Autism Speaks hates animals!

Post Reply New Topic

Then what you are saying is people with autism are objects to some people? If so who? I do not believe the public thinks of people as objects becuase most humans want to be considered something more then an object emotionally.

I suggest you read War Against the Weak, by Edwin Black. Despite the fact that he bends over backwards to spare Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, and explicitly so, her name is threaded all through his exploration of the growth of the eugenics movement. She joined a society dedicated to the promotion of eugenics, she attended their meetings.

Now, with the huge abortion lobby determined to conceal this connection, there is a huge amount of propaganda designed to blur, or outright conceal, these facts - but the original, primary sources are still there, and Black cites them.



Where do you draw the line? How much pressure can be applied before something becomes force? And, again, how long should we wait to speak out? Until some line so absolute that no one can possibly raise one last quibble has been crossed?



How do you know they are not conscious? They move in the womb, they react to stimuli, they show every sign of feeling pain.

For the rest, "fetuses" are the same species - they are neither insects nor animals. Propaganda has led society to draw an arbitrary line, that until they have emerged from the mother's womb they are fair game.

And, as it happens, although I do eat some meat, I have made an active effort to cut down how much I eat, to find alternatives that I can afford and that I can eat with my sensory issues. And even insects - or plants, for that matter - are alive, and I kill them only if I feel there is a real need to do so. I don't just swat every insect who crosses my path. And, despite being well below the poverty line, I will eat only meat that is raised in humane conditions (no factory farmed meat, for example) and slaughtered as humanely as possible. Aside from the issue that "fetuses" are the same species as I am - every abortion procedure used is so horrifically cruel that I would never consider eating any meat slaughtered in such a fashion (or even less cruel fashions), even if that meant I starved to death.

I am saying that Autism Speaks released a video in which someone's own parent said that they were "more an object than a person". The people you so naively think will help you secure funding want it only for themselves - not for you - and they are actively spreading ideas that will make people as eager to shell out money to help you as they would be to pay to help a chair or a table.

Somehow I knew a mouse came down to the abortion issue. Did you know elephants are scared of mice. This autism advocacy comes down to preservation politics and there may not be a balance that can be agreed between that of the living and the image of autism for those that are not yet considered "viable" manifestations.

Technically though a human is an object.

The Big Picture

It may be philosophy, and I'm not seeking to argue with you on this. But the general public, when they vote for officials who will decide who gets funding, are not interested in philosophy. If they think of a certain group of people as "objects", they will not want to pay to help them. That simple. And that is the kind of idea Autism Speaks is spreading about us.

1. Did you even read my link?
2. Abortion lobby? There is not a big enough for that statement.



Fetuses cannot survive outside the womb. And some more reading: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canad ... lacy.shtml

Also, that meat you're eating? The animal it came from is more aware than a fetus.

I read it. Some time ago, actually. I keep up on issues related to eugenics. Skimmed it again, just in case they added anything I hadn't seen before. However, you clearly have not read War Against the Weak.

Abortion lobby is shorthand for something that is undeniable: since early in the twentieth century, there have been organised, wealthy groups of eugenicists actively interested in promoting the idea of abortion for the "unfit classes" - and actively engaged in attacking any statement that threatens to expose their tactics for what they really are. And, in modern times, the most generally recognised label for this effort is the term abortion lobby. Your very ignorance of this fact reveals just how successful they have been with the general public.



Their ability to survive outside the womb has nothing to do with their species or their humanity. You are simply citing the very abstract criteria I already mentioned - the one the eugenicists have convinced most of the public means something more than it does. You are unable to survive without air or water or food. That doesn't make you less human.

"Awareness" is a term much like "intelligence" - the more you examine it, the more you find it is used to mean whatever the person speaking of it wants it to mean. No one has yet discovered a truly reliable method of measuring either one. Unless you're saying you have some hitherto unknown means of measuring the "awareness" of animals and of "fetuses"? In that case, what animals fall where on the scale? Is a cow more aware than a chicken? Are both more aware than a "fetus", or only one?

You simply parrot the arguments you have learned - indirectly, I hope - from the propaganda so effectively spread by the eugenicists. They spout all kinds of platitudes about "awareness" and other things they don't understand at all. One reason I am so careful to avoid killing any life unless I feel I have no other option is that I don't know how "aware" any particular person or animal or plant may be - especially since learning that there is scientific evidence that trees are able to plan decades into the future. How do I even begin to guess how they do that, or what "awareness" they may have that is so different I am incapable of even grasping its nature?

Pro-choicers want abortion to be available for everybody who wants one. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Or do you want to go back to the days where women died horrible, painful deaths in backalley procedures? Just because some people support abortion for nasty reasons does not invalidate the pro-choice movement. Some people also used evolution as a way to justify their racism, yet that does not invalidate evolution.

P.S. It's really funny how a man is lecturing me about how abortion is wrong.
P.P.S. What do you think about abortion in the case of rape or incest? How about if the fetus is going to be born with Tay-Sachs or anencephaly, or if carrying the fetus to term will kill the mother?

Last edited by Delirium on 22 Feb 2011, 6:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

Just the opposite they are seeking insurance mandates. Where do you come up with this stuff?

hmmm...

anyway, back to the beginning of this thread (or argument or whatever). Knock-out mice are used for much more than autism research. (Or, perhaps I should call it "autism research" (emphasis on the quotation marks) as it seems no one believes this is true research. I have no opinion on this matter, because I know nothing about Autism Speaks.)

I worked in a laboratory that was conducting cancer research. They used knock-out mice, as well as transgenic mice (those with added genes).

While the pups that were born that were not "knock-outs" or "transgenics" were put down, those that were used for research purposes led fairly care free lives until they were put down. They had clean cages, and access to plenty of food and water. They were watched for signs of distress and illness. In fact, to enter the "mouse house", one had to put on booties and paper jackets and hats to avoid bringing contagions in. They were treated better than many house pets.

Many medical advancements could not have been made without the use of animals for research. This is done so that the early stages of testing do not have to be done on humans.


PS - the mother mice would sometimes kill some of their pups, especially if there was something physically wrong with them. much as I have heard that cats have been known to do to kittens. And bears to their cubs. is this wrong? now, imagine a mother doing that to her baby. would that be wrong? this is why no one will agree on topics like this. we see humans as separate from animals, and held to higher standards. maybe we are, maybe we aren't. I don't know.

This is the same guy who thinks that a voluntary medical procedure is akin to genocide. I don't think you should bother arguing with him.

It upsets me organization like ASAN who claim to be the official autistic self-advocacy network are not democratic and will not include opinions they don't agree with. Given the nature of the business model it will sooner or later fall to a democratic one that includes all opinions. That guy is just one example of the only opinions allowed.

I just don't want the public thinking everyone with autism hates so called N.T's, is against research or is politically manipulative. Yet it's these kinds of PR tactics that get attention. The word games, half truths and extreme views on both sides. Meanwhile the folks that are sensible are kind of left out because they don't do that sort of thing. If I wanted to I could be on a major news outlet but I hate being on T.V and also my organization is not ready for that kind of exposure. Production is already full this year and it's just after January.

I just want to make sure everyone with autism has the opportunity to be part of the public relations representing them.

I hate being the center of attention even where I live.