http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/12/autism-screening-health)

interesting, mm? there was a larger spread in the full paper about the ramifications i think, but the news itsself will do i suppose.

in short - screening that can identify whether an unborn child will be autistic is much closer to fruition. and therefore, the accompanying debates about should we/shouldn't we abort babies based on that evidence and so on.

so. yay ou nay?

I think it would spell certain doom for the future of our race if we began aborting the indigo children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigo_children) before they were born.

While I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Baron-Cohen equating Autism with Down's Syndrome, I guess I could see why he would want to start a debate on this now. I'm probably going to hold out on formalizing my opinion until I know more about how reliable the testing is and how early in the pregnancy they think they can detect the condition.

There's no way anyone can predict how bad the autism is going to be, just like there's no way to predict how bad Down's will be in any given child. There are plenty of people out in the world functioning at a normal or near normal level even with autism.

Edit:
The more complicated ethical issue would be that of treatment in the womb, she said. "You get to the situation where you have a very great difficulty if families say we wouldn't want to be tested. As a society, do we accept that people can refuse tests when the outcome can make a difference to that unborn child?"
So a woman is allowed to choose what to do with her body if she wants to abort, but she's not allowed to refuse testing? You can't have it both ways.

The question mark at the end indicated for me that it was a question rather than a statement.

As for the question: I would point out that screening has been optional for other conditions for some time. If we want to raise that question of whether or not that's appropriate outside of an autism debate, we can do so, however do to so within the debate would seem to validate Jae's concerns about double standards.

The article actually brings up several ethics questions--can you abort based on autism screening, and if you can, should you because autism has a wide spectrum of functioning, and can you force someone to have testing/treatment to theoretically protect the unborn child.

Abortion isn't even an option for me so it's a no-brainer in my particular family. I consider it unethical to abort a baby except in life-threatening situations or in cases where the baby cannot live outside the womb (as in cases where the baby is missing a heart, lungs, or brain) and keeping the pregnancy going is only delaying the inevitable. Obviously others don't have that same ethics standard, and it's legal in the US and many other countries, so I live with the fact that others are going to make different decisions. I don't think we know nearly enough about autism itself, much less testing for it. The article notes the link between testosterone levels and autism, but we don't even know if the autism causes the testosterone levels to increase, or autism develops in an environment where the mother produces more testosterone than usual. I don't know how we can even consider making an ethical decision on this with so little information.

Nathanson asks the ethical question about testing/treatment, and I felt it was important to point out the double standard that requiring autism testing would create. Also, screening is 'optional', but practitioners can exert an enormous amount of influence, including refusing to continue seeing the mother, if they don't get 'their way' in making medical decisions. I was able to choose practitioners who would respect my views on abortion, so when I refused the triple screen because it wasn't going to make a difference one bit on whether I continued the pregnancy, they were cool with that. If autistic screening was available I probably would have declined that, too--amniocentesis is generally safe but it's not 100% risk-free--miscarriages and injuries to the baby can and do happen. Not everyone has that luxury of choosing understanding practitioners, however.

With UK's government run health care, the gov't has a vested interest in minimizing costs by minimizing births of children with major disorders like Down's and severe autism. In the US the insurance companies take on the task of being the bad guys by refusing to cover things instead (e.g. making the medical insurance premiums for a baby with autism or other major disorder so high that it's unaffordable, or just refusing outright to cover certain conditions). Cold and harsh? Sure. These ethics questions are not talking just about what's best for the mom, child, or family, it's also talking indirectly about what's best financially for taxpayers/stockholders, depending on your country's medical system.

So not only are we dealing with the ethics of aborting a child based on a screening test, but this article also brings up the point that it might not be ethically acceptable for socioeconomic reasons to refuse testing and treatment--that's fair game here, I think, though if you want to have a separate thread on if it's ethical to refuse prenatal testing and treatment, I'm fine with that, too.

The article actually brings up several ethics questions--can you abort based on autism screening, Yes, provided the results were reliable.

and if you can, should you because autism has a wide spectrum of functioning,As does Down's Syndrome and I believe we permit abortions for that.

and can you force someone to have testing/treatment to theoretically protect the unborn child.Meh. I would be very interested in learning what an ethical argument for this would look like. I can't imagine one, but then again, I'm not trying very hard right now.

I consider it unethical to abort a baby <snip>Unethical or against your religious beliefs? There is a difference.

I've been waiting for years for a ethical argument against abortion and have yet to hear a single one.

I don't think we know nearly enough about autism itself, much less testing for it.It appears that some specialists think that they are on the cusp of precisely that.

I don't know how we can even consider making an ethical decision on this with so little information.Agreed, but in a slightly different context, per post #2.

Nathanson asks the ethical question about testing/treatment, and I felt it was important to point out the double standard that requiring autism testing would create.Yes, such a requirement would be a double standard. I don't think anyone has suggested there should be though.

Also, screening is 'optional', but practitioners can exert an enormous amount of influence, including refusing to continue seeing the mother, if they don't get 'their way' in making medical decisions.Funny, I seem to recall making a similar argument in an abortion thread and you shoo'ed it away as though that kind of thing would never happen in a million years.

Provided my codeine-laced cough medicine allows me the motor function to do so, I might have to go digging for that a little later.

If autistic screening was available I probably would have declined that, too--amniocentesis is generally safe but it's not 100% risk-free--miscarriages and injuries to the baby can and do happen.Waking up in the morning isn't 100% risk-free either.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, the forums are not the appropriate place to raise an issue pertaining to a member's professional obligations. And there is no necessity to always assume that others post here in bad faith - d3


With UK's government run health care, the gov't has a vested interest in minimizing costs by minimizing births of children with major disorders like Down's and severe autism. In the US the insurance companies take on the task of being the bad guys by refusing to cover things instead (e.g. making the medical insurance premiums for a baby with autism or other major disorder so high that it's unaffordable, or just refusing outright to cover certain conditions). Cold and harsh? Sure.Are you thinking aloud or presenting an argument?

The latter seems like a slippery-slope if you're taking this where it sounds like you are.

These ethics questions are not talking just about what's best for the mom, child, or family, it's also talking indirectly about what's best financially for taxpayers/stockholders, depending on your country's medical system. So socialized medicine = communist limits on child-birth ala The People's Republic of China?

So not only are we dealing with the ethics of aborting a child based on a screening test, but this article also brings up the point that it might not be ethically acceptable for socioeconomic reasons to refuse testing and treatment--that's fair game here, I think, though if you want to have a separate thread on if it's ethical to refuse prenatal testing and treatment, I'm fine with that, too.I'm afraid I just don't see how we get to this conclusion without a lot of premises and a slippery-slope to slide them down.

Of course, if you could present some cases where people living in countries with socialized medicine have ever been forced to abort a child with Down's Syndrome or Huntington's Disease, etc, then I will have no choice but to stand corrected.

in short - screening that can identify whether an unborn child will be autistic is much closer to fruition. and therefore, the accompanying debates about should we/shouldn't we abort babies based on that evidence and so on.

so. yay or nay?

Before I state my view, there are two factors for me: myself & my beliefs. First, I have autism (under the Asperger's Syndrome spectrum) myself, so I think it would be important to find out if any given person has autism at as early as possible. Secondly, due to my religion, I don't believe abortions should be done (except in a few cases) at all. So, I think the screening should be done granted that results are accurate. But, we shouldn't abort even if they are autistic or not. Even though I'm considered autistic, I can function properly. Although, every autistic person is different from each other. But, in most cases, it rarely proves a challenge for living. So, I believe an abortion would be out of the question if the screenings (if reliable) show that the unborn child has autism.

In short, my answer is yes and no. :) Just my two cents.

Outside of the fact that average to advanced autism and the like can create monstrous medical bills, whats the advantage of attempting to take them out of the picture?

Fatal genetic diseases I can see being weeded out. Susceptibility to certain cancers I can see being weeded out.

The results vary, and I don't believe it is entirely genetic either. Most of the time mental disabilities just happen to be "mistakes" in the womb during growth of the brain. While autism in general is somewhat genetic, it also seems to be circumstantial, and environmental. Like, say, the mother drinks or does drugs while pregnant.

So, again, what is the long term benefit of screening out autistic and other such babies?

But, in most cases, it rarely proves a challenge for living.Source please?

Looking at the Autism Society of America website, they state that the annual cost of autism will be $200-400 billion in the next 10 years. That sounds like quite a bit of money for a condition which "rarely proves a challenge for living".

Outside of the fact that average to advanced autism and the like can create monstrous medical bills, whats the advantage of attempting to take them out of the picture?If a fetus is diagnosed with autism, the parents have no way of knowing how severe it may be. They might not be in a mental, physical, or financial situation to provide for a "average to advanced" autistic child.

