Sperm donor was AS

Post Reply New Topic

Yes severe autism is a major concern.. but just having HFA is not just a "difference" for some. I don't quite understand why people are accepting the diagnosis in the first place if they consider it to be just a creed like race. I know that some kids with HFA can really struggle and do need therapies to help them as early as possible.. I fear that his kids may miss out on help without that vital information.

It's true the genetics of autism is poorly understood.
However twin studies have provided fairly good reliable predictive risk assessment of having an autistic child.
According to the research it also appears that autism occurs more frequently than would be expected among the close relatives of individuals with Asperger syndrome. Therefore the evidence from twin and family studies suggests that autism and Asperger syndrome cluster in the same families and are genetically related.
Sorry to burst your bubble

Yes this is painfully obvious to everyone who has children with HFA. My daughter is very high functioning in terms of intelligence but I would never want to put any parent through what we have been through in terms of her self-harm, meltdowns, communcation/social problems and reliance on medication.

As usual its Aspies who've never had to look after an autistic child projecting their views. Charloz and his cheer squad seem to blissfully under the impression that NT parents should be knocking down doors to have a HFA child!!

So, you ignore the flaw in the study that prevents it from being properly used for Charloz's scenario. I have given in great detail the explanation as to why they cannot relate. In fact, what you say does nothing more than reaffirm what I said.
You seem not to understand me, or else you wouldn't have needed that underlining. I fully admitted that there is a large chance of autism and aspergers in families that have a history of autism and aspergers. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that if someone with aspergers or autism is born in a family without a history of the disorder, is it likely that a cluster will suddenly appear clustered for all subsequent generations. You seem to take this as a claim that there is no genetic link, but I never said that. Rather, I fully supported the genetic cause, but dismissed the application of the studies mentioned in this specific scenario on the grounds that a study hasn't been done on people on the spectrum who have come from families that do not have any prior cases of the spectrum. Those like that are much rarer, and so have not been studied. For all we know, that rarer part of the spectrum might be a trait that only occurs, for example, once every two hundred years, in that lineage. All you have done is restated the evidence I dismissed and then claim that I my reasoning is based on autism not being genetic in nature.

Making assumptions and belittling your opposition, thanks. Because we disagree with you, we must be ignorant fools who have no connections with anyone on other parts of the spectrum. You don't know much, if anything about my family, or even who I have lived with and you assume that I've never had to look after an HFA child. You assume this, because you assume that if we had then we would instantly know the alleged follies in our reasoning. Well, that's BS>

Those quotation marks is what made me suspect an attitude of moral supremacy. Whenever I see quotation marks around a single word or phrase used for a biased summary of someone else's views, it is typically a sign of mockery and derision. I am sorry if I misinterpreted that.

True, I don't know "your" history, Charloz certainly has stated he's never been a father before...

A few things that are not in dispute
- Autism traits are heritable
- there is no dispute among medical professionals that the risk of autism is higher if one parent has autism or Aspergers
- Given this risk factor no sane mother would voluntarily accept sperm from a person with Aspergers
I assume we can agree on the above

I am not sure what you mean by "rarer" part of spectrum? if you check the statistics the proportion of all autistic people with IQ < 70 is between 50-70% depending on the study. That's not great odds.

I am not expecting anyone to do anything. I am posting an argument and either it resonates with someone or it does not. Debate my arguments on their merit, not on whether or not I have the right to make them. I have every right to post my opinion, as you have a right to post yours, but what you've been doing here is acting as if I don't have a right to voice my opinion, attributing motives to me that I don't have and saying that I haven't provided enough back up, while not providing any actual arguments against the points I've made. Yes, I could have provided more than a very brief summary of what has led me to form those opinions but I have other things to deal with in my life, too, and simply don't see the value in doing so.



So should we create millions of extra kids just so that every possible combination of genes has the ability to exist? This isn't about deciding to keep or not keep a being nature choose to create; this is about trying to trump nature and create beings that would not ever exist without someone playing genetic engineering. The considerations are entirely different. Charloz did actually provide a thought out answer to my point, but in my opinion your argument fails.

All that said, Charloz has answered the questions I've posed so I plan to exit this thread. I am just confused as to why you seem so combative towards my posts, without providing anything that feels like substance against them, and it brings out the side of me that likes to argue. But it really feels pointless; its like you and I are arguing just to argue, and that gets no one anywhere.

