Time to stand up against anti-cure

Post Reply New Topic

If you were isolated before and are now included then you have cured the isolation with the help of scripting, confidence and when applicable social motivation. Scripting is used mostly on children that then makes way for more dynamic usage of the programmed behavior. It doest traditionally apply to adults. It's much easier for Pr to say a cure for autism then say cures for autisms or autism symptoms. I never said treatments cure all aspects for autism. Again cure is simply a PR modality (approach) that is conditioned in society as a concept that garnishes support. I believe it's important and although adverse at first to the idea of absolute acceptance those seeking acceptance should also accept others with autism want cures but acceptance for what is now with all difficulties and differences should be part of advocacy and co-exist with other advocacies that seek improvements.

With as much time and energy spent on words in the autism community so much more could have been accomplished. To me it is frustrating. Although dignity has it's place as a right and social responsibility there are forms of the pursuit which can be adverse and or in conflict with the same right or others rights which supersede it and dignity itself is not universally applicable for acceptance as there is a dignity also in the right for cures when others seeking acceptance call that pity at times which is an indignity.

Rather than defining words to suit ourselves, let's go to the dictionary...

(The elided portions dealt with meanings of "cure" that have nothing to do with the topic - curing meat, for instance.)

As you can see, the word "cure" is not simply interchangeable with "treatment" - it implies not merely palliative treatment, but actively seeking to remove the condition. (One does not speak of relieving coughing and sneezing as "curing a cold", nor cessation of pain as "curing cancer".) No one, to the best of my knowledge, opposes continuing research on helping those of us on the spectrum to cope with our condition - rather, there is opposition to the idea (propounded by groups like Autism Speaks) of completely removing the autistic spectrum from the human genome, presumably by preventing us from reproducing and aborting any fetuses found to have autistic tendencies (assuming the involved genes can ever be isolated - so far, the best case presented has been for transcription errors on the 17th chromosome pair, but those errors found have been in slightly over 2% of those on the spectrum).

You see, ci, it's difficult to hold a coherent conversation on a topic - any topic - until the participants can agree on a definition of terms. Otherwise, we wind up arguing about quite different things, and talking past one another a lot.

I agree with DeaconBlues. I do not think that this conversation can continue or make any sort of progress unless this issue is cleared up.

Yep. Innately the pursuit however of curing autism whether or not a cure exists now is a wholesome pursuit. Since autism is so broad and people assume it to be the entire self it would nearly seem I'd choose to break up cure for differing symptoms which may be related to one another or separate manifestations and not a chain reaction from a root causal. Hence others express hardships on this forum and many others for said symtoms. The process of curing entails treating but the ultimate outcome of treating is to cure. Who would oppose cure for adverse symptoms in politics less they are trying to protect or preserve something? Remember no organization is the definition of cure and the views of autism are diverse. I simply view autism as adverse by strict definition for the most part but it's not the case necessary that the differences in wiring, genetics and so on do not manifest positives but a label exists to assist with the negatives.

Since an absolute cure for all autism(s) is unlikely anytime soon positive self-esteem awareness is needed. What happens at times then is a conflict with the ego due to the need for a positive self-acceptance. Cure is viewed a conflict to the ego for acceptance. Self-acceptance may be a treatment for being prone to depression due to autism symptoms at times. It cannot be easily resolved especially with ideologies involved over abortion politics.

Absolute nonsense. I'm not to blame for the political mess others created. When others polarize themselves against others and I try to decipher it not to your liking I'm propaganda? I have a simple way of translating it. I don't use over technical terms, hide my biases or distort for my ego. I lay it all out in a truthful pattern explaining different aspects which is a style others don't even do to protect what they don't want people to know. I don't run away from debate and respond when others want clarification and I never refuse to entirely outline a diverse perspective in context. Propaganda exists in those who will not enter into diverse public debate, run away from it on forums like this and who hide from diverse opinions and ideas. In the hyper meaning of the word propaganda in context we all have it which is called opinion.

This has been civil. I guess disagreeing is uncivil or a kind of harassment for the hyper-sensitive. [/quote]

I did not blame you for other people's political opinions. I did not label the way you presented your views as propaganda because I disagreed with you. I said that because that is the way they came across. By the definition of this thread you are not simply 'translating.' By its' definition, you are adding your views in an attempt to made it more 'balanced.' I did not demonize anyone's right to hold their own opinions. I simply disagree with some of what you say.

