How far would you go if a pre-natal test for Autism emerged?

Post Reply New Topic

5:1 and 100:1 are quite different numbers...

Just forget it, Kangoogle. [geass]I never said it, so forget![/geass]

Yes. I thought that you knew that. And remember, nemo me impune lacessit.

In English?

Google is your friend, and so is Wikipedia.

I have used that excuse in the past for not having a strong, well-defined position on abortion.

But, if you accept the pro-life premises, it's not something that can be written off in that manner. Whether we want to accept pro-life premises is another story, and not something I want to debate now.

I am deeply saddened by the news coming from Cambridge, and the possible future it portends.

I hope it fizzles, like the DNA screening did. (The genes for autism turned out to be diffuse and hard to pin down.)
They have found autistic kids have high amniotic levels of testosterone in utero. If a sufficiently high number of normal kids also have high levels, the test will have too high of a false positive rate to be actionable.

I understand the mod's objection, but i think the survey is a good and fair question and the mention of violence is hypothetical and pertinent.

Would you kill hitler in the cradle? Would you kill a soldier of an invading army?

When, if ever, is violence justified?

The questions - and each person's answer - are central ethical dilemmas which confront the human condition.

You might object that these examples are "something different altogether", but that remains to be seen, and will be seen by each person in their own way.

Sometimes, words don't suffice, and one must act outside the commonly held realm of sanity. The pertinent...answer is, we all have a trigger, and there's a price to pay for how we act.

Thinking about it some more, I know when I'd act, and that'd be the stage at where one defines "disability" and "ability", and decides disability isn't fit for life. It's already there, but I have no sympathy for something I can't understand, but autism and disability, I can.

Perhaps this would make me a "bad" person, but if it does, it's no worse than what I'd be fighting, and in the end, we only fight ourselves.

Remember your Nietzche. Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird.

If we are labeled monsters already by society, it might seem to some to make little difference.

And besides, what doesn't kill us.... Some of the strongest people I've seen have autism, who so happen to be completely disabled in most superficial ways. They're deserving of life just as much as anyone (I'd say more so, as they're working every second of the day, but I'll refrain from saying that as no one knows or truly understands the experience of another being--other than that silly thing called "empathy", that makes people think they know how other people are feeling).

then again...this would be in the case of a general revolution or radical social change....ehh.

There is no debate. I have a well defined position on abortion, I am just not willing to foist it upon other people.

Merle

Shouldn't the group being labelled monsters strive to prove otherwise, if they have good reason to? I'm talking about those (like us) who have or will have suffered genuine injustice, mind.

Absolutely. It's the only way to open minds. It's why nonviolent disobedience was so powerful in Dr. King's day. When the bigots thought that blacks were ignorant, lazy, and violent, the people showed courage, tenacity, discipline, and love. They had seen enough hatred to understand that hate cannot drive out hate. It can only add to it.