Actually, I disagree with you on the last. I can definitely see sane mothers voluntarily accepting sperm from a person with Aspergers. Someone who knows the condition and isn't afraid of it will accept the very low risk of severe ASD impairment to increase the odds of the aspects they consider to be positive. I can definitely see it. That is why I advocate for full disclosure. I will always believe in fully informed choices, and people can surprise you.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 08 Oct 2014, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's a matter of perception I guess. The aspects considered positive can be quite easily obtained from sperm donors whom are (as examples) university professors. classical pianists, creative artists or gifted. One doesn't need to seek sperm from an Aspie as there are plenty of donors who carry "desirable" traits without the genetic risks.

Rarer...
I defined two types of the spectrum based on genetic lineage.
The first, are the majority, the ones the studies are based off. These are the ones who have an obvious genetic cluster their family's history.

The second are those who have no prior family history of the spectrum. These cases do exist. Charloz is claiming to be one of these cases.

By family history, I mean direct lineage and extended family. For example, I know my family history in great detail back almost 400 years on one side of the family and even farther back on the other side of the family. If there is no one in the family history that has significant autistic traits, where would my autism come from?
(note, that is an example, I haven't looked through the records much so I wouldn't know)

Now, I'm going to go on a tangent to reach my point...

Remember, that autism is a diagnosis based on subjective standards. If you fit the requirements, you are in regardless of any medical tests that can be done.
For example, there is a recent study I read that showed that diagnosed people can be spotted 55% of the time with a chemical test. If it comes to be that this becomes an acceptable tool for diagnosis, it could either be used narrow autism down to that 55% and others excluded towards other diagnosis, maybe even create an autisoid diagnosis or an autistic personality disorder diagnosis. Psychology can be whimsical. It is likely that different pairings of genes allow for traits that create a person that can labeled as such that make up different parts of the spectrum.
What could those cases be caused by, since the disorder appears far less in those families. Maybe someone born into a family where the mother's side of the family are misanthropic recluses, and the father's side ADHD, could very well exhibit adequate symptoms of aspergers to be diagnosed as such and that diagnosis wouldn't be wrong by modern standards. These aspies would have a very different genetic cause. You could say, those aren't true aspies, but by psychological standards they are, even if they share no genetic traits that would typically be passed along. If a specific genetic pattern or series of genetic patterns is discovered for Autism and if the psychological field accepts that as the only acceptable means of diagnosis, there could very well be a percentage of people previously diagnosed who can no longer retain the diagnosis under the new standards. This set, is the hypothetical rarer kind I speak of.

So are you suggesting every couple desiring children which includes an autistic male is "insane"? You're throwing quite a few people under the bus. Including some who don't even know that they would qualify as autistic.

Most autistic people are of average IQ. It's also fairly widely acknowledged that IQ is not necessarily a great test of intelligence, especially for neurodiverse individuals, and so its relation to actual intelligence is tangential at best.

It's not too surprising that a marginalized minority do poorly compared to a privileged majority - this is not novel or unpopular information. It also holds true for all kinds of marginalization - gendered, racial, or ableist. What's truly novel is to work towards a world in which large swathes of humanity (autistics constitute 1+%) are no longer marginalized.

Not really. I'm merely presenting likely perceptions NTs have. Aspergers is classified as a mental disorder. A couple wanting a sperm donor would be very strange if they ignored thousands of candidates with no medical record of a disorder to select sperm from a male diagnosed with a disorder that (they would be advised) is heritable.

The question of undiagnosed donors is a separate issue as nobody is none the wiser.

Actually the best estimates are around 50-70% of all people diagnosed with ASD have an IQ < 70. Conservatively this means a 50:50 chance of intellectual disability.

Secondly even if the child has a normal IQ the parents will still have a high risk the child will have lifelong socialisation and other problems to contend with.

Despite these risks I agree with DWamom that disclosure is the best course of action. However I would still contend that mothers who volunteer to choose a sperm donor with Aspergers or Downs syndrome or dwarfism and then have a child with a severe disability could (potentially) be charged with child abuse.

It's not a mental disorder, or a mental illness, it's a developmental disorder.