Fatal genetic diseases I can see being weeded out.By "weeded out" do you mean "allowed to be eradicated via abortion"? How about encouraging potential parents to screen themselves for them before mating instead?

Susceptibility to certain cancers I can see being weeded out. Meh. Maybe getting cancer (without knowing when) would seem to be a lot different than definitely being born with autism, down's syndrome, huntington's disease, etc.

The results vary, and I don't believe it is entirely genetic either. Most of the time mental disabilities just happen to be "mistakes" in the womb during growth of the brain.Source please?

While autism in general is somewhat genetic, it also seems to be circumstantial, and environmental. Like, say, the mother drinks or does drugs while pregnant.If we don't know what causes autism for certain, we should just accept that we don't know what causes autism for certain.

So, again, what is the long term benefit of screening out autistic and other such babies?Allowing parents to be able to make informed decisions about family planning.

Considering that the level of autisim detected in the child, if they even develop it or just have the potential to develop it, can vary to massive degrees, I don't really approve of abortion children with autism. Now, I'm questionably supportive of being allowed to abort kids who a generally reliable test has proven that they will be massively debilitated and simply be a drain on their family and on society. I'm not sure, personally, I think people should be allowed 3 non-medical necessity abortions in a 10-year period(then it resets). If they want to have more, they need to learn birth control or just keep it in their pants.

I don't like abortion, but it's not my place to tell other people what to do, if someone wants to abort their kid 'cause they won't be pretty enough, well that's sad, but oh well. To be honest, kids are neither special nor unique, and if there are less in the world, then that's not a bad thing to me, our population will just shrink some. Could we miss out on the next Mozart? The next Picasso? Maybe, but lets be honest, we've got 6+ billion people on this world, if in a generation, two kids can't be born with some great talent, we might as well just all die now, because we've clearly failed as a race.

As for "indigo kids" I personally believe that's a load of pseudo-science BS that parents of mentally or physically disabled kids make up in order to justify their child's existance. Am I cold? Darn right I am, but lets be fair, we've got a lot of kids in this world, if you want one so bad, you don't need to breed one, especially if you're at high risk for genetic disorders. Will you not get to pass on your genes? Yup, but lets face it, you're genes aren't that good.

If a fetus is diagnosed with autism, the parents have no way of knowing how severe it may be. They might not be in a mental, physical, or financial situation to provide for a "average to advanced" autistic child.
True. Wasn't thinking small enough in this case.

People still do it though. Worked with mentally challenged kids for 3 years, and personally I'm amazed they can afford it.

On an off note, how much would health insurance, on average, pay for? Is there like, a plan you go into? Because unless you are rolling in the dough, I'm curious as to how you afford full time nurses, medication, and, depending, oxygen and other such things.

By "weeded out" do you mean "allowed to be eradicated via abortion"? How about encouraging potential parents to screen themselves for them before mating instead?
Can't we do that now? Doesn't seem to stop people.

With the "rah rah freedom" and all that, there is not a lot we can do right now to force people to screen. And even if they know they have something in the family, that has yet to stop people from playing the mating game.

And in the end, what do you screen people for? Due to our love to breed quantity over quality, almost everybody is born with something up with them. I can't pull up a source for that, but you've either got some genetic disease in the family, asthma, etc etc etc. Nowadays, being born seems to be a case of picking a slip of paper out of the hat. Least modern medicine is a great equalizer.

Meh. Maybe getting cancer (without knowing when) would seem to be a lot different than definitely being born with autism, down's syndrome, huntington's disease, etc.
Yes, the difference is quite distinct.

Source please?
Well, considering we don't know for sure, any source I pull up is pretty useless.

I'm talking less of autism and more of just the disabilities you can give your kids by drinking or smoking heavily while pregnant. Like, for instance, weaker heart, etc.

If we don't know what causes autism for certain, we should just accept that we don't know what causes autism for certain.
Sure.

Allowing parents to be able to make informed decisions about family planning.
Unless we can determine the severity in the screening, it doesn't seem to be all that "informed". Seems to be as much of a coin toss as the condition itself.

I'm not sure, personally, I think people should be allowed 3 non-medical necessity abortions in a 10-year period(then it resets). If they want to have more, they need to learn birth control or just keep it in their pants.Hehe, I think this is the first time I've seen someone suggest actual policy along these lines. That's pretty cool! :)

While I think the numbers could be debated, I think our time would be better spent on teaching young people how to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place by promoting safe sexual practices.

I don't like abortion, but it's not my place to tell other people what to do,Well said.

if someone wants to abort their kid 'cause they won't be pretty enough, well that's sad, but oh well.Wait, what?!

To be honest, kids are neither special nor unique"Special" is subjective. "Unique" is not.

and if there are less in the world, then that's not a bad thing to me, our population will just shrink some. Could we miss out on the next Mozart? The next Picasso? Maybe, but lets be honest, we've got 6+ billion people on this world, if in a generation, two kids can't be born with some great talent, we might as well just all die now, because we've clearly failed as a race.Gee, how about just trying to ensure that some smart people make it?

As for "indigo kids" I personally believe that's a load of pseudo-science BS that parents of mentally or physically disabled kids make up in order to justify their child's existance. Am I cold? Darn right I am, but lets be fair, we've got a lot of kids in this world, if you want one so bad, you don't need to breed one, especially if you're at high risk for genetic disorders. Will you not get to pass on your genes? Yup, but lets face it, you're genes aren't that good.pshaw, have you seen my genes?

People still do it though. Worked with mentally challenged kids for 3 years, and personally I'm amazed they can afford it.I'm sure some people do. Not everyone can though.

Can't we do that now? Doesn't seem to stop people.For some stuff yes, but it's voluntary nonetheless. I imagine that getting your genome sequenced would be a lot better for this sort of thing, however that's pretty cost prohibitive right now. Price will come down with time, but it will still be voluntary.

And in the end, what do you screen people for? Due to our love to breed quantity over quality, almost everybody is born with something up with them. I can't pull up a source for that, but you've either got some genetic disease in the family, asthma, etc etc etc. Nowadays, being born seems to be a case of picking a slip of paper out of the hat. Least modern medicine is a great equalizer.Yeah, but again, there's a big difference between a predisposition for diabetes when you turn 70 vs. definitely being born with something that is going to affect your quality of life from Day 1.

Unless we can determine the severity in the screening, it doesn't seem to be all that "informed". Seems to be as much of a coin toss as the condition itself.Please explain to me how this is any different than the screening that we already do for Down's Syndrome?

Screening tells you "yes" or "no". If the answer is "no" then nothing to worry about. If the answer is "yes", then you still have the proverbial coin toss that you mentioned. Some people might appreciate having the ability to make that "if 'yes'" decision with both eyes open rather than "Congratulations. It's a boy with Incurable Disease X. Have fun." out of the blue. Some people might be in a position to say, "No matter how severe the situation is, we can handle it". Others might have to say "Well, if it's any worse than Y, we're sunk. And if we have no way of knowing whether it will be more than Y or less than Y, the responsible thing is to end the pregnancy".

Due to a number of reported posts this topic is closed pending a review -- j7

This is a very controversial topic, and we have a good number of people in the community who have autism or are close to someone autistic. The reason we've had so many reports on this is because it really touches a raw nerve for some folks. I'll re-open it in the morning (since I don't want to leave it untended overnight)--however, we need everyone to take extraordinary caution in how posts are worded. Be aware that your buddy that you are talking to in this thread may have someone in the family who has autism, or has a version of the disorder themselves. It's quite a bit more common than most people would realize. Please consider carefully how you would talk to a good friend who had autism or Asperger's about this very topic, and try to keep that kind of tone in your posts.

For those of you who have objected to the topic itself--it's fair game, and there's nothing in the rules that forbids discussion of prenatal testing for autism and the ethics of dealing with possible results. If you dislike the very discussion of this topic, please excuse yourself from the thread entirely. There's no rule that says you have to read every thread in Kavar's--some threads aren't going to work for some people.

I'm going to say flat out that a lot of Autistic People consider this to be an attempt to commit another kind of holocaust, quite frankly I agree with them.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt87421.html)

I ordinarily will not post a link to another forum but this forum is where a lot of people with Autism end up gathering, and the topic came up in a google search.

http://www.patriciaebauer.com/2009/01/12/call-for-ethical-debates/)

Autism awareness promoters such as NAAR and Cure Autism Now, which also fund eugenics research, shamelessly claim to be helping children. Cure Autism Now recently "helped" children with Rett syndrome, a condition related to autism, by funding the research of Dr. Huda Zoghbi to identify a genetic marker that is currently being used for prenatal testing worldwide to detect and abort Rett babies. (You'll have to copy and paste, because eugenicists are not getting any active links from me, but more information about Zoghbi's research is at http://cureautismnow.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhLOK2PILuF&b=1289189&ct=1814251) (cureautismnow.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhLOK2PILuF&b=1289189&ct=1814251) -- autisticbfh.blogspot.com (http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2006/04/autism-intolerance-month.html)

This looks to me to be another holocaust.

