ASAN view on Gene Editing

Post Reply New Topic

Wouldn't it be interesting if it someday became possible for people to have unusual abilities edited into themselves or their children, while avoiding the disabilities. Maybe enough people would find this desirable that the diversity in human brains would be increased rather than decreased, and cultural acceptance would follow.

Sadly these abilities usually come at a huge price and are not equal exchanges. Many are dual strengths and weaknesses, for example saying what you think all the time, not having the executive function to know when to polietly not say anything at all.

Many autistic people have lost jobs over this not to mention offended others and put themelves in danger.

Many so called talents are simply party tricks, with limited value, i met someone who knew what day you was born by your birthdate. Was entertaining of course but he couldnt work, hold a conversation or live independently. What reasonable person would see that as a fair exchange?

Many of these strengths are also present in some NTs as well anyway and would continue to exist if autism disapeared.

But at the end of the day im pro personal choice if a hf aspie doesnt want curing in principal i respect that.

Genetics, innate talents and disabilities or not, as many autistics are mismanaged throughout their lives.

And most mismanaged humans lost too many jobs, more than frequent offended others and put themselves in danger.
The odds an autistic is mismanaged by external circumstances is higher than most allistics of any neurological profile.

For now, most people think a little of a consequence at large by a lifetime of mismanagements, and more of a fault of the autistic individual themselves.
Because that's what most people sees it -- because apparently it also works with neurodiversity outside autism and outside neurodiversity in general -- but not within the autism whether in or not of neurodiversity.

Same old stories, same old cries; everyone is tired of it including autistic individuals themselves.
Only a few can break the cycle themselves with support and all, even fewer with little to no support at all.

Only a very few, several of which are 'high functioning autistics' with enough talents, intelligence, will power, mental stamina and resilience can undo most mismanagements, even mental health issues throughout their lives given if they ended up in the right place.

The same can be said if one is allistic. Even more so an allistic with any more specific label than that.


Therefore most autistics are made 'low functioning', and 'high functioning' with unequal exchanges of strengths and weaknesses with more mental health issues.
Allistics are apparently the exemptions to this. Probably because most studies emphasises on inherent communication and social issues, and not much on anything else whether the good or the bad.


And so to make everyone else's lives easier, take autism as a whole out of the equation.
Nevermind changing other people's beliefs, nevermind putting new things and ideas on their tables, nevermind changing their ways of upbringing individuals and never mind the effort of any of these.

Why not take an easier route if one has an option to? It is silly to take a harder and harsher route at life.
Never mind that if autistics' problems are solved without getting rid of autism itself, that it can help others outside the autism spectrum.

I agree that many of the problems that Autistic people face are caused by society misunderstanding and oppressing them.

I agree with ASANs stance on gene editing, because it infringes on the rights of the individual who is having their genes edited. It is being done without the person's consent and is therefore unethical.

If an adult wants to make biological changes to themselves then they should have every right to. But an unborn child cannot consent to such changes.

Unfortunatly while progress needs to be made to raise awareness of ASD and provide more employment opportunities, the problems of being autistic go way beyond any potential "accomodations and acceptance" and go deep into medical pathology territory.

I believe over focus on so called "oppression" is just an over exaggerated claim to avoid the inconvienient medical truth.

The issue isn't the gene editing technology itself as much as it is the kind of people behind using it and their intention.

Yes, because we are heading toward a 1984 kind of world that we already have a mass media controlled only by a small number of elites who control and shape public perception to how they want us to view things.