Ethickz - Autism screening

[GarfieldJL]

Okay, 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.

 

Okay that would be valid in most cases but in this case the same stat is found in a New York Times article.

 

About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.

-- New York Times

 

Let's go in closer detail, shall we?

 

There we go. Your source cited an opinion from an individual. Opinions are not, and never will be, bona-fide facts.

 

In the case of political opinions that would be correct, in the case of something medically related by a medical professional, or someone else of authority you end up with something else.

 

A lot of treatments are done based on medical opinon, the man was an instructor whom is teaching future doctors.

[The Doctor]

Okay that would be valid in most cases but in this case the same stat is found in a New York Times article.

 

-- New York Times

What happened to the New York times being an invalid source? Or is it perfectly valid when it confirms something your blog sources corroborate?

 

I call your hypocrisy into question once again.

[jrrtoken]

About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.

Key word. They weren't "forced" by their doctors, they "chose" to do it. While doctors might have advised the mother, it is ultimately, the mother's decision.

[mimartin]

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.

Your right I did not consider the doctor, but since I think for myself and do not let others make my decisions the doctors pressure is irrelevant to me.

[GarfieldJL]

What happened to the New York times being an invalid source? Or is it perfectly valid when it confirms something your blog sources corroborate?

 

Generally, they are when it comes to politics, Israel, and other things of that nature, and normally I wouldn't use them, but in this case there are conservative sources that are stating the same thing, New York Times is a hard left paper.

 

I call your hypocrisy into question once again.

 

I'm not being hypocritical, I used a liberal source which is extremely pro-Abortion to support the fact that 8-9 out of 10 down syndrome babies are aborted. This is something they'd try to hide and it took some digging to find that information, the rest of the article at least to me sounded like they were trying to make parents of people with down syndrome are selfish and trying to force all kinds of burdens on people.

 

Key word. They weren't "forced" by their doctors, they "chose" to do it. While doctors might have advised the mother, it is ultimately, the mother's decision.

 

Most parents will do what doctors recommend, or people of authority because it is an authority figure. And most people think the doctors know best.

[The Doctor]

I'm not being hypocritical, I used a liberal source which is extremely pro-Abortion to support the fact that 8-9 out of 10 down syndrome babies are aborted. This is something they'd try to hide and it took some digging to find that information, the rest of the article at least to me sounded like they were trying to make parents of people with down syndrome are selfish and trying to force all kinds of burdens on people.

 

A source that you yourself have claimed on many occasions is a complete fraud and cannot be trusted to any degree. That's the definition of hypocrisy.

[GarfieldJL]

A source that you yourself have claimed on many occasions is a complete fraud and cannot be trusted to any degree. That's the definition of hypocrisy.

 

That's why I used a conservative source first, and only the New York Times to show a liberal source supported what the conservative one said, please stop derailing the topic.

 

In this topic, I am a source myself because I actually have Autism, and I could argue I'm an expert in at least my case because I've lived with this all my life.

[The Doctor]

please stop derailing the topic.

 

More hypocrisy! I love it!

[Web Rider]

In this topic, I am a source myself because I actually have Autism, and I could argue I'm an expert in at least my case because I've lived with this all my life.

 

You have one version of autism yes. That makes you a good person to ask about people with similar levels of autism. It does not however, make you medically qualified in any manner. Nor does it make you qualified to speak about people with severe autism. Honestly it only makes you qualified to talk about yourself, not how often down syndrome kids are aborted or anything else.

 

In any case, it's not surprising that down syndrome kids are aborted for having down syndrome, they're more work for parents and family with less reward. And most people don't want to do more work, regardless of what kind of work it is, for a smaller reward.

[Achilles]

In any case, it's not surprising that down syndrome kids are aborted for having down syndrome, they're more work for parents and family with less reward. And most people don't want to do more work, regardless of what kind of work it is, for a smaller reward.

While I think I understand where you were trying to go with this, the reality is that "work" and "reward" are relative.

 

Yes, some families simply aren't capable of coping with a child that has severe Down's Syndrome. Other families are and I'm willing to bet that many (if not all) would be willing to state unequivocally that their experience is just as rewarding as any other. Think of it like beauty being in the eye of the beholder, etc.

[GarfieldJL]

You have one version of autism yes. That makes you a good person to ask about people with similar levels of autism. It does not however, make you medically qualified in any manner. Nor does it make you qualified to speak about people with severe autism. Honestly it only makes you qualified to talk about yourself, not how often down syndrome kids are aborted or anything else.

 

The only reason I brought it up was to show a pattern, and I know a lot of the stuff about therapies thank you kindly. I helped my mother with creating communication boards for children with special needs. And I know those have been effective, I'm not lost in my own little world.

 

In any case, it's not surprising that down syndrome kids are aborted for having down syndrome, they're more work for parents and family with less reward. And most people don't want to do more work, regardless of what kind of work it is, for a smaller reward.