While i'm not entirely sure what to make of the situation, and am currently siding with the 'against' camp, I think that 'Holocaust' is too strong a word - It might not be, but it seems a little premature to be labeling it as such.

Yeah, I don't think anyone advocating the out-and-out automatic abortion of fetuses showing Autism should be listened to or taken seriously.

Of course, if such a conversation were taking place, it would have nothing to do with the OP or the topic itself and should probably be a separate thread. My 2 cents.

As does Down's Syndrome and I believe we permit abortions for that.
While I don't necessarily agree with Dr. Baron-Cohen equating Autism with Down's Syndrome
I'm a little confused since you don't agree with equating autism and Down's and then in a later post do compare the two. If I'm misreading it and you could clarify, I'd appreciate it. :)

Meh. I would be very interested in learning what an ethical argument for this would look like. I can't imagine one, but then again, I'm not trying very hard right now. I can't think of any kind of ethical argument to force someone to have medical tests or procedures, either. I can think of socioeconomic arguments, sure, but not ethical ones.

Unethical or against your religious beliefs? There is a difference.Infanticide is unethical. I fail to see how killing a full-term baby in the womb is somehow different than killing a baby out of the womb right after s/he's born, and thus how this becomes a religious issue vs. an ethical one. Infanticide is either ethical or not and religion has nothing to do with that. I was specific in my description in my previous post, however. Abortion, as wrong as I think it is in so many cases (not _all_ cases, however), is legal. I live with that. However, I choose not to have one myself unless it's a clear case of something like anencephaly.

It appears that some specialists think that they are on the cusp of precisely that.I'm reading it as 'we can detect autism', but it doesn't say 'we can detect severe, debilitating autism and differentiate it from other types of autism.' That is a very different thing.

Yes, such a requirement would be a double standard. I don't think anyone has suggested there should be though.Nathanson asked the question in the article if there should be such a requirement or not, so I gave my answer to her question. The very fact that she even raised the question raises a red flag for me, even if we may not do something like this at this time.

Funny, I seem to recall making a similar argument in an abortion thread and you shoo'ed it away as though that kind of thing would never happen in a million years.I'd have to look at it--if I did say docs don't exert influence, that would be incorrect then, and I will retract that comment in advance if I did say it. Now, I may have said they shouldn't, but that's different.

Great framing here, Jae. I hope someone doesn't read this and interpret it as medical advice against the procedure.I do not have a professional medical relationship with anyone here or anywhere on the internet, nor will I, since examining eyes over the internet is impossible. I would not presume to get in between the relationship a pregnant mother has with her practitioner, either. I was very specific in stating that it was my experience, partly for that reason. Yes, there is a small risk of miscarriage in 1 in 200 to 1 in 400, along with injuries to the baby, preterm labor, and other problems. That's a bit more than 'getting up in the morning', unless you're doing something dangerous enough to risk a 1 in 200 chance of death when you get up every morning. Small risk? Yes. Risk-free? No. Any woman who is offered amniocentesis is told about these risks prior to the procedure and has to sign a consent form for it. I had normal pregnancies and was healthy, and didn't have medical indications where the benefits of the test would outweigh the risks. There was no reason for me to have a medical test when I was going to do nothing about the results—that would have been a waste of my time and money. Other women are not so blessed, and for them the testing may well be appropriate, as it might have been for me if my situation had been different. Don't tell me I'm giving medical advice against a procedure when all I did was point out that I chose not to have the a triple screen and then an amniocentesis if it came back positive because I personally did not feel it was worth the risk of the procedure. You need to look up the definition of 'dispensing medical advice' because if you think that's what I did here, you are wrong. You further have made the false assumption that I was 'framing' my personal experience to dissuade people from getting what for them may be a necessary medical test. You are entirely incorrect about my intention in that post, and your false assumption has led you to a fallacious conclusion.

Since I'm sure you'll ask for data on the risk, here's one source.
Does Amniocentesis Have Risks?

Yes. There is a small risk that an amniocentesis could cause a miscarriage (less than 1%, or approximately 1 in 200 to 1 in 400). Injury to the baby or mother, infection, and preterm labor are other potential complications that can occur, but are extremely rare.
When there is a clear indication for amniocentesis, it's worth it--detecting intrauterine infection, determining if a baby's lungs are developed enough to deliver if a mother is having toxemia problems--these are situations where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Having one with the attendant risks to show the baby is normal when the triple screen comes back with a false positive? That particular situation wasn't worth it to me.

Are you thinking aloud or presenting an argument?
The latter seems like a slippery-slope if you're taking this where it sounds like you are.Probably more thinking aloud of where this could theoretically go. It's a possible result of this kind of thinking.

So socialized medicine = communist limits on child-birth ala The People's Republic of China? I never said that. It doesn't mean the bean-counters aren't going to think about the cost impacts, however. An analyst in the Surgeon General's office (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4004/is_200310/ai_n9330668/pg_7) said this:
In 1974, a former analyst in the U.S. Surgeon General's office was quoted in Fortune as predicting that with an investment of five billion dollars in producing a program to reduce the incidence of Down's syndrome by diagnosis and abortion, society could save eighteen billion dollars. Similar programs to reduce other genetic disease could save up to a hundred billion dollars. The analyst warned, "If we allow our genetic problems to get out of hand, we as a society run the risk of overcommitting ourselves to the care of and maintenance of a large population of mentally deficient patients at the expense of other urgent social problems."
Government clearly has an interest in limiting the number of people with debilitating genetic diseases, and we should be cognizant of that.
Of course, if you could present some cases where people living in countries with socialized medicine have ever been forced to abort a child with Down's Syndrome or Huntington's Disease, etc, then I will have no choice but to stand corrected.
Case of coercion in UK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-512129/66-babies-year-left-die-NHS-abortions-wrong.html).
The relevant portion of the article:
A baby born alive after a botched abortion at 21 weeks is among the worst cases reported in the UK.

The little girl, who had Down's Syndrome, lived for three hours after being delivered.

Her parents claim they were "coerced" into a termination by staff at Macclesfield District General Hospital.

They were later told that their baby had not "really" been alive, even though she was clearly breathing.

The couple, who do not wish to be named, already had a toddler, a teenager and a 12-year-old with learning difficulties and felt unable to cope with another special needs child.

The 44-year-old mother said: "If I had been given any idea that the baby would be born alive after an abortion I would never have gone through with it. They coerced me.


"I have seen how society treats children with disabilities and it frightened me to bring another special needs child into the world, but somehow we would have coped with it."

Two days before the abortion in March 2004, the woman was given tablets which she was told would kill the baby in the womb.

But to their distress the baby was still clearly moving.

They went back to hospital and were assured that the baby would die during labour.

Soon after birth, however, both parents saw it gasping for air.

Not specifically for genetic disorders, but coerced for various reasons:
Case of woman restrained by staff so the doctor could do the abortion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=11th&navby=case&no=0010231OPN) after she requested an ambulance to go to the hospital. I hope the guy got nailed for gross malpractice, too.
Here's an even more offensive one: British soldier forced to have 2 abortions by army (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/may/06/martinwainwright) because of discrimination.
Indian woman with forced abortion (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060111/haryana.htm#3).
Coercion to have abortions has happened, and not only in China, and we (in general, not specifically you and I) can't talk out of both sides of our mouth on this one.

@Garfield—prenatal testing in useful for learning about a major disorder prior to birth—some can be corrected in utero, and preparations can be made prior to birth to protect the baby during and after delivery. An infant with spina bifida may require a different delivery technique than a normal child to protect the spinal cord, for instance. A friend of mine has a Down's syndrome daughter, and since heart disorders often go along with the condition, they made sure to have a pediatric cardiologist on hand at the birth to make sure the baby's heart was strong enough and that she didn't need emergency cardiac surgery. Knowing about a disorder prior to birth doesn't automatically mean someone is going to have an abortion. Having medical and social services in place prior to the birth can be very beneficial in maximizing health and minimizing the negative effects of a disease.

While i'm not entirely sure what to make of the situation, and am currently siding with the 'against' camp, I think that 'Holocaust' is too strong a word - It might not be, but it seems a little premature to be labeling it as such.