I do not believe that I am being "hyper-sensitive". I was not aware that I showed anger or any kind of upset in this thread. If that is the message you received, I apologize, as I did not feel any anger towards you or your views.

I must add that the language issue with continue to crop up. Your definitions do not make sense to me and contrast sharply with the ones other members have used. It is not possible to make progress unless we are sure we are talking about the same things.

I am sorry. That quote did not work correctly. I hope you can all see what words are mine and which are Ci's.

I am speaking of macro-projections many times. To be subjective given the global politic is hard. You may be having trouble with my going from the micro to macro. The micro can be influenced by the macro and for instance the anti-cure movement. Anti-cure means to oppose cure. This is a violation of human rights.

Implied meaning of words is dynamic to context and with other concepts in relation.

No, I am not have difficulties with you "going from the micro to macro". That concept I understand quite well. Your definitions are what confuse me. In one instance, I believe that was because I, like many others, differentiated between 'cure' and 'treatment'. You have oversimplified some terms to the point where I do not find them helpful. For others, you simply do not make sense to me. Not because of "going from the micro to macro", but because your reasoning doesn't add up.

No it is just fine and quite simple. Politics and agenda's want to make things to complicated and have opposed cure for reasons of politics for some time.

1. Treatment is the process needed to cure.

2. Cure is the ultimate remedy.

3. A cure for autism is to broad. I propose symptoms individually be viewed as needing cures (remedies) (when chosen). Thus to cure a symptom or symptoms of autism by treating them fully.

4. Cure is used in public relations awareness. Cure is a mode of awareness that garnishes compassion and compassion results in assistance. Those opposing cure have called it pity which is just hateful.

5. Anti-cure means to oppose cure or cures for autism.

It's to simple it's kind of stupid. I wish folks would move on and focus on real change instead of hindering over "words".

Nathan Young

As we can see, continuing this discussion is pointless - most of us are using English, or at least American, while ci is choosing to define words to suit him/herself. His/her redefinition of the word "cure" to cover absolutely any form of treatment, from early intervention to jb accommodations to drugs to genetic tinkering, is a case in point - by his/her definitions, if you oppose aborting fetuses that might be autistic, you therefore oppose early-intervention techniques.

Ci, I can see by your location tag that you're located in the English-speaking world. Please, for the sake of everyone's sanity, use one of the more common dictionaries when making arguments, rather than making up words to suit yourself. Merriam-Webster makes a fine dictionary, as do the folks from Oxford University...

It's to simple it's kind of stupid. I wish folks would move on and focus on real change instead of hindering over "words".

Unfortunately, discussion cannot be had without words, ci. If all the participants don't agree on the meanings of the words being used - there is no discussion to be had.

Being a bit staburn I see and then at the same time putting me down as if I don't know my native language. It comes down to standardizing what an ideology wants to understand vs. not understand. When in fact I can speak to specialist about this and they understand clearly.

The implied meaning of a cure for the flu differs from that of autism which the definition of cure is more traditionally viewed.

I find your interpretation of cure in context more potential of the likely ideological concern of abortion. Whereas folks give up on the cure notion and then seek the destruction of difference. When cure is a dynamic and general idea when applied to the very broad concept of autism. I:n autism politics the rejection of cure can source two political manifestations and insight them. (1) being that cure means abortion and (2) that cure is the wrong approach to evade the concept all together for reasons of the abortion interpretations. These are simple two causal results to the rejection of the concept based on external political factors to this conversation. Ultimately cure based agenda's have no innate harm and a cure differs from abortion whereas cure PR simply creates progress for treatments that can remedy obstacles potentially without long-term supports..

---

I have said there is logically no cure all for autism. That treatment is indeed part of the process for cure. The focus on cure research is to discover the reasons why and to then develop treatments based on those discoveries. For speech delay and related problems the treatment is speech language therapy. If it works and improves symptoms to being non-existent then it is cured. Now sensory overload is more tricky and needs more research into how the brain works and how might the brain be treated so to develop a cure. Not all symptoms can be cured at this time but those opposing cure and asking just for acceptance are evading that right and public relation that derives that support and many times it seems because the research into why and how it might be solved may contribute to other research for abortion. Cure as a concept applied to autism is vastly different then diabetics.

