Autism Votes?

Post Reply New Topic

Nonsense, again.

If you would actually read the entire post that you quoted, with an effort at understanding it, I explained that from the view of many, the goal is to avoid producing autistic children, that there are several points in the process of making a child at which this could be accomplished, that I could find no other opportunities for a 'cure', and that I found all of these approaches infeasible and/or offensive.

You are the one who insists on using words differently from others.

I pointed out to you that all of the points at which a 'cure' for autism could occur would involve the prevention or destruction of a person.

Like it or lump it, that's the truth.

I was never proposing people were having sexual relations unwillingly. However in context to which I was speaking it had to do with pride politics, reproductive rights and eugenic anti-cure arguments. I do not believe a cure is eugenics.

The way in which I explained this is explicit and detailed. I do not insist on using words different then you. If you want to continue picking at me based on how I think different all I can say is deal with it. I cannot really snap out of it. I'm very intelligent in certain ways and have just about mastered this pride political modality. It's just about all about abortion and eugenics.

Utter nonsense.

No woman or sperm bank has ever rejected my sperm. I have never offered it to any.

I don't give a damn if I have children. I understand enough about genetics to know that all of my genes are spread widely throughout the population and I needn't have children to see them flourish (not that I give a damn, anyway).

I am all for a woman deciding entirely on her own whether to have a baby. I don't need to know a reason, and none of the rest of us should have a say in the matter. She is the one who, if she goes ahead with a pregnancy, will have to bear and raise the child.

I don't see anything wrong with a person being autistic; in fact, I'm all for it. I wish it were easier.

Way to misrepresent and twist things, or make them up out of thin air, ci.

I don't care what you believe.

You were making nasty stuff up just to be spiteful.

Apologize.

Ci, stop digging...the hole you have dug for yourself is way too deep already...accusing people of forcibly impregnating people *without* sexual relations is just a new and different shade of bizzare...

What do you have in mind?

Maurauding steets gangs armed with turkey basters?

Nothing has been twisted up. You stated you never said you believed in eugenics and I never implied you believed in eugenics. You are whoever anti-eugenics. However what you propose would politically be seen as declining a womens right to know. You propose it would seem to make her or even the father to be with donated sperm and or eggs known of autism risks as unacceptable in your form of autism pride politics. To say risk is another perceived rejection. Listen autism is a disability and unless we begin cutting through the crap and seeing issues for what they are as emotional it's just seems to deny the whole truth

Feel free to explain it again based on what you had written to me that I used the quote function for. The self-esteem politics aside autism is a disability. It is not to me lacking truth to say autism is a disability and it is unacceptable to state this for reasons of my personal self-esteem. Do you propose differently when stating their is nothing wrong with being autistic? In what facet of contextual premise do you say this. In the facet of abortion and selective genetic screening in reproductive health facilitation as if to say so would be discrimination when otherwise autism is a disability outside of consideration of self-esteem?

Unless we can look at these issues in the entire big picture and all the little details I do not see why other then to deny the pursuit of truth for political reasons. Do you require certain statements and belief to fit a peer pressure mold of acceptable behavior? Does the science of thought often need to be rejected to fit into the social theme for socio-political reasons?

Last edited by ci on 11 Sep 2011, 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The Z. I understand the topic is unpopular. However I had brought in evidence of the issue being brought to me by Mr. Alen. I believe it is all very well in context though unpopular based on peer pressure appeal. That's the only hole I dig. A punch through the force fields of the Borg collective which states we are all one mind and must follow some political rules and not independently think outside of the autism pride political box (cube) to much or else be seen as "one of them N.T's" or some kinds of *ast*rds toward the autism species.

I want to know the raw truth and cannot turn that part of my brain off even for peer pressure.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJTgg8[/youtube]

Ci, will you please STOP THIS right now...I was eating and nearly choked when I read that......



Just be a man, apologise to Alan...and let it go...

There is no reason to apologize. The abortion politics are very relevant in his arguments and I presented in quotes from him. I can understand you as a women and my even mentioning women it might make others feel awkward in feeling given the subject. Yet the facts as presented are the facts. It is denoted autism is gene related hence part of the framework of what comprises a person. A rejection of any kind is very relevant as he presented the rejection scenario in his own words and he was the one that brought it up.

Perhaps this conversation is best between males and for the females between the females? Eggs and sperm was brought up not by me but him and the rejection of autism in context to reproductive health facilitation. I do not see why this is a subject adults cannot handle. Funny at first but I think it's important.

Ci,

There is NO SUCH THING as "enforced impregnation politics", which is the issue here...apologise to Alan...and move on..

The Z there is no reason to apologize as to apologize is giving into a political side based on emotions where logic needs to have it's final appeal as well as that is sensible to fairness.. I provided the quote from him concerning the relevant politics he expresses which I didn't even ask for. If a women and even a father to be wants to know if their is a genetic risk in donated sperms and her and him are not allowed to know then politics would force unwanted risks. That's evading the right to know about what goes inside of another persons body. It's all about forcing what some would not want and all about the politics of eugenics and pride. That's my point.