I'm partially quoting other people, here but I quite frankly agree with them, it is genocide. Here is another article:
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=489)

In a span of less than two years, Suzanne Wright's bigoted diatribes against autistic people have included promises to put us in the history books and exhortations to kick us to the curb. Oh, and she also claims that autistic children are "just not there" and can't be taken out to restaurants and movies. So I didn't find it at all surprising to see this unequivocal declaration of Autism Speaks' eugenic intentions in the Parade article:


"We’re now playing catch-up as we try to stem the tide and ultimately eradicate autism for the sake of future generations. If we continue our current trajectory, we’ll get there in my lifetime."--http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com) (http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2008/01/bigotry-on-parade.html)

As someone who studies history looks an attempt to cause another holocaust to me. And these "cure for autism" people have a tendency to try to silence people with Autism:
http://autism.about.com/b/2008/01/22/when-is-a-humorous-site-not-so-funny-autism-speaks-has-its-say.htm)

http://autisticbfh.blogspot.com/2006/05/never-again.html)


@Jae

I'm not referring to potential birth defects that can be corrected surgically, or if there is literally no brain activity or something of that nature.

I don't really see what is wrong about aborting fetuses with authism, as long as they folow the standard procedeures (i.e the ones used to abort "normal" children). Of course, people should have the right to not screen themselves.
Many people will doubtlessly abort because of authism, but I don't see why we should deny them that choice.

it is genocide.

If you disagree with abortion, sure, otherwise the "worst" you can call it is a genocide without deaths.

I don't really see what is wrong about aborting fetuses with authism, as long as they folow the standard procedeures (i.e the ones used to abort "normal" children). Of course, people should have the right to not screen themselves.
Many people will doubtlessly abort because of authism, but I don't see why we should deny them that choice.

Yeah because it's treated as a disease which it isn't.



If you disagree with abortion, sure, otherwise the "worst" you can call it is a genocide without deaths.

So forced sterilization would also be okay by your thinking because nobody died?


This is like aborting everyone with blue eyes.

Call it what it is I don't use the word holocaust lightly but that is essentially what this is.

Yeah because it's treated as a disease which it isn't.


If some people don't want to risk ending up with a disadvantaged child, then surely they should be alowed to abort the same way people who don't want a child at all are alowed an abort within a certain timeframe. Abortion in itself isn't the topic as far as I know.

So forced sterilization would also be okay by your thinking because nobody died?


I was only talking about the abortions people choose to have legaly because of authism, sorry for not making it clear.

This is like aborting everyone with blue eyes.

Which I see nothing wrong with as long as it is done freely and legaly.

@Jae: Society might save some money, but it would be political suicide for any politicans to make any laws advicing doctors to take such concerns when giving advice. That, and the medical union would flat out refuse.

If some people don't want to risk ending up with a disadvantaged child, then surely they should be alowed to abort the same way people who don't want a child at all are alowed an abort within a certain timeframe. Abortion in itself isn't the topic as far as I know.


You just demonstrated my point, and this is what ticks a lot of people whom have autism off to no end, myself included. We are not disadvantaged, we're just different, yet we get shunned as having a disease or not being as intelligent.

Face it people are misinformed, whether it is deliberate or not remains to be seen, but this is eugenics, genocide, etc.


I was only talking about the abortions people choose to have legaly because of authism, sorry for not making it clear.

And this is why abortion is so objectionable, because it's a start down a slippery slope, and devalues life. It is used as a legal means to exterminate people whom are different, by encouraging parents to have an abortion rather than having a child whom is different.

They say things like the child will never talk, the child will have no feelings, etc. All of that is a bunch of garbage and some of those people whom say that know it.

Considering I have Autism and I had a vocabulary of 900 words when I was 13 monthes old (most children whom don't have Autism do not have a vocabulary that large if they've even started talking yet at that age). I wasn't even diagnosed until I was in college because I didn't fit what doctors thought to be Autism.


Which I see nothing wrong with as long as it is done freely and legaly.


And I do have a problem with it, because it stigmatizes a portion of the population, and it is genocide.


@Jae: Society might save some money, but it would be political suicide for any politicans to make any laws advicing doctors to take such concerns when giving advice. That, and the medical union would flat out refuse.

And you also eliminate a lot of the people that make the advancements in science, many engineers and scientists out there are on the spectrum. As I said, we're just different from a neurotypical.

If you screen out autism in the womb you're going to destroy the livelihood of people who manufacture hugbox's, think about that you monsters!

Garfield, you can't deny that people with autism are disadvantaged, if only because of the popular (and yes, errant) view of the disorder. Children born and diagnosed with autism will, without exception, be disadvantaged because of the diagnosis.

But I do agree with you, to a certain extent. Parents should not choose to abort a child solely because it will most likely be born with a brain development abnormality - doing so is, to be honest, narrow minded and selfish. However, a parent should have the right to abort a child if they believe they are unable to support the child - so long as they did all they could to prevent conception. Simply put, if you're gonna do the crime you should be prepared to do the time.

If you screen out autism in the womb you're going to destroy the livelihood of people who manufacture hugbox's, think about that you monsters!

No pain, no gain :carms:

You just demonstrated my point, and this is what ticks a lot of people whom have autism off to no end, myself included. We are not disadvantaged, we're just different, yet we get shunned as having a disease or not being as intelligent.

And I don't believe it is (in mild cases) any more of a disease than homosexuality is. However, I will not prevent people from having abortions if it is done the same way as with any other children. By preventing autist abortions" (done the normal way), you essentially place a higher value on autists than others. It is for this reason that I believe you should be alowed to abort autists the same way as any other, it has nothing to do with "looking down" on one type of people, and everything to do with wanting to keep them equall. If the problem is that people are misinformed, inform them, don't take away their rights.

And this is why abortion is so objectionable, because it's a start down a slippery slope, and devalues life. It is used as a legal means to exterminate people whom are different, by encouraging parents to have an abortion rather than having a child whom is different.

Shouldn't this be in the abortion thread? I'll reply if the mods give a "go ahead".

They say things like the child will never talk, the child will have no feelings, etc. All of that is a bunch of garbage and some of those people whom say that know it.

Agreed, it happens in way too many cases. Sometimes, however, they are right.

And I do have a problem with it, because it stigmatizes a portion of the population

Understandable, though I believe this should be countered by informing the population as I'm very much against removing rights to make the world a better place.

and it is genocide.

If you are against abortion, then obviously it is, but for those of us that see the fetus as part of the mother until a certain threshold, it is simply the mother choosing to kill of some of her cells. While the end result is the same (i.e autism could end up being 'breeded" out), I'd prefer to fight it with information.

And you also eliminate a lot of the people that make the advancements in science, many engineers and scientists out there are on the spectrum. As I said, we're just different from a neurotypical.

I'm sorry, I don't see what this have to do with what you quoted. Care to clarify?

This is a tough call because this topic is also going to touch on abortion because of the nature of the OP article. If the topic is strictly abortion, then it should go in the abortion thread. If it's related directly to the autistic topic here, then it can stay here or be discussed in the abortion thread, either one.

Garfield, you can't deny that people with autism are disadvantaged, if only because of the popular (and yes, errant) view of the disorder. Children born and diagnosed with autism will, without exception, be disadvantaged because of the diagnosis.

They are only disadvantaged because people either don't know anything about it or deliberately mislead people.



But I do agree with you, to a certain extent. Parents should not choose to abort a child solely because it will most likely be born with a brain development abnormality - doing so is, to be honest, narrow minded and selfish. However, a parent should have the right to abort a child if they believe they are unable to support the child - so long as they did all they could to prevent conception. Simply put, if you're gonna do the crime you should be prepared to do the time.

The problem is that some doctors mislead parents into thinking that it would cost more than it really word and the try to get parents to think the child cannot function at all.

They are only disadvantaged because people either don't know anything about it or deliberately mislead people.
That's exactly what I'm saying - people don't understand, and because of that individuals with autism will be disadvantaged.

The problem is that some doctors mislead parents into thinking that it would cost more than it really word and the try to get parents to think the child cannot function at all.
I'm going to have to ask for a source for that information, please. Thanks in advance.

That's exactly what I'm saying - people don't understand, and because of that individuals with autism will be disadvantaged.

Which discrimination against people with disabilities is illegal under ADA.


I'm going to have to ask for a source for that information, please. Thanks in advance.

Read the articles I posted earlier thank you.

They are only disadvantaged because people either don't know anything about it or deliberately mislead people.

The problem is that some doctors mislead parents into thinking that it would cost more than it really word and the try to get parents to think the child cannot function at all.

You do realize that most people with extensive autism, ie: autism before it had shades of grey, are socially disadvantaged. Most of them can't function in society, some lack the ability to communicate, some can't even make eye contact. Sure, that's not everyone and that's not "aspergers" or "high functioning" autism, it's the kind where your shake and rock and can't express emotion.

And yes, even the "high functioning" autistics are socially disadvantaged, as many of them, people I've met, lack the ability to pick up on non-verbal communication. Sure they're intelligent and smart and so forth, but many aren't capable of interacting with other people in the same way people without autism do, which leaves them "socially disadvantaged".

