Would You Take the Cure?

Post Reply New Topic

The memories are vague... I wish I could offer you details to help you, but it seems that everytime I pass a hurdle and incorporate my new-found experiences, I almost forget that there was a time when I couldn't do what I learned just then (and almost take it for granted ).

Honestly, my victories in life are for fifty percent my mother's doing; I practically owe her my life, and I can now function on my own pretty well. Just like you do, my mother's most important concern was that she allowed me to be myself, and let me blossom that way. I wish you and your daughter all the best luck in the journey that still lies ahead of her.

Oh m god its like X men 3

see you could be like this
be beast and be like muhahahahahaha hail mutants
or
be rogue return to the mansion to the staring eyes of hallie berry who is like thining "I'll cut you b****"

I would not take the cure because until the age of 15 I knew something was up I could connect to no one, I had my interests and when I read about aspergers/autusmn it all clicked I know who I am nowand the evidene is present to all psychologists to have a gander at, I am also almost blind and dyslexic and dsypraxic so the aspergers wraps it all into a little bow and makes me understand why I'm different and the blindness dsylexia are all physical weaknesses. I think if that was took away I would be lst because that gel is gone and would fall apart

@ the guy who said NT's are losers and trash talking your family, you should not think like that that is like autistic mode of antisemitism because its uncalled for and you have no reason to make that claim only because we are different we should nt go dogmatc and want the NT's to perish but all the autistic community on a whole wants is a meeting of minds and an understainding on both it is getting clser

@ glider you are wonderful friend and we share a gift and honour it as a way of thinking and thought that we look though a different looking glass thats all

and personally if aspies raged war on NTs we would be demolished they are socially superior to u and some are very clever, most of us are clever but they hve organisation on their side, we are not the best team players

Last semester my professor showed the class an article from Time I think. It was about the ethics of erasing memory from a part of the brain. Some argue that it might be a good thing for addicts and those who suffer from PTSD, but there are also those who argue against it.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 92,00.html

If I could take something to erase parts of my memory, I think I would because they still affect me on a regular basis. As for taking a cure (assuming that I have AS), I'm not so sure, maybe I would. Maybe the fact that I'm not saying a definite yes means that it's not nearly severe enough that it would call for a cure. While I often can't stand being in the mind that I'm in, I can't imagine what it would be like to be otherwise.

I was one of those too. I'd recoil if anyone touched me, refuse to talk about anything outside of my special interests...You can probably imagine, you've been there, with your daughter.

My ASish essence is still there. But it's more "dormant" than it used to be. I seem normal most of the time.

if the cure consisted of growing the brain matter missing that is meant to integrate parts of my brain, I would do it for a young child, but I don't know if I would do it for myself... I guess it depends on the possible prognosis at my age, since learning to use new brain wiring seems like it would be crazy difficult and maybe wouldn't even work, like I'd just go into sensory overload and simply go catatonic to deal with it. I suppose I'd wait to see how it works for others before deciding

I don't think we have to worry about a cure. I think we waste too much time thinking about a theoretical "change the brain radically" cure that won't be possible for another hundred years (at which point we will also be able to change an NT brain to a supergenius or mentally-retarded one, rework a criminal's personality, and cure most mental illnesses and brain disorders such as cerebral palsy and Parkinson's.)

What we should be worried about is the problem of eugenic abortion--the possibility that a prenatal test will be developed that can detect autism and prevent autistic people from ever being born. That's a problem--not just because of all the ethical implications of it, or because women who would otherwise have loved their autistic children may be pressured into abortion, but because the genetics for autism almost certainly have beneficial effects in the general population. Remove those genes, and eventually we may also remove some of the genes that make us intelligent, creative, and ultimately a successful species. Plus, the very existence of disabled individuals makes a society stronger: When you see that sick, disabled, and elderly people are cared for in your society, you are more likely to work towards the survival of that society because you know that were you to become sick, disabled or elderly, they would provide for you. The better a society protects its weakest members, the more loyalty the mainstream members have to it; the more prosperous it becomes, the better it can protect those weak members. Rare example of an upward spiral. It makes sense, of course, because the original purpose of society in the first place was probably to protect weak members--that is, newborns and children--in order to protect its chance at reproduction... and when the protective mechanism itself strengthens the society even further, it will naturally seek to include as many of those weak members as its resources allow.

This should probably be under totally another subject, but...

I have learned to totally erase unpleasant memories, or even to replace them with some others. The drawback, of course, is that then I no longer can be sure if the memory is true or not, so I don't do that any more.

This issue has already come up with Down's Syndrome. There is great and legitimate concern that because Down's Syndrome is "preventable" (via abortion), parents who nevertheless bear a child they know has Down's Syndrome are unfairly sucking up resources and they should shoulder all associated costs for special ed and adult placement by themselves with no assisstance. In general, I have tended to be be pro-choice on the matter of abortion. But I have to say that the pro-life movement is really what stands in the way of that happening. It's still theoretical with autism. But it's actual with Down's Syndrome and other genetic conditions that can be tested for prenatally. The worst fears of denied services haven't come to pass, but this might be due to the efforts of the pro-life movement.