My genes I do not have the right to force on others and to me that is common sense and respecting others. they also do not I think have the right to force their genes in my life. It's all about the human rights of choice. It may not seem fair as a reasoning formula to people with autism like myself but to me that's human rights. Should the laws explicitly state otherwise then I will use that as a rule of thumb.

Ci,

Quite making excuses, you know perfectly well it is not acceptable to accuse people of "forcing their sperm on others" ( ) and of you don't know, go check with your mum...

Man up, say sorry, drop it and move on.

Not so fast Z. Much of the disputes have to do with reproductive fluids and genetic exclusions. Without sperm there is no reproduction whether it is artificial or natural. He himself brought up the topic of artificial exclusion in genetics contained in these fluids as part of the pride politics. While the fluid was not exactly mentioned it is common sense. The fluids contain the genetics and to decline the availability of the future potential knowledge of autism risk factors is indeed forcing a lack of knowledge. As a male I am speaking about male issues in context to the for years ongoing dispute. I have no ability to control what science does with these substances should they be donated. A contract is signed and a person is then paid for services for the contribution.

I understand that even you as a person involved in autism politics might not want this issue picked apart to be understood. It's an issue that is used as a scape goat to confront others and make accusations all the time. The pride tactic tool of social politics might be threatened by evolving the debate and understanding it's most detailed social and psychological factors. Again I was not the one who brought up the subject but it came up by Mr. Alen.

If sensitive subjects are to be brought up they ought to be expected to be questioned, understood and blunt articulation to take place. People cannot simply use issues like this to win arguments without appeal to reasoning. Should that be the case not only are "some" others forcing a lack of knowledge with concern to these bodily materials but using the sensitivity of the topic in unfair ways socially.

I propose people blurt out their minds as that is what I do. I have nothing to hide. My advocacy does not center on abortion and eugenics agenda's. It will never focus on these matters as a central appeal to gain progress. I however propose these such subjects be in their own regards. I seek that the issues be entirely understood.

AlenTurning used this politic to advance an opinion and he should answer to exactly what he implies. Either he proposes to force men and women who obtain such fluids that they not know when they cannot reproduce themselves or is simply emotionally dealing with it and talking out loud. Alen should answer to what he said and an apology is simply asking that he not answer to his remarks when he was the one stating his politics and position on the matter precisely for all to see.

I do not enjoy these silly social games and want to get to the bottom of it.

Ignorance is ugly.

The man's name is Alan Turing. He was a famous mathematician and one of the founders of the computing sciences. I respect him a great deal.

I was explaining to you what some people understand by 'cure' - they simply do not want anyone with autism.

I then went on to identify several points in the reproductive process at which it is possible to intervene in an attempt to prevent someone with autism to be born or to live. I did this so that you would understand the real consequences of what the people you ally yourself with, the Autism Speaks crowd, mean by 'cure'.

At no time did I recommend that autism-prevention at any of these points occur. It is wrong of you to try to smear me with things that you make up.

Science doesn't know how to perform interventions at any of these points in the process now, nor is it likely to in your lifetime.

I find the idea of choosing not to have a child because it was likely to be autistic to be wrong, but I would never attempt to interfer with a woman making her own choice on this matter.

You seem all queasy on the subject of sperm. Deal with it.

How did 'sperm' and 'eggs' come into the discussion? I pointed out that one way in which someone (not me) could attempt to prevent the birth of someone with autism is to screen sperm or eggs for genetic markers for autism and not use them when fertilizing an egg. No one knows how to do this now - no one knows of any genetic markers for autism. I do not recommend that we learn how to do this. I do not want to waste the time or resources on this technology, and I think it is wrong to use it to avoid having autistic kids.

It is also true, however, that the achievement of this autist-avoidant technology is precisely one of the goals of Autism Speaks, a group aimed primarily at parents who don't want to have autistic kids.

There is nothing to 'cure' - autism is not bad, it is not a disease, it is not a 'genetic mistake'. It is simply the way we are.

Sperm. Quit apologizing for someone using the word 'sperm' - it is very pseudo-Victorian.

I point out people who claim to want a cure would be just as happy (or even happier) not having any autistic kids in the first place, point out that you identify with those people who say they want a 'cure', and you accuse me of being in favor of eugenics, and of wanting to 'force my sperm into unwilling women', or some other nonsense.

You have a hell of a lot of nerve.

Apologise and quit talking garbage.

You tried to use this same issue to force me to choose a side. Is it unreasonable that I understand why you demand I take position on the matter? You were forcing it on me just the same as your perspective forces a choice not to be made by parents to be. This is the tactic of anti-cure autism pride. It's the tactic you have used well and the tactic of autism pride when it doesn't get it's way and when even people with autism challenge the views make it out to be unreasonable and ask for an apology. No one here including I deserves an apology but instead should see the political behavior in context as able to be questioned. The idea of sperm is a mature idea of reproductive substances in context to the deli-ma presented and that you demanded I take a side on. No one should demand an apology from me with the now open political manipulations of this subject. I will not submit to political pride and will never even if it results in further threats. I am confident in overcoming these such kinds of manipulations toward my self-esteem, others self-esteems and the control tactics used in politics to garnish appeal to getting ones way.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9BIRxRuB9A[/youtube]