 1 month of pregnancy) that a foetus isn't 'alive' in the usual sense until very late in pregnancy or even at birth, so there wouldn't be any ethical issue remaining in the minds of those who chose terminiation.



I'm in favour of all human beings maximising a sense of reality and meaning in their lives; that's the best that can be expected from this world. And if that means that all parents are forced to treat any foetal autism, so be it. We don't need to justify our existence, because a greater existence, based on 'neurotypicality', is justified for all human beings, based on the magnificent capacity of the human mind-brain to make use of such a rich working base.

I think I'll develop this line of thinking a little:



Well that's just what many NTs must be thinking in relation to us, Kangoogle; just add the word 'social' before 'IQ'! You're just as ignorant as they are when you think that a low IQ prevents a person from understanding when they hear (over and over again) that babies who look like them are often aborted. The fact that it makes it harder to understand just means they've less room to develop arguments based entirely on hurt feelings, to wit:



.

Let battle commence

Are we talking about a dystopic or utopic meritocracy here?

You realise how bad IQ below 70 actually is, don't you? Its at the point of barely being able to read and even if they can understand what is going on - they are going to have little or no idea what they could do about it.

I just don't see how we'd be 'less equal' if autism were prevented in the womb.

.

Let battle commence

I think some of us might be overestimating our contribution to "progress."

I'm not convinced that all that many scientists, artists, and musicians are aspies or otherwise autistic.

But this version of "ethics" reminds me of people saying we shouldn't destroy the lives of aboriginal peoples living in the rainforest because some of the stuff they know about medicinal plants may be useful to us.

I just don't see people as commodities.

Then you are sorely lacking in critical thinking skills.

My claim was that we wouldn't be treated less equally, and 'critical thinking skills' don't come into it. My claim was based on what I think would be going on with other people that would influence the way they'd be acting

Yes, they can understand what is going on as long as it's explained clearly and aurally. 'What they can do about it' could start with them voicing opinions, and given that 'what they can do about it' is going to be a purely social thing, they'd probably have a better knack than us anyway

By the way, one DSer is on record as saying (about 'his/her race' ) "we're the same as every1 else" - An opinion atleast, and 1 that may hold more truth than the narrow-minded would expect_

If this testing ever starts to be offered by clinics, we are already too late to save ourselves.

My IQ is 80 so I can understand and I do believe that the majority of people who are autistic do not feel as thought they lead a life of misery at least not any I have meet or worked with. Just becasue you have a low IQ does mean you cannot understand what people are saying to you or express your own ideas in whatever manner you can best adapt to your particular situation.