Pro or Anti Cure?

Post Reply New Topic

I know it's a common question, but I don't see anything specifically about it in the last couple of weeks, so let's have a recap since I forget the last one's results

It's not a question of neurodiversity really, just think of it in regard to your situation.

None of the above.

I don't see why we have to be pro or anti cure - AS/ASD and NT are equal, I personally would not want a cure and dislike those who see us as needing a cure, however families of lower-functioning ASD people or people who really have difficulty being AS/ASD would welcome a cure and they should not be made to feel in the wrong for needing/wanting that - people are individuals, and things are not black and white.

NT's and autistics are equal (in terms of capabilities), and whether one wants to be "cured" should be evaluated on an individual basis.

I'm anti-cure and aspies and NTs are equal.

I voted to cure LFA only, because while I disagree with the thought of the HFA/LFA labels, it seems to be the most reasonable choice. Some people with autism really do suffer from the condition, and would greatly benefit from a cure. But those of us who are considered to be "high functioning" can improvise and adapt to NT society, and almost manipulate autistic traits to our advantage, so to speak.

However, ideally, I would prefer to see acceptance and accommodations made in society rather than a cure.

Could just as easily ask if there should be a "cure" for being NT

Pretty sure this is one thing we're not going to see a 'cure' for for quite a while.

I'm realistic enough - or MILD enough? - to realise that altho TO ME it's everyone else who seems to behave peculiarly / unresonably / badly - it's actually ME who's dysfunctional.

I'm a bit lost by the superior / inferior / equal part of the question - disadvantaged / priveleged would be more appropriate terms I think.

Nonetheless, setting aside the inferior / superior etc. - my answer about a cure is I WANT IT AND I WANT IT N-O-W!! !! !! !! !! !

I said us aspies are superior to those nts.

I will make a quick read to this.

1. People with autism are equal to people without autism.

True - In spirit of quality of being.
False - When disability limits desire.

2. People with autism need a cure.

True - When symptoms hinder basic life functions and when otherwise chosen.
False - When an individual chooses no cure is needed and or desired.

3. Anti-cure

People that are anti-cure have the right to choose for themselves. However they do not have the right to choose for others. Attempts to evade this right of choice will not succeed no matter how insulting it is because the right to the dignity of a pathological label in of itself does not supersede the right to treatment pursuits with the potential of cures for differing symptoms.

4. Pro-cure.

Does not fundamentally denote forcing a person to be cured. In spite of (insult) I'd choose this one simply because it's a human rights issue and my own ego should not get in the way of that. Pro-cure does not have the right to cure someone of adult age against their will. Individuals seeking to allow children to choose need to change the law however individuals should not attempt to evade the right to cure and it's pursuits no matter how much social peer pressure and anti-NT hog wash is applied.

----

I have autism. I don't mind one bit saying what's unpopular. I don't go along with peer pressure, don't have the desire to fit in and think about the logic and the law. I am not superior to you for thinking how I do. I however instinct the arguement that fundamental human liberties and essential human rights ought to have basic respect including the personal right to not have a cure or think one needs a cure when applicable to an individual. I think the human condition is flawed and needs a cure and don't believe hating on people for wanting to develop a cure for individuals with autism that rightfully choose it is reasonable or the right thing to do.

Missed the option:

"No such thing as a cure. Pointless poll."

I was assuming cure meant optional according to personal choice of course.

If the question was referring to compulsory cure I'm in a real pickle - but ultimately I'd still choose yes and hope like all getout that everyone's quality of life does indeed end up being overall better - as I KNOW mine would.

I fear the truth would be less than clear cut - ie. for one tiny example in midst of a huge and complicated set of circumstances: I can well imagine that a lot of currently happy relationships might break down - but then I'd like to hope new ones would be easily found etc.