 

I doubt many parents of children with Down Syndrom or Autism would agree with you at all. Many of them would probably be extremely angry.

 

Yes, some families simply aren't capable of coping with a child that has severe Down's Syndrome. Other families are and I'm willing to bet that many (if not all) would be willing to state unequivocally that their experience is just as rewarding as any other. Think of it like beauty being in the eye of the beholder, etc.

 

Many parents don't know their rights, I was lucky that my mom knew my rights and the law, because the schools tried to do a runaround to keep from providing the adaptations that they were supposed to provide under Federal Law. I've seen people that they said would never be able to read at all read full novels...

[Web Rider]

While I think I understand where you were trying to go with this, the reality is that "work" and "reward" are relative.

True, but considering that more often that not, down syndrome babies are aborted, I would have to argue that for most people where these studies are done, "work" and "reward" are close enough across the board.

 

Yes, some families simply aren't capable of coping with a child that has severe Down's Syndrome. Other families are and I'm willing to bet that many (if not all) would be willing to state unequivocally that their experience is just as rewarding as any other. Think of it like beauty being in the eye of the beholder, etc.

I have always wondered if that's because they truly feel it, or because they feel that socially, they're not allowed to say how horrible raising their child is because they'd be so lambasted for saying so.(Regardless of if their kid is down syndrome or not).

 

The only reason I brought it up was to show a pattern, and I know a lot of the stuff about therapies thank you kindly. I helped my mother with creating communication boards for children with special needs. And I know those have been effective, I'm not lost in my own little world.

Well, IMO, you should say you're qualified on the basis of what you've learned by helping people, not that you've lived it. We can see the effects of your work(so to speak), but can't really experience your experiences.

 

I doubt many parents of children with Down Syndrom or Autism would agree with you at all. Many of them would probably be extremely angry.

As I state above, I have always wondered if that's because actually saying that it's not a rewarding experience is such a social stigma.(regardless of the physical or mental condition of the child)

 

Many parents don't know their rights, I was lucky that my mom knew my rights and the law, because the schools tried to do a runaround to keep from providing the adaptations that they were supposed to provide under Federal Law. I've seen people that they said would never be able to read at all read full novels...

Sometimes, schools can't afford it, providing learning options for people who are outside the normative learning conditions is expensive. Yes I agree some schools are just asses and don't want to do it. But having attended poor schools, it's not easy to provide extra services for one or two students, even a dozen students, when it comes at the expense of other programs, and when you fail with the "normal" kids, the government cuts the budget.

 

Honestly, the school system REALLY needs work. If we can't agree on liking Obama, lets agree that schools aren't doing enough for children, normal, advanced, or slow.

[Achilles]

True, but considering that more often that not, down syndrome babies are aborted,

Source please? If you don't have a source, could you please at least acknowledge that your making an uneducated guess?

 

I would have to argue that for most people where these studies are done, "work" and "reward" are close enough across the board.

You can argue whatever you'd like, but it won't change the fact that subjective things are relative and that you are in no way, shape, or form qualified to speak for any of these families, let alone all of them.

 

I have always wondered if that's because they truly feel it, or because they feel that socially, they're not allowed to say how horrible raising their child is because they'd be so lambasted for saying so.(Regardless of if their kid is down syndrome or not).

It's a good question.

 

My argument would be that families that decided to "tough it out" did so because they love their child. My experience has been that when you love your child, it doesn't take a whole lot to get that "rewarding" feeling. My 2 cents.

[GarfieldJL]

True, but considering that more often that not, down syndrome babies are aborted, I would have to argue that for most people where these studies are done, "work" and "reward" are close enough across the board.

 

And I'm saying the parents were given the song and dance about them being unable to do anything, and believed it.

 

I have always wondered if that's because they truly feel it, or because they feel that socially, they're not allowed to say how horrible raising their child is because they'd be so lambasted for saying so.(Regardless of if their kid is down syndrome or not).

 

That's why all the "Women's Rights" groups were so outraged that Sarah Palin didn't have an abortion and why a lot of parents with children whom had special needs loved her. You're telling me that most people with special needs didn't want to be born, I'm guessing that mimartin will disagree with you.

 

Well, IMO, you should say you're qualified on the basis of what you've learned by helping people, not that you've lived it. We can see the effects of your work(so to speak), but can't really experience your experiences.

 

No because I wasn't allowed to watch the therapy nor know their names unless there was permission from the parents, it's the confidentiality stuff, but I did know it helped and allowed them to communicate with the rest of the world. It's like trying to get me to write in cursive when I don't have the dexterity for it, it made about as much sense as beating your head against a wall. However, I have no problems with a keyboard.