Treatments cannot always cure symptoms nor can all symptoms at this time be cured. Treating autism may never be as simple as a flu shot or a cold medicine for a cold. Due to it being seen in behavior regardless of genetics and neurology once symptoms are in the realm of normal or even satisfactory to the individual or the measurement of function and behavior determines if a cure had been successful. Regression and especially without supports is possible certainly but as more research takes place treatments will become more probable of the cure notion.

There should be no problem with what I've written above. I'm wondering what folks will come up with next over a silly word called cure. No known cure for autism exists but certain symptoms sometimes can be normalized and as cure research progresses chosen normalcy and typical functionalism will increase in probability. The progress for diversity is a poor excuse for philosophies of neglect based on ideological agenda's.

Nathan Young

Not saying you don't understand the language - I'm saying were are applying words differently thus not communicating with each other clearly.

I do NOT believe all 'cure'/treatment research is focused on abortion. I am saying that one of the more closely watched research programs ATM is focused on prenatal testosterone testing as a means of prenatal diagnosis. Do the researchers intend this research to encourage abortions? No. In fact, it has been well stated that the goal of prenatal testing is enable earlier diagnosis and earlier intervention. But what will parents do with a 20 week amniocentesis result that is positive? There is the fear.

All along I have stated my support for research and treatments - anything that can make another's life easier and more fulfilling, I'm all for it. I am looking for those studies. What else is out there? What else is science working on besides genetic based 'cures' and prenatal testing? That is all I can seem to find. You seem very knowlegable and I keep asking, over and over, please, point me in the direction of the science. I can't find it. I'm not denying your well thought out arguements - I'm asking you to share what you know so I can, possibly, join you.

With the facts I have currently, I just cannot agree with you. If you have facts I do not have - I am all ears.

I have already clearly said at least some cure based research can result in abortion due to finding of causation. However it would result in treatments as well in potential. I think I recall reading of this study and the more children a parent has the increased odds of that hormone thus a suspected increase in an autism diagnoses. It is interesting to note also autism is viewed as extreme male syndrome in some social circles and here we have the abortion political issue. If it is found hormones cause autism or cause what is believed to also be autism a percentage of the time then prenatal (in the womb) hormonal therapy may exist to decrease odds. Abortion I do not think is an easy choice for parents to be.

What is ethically and morally of conflict in these research politics and the abortion issue is the right to treatments and treatment research of individual with autism. Now unlike many conditions before it for seeking the normal rights everyone has been guaranteed as Americans with disabilities the hope for treatments could result in abortion. This is not emotionally fair and has resulted in some advanced bullying and political manipulation. Morally and ethically to desire to function and be part of normal by means of treatment an individual with autism is not at fault for the potential of abortion. These decision are not theirs and even if every person with autism were to be guilted into not wanting treatment and the potential of cures and when applicable their caregivers as well still parents to be have the right to know.

Now that the cat is out of the bag so clearly folks need to decide how they will politically proceed because they will be confronted in solid ways politically. There is nothing I can do about abortion, changing the image of autism in society because of the abortion issue is also unethical for those living and in need of help and it does not matter how many high functioning individuals make up numbers, philosophies and so on ethically society has an obligation to preserve the quality of life and hope of treatment with potential of cure for those less fortunate. There is a select few ways I have discovered to co-exist due to this mess which does not conflict in what I call the triangle of conflict of interest in autism politics with other issues between quality of life and treatment, abortion politics and the right to dignity.

The organizations of bias are welcome to consult me but I do my own thing creating change and I have my own magic to prove to the world and don't need other organizations to help me prove it. It does not matter if you agree with me. The law is the law and two types of laws support current endeavors. There is nothing I can do about this and facts are quite clear.

What I see - genetic testing is focusing on the future. Little of what is being actively researched involves helping those already here. Being that I am already here, I'm being selfish and want to know if any of that research is going on for me. Or, has science just written us off and are focusing on prevention so it is not an issue in the future? I see little research into helping those here and now. I see alot of prevention research going on.

Once again we agree to disagree. And there is nothing wrong with that. Neither wrong, neither right - just two different opinions.

I understand why you want to see my writing as disagreeing with you. I also may understand why you didn't respond to the bulk of what I said. What I say is bluping out potentials, biases and so on. I am not trying to preserve anything particular but the truth or seek to simply discover it.

However finding the causation of autism may also lead to treatments and even a cure. It may also lead to abortion. Prevention can also have to do with abortion or treatment. Early intervention may prevent certain symptoms entirely or at least for certain lesson some or more. A cure for autism does not necessary mean abortion but that is the fear in possibility politically.