Petition Against Screening For Autistic Embryos!!

Post Reply New Topic

I think saying no to screeenings is to simplistic, I for one would not want a severely autistic child, I think this is where the problem lies, most likely any test will only come up with a positive or a negative and will not help determine the level of autism involved, to this sort of test I would definitely say no. If however the test was specifically for severe autism I would want to use it.

I first want to say that I am a staunch proponent of reproductive choice, and that before the point of viability, a woman should be able to have abortion on demand. After, it should be restricted to cases in which a woman's health or life is threatened, and that's a determination that is between her and her doctor.

That said, I also believe post-viability abortions should be permissible in the event of a genetic anomaly.

On that issue, what first needs to be understood is that genetic anomalies come in all varieties. Most women do not have abortions because a child is identified as having cleft palate. Most abortions are performed because of serious conditions such as trisomy 18. One staunchly pro-life woman, whom I loved, had to terminate a pregnancy because of a condition in which the baby's internal organs were growing on the outside. She chose an early induction, which meant a quicker death as opposed to if they waited. The baby was a boy named Kyle, and she held him in his arms as he curled up, let out a faint whimper, and took his last breath. She said it was peaceful, but that it was the hardest thing she had ever done and that she would never again judge a woman in a similar situation for choosing to terminate.

Regardless of the degree of disability, I trust women and their families, and their doctors, to be moral agents. I also cannot profess to know what each woman's unique situation is like and how she should react to it. Moreover, I am very wary of the encroachment that this represents on women's lives and choices and the slippery slope that it entails in any case.

So, yes, I do believe we should be allowed to screen for any and all genetic anomalies, even if it means the pregnancy will end in abortion. And by a genetic anomaly, in this case, I mean any condition that in and of itself could cause notable impairment. For many, autism makes you a little slower in some areas, i.e. social interaction, than in others, and makes your brilliant in other ways. In many others, autism causes significant impairment, even if the impairment can be dealt with with individualiized intervention and even if you are still brilliant in many areas in spite of your difficulties.

However, and this is a huge caveat, in order to prevent a potentially eugenic situation in regard to those of us who are not genetically normal, we need to create a comprehensive, intensive movement to address how disability is perceived. We not only need to change perceptions of disability, but devise more and better services, greater access to said services, and community support for disabled individuals and their families.

The right services can greatly increase a disabled person's quality of life and contributions to society. This will change society's ideas of what the disabled can do and create a more positive outlook. Support to families makes the task of raising a different child much less daunting. Both make abortion seem like less of a necessity.

If more people know about what the disabled are capable of, and have access to the resources that will help them raise their children to the best of their ability, much fewer people will choose abortion.

Another good idea is advance adoption and foster care services, especially those that specialize in disabled children, so that their unique needs and desires can be better met while in the system and so they can ensure that the home they go to will be just as high-quality. That way, even if you don't wish to abort but cannot raise the child, there is a better chance at a good life.

Some will still choose abortion, and as long as they have the whole story, have been counseled and have access to additional information if they want it, and sign a consent form that they have received and understand this information, the abortion can happen.

It is important to consider, too, that many people don't want to screen for genetic anomalies so they can choose to terminate. Many people simply want to be prepared for whatever comes. Especially in the case of a serious disability, I think it does parents and their children a grave disservice to blindside them with something like that. Again, with changes in societal perception and more and better services for those in need, more people can and will choose to raise a different child.

The last point I want to make is that autistic women need reproductive rights as well. There are people here who have brought up concerns about a world in which all babies are genetically engineered to be "perfect" individuals. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in such a world any more than anyone else. That said, if we want to prevent the termination of pregnancies involving autistic fetuses, that could, in theory, insofar as autism is genetic and therefore is transmittable from autistic mother to fetus, lead to a society in which autistic women become brood mares to preserve and advance the autistic population. Granted, autistic women are unlikely to abort a child because of the presence of autism. That does not mean they would choose to abort for other reasons. If an autistic woman does choose to abort due to the presence of autism, it wouldn't be because she devalues autism and those who have it. She may not be prepared to raise a child with the special challenges that autism entails, and her belief system may dictate that she should raise her own children rather than place them in the care of others, especially non-autistic others that may not be as understanding, or that her children deserve the security of having been, without a doubt, planned and wanted. There would be other related reasons that I have not mentioned. You might argue that who better to raise an autistic child than an autistic women?

Let me ask you this: Are all non-autistic women prepared to raise non-autistic children at any given time? Of course not. And every case of autism as different, as we are all well aware of. If a child's autism differs substantially from that of the mother, the mother's experience of autism may not be of much use.

Consider that autistic women, by nature of their condition, are at an increased risk for sexual assault, or for involvement in abusive relationships which can read to rape, incest, or birth control sabotage, and we have a serious problem in regard to the rights of autistic women.

How you feel about genetic screening tends to relate very much how you feel about abortion, so I saw fit to discuss both issue in the same response. I hope you all found this post helpful.

We need massive change in society. I do not think what amounts, essentially, whether you intend it or not, encroaching on women's lives, bodies, choices and moral agencies is the answer.

I would think that genetic screening would be advantageous to parents who decide to keep the fetus as well. They could begin educating themselves before the birth.

If they want to help children with autism, and their parents, why can´t they just make up a screening test for newborns? I am very skeptical about this kind of thing- yes, it´s like "Gattica" relived- (great film, by the way!)- and I really worry that people will use this information in the wrong way. I signed the petition, and sent it to a bunch of my friends.

P.S.- my favorite part of "Gattica" was how, in the specials, they showed all the pictures of famous people, with so-called "undesirable traits", who had made great contributions to our society.

parents right to self-determination supercedes your made-up idea of what is "right" or "wrong". thread over.