You do realize that most people with extensive autism, ie: autism before it had shades of grey, are socially disadvantaged. Most of them can't function in society, some lack the ability to communicate, some can't even make eye contact. Sure, that's not everyone and that's not "aspergers" or "high functioning" autism, it's the kind where your shake and rock and can't express emotion.

And yes, even the "high functioning" autistics are socially disadvantaged, as many of them, people I've met, lack the ability to pick up on non-verbal communication. Sure they're intelligent and smart and so forth, but many aren't capable of interacting with other people in the same way people without autism do, which leaves them "socially disadvantaged".

I have trouble reading nonverbal cues too, that doesn't mean I can't compensate, I also have problems with eye contact, big deal. So I'm not the most popular person, there was something invented called the internet, if I had to I could communicate with some people online and nonverbal cues don't factor into the equation at all. And I've gotten better at reading nonverbal cues over time, it's hard but that does not mean people with Autism can't function.

Just cause we aren't popular doesn't mean anything, that's no excuse to abort a baby over. And people with Autism can and usually are friends with some people that don't have Autism, maybe not very many friends but so what.

This is going to be looooooooooooooong....

Yeah because it's treated as a disease which it isn't.

Disease
2: a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms : sickness , malady

"Impairs normal functioning" and "manifested by distinguishing signs." Sorry, but autism in almost all forms falls under these specifications. So, in fact, I guess it is a disease.

So forced sterilization would also be okay by your thinking because nobody died?

Not even close to what he said.

You just demonstrated my point, and this is what ticks a lot of people whom have autism off to no end, myself included. We are not disadvantaged, we're just different, yet we get shunned as having a disease or not being as intelligent.


You're disadvantaged because society views people with autism with a disadvantage. This societal flaw is unfortunate, but undeniable.

Face it people are misinformed, whether it is deliberate or not remains to be seen, but this is eugenics, genocide, etc.


Eugenics? Maybe. Genocide? Not in my book.

People misinformed? Almost certainly.


And this is why abortion is so objectionable, because it's a start down a slippery slope, and devalues life. It is used as a legal means to exterminate people whom are different, by encouraging parents to have an abortion rather than having a child whom is different.


I agree with a woman's right to choose, so perhaps I'm jaded, but I don't think it's "encouraging" parents to do so, when in fact they've had the right all along and the only thing that will change will be one piece of information.


They say things like the child will never talk, the child will have no feelings, etc. All of that is a bunch of garbage and some of those people whom say that know it.
Garbage unless you happen to get one of the babies which can "never talk & have no feelings, etc", I think.


Considering I have Autism and I had a vocabulary of 900 words when I was 13 monthes old (most children whom don't have Autism do not have a vocabulary that large if they've even started talking yet at that age). I wasn't even diagnosed until I was in college because I didn't fit what doctors thought to be Autism.

A nice personal anecdote, sure, but irrelevant to this thread, I think.


And I do have a problem with it, because it stigmatizes a portion of the population, and it is genocide.
1. That portion of the population is already stigmatized (albeit unjustly, of course).
2. It is not a genocide. A genocide would be a systematic killing (forced, even) of anyone with Autism. However, they already have this opportunity with abortion anyway. So, if anything, you could argue that Abortion is a genocide against infants, but anyone can see that the logical conclusion of that argument is that we will die out as a species (ie. argument = false).


And you also eliminate a lot of the people that make the advancements in science, many engineers and scientists out there are on the spectrum. As I said, we're just different from a neurotypical.
Very true, of course, but they might not be able to do these things if their parents cannot feed them and they die of malnutrition :)

The problem is that some doctors mislead parents into thinking that it would cost more than it really word and the try to get parents to think the child cannot function at all.
Except for the cases when it actually turns out to be that bad.
Which discrimination against people with disabilities is illegal under ADA.


So it's not a disease, but it's a disability? Anyway, I don't think we're not offering the autistic people jobs, I think we're talking about whether or not to abort them.


Read the articles I posted earlier thank you.
This makes me sad inside :(
I have trouble reading nonverbal cues too, that doesn't mean I can't compensate, I also have problems with eye contact, big deal. So I'm not the most popular person, there was something invented called the internet, if I had to I could communicate with some people online and nonverbal cues don't factor into the equation at all. And I've gotten better at reading nonverbal cues over time, it's hard but that does not mean people with Autism can't function.

Just because you can function (somewhat) normally on the internet does not preclude the fact that you still have problems with nonverbal cues and eye contact.

Just cause we aren't popular doesn't mean anything, that's no excuse to abort a baby over. And people with Autism can and usually are friends with some people that don't have Autism, maybe not very many friends but so what.

But not being able to care for your child may actually be a good excuse.



By the way, @Thread - I have a friend who has Asbergers, and another who has autism, and a friend with an autistic child.
So please don't say I don't know what I'm talking about or that I don't care.

_EW_

"Impairs normal functioning" and "manifested by distinguishing signs." Sorry, but autism in almost all forms falls under these specifications. So, in fact, I guess it is a disease.

Then I guess any ache and pain falls under a disease, and quite frankly you just insulted a lot of autistic people out there.


Not even close to what he said.


I'm Autistic not stupid, and I've learned to compensate.


You're disadvantaged because society views people with autism with a disadvantage. This societal flaw is unfortunate, but undeniable.

Not really since most people can't even tell I have Autism until I tell them. In fact it took a specialist to diagnose me, because I didn't fit the normal definition.


Eugenics? Maybe. Genocide? Not in my book.


It is Genocide because they're talking about eradicating Autism, that means wiping out everyone that has Autism by killing them when they're still in the womb. It's genocide plain and simple.
People misinformed? Almost certainly.


I agree with a woman's right to choose, so perhaps I'm jaded, but I don't think it's "encouraging" parents to do so, when in fact they've had the right all along and the only thing that will change will be one piece of information.

Wrong, because people just present it as though the child wouldn't have any emotions blah blah blah. My mother couldn't tell I had Autism and she was a Speech Language Pathologist that worked with Autistic kids. I just didn't fit the characteristics of the diagnosis until the characteristics to look for changed, particularly due to the fact I was an extremely early talker and the definition of the time was that children with Autism had difficulty talking. It wasn't until sometime in the last few years that the definition was revised.

If this isn't encouraging parents to abort infants why is a baby like Palin's son so rare no adays, it's because doctors pressure parents into aborting babies with Down Syndrome, just like they would for babies with the gene for autism.


Garbage unless you happen to get one of the babies which can "never talk & have no feelings, etc", I think.

That doesn't mean they can't communicate, and they do have feelings they just have a hard time expressing it. My mother worked with kids with Autism, and it's turned out now that a lot of the symptoms associated with Autism were from other problems that had nothing to do with Autism.


A nice personal anecdote, sure, but irrelevant to this thread, I think.


No it's relevant because it flies in the face of the diagnosis for autism when I was born, up until very recently.


1. That portion of the population is already stigmatized (albeit unjustly, of course).

Thank goodness for the Americans with Disabilities Act thanks to former President George H.W. Bush.


2. It is not a genocide. A genocide would be a systematic killing (forced, even) of anyone with Autism. However, they already have this opportunity with abortion anyway. So, if anything, you could argue that Abortion is a genocide against infants, but anyone can see that the logical conclusion of that argument is that we will die out as a species (ie. argument = false).

No it is genocide because we're talking about aborting infants so they aren't born because they have the gene. And doctors will pressure the parents to abort.


Very true, of course, but they might not be able to do these things if their parents cannot feed them and they die of malnutrition :)

A lot of kids with Autism are just as functional as an average child that doesn't have Autism. Sometimes they may need things like a communication board, in the case they don't talk, but there are ways to communicate with them.


Except for the cases when it actually turns out to be that bad.


Which they'd have no clue in the first place, and a lot of the problems can be minimized with early intervention by a competitent speech pathologist which quite a few aren't, but early intervention when the child is young can teach them to compensate for it.


So it's not a disease, but it's a disability? Anyway, I don't think we're not offering the autistic people jobs, I think we're talking about whether or not to abort them.

And to do so is genocide, oh btw you know the light bulbs in your lamp, you wouldn't have them if Edison had been aborted. Also Thomas Jefferson was probably Autistic, we're just different, but we're the ones that come up with stuff that neurotypicals usually would not.


This makes me sad inside :(


Okay?


Just because you can function (somewhat) normally on the internet does not preclude the fact that you still have problems with nonverbal cues and eye contact.

So? I'm actually very good at helping customers where I work, I've even been complimented me in front of my boss. I'm able to compensate, quite well thank you kindly, and customers like the fact I'm extremely honest.


But not being able to care for your child may actually be a good excuse.


It's called being responsible in the first place so you don't end up in that situation. I blame both the guy and the girl on that.


By the way, @Thread - I have a friend who has Asbergers, and another who has autism, and a friend with an autistic child.
So please don't say I don't know what I'm talking about or that I don't care.