 

As I state above, I have always wondered if that's because actually saying that it's not a rewarding experience is such a social stigma.(regardless of the physical or mental condition of the child)

 

And you know what social stigma made me do? I became determined to succeed just to prove those people wrong.

 

Sometimes, schools can't afford it, providing learning options for people who are outside the normative learning conditions is expensive. Yes I agree some schools are just asses and don't want to do it. But having attended poor schools, it's not easy to provide extra services for one or two students, even a dozen students, when it comes at the expense of other programs, and when you fail with the "normal" kids, the government cuts the budget.

 

Depends, but for the record they can bill vocational rehabilitation in many cases for the adaptations.

 

Honestly, the school system REALLY needs work. If we can't agree on liking Obama, lets agree that schools aren't doing enough for children, normal, advanced, or slow.

 

However, one of the problems is the public schools and throwing money at the problem doesn't do anything. School choice would help.

[EnderWiggin]

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.

Of course I wouldn't.

 

For the record, I never actually meant to imply that people who have Autism shouldn't be born. I do think that the parents should have the ability to know if their child will be Autistic. I personally hope that they wouldn't abuse that privilege, but...

 

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

 

Hmm.... I didn't know that.

 

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

 

So are you saying that you don't even think that the test should be performed?

 

In this topic, I am a source myself because I actually have Autism, and I could argue I'm an expert in at least my case because I've lived with this all my life.

I would certainly agree.

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

Hmm.... I didn't know that.

Asperger's and autism used to be considered a separate disease with its own diagnosis code and name. Your history trivia for the day.

[GarfieldJL]

Of course I wouldn't.

 

For the record, I never actually meant to imply that people who have Autism shouldn't be born. I do think that the parents should have the ability to know if their child will be Autistic. I personally hope that they wouldn't abuse that privilege, but...

 

Well the fact is doctors have a history of trying to get infants with special needs thrown in institutions, aborted, etc. And most parents don't know their rights. Furthermore, all this test would show is that they have a certain gene, which doesn't mean the kid will even have autism.

 

 

So are you saying that you don't even think that the test should be performed?

 

That's a sticky issue, while it would be nice from the standpoint of early intervention, the test only indicates that a person has the gene that the child may be born with Autism. If the test is used to give people a heads up that the child would need some form of early intervention like speech therapy, that's one thing. A lot of children on the spectrum can and often do learn to compensate for their weaknesses when it comes to social interaction, and it's easier if this is done at an early age.

 

However the test is planned to be used to try to erradicate people with Autism through abortions, which is not ethical, nor should it be legal. This is one of the problems with aborting infants because they happen to have this or that, at what point do you draw the line?

 

To be frank I didn't even fit the definition of what to look for until very recently, I was an early talker, I had some problems but not in the areas that people would be looking for as indicators until recently. A lot of the things they thought was part of Autism they've had to throw out because it's turned out to be other disabilities in addition to Autism.

 

Again what we're talking about is trying to abort infants with the gene that indicates that they may have autism. They don't care if they have the extremely high functioning form of it, or if they are below 70 IQ. Based on what has been said, it looks like this test is going to be abused royally, and the cost is people's lives.

[mur'phon]

However the test is planned to be used to try to erradicate people with Autism through abortions

 

The test is planned to be used to alow parrents the choice of having autist children or not. If that results in the eradication of autism, then that is the peoples choice, not the law's fault.

 

nor should it be legal.

 

Aborting children without autism is legal, by not alowing abortions of autist children, you essentially give them more value than other children. If you want to debate wether or not abortion in itself should be legal, I'd sugest you do it in the abortion thread.

[GarfieldJL]

The test is planned to be used to alow parrents the choice of having autist children or not. If that results in the eradication of autism, then that is the peoples choice, not the law's fault.

 

To be blunt the attempt by the Nazis to eradicate Jewish People was also a group of people's choice, and they also used laws.

 

Doctors will attempt to pressure parents into terminating the pregnency, history has shown that to be true.

 

 

Aborting children without autism is legal, by not alowing abortions of autist children, you essentially give them more value than other children. If you want to debate wether or not abortion in itself should be legal, I'd sugest you do it in the abortion thread.

 

Actually I'm against abortions barring extreme circumstances and this is one of the reasons why this is a slippery slope that occurs when you make it okay to take the life of the unborn. Where do you draw the line?

 

The reason I'm actually going to say the test shouldn't be allowed until the child is actually born is to make sure that we don't see genocide. The tests were originally so that parents would know that their child would need therapy early in life when it would be the most effective. Now it is being used to exterminate people because they have certain genes.

 

I'm really hesitant to draw up historical examples because it would possibly offend quite a few people here, but it may be the best comparison to this.

[mur'phon]

To be blunt the attempt by the Nazis to eradicate Jewish People was also a group of people's choice, and they also used laws.