I absolutely agree with what you say about how helping those who need help the most strengthens society overall. This is the argument that is currently raging about eugenic abortion and Down's Syndrome. If a society thinks it has a way to prevent all "weak" babies from being born, does that mean that "weakness" itself will stop being accomodated? That would make for a very ugly society- one that tosses away both anybody who is born "weak" despite the availability of eugenic abortion, and one that tosses away those who falter later in life.

And then of course there is the other issue that when society only sees disability and how expensive the accomodations are, it loses sight of contributions, benefits and strengths of the otherwise disabled individual. People who need accomodations come to be seen as an endless sinkhole that money is thrown into but nothing of value comes out. I'm probably bitter about that right now because I have a child who needs to be in Special Ed and believe me, the venom directed at children in Special Ed by parents whose children are not can be pretty hateful, hurtful and worrisome. The venom arises because schools have limited budgets and money spent on Special Ed is seen as "wasted on Those Kids when it could be used to buy new textbooks for Our Kids". Parents whose children have Down's Syndrome are on the recieving end of some really nasty $%%$#@ because very accurate tests for Down's are available and abortion is legal. So the existence and resource-use of their children is seen as inexcusable by some. So keep an eye on Down's Syndrome if you are really worried about how this could play out because that's where it's playing out right now.

Already you have made the decision that your friend's disability is a "crippling deficiency". You have ignored the very real fact of Deaf culture and Deaf pride, and insisted on imposing your views of normality on a person. I don't expect you will ever understand the neurodiversity movement if you are this close-minded.

I think his mother did exactly the right thing: left it up to him and waited until he was mature enough to decide for himself.

No, I would not take the cure. It would be like "curing" my height--there is nothing there to cure. I'm not going to change just to fit in better.

Now, if I had an intellectual disability, or aphasia, or mutism along with Autism? That gets trickier.

I mean, the idea of a "cure" is itself extremely complicated. Let's say it takes the form of genetic therapy. Well, there is no one Autism Gene or Intelligence Gene or Speech Gene. Deactive or activate one gene, or even the luster of genes implicated in a condition, and you mess up a whole lot more than the condition. Is it a fair price to pay, to change all sorts of things about a person, maybe cause a new disability, to "cure" a condition?

Furthermore, when is a "cure" about preventing a disability and improving quality of life, and when is it about eugenics and building a better person? Are the two ever separable? Say I am "curing" an intellectual disability. The fact that I am doing this raises several questions: does intelligence determine quality of life?

Is requiring support a shameful or bad thing?

Should every person be able to read, to live independently, to communicate independently?

Is intelligence an integral part of personhood? Are people with intellectual disabilities less of a person than I am?

If I am okay with raising IQ to typical levels, am I okay with artificially creating genius?

Should everyone have the same IQ?

It's very complicated. I'll probably write an essay about it or something. But "curing" something isn't just about changing a disability into an ability. And we need to remember that.

I'm not close-minded, I'm realistic, real talk up in here. You're unbelievably dense and have missed the fact that my friend HATED his mother because she chose to prove her liberal point instead of just giving the guy his cure. He's now that much more happy now that he isn't crippled. All those pride movements are there to help people cope with the inevitable reality that yeah, they have a disability, sucks for them. Or do you think that "neurodiversity" (lol term) is really a choice? Like some people will just one day go "You know what, I actually don't like hearing stuff, I'll just rupture my eardrums! Hooray diversity!"

I'm not dense, thank you very much. I did not miss the point--I just didn't see it as relevant. The JOB of parents is to make unpopular decisions. What if your friend had decided that he didn't want to hear after the surgery? A wise parent does not make such decisions for their child.

Neurodiversity is neither a choice nor a lol term. It's a philosophy that says that Autism and other "disorders" are not diseases, but rather valid interpretations of the world. It's not about coping with the reality that the world sucks for us. It's about reality. And hearing has nothing to do with neurodiversity. So I'm confused as to why you brought it up in the first place.

But I really shouldn't feed the trolls...

Find me just one kid who'd want to be impaired in some way (crippled, deaf, blind etc.) over being normal and I'll reconsider my point. Good luck finding such a unique snowflake

There are thousands of us on Wrong Planet right now! I'm one of them.

Or, if we aren't disabled enough for you, google Deaf Pride.

He may be trolling, but he makes a point. AS and deafness are both barriers to communication with the general public. Defending it as a valid interpretation of the world is about as useful as a rant about stupid Parisians speaking nothing but French. Your options are to stay at home, stick strictly to the tourist areas, or wait until the rest of the world speaks English. While English is a perfectly good language and a valid means of communication, it's not going to get me directions to the restroom or the train station if no one understands me.

It's the same mentality that creates cultural ghettos. People live in a country where the cultural norms are different and the majority speak a different language, and some of these people spend the rest of their lives without every really venturing past a few blocks. You may be celebrating people's differences, but it's not what I'd call diversity.



Some of us don't see it as a choice, we see it as an obstacle.

*sigh* deaf pride again. Maybe we should also celebrate fat pride?