Not saying you don't, but consider this. You probably wouldn't ask them about whether or not they'd want to have never been born and see how they react, okay? That's what this thread is implying, that people like your friends shouldn't be born.

Also for the record there is a debate as to whether Asbergers and Autism are one and the same.

Yeah because it's treated as a disease which it isn't.
I disagree. It is considered a disorder. (http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/default.htm) Even the Autism Society of America calls it a disorder. (http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home) It has a diagnosis code in the International Classification of Diseases, versions 9 and 10. You may not be comfortable with it being called a disease, disorder, condition, or whatever, but that's exactly what it is.

I have trouble reading nonverbal cues too, that doesn't mean I can't compensate, I also have problems with eye contact, big deal.
I didn't say YOU couldn't compensate, I said that people who have really serious cases of autism, not high-functioning peeps like you, CANT do those things. Not "have trouble", they just cant.

So I'm not the most popular person, there was something invented called the internet, if I had to I could communicate with some people online and nonverbal cues don't factor into the equation at all.
Popularity has nothing to do with it, interacting with people does. The "internet" is not "interacting" with people in the context that I meant and you know it. In the words of the net, I mean't IRL.

And I've gotten better at reading nonverbal cues over time, it's hard but that does not mean people with Autism can't function.
Which isn't what I said, hence why I went through the effort to differentiate between "high functioning" autistics, and the rocking and shaking and can't communicate with other people except in very non-normative ways(ie: not writing or speaking).

Just cause we aren't popular doesn't mean anything, that's no excuse to abort a baby over.
Honestly, I'd prefer if abortions were only the "blind" kind, meaning you have no idea what your kids is, could be Mozart, could be Pamela Anderson, could be born without one arm, but you don't know that. If you're going to have an abortion, it should be because you don't want ANY kid(or a valid medical reason), not because you don't want the one with the wrong skin color or brain cells of what have you. In my opinion, screening for genetic defects should only be done AFTER the established abortion limit has passed.

And people with Autism can and usually are friends with some people that don't have Autism, maybe not very many friends but so what.
I don't have many friends, I'm not autistic, and since I wasn't talking about friends, that's all beside the point. What I was talking about was social interaction. This may involve making friends, it may involve serving someone at a restaurant or functioning as expected in any other job. It may involve getting that job, saving a life, driving a car, flying a plane. THAT is what makes autism "socially disadvantaging" because you have to work harder to do the same things "normal" people can do with less effort.

I'm a little confused since you don't agree with equating autism and Down's and then in a later post do compare the two. If I'm misreading it and you could clarify, I'd appreciate it. :)I'll do my best, but I'm making no promises :)

I viewed Dr. Baron-Cohen's comment as a direct comparison of the two conditions. We know a lot more about Down's Syndrome than we do Autism, so to me, comparing the two in that manner seems more than a little presumptuous. Clearly the comments are open to interpretation and you and I may have interpretted them differently.

As for the other comment, the intent was to show that we already allow for abortions based on conditions that we test for in the womb. I certainly could have used some other example, but Down's Syndrome works as well as anything else.

So my attempt at clarification is that the second comment was made in a completely different context than the first. Of course, there may be some finer point that I'm glossing over which may make my comments inconsistent, however if there is, I'm not seeing it.

I can't think of any kind of ethical argument to force someone to have medical tests or procedures, either. I can think of socioeconomic arguments, sure, but not ethical ones.Hmmm. I'm really not sure how to respond here. On one hand I think you're right. On the other hand, I'm not sure how we can argue for the health of a fetus but label any attempt at requiring tests to determine the health of said fetus as strictly "socioeconomic" in its intention. It feels inconsistent somehow.

Infanticide is unethical. No question. However I complete disagree with the premise that abortion = infanticide.

I fail to see how killing a full-term baby in the womb is somehow different than killing a baby out of the womb right after s/he's born, and thus how this becomes a religious issue vs. an ethical one.My understanding is that specific kind of abortion you are referencing here makes up less than 1% of abortions performed and that most states already have laws stating that it can only be conducted in special circumstances.

Infanticide is either ethical or not and religion has nothing to do with that.First, ethics are not always black and white. Second, not all abortions fall under the very limited scope you set forth here. I have a very difficult time trying to apply your arguments to a 2 week old collection of cells that exhibit neither a heart (let alone a heartbeat) or brain activity (let alone a nervous system).

I was specific in my description in my previous post, however. Abortion, as wrong as I think it is in so many cases (not _all_ cases, however), is legal. I live with that. However, I choose not to have one myself unless it's a clear case of something like anencephaly.I'm going to push a little here because this argument bothers me.

Would you "live with" slavery if it were legal? If something is immoral, I don't know how one "lives with it" because the law permits it.

I'm reading it as 'we can detect autism', but it doesn't say 'we can detect severe, debilitating autism and differentiate it from other types of autism.' That is a very different thing.That is how I'm reading it too. I don't know that changes any part of what I've said though.

Nathanson asked the question in the article if there should be such a requirement or not, so I gave my answer to her question. The very fact that she even raised the question raises a red flag for me, even if we may not do something like this at this time.That's fine. It didn't raise a red flag for me, but of course that doesn't mean that it shouldn't for you.

I'd have to look at it--if I did say docs don't exert influence, that would be incorrect then, and I will retract that comment in advance if I did say it. Now, I may have said they shouldn't, but that's different.IIRC, we were discussion something about whether requiring/conducting a sonogram was manipulative. You argued that it was a medical precaution and was in no way manipulative. I argued that if it were medically motivated, then the technicians could wear earphones or something like that. It was a long time ago.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, the forums are not the appropriate place to raise an issue pertaining to a member's professional obligations. - d3


I'm skipping over the rest of your comment as it does not pertain to my point. If there was something specific you wanted me to address, please let me know and I'll circle back.

I never said that.

<snip>And I never said that you did. I asked you a question.

Government clearly has an interest in limiting the number of people with debilitating genetic diseases, and we should be cognizant of that.Cognizant why? What is the progression of this train of thought? Please help me understand where you're going with this.

Case of coercion in UK, et al Jae, which of these cases met the criteria I outlined in my previous reply? None of these cases showed a woman being forced to have an abortion because her baby had an incurable disease. Just so that I'm not accused of moving the goalpost, I would encourage you to go back and re-read the part of my post that you quoted.

If some people don't want to risk ending up with a disadvantaged child, then surely they should be alowed to abort the same way people who don't want a child at all are alowed an abort within a certain timeframe. Abortion in itself isn't the topic as far as I know.If I may, this assumes that testing would catch this early on. If so, then great. If not, would you consider removing your support (suppose that accurate testing wasn't available until the latter part of the 2nd trimester; well after when "normal" abortions are usually performed)?

Well, making mandatory the screening of autism or any other kind of screening is intrusive and frankly the couple's business ONLY. Further, certain types of doctors who like to forcefully exert their influence would use it any way they could.

Needless to say, I am suspicious of anything like this.
"Oh, the government just wants to help..."
...AND what else??? What the &^%$ for?

Sure, screening may potentially be beneficial, and I contend for that reason that: it ought to be an option, yes; NOT a requirement, though.

When something is forcefully put upon what is supposed to be a free choice, it has other reasons. Reasons I suspect not in the best interests of the child or its parents. For knowledge sake? Whose? Parents...okay, who else? The doctor...under the right circumstances. Who else? A database somewhere for someone who arbitrarily decides a couple is unfit to reproduce--possibly their families? No thanks.

For the benefit of society? Now that's certainly debatable.

I guess this mistrust of mine is because of its potential to tie into eugenics. A wholly disgusting pseudoscience with disregard for life. All else eugenics, or other ulterior motives aside though, it ought to be optional THANK YOU VERY MUCH. It is none of anybody else's business and the doctor is a third party, far as I'm concerned.

Further, humans are not guinea pigs.

<snip> How about encouraging potential parents to screen themselves for them before mating instead?

Long as it's encouraged and not forced. I think I'm okay with this.
Sure, just like checking for STDs. Or just in general. I have no problem with this as an 'option'. I can think of how this might actually reduce sudden and devastating heartbreaks that their unborn will be handicapped.

Though on a lighter note, I'm not entirely sure genetics and severely handicapped children are in the thoughts of those who are about to, well, you know... Especially on the nights where "one thing just lead to another". :lol:
Thus it would only be so effective.


If we don't know what causes autism for certain, we should just accept that we don't know what causes autism for certain. Agreed.

<snip> Maybe, but lets be honest, we've got 6+ billion people on this world, if in a generation, two kids can't be born with some great talent, we might as well just all die now, because we've clearly failed as a race. My, my, my.

Well, flipside there is that if everyone was this amazingly talented type, nobody else would be around to make room for these highly talented to truly realize their potential. But that's not really relevant. Unless we can do something to try to ensure another genius here and there are born.