 

They did, however in this case, depending on your view they are either doing it to their kids, or it is simply a consequence of killing of a part of their body.

Which side is "right" however is not a topic for this thread, but belongshere

 

Doctors will attempt to pressure parents into terminating the pregnency, history has shown that to be true

 

Don't take away the rights of everyone just because some don't know their rights, educate them instead.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

I draw the line where I think the child gains conciousness, regardless of what (survivable) diseases it may or may not have. Asuming the goverment/others can't take care of the child when the parents can't, I'd alow abortions after the child gains concousness.

 

The reason I'm actually going to say the test shouldn't be allowed until the child is actually born is to make sure that we don't see genocide.

 

Pherhaps, but I see it as natural selection without any casualties.

 

I'm really hesitant to draw up historical examples because it would possibly offend quite a few people here, but it may be the best comparison to this.

 

As long as they are relevant, I can't see why anyone should have a problem with them.

[GarfieldJL]

They did' date=' however in this case, depending on your view they are either doing it to their kids, or it is simply a consequence of killing of a part of their body.[/quote']

 

No, we're talking about killing a human being, the umbillical cord you could make that argument, but not about a baby, we are not property of our parents, they are our legal guardians until we come of age, but we are not property.

 

Which side is "right" however is not a topic for this thread, but belongshere

 

I was making the point that I was not being discriminatory.

 

Don't take away the rights of everyone just because some don't know their rights, educate them instead.

 

And who do you propose will do that, the schools don't want to do it, sometimes the state doesn't, quite a few of these activist groups don't, and most doctors don't want parents educated on this stuff either.

 

 

I draw the line where I think the child gains conciousness, regardless of what (survivable) diseases it may or may not have. Asuming the goverment/others can't take care of the child when the parents can't, I'd alow abortions after the child gains concousness.

 

Problem with that argument is that they give the song and dance that it is the worst case scenario, or at least they have in the past and often it ends up not to be that scenario at all.

 

 

Pherhaps, but I see it as natural selection without any casualties.

 

Sorry but there is a casualty or are you saying that people that have disabilities aren't people.

 

As long as they are relevant, I can't see why anyone should have a problem with them.

 

All right, the closest example in history to this is the Nazi's Eugenics Program and their "final solution". They did force sterilization, genocide, etc. This is basically the same thing except for the fact the body isn't as big and the parents are pressured into terminating them by the doctors rather than a bunch of SS troops rounding them up and putting them in train cars.

[mur'phon]

No, we're talking about killing a human being, the umbillical cord you could make that argument, but not about a baby, we are not property of our parents, they are our legal guardians until we come of age, but we are not property.

 

Sorry for not making it clear that I was talking about fetuses.

 

And who do you propose will do that, the schools don't want to do it, sometimes the state doesn't, quite a few of these activist groups don't, and most doctors don't want parents educated on this stuff either.

 

Then create an activist group yourself to do it.

 

Problem with that argument is that they give the song and dance that it is the worst case scenario, or at least they have in the past and often it ends up not to be that scenario at all.

 

In some cases, yes, I don't however think it's a good idea to deprieve those who want to abort/adress autism at an early stage the right to do so because of some dishonest doctors.

 

Sorry but there is a casualty or are you saying that people that have disabilities aren't people.

 

No, I'm saying that fetuses aborted the legal way (or within the same time frame) aren't concious human beings.

 

This is basically the same thing except for the fact the body isn't as big and the parents are pressured into terminating them by the doctors rather than a bunch of SS troops rounding them up and putting them in train cars.

 

That, of course asumes that you regard fetuses at an early stage as human beings, which is an issue for the abortion thread.

[mimartin]

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.

 

I just wanted to issue a reminder to Jae Onasi's post.

 

I would appreciate keeping the discussion as close to topic as possible. If you want to discuss the legality and ethics of abortion not related to the topic, please take it to appropriate thread.

 

First time I got to use my mod voice. I don't like it. Please don't make me use it for real.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm going to say then to make it fair and no discrimination takes place that all tests regarding infants before birth be discontinued, which would be an enormous setback in medical science, but I'm looking at it as being the only way to keep them from being used as a tool to promote genocide.

[Web Rider]

I'm going to say then to make it fair and no discrimination takes place that all tests regarding infants before birth be discontinued, which would be an enormous setback in medical science, but I'm looking at it as being the only way to keep them from being used as a tool to promote genocide.

 

Anything can be used as a tool to promote genocide. Instread of legit tests, maybe people will resort to "sleeping on their left side" or "how often does it kick?" to figure things out. If we're going to have people committing genocide, lets at least make it an educated genocide.

 

The world isn't fair, making it so only limits those who can and gives to those who can't to make it look like they can. Maybe in a few generations, high functioning autistics will be the norm and they'll do tests to see if people are "boring-brained" instead of mentally "changed" in some manner.