ci wrote:
Does anyone agree prenatal testing for autism is like Nazi's?
All I know is, forty years ago people with Downs syndrome were not an uncommon sight. Everybody knew at least one family with a mentally ret*d kid (that was the PC term in those days). Now that DS can be tested for in utero, you hardly ever see anyone with Downs at all anymore. So many potential parents have no idea what autism is, they just see kids on television who can't speak and just stim and bang their heads endlessly. So if you told them that their baby was going to be born with autism, they'd have a panic attack while running to the abortion clinic.
Quote:
Medical ethicist Ronald Green argues that parents have an obligation to avoid 'genetic harm' to their offspring, and Claire Rayner, then a patron of the Down's Syndrome Association, defended testing and abortion saying "The hard facts are that it is costly in terms of human effort, compassion, energy, and finite resources such as money, to care for individuals with handicaps... People who are not yet parents should ask themselves if they have the right to inflict such burdens on others, however willing they are themselves to take their share of the burden in the beginning."
Is that irony or what? 'avoid genetic harm to their offspring' - by KILLING them. Too expensive to live. Their lives will COST TOO MUCH. What exactly is a human life worth these days?
So yes, I think prenatal testing will be open season on autistic babies. They won't be able to kill 'em fast enough. So one day they can look around and say "See, no more autistic people! Hooray, we CURED autism!"
_________________
"Strange, inaccessible worlds exist at our very elbows"
- Howard Phillips Lovecraft