You're disadvantaged because society views people with autism with a disadvantage. This societal flaw is unfortunate, but undeniable.
Too true. Luckily most people are willing to help out these 'disadvantaged' folks. At least most people do.

Eugenics? Maybe.
EESH--Hope not!!!

Well, flipside there is that if everyone was this amazingly talented type, nobody else would be around to make room for these highly talented to truly realize their potential. But that's not really relevant. Unless we can do something to try to ensure another genius here and there are born.

You wouldn't be suggesting eugenics would you? Breeding smart with sexy and athletic with intelligent? Maybe altering somebody's genes to make sure they're endowed with the best brain, the nicest rack, the fastest legs, the most healthy skin?

The probability that anyone will reach their "potential" is extremely small, the right time, the right place, the right people, the right influences. This is why so few people have been so great, I'm sure John Williams or Howard Newton could give Mozart or Tchaikovsky a run for their money, even if you gave those old-timers the best in music technology.

The kind of nurturing you're talking about, even if we leave out the genetic eugenics, would require social eugenics. Sending kids away at early ages to train them in what is best for them, choosing who is best to raise them, to teach them, who has the best chance to give them what they need to succeed. And then the people who can't do this start to be pushed out of society. Their fault may simply lie in that they didn't have the formative years training that has now been established. But it's essentially eugenics, social eugenics, but selective pruning and "breeding" of society in order to make the most of people's abilities.

So my attempt at clarification is that the second comment was made in a completely different context than the first. Of course, there may be some finer point that I'm glossing over which may make my comments inconsistent, however if there is, I'm not seeing it.Fair enough
Hmmm. I'm really not sure how to respond here. On one hand I think you're right. On the other hand, I'm not sure how we can argue for the health of a fetus but label any attempt at requiring tests to determine the health of said fetus as strictly "socioeconomic" in its intention. It feels inconsistent somehow.I'm not too excited about the gray area either, but I'll leave it as it is for lack of a better thought on it at this point.

No question. However I complete disagree with the premise that abortion = infanticide.I know.
My understanding is that specific kind of abortion you are referencing here makes up less than 1% of abortions performed and that most states already have laws stating that it can only be conducted in special circumstances."Legal" and "right/ethical" don't always mesh on the issue of very late-term abortions.

First, ethics are not always black and white. Second, not all abortions fall under the very limited scope you set forth here. I have a very difficult time trying to apply your arguments to a 2 week old collection of cells that exhibit neither a heart (let alone a heartbeat) or brain activity (let alone a nervous system). I had not gone there with my argument, but I am aware of how you feel on the issue.
I'm going to push a little here because this argument bothers me.
Would you "live with" slavery if it were legal? If something is immoral, I don't know how one "lives with it" because the law permits it.Entirely different situation, so this is irrelevant. Slavery involves forced servitude and disenfranchisement. Abortion is nowhere similar to this issue.

That is how I'm reading it too. I don't know that changes any part of what I've said though.That's OK, I'm not saying it has to.
IIRC, we were discussion something about whether requiring/conducting a sonogram was manipulative. You argued that it was a medical precaution and was in no way manipulative. I argued that if it were medically motivated, then the technicians could wear earphones or something like that. It was a long time ago.I'd have to see the argument again to discuss it, because I just don't remember this at all. Given that I never had a sonogram with my son (I would have had it been indicated, in my case it wasn't), I'm not sure how my argument went on this at all.

Regardless of who is right or wrong, the forums are not the appropriate place to raise an issue pertaining to a member's professional obligations. - d3


I'm skipping over the rest of your comment as it does not pertain to my point. If there was something specific you wanted me to address, please let me know and I'll circle back.It certainly does refer to your point--I not only clarified again that what I said was personal experience that might have changed if my situation changed, I also clarified that I would never get in between a pregnant mother and her practitioner. The stat/source was included because I gave it a 90% probability that you'd ask for a source on the number if I didn't provide it.

And I never said that you did. I asked you a question.I don't think it would have made a difference in my overall answer in that particular section.

Cognizant why? What is the progression of this train of thought? Please help me understand where you're going with this.Government can mandate a lot of things. It's also going to do things that will limit its financial liability. If the beancounters thought that requiring testing might increase abortions (and thus decrease government payments for days, months, or years for someone with a major disorder) in the people who discover they are carrying an autistic child (or any other major disorder), they might press for requiring testing. The government could not be neutral on this issue.

Jae, which of these cases met the criteria I outlined in my previous reply? None of these cases showed a woman being forced to have an abortion because her baby had an incurable disease. Just so that I'm not accused of moving the goalpost, I would encourage you to go back and re-read the part of my post that you quoted.So the UK source stating the mother was coerced by the hospital to have the abortion because she was carrying a baby with Down's doesn't meet your criteria of forcing a woman to have an abortion if she's carrying a baby with an incurable disease? I see.

Just cause we aren't popular doesn't mean anything, that's no excuse to abort a baby over. Many of you may have read in a thread here and there that I was taking my cousins to the movies, ball game or such. Well the 13 year-old girl in the group is Autistic. That is the reason I’ve tried to avoided this thread. That said, she is very popular with me. She is the one person in this world I would sacrifice everything including my life for.

As to the topic: I believe a test that provides accurate data to expecting parents is a good thing.

As to if this screening should be used to decide if babies testing positive for Autism should be aborted. This is where I have a difficult time taking the emotion out of the equation. I can’t image my life without my cousin in it. I’ll say depending on the accuracy of the test, that it could be a factor in the decision. I did not say should, because I believe it will depend on the expecting parents. I’d say it is their decision on how much merit they should give the test in their decision making process. While I’m against anyone being forced to abort a fetus, I’m also against anyone being forced to carry an unwanted child to term. It is a family decision and should be made by the family; the test should only be used as a information gathering source.

Then the question becomes what if it was my child? Well again it would depend on the other half of the equation, but if it was my decision then I would look at other factors before making my decision. Personally I believe Autism would be a factor, but less so if I was in the same financial and health situation I am today. So my decision right now (with me knowing there are no consequences to that decision) is I would not abort the child. Easy decision when there are no consequences.

I'm not too excited about the gray area either, but I'll leave it as it is for lack of a better thought on it at this point.
I know. I don't see as a "gray area" as I do an inconsistency on the position. If the arguement is that a fetus deserves human rights, then there is a basis for an ethical argument that fetal health monitoring should be required. If the argument is that fetal health monitoring is the mother's decision, then it would seem to strike a blow against the argument that fetus' deserve to have human rights (and that those rights take precedent over the rights of the mother). I don't see how we can have it both ways.

"Legal" and "right/ethical" don't always mesh on the issue of very late-term abortions.This brings us back to the point I raised a few posts ago: What is the ethical argument? You're telling me that there is one, but you're not telling me what it is.

I had not gone there with my argument, but I am aware of how you feel on the issue.I feel like you're trying to be slippery here. The discussion was "abortion". You raised a very specific argument about a very specific type of abortion. The other 99% of abortions still need to be addressed. There is an ethical argument against those or there is not.

Entirely different situation, so this is irrelevant. Slavery involves forced servitude and disenfranchisement. Abortion is nowhere similar to this issue.Not irrelevant in the slightest. If you feel uncomfortable with slavery then replace the example with any other immoral issue you care to. Heck, call it "Immoral Issue X". The crux of the question remains: Why are you willing to "live with" something immoral just because it's also currently accepted as legal?

off topic part. Jeez! Ligthen up! (Please keep in mind that this is not a formal debate forum. It is a discussion forum. d3)

[color=skyblue] Regardless of who is right or wrong, the forums are not the appropriate place to raise an issue pertaining to a member's professional obligations. - d3

It certainly does refer to your point--I not only clarified again that what I said was personal experience that might have changed if my situation changed, I also clarified that I would never get in between a pregnant mother and her practitioner. The stat/source was included because I gave it a 90% probability that you'd ask for a source on the number if I didn't provide it. I said that I would circle back for specific points. Since you didn't indicate a specific point, I'm moving on.

I don't think it would have made a difference in my overall answer in that particular section.And you certainly have the right to answer thusly. It doesn't change the facts of the situation though.

Government can mandate a lot of things. It's also going to do things that will limit its financial liability. If the beancounters thought that requiring testing might increase abortions (and thus decrease government payments for days, months, or years for someone with a major disorder) in the people who discover they are carrying an autistic child (or any other major disorder), they might press for requiring testing. The government could not be neutral on this issue.Ok, well this sound exactly like what I paraphrased a few posts ago, which you then said was not what you were saying. So now I'm confused.

So the UK source stating the mother was coerced by the hospital to have the abortion because she was carrying a baby with Down's doesn't meet your criteria of forcing a woman to have an abortion if she's carrying a baby with an incurable disease? I see.Are we talking about the article where the mother voluntarily underwent an abortion but was upset that the fetus survived for several hours outside the womb?

If so, then yes, I'm precisely saying that it doesn't meet the criteria. Were you going to attempt to defend the articles you posted as well or are you conceding that they were not applicable?

Thanks for your post.

Jae: The goverment tend to do little else than fund/decide what to spend most on in health care, the decisions is taken by medical staff. The government is far more afraid of what the press/the unions would do than the extra costs asociated with autism that'll probably only materalize after a new government is formed.

I disagree. It is considered a disorder. (http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/default.htm) Even the Autism Society of America calls it a disorder. (http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_home) It has a diagnosis code in the International Classification of Diseases, versions 9 and 10. You may not be comfortable with it being called a disease, disorder, condition, or whatever, but that's exactly what it is.

There is a legal implication to this which should, I feel, be raised - that in the UK, foetuses with an abnormality defined by law up to and including a cleft palette may be aborted much later than a "normal" foetus. I think the figure is 28 weeks as opposed to 24 or 22, but I forget the precise details. Needless to say, they are probably widely available online.

Whether autism should be defined as such an abnormality is a question I leave for you to ponder along with the rest of the ethical questions here.

*Ducks out of thread again*

Many of you may have read in a thread here and there that I was taking my cousins to the movies, ball game or such. Well the 13 year-old girl in the group is Autistic. That is the reason I’ve tried to avoided this thread. That said, she is very popular with me. She is the one person in this world I would sacrifice everything including my life for.

As to the topic: I believe a test that provides accurate data to expecting parents is a good thing.

As to if this screening should be used to decide if babies testing positive for Autism should be aborted. This is where I have a difficult time taking the emotion out of the equation. I can’t image my life without my cousin in it. I’ll say depending on the accuracy of the test, that it could be a factor in the decision. I did not say should, because I believe it will depend on the expecting parents. I’d say it is their decision on how much merit they should give the test in their decision making process. While I’m against anyone being forced to abort a fetus, I’m also against anyone being forced to carry an unwanted child to term. It is a family decision and should be made by the family; the test should only be used as a information gathering source.

Then the question becomes what if it was my child? Well again it would depend on the other half of the equation, but if it was my decision then I would look at other factors before making my decision. Personally I believe Autism would be a factor, but less so if I was in the same financial and health situation I am today. So my decision right now (with me knowing there are no consequences to that decision) is I would not abort the child. Easy decision when there are no consequences.

I understand what you're talking about however, you haven't taken into account that doctors will try to pressure parents into aborting them, saying that they would have no emotions, never be able to talk, etc. That's what the "experts" say about a lot of kids with special needs, and quite a few of those kids go on to graduate from college. And thing is people with Autism aren't allowed to speak up in these medical conferences, as seen in an article I posted up earlier.

How many kids do you see anymore born with down syndrome, very few because the overwhelming majority are aborted. The same situation will happen with Autism.

I understand what you're talking about however, you haven't taken into account that doctors will try to pressure parents into aborting them, saying that they would have no emotions, never be able to talk, etc. That's what the "experts" say about a lot of kids with special needs, and quite a few of those kids go on to graduate from college. And thing is people with Autism aren't allowed to speak up in these medical conferences, as seen in an article I posted up earlier.

How many kids do you see anymore born with down syndrome, very few because the overwhelming majority are aborted. The same situation will happen with Autism.Is there some sort of data supporting this? I doubt that every single doctor would be that cynical to state something along the lines as that.

You wouldn't be suggesting eugenics would you? <snip> No. I was responding to your pessimism about the human race. Maybe we don't exactly have the best ways of helping 'talented' to realize 'potential'. I wouldn't give up so easily, though.

You certainly are welcome to your opinions about advnancing society. As I am mine. We probably disagree too--I don't know.

The probability that anyone will reach their "potential" is extremely small, the right time, the right place, the right people, the right influences. This is why so few people have been so great, I'm sure John Williams or Howard Newton could give Mozart or Tchaikovsky a run for their money, even if you gave those old-timers the best in music technology. That's life--and all the more reason to appreciate/cherish the true geniuses.
(BTW, Sure, I'd love to witness a music duel that transcends time itself!!!)

Admittedly, yes, it's a 'by chance' deal and not all are born equally. Changing to a society that simply expects excellence rather than valuing it would defeat the purpose of talent recognition, I think.

I suppose I have observed a trinket or two (outside of 'luck of the draw' and/or 'it's not who you know but who knows you') that largely separates successful from unsuccessful in society. It isn't talent, if you'd care to hear it...though I'm not sure how relevant to the thread it actually is(...maybe loosely under the premise of screening->social engineering? -shrugs-) I do have a thought on how this society could be changed to perhaps ensure a little more success amongst its talented, as well as folks in general. Maybe catch the gifted when they are young, maybe not... Not saying it's perfect or even adequate--but it might be a step. However, this might be off topic as stated above--unless the moderators would be okay with it??? (Jae? Y/N/maybe?) This has the potential to become another thread in itself.

The kind of nurturing you're talking about No. I wasn't talking about actually doing anything genetic, or socially.

Society already has ways of weeding out the unwanted, or the chaff and swill from the wheats and grains. I'd hardly call it eugenics, but I guess it all depends upon perspective.

, even if we leave out the genetic eugenics, would require social eugenics. Sending kids away at early ages to train them in what is best for them, choosing who is best to raise them, to teach them, who has the best chance to give them what they need to succeed.
Not necessarily. Society kind of does that already anyway. Could be improved, I suppose.

Social eugenics--what do you mean? Like that of the 1934 fiilm "Tomorrow's Children"? That is NOT what I had in mind, either. I find genetic eugenics repulsive, yes.

OR Were you talking about something else???

And then the people who can't do this start to be pushed out of society. Their fault may simply lie in that they didn't have the formative years training that has now been established. But it's essentially eugenics, social eugenics, but selective pruning and "breeding" of society in order to make the most of people's abilities.

I suspect you're describing a utopia-esque society in that scenario? Sounds very conditional, and to not be a free society. Moreover if it's to survive, it'd require chattel, like underclass folks labeled as cannon fodder, because if you eliminated sub-par people from society like that, it would eat itself alive...
Theoretically, with ultra conformity, it might sound like an efficient way...in practice someone would screw it up from within, eventually, if it survived long enough to even make it that far.
I'd prefer the jungle to slaving away all for comforting a group of suicidal nihilists-I mean social engineers- in charge. IMO advancement is not advancement if it's oppression.


All 'society vs society' arguments aside: So much talent bunched in together sounds like a recipe for disaster. They'd argue and debate with each other even more than normal people--not productive. Seriously, have you watched intellectuals fight? Intellectuals bicker with each other more than thugs do. Furthermore, without disparage to contrast talent from not, their effect of recognizing and utilizing the talented would be essentially neutralized and largely not appreciated...or blended and exploited so much that it would make little difference. It would all be on the shoulders of the ones in charge. That's just about as much of a tragedy as no talent at all. Essentially the same as having only idiots all stuck in a pen together, except their methods of disagreement would be different and less direct than beating each other with ugly sticks :). (Certainly not as much fun to watch!);).

Could we benefit from having more talented people? Sure. However there has got to be better methods than a social beehive utopia.

Is there some sort of data supporting this? I doubt that every single doctor would be that cynical to state something along the lines as that.

I'm not saying every single doctor, but a good majority of them. Apparently 80-90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22533)


"In my opinion, the moral thing for older mothers to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome #21, and abort the fetus if it does. The brain is the last organ to become functional."

Harris, who has taught at UNC-CH for 35 years, said he has said the same thing many times before. He says it to spark discussion.

But Lara Frame, a senior in Harris' Biology 441, said the biology classroom is no place for opinion.

"Biology is not an opinion subject," said Frame, an anthropology and Spanish major from Charlotte. "It's a facts-based subject. And though abortion is legal, it's not a fact that you should abort every baby with Down syndrome.

"If this had been a philosophy class, I wouldn't have said anything."
-- News Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/947991.html)

And this is the same kind of garbage that will happen if this is extended to Autism.

I'm not saying every single doctor, but a good majority of them. Apparently 80-90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22533Okay), I hate to call out your source, but really, when the source "BPNews" is actually Baptist Press, I'm going to have to say that the source is most likely biased. up the wazoo.

-- News Observer (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/947991.html)There's) a little problem with that article

"In my opinion, the moral thing for older mothers to do is to have amniocentesis, as soon during pregnancy as is safe for the fetus, test whether placental cells have a third chromosome #21, and abort the fetus if it does. The brain is the last organ to become functional."Let's go in closer detail, shall we?
"In my opinion,There we go. Your source cited an opinion from an individual. Opinions are not, and never will be, bona-fide facts.