Autism Genocide?

Post Reply New Topic

I've heard something called the "Autism Genocide". I think people are saying Autism Speaks is an advocate of it. If so, what proof do you have that this "genocide" even exists?

Autism Speaks is more than just an advocate. They're the primary financial supporter of the project.

It is VERY important to note though, that there is NO project called "Autism Genocide." The project referred to is the Autism Genome Project, the true purpose of which is simply to identify, if possible, genetic factors and possible genetic causes for Autism.

The term "Autism Genocide" comes from a leap in logic by a lot of people that the real purpose behind this is to be able to identify autistic fetuses before they are born, and abort them.

Look, I absolutely detest politics, so I'm just going to say what I have to say about this and run like hell.

I don't personally agree with abortion. That said, I also do not feel it is MY place, or anyone else's to force their beliefs on others, no matter how wrong I think they may be.

I don't see ANYTHING on Autism Speaks, or the Autism Genome Project's web sites that promotes abortion as a means of curing the world of Autism.

BUT, I DO understand why many may think that just having the ability to identify fetuses with Autism before they are born may lead to many fetuses being aborted if found to have the gene (IF, that is, the gene even exists - which has NOT yet been proven or dis-proven). Yes, that could happen. It has already happened with Down's Syndrome cases.

I have a HUGE problem though, with blaming Autism Speaks, and the Autism Genome Project for the actions of individuals beyond their control.

As far as I can see, all they are doing is trying to find answers, and there is NOTHING wrong with that.

Will abortion decisions be made based on genetic cause being found (if one ever is found)? Probably, but will it amount to genocide?

I highly doubt it. There are too many people out there already who will NEVER abort based on genetic findings.

We aren't going ANYWHERE folks!

The.. umm.. logic.

Autism speaks wants a cure for autism, first blush that = good..
Autism = hereditary genetic condition, in-utero development.

How do you cure a genetic disorder?

A) breed it out the gene-pool intentionally/abort all fetuses (Eugenics, which apparently one of the top people (Link here!) in Autism speaks is in favour of and not just with autism)

B) gene therapy (genetic manipulation).

Either option if forcefully implemented under the heading of "Public health", in theory would mean, no more ASD, ergo, cured.

The likelyhood of forcing gene therapy on someone, right now is small.

Ironically the genes that apparently contribute to autism, have been around as long as the genes that allow melatonin to be present in skin. (Link here)

On some level "curing" something like autism in these manners, is a bit like deciding that the tenfold risk of cancer due to low melatonin in the skin in people who's genes have the hereditary mutation that results in a < 0.8% presence of melatonin in skin cells, is a public health issue and so these genes should be breed out oorrr altered by gene therapy.

In english, instituting a Eugenics/gene therapy program on autism because of its SOCIAL DEFICIENCIES, is a bit like instituting a Eugenics/gene therapy program on "white" people because there's a tenfold risk of developing cancer.

The merciful problem comes that with "the cure" is that the most recent studies show that autism can simply "crop up" you dont actually NEED someone in your family line with it, you just need to have certain deletions in the genes or certain copy variations..

In short, a Eugenics program nor gene therapy will be effective in removing autism except on a case by case basis.

There's the "Horror" on Autism Speaks aim, its not seeking the cure for mumps or measels, its looking at editing/treatment of the genes.

and yes, this scares the s**t out of me that one day some quack might decide i Require treatment, that i lack the ability to understand and accept the rightness of this treatment and so force it on me, which yes, can in some situations legally be done.

When your dealing with neurological issues in people who HAVE developed, your on extremely dodgy ethical ground, because neurological alterations can change the person in terms of personality and function, ergo terminating the prior individual.

When your dealing with neurological issues in people who HAVE NOT developed, your also on extremely dodgy ethical ground, because neurological alterations can change the person in terms of personality and function, ergo terminating the individual who would have originally developed.


This is extremely scary stuff.

Edit: and what TRUELY has me sicked as terrified in this, is that the reason for the terminations will be SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTAL difficulties, in short, because we dont fit in the NT developed culture and societies because we arent NT.

Last edited by kia_williams on 12 Jun 2010, 4:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Large-Scale Autism Study Reveals Disorder's Genetic Complexity
Autism Genome Project Consortium

This quote is buried in the article. Society will use that 3% to abort the other 97% because of sensational media representations like this. Causing fear is big business, and unscrupulous people like Autism Speaks will take advantage of others to enrich themselves.

There is another option you haven't considered. How about figuring out what causes the genetic "defect" to begin with, and eliminating the cause? That wouldn't require any genetic tinkering at all, but preventing it to begin with.

That's assuming there IS a defect. That hasn't yet been proven. Just because there is a gene doesn't necessarily mean it's a defect either, but that's another discussion. Personally, I don't think there's a human being qualified to make that determination.




Okay, but do you see anyone trying to cure Cancer by the means that you describe Autism cures might attempt? I don't.



The problem I see here is that this is all postulation. Where is anyone who is actually WORKING on the problem suggesting the methods you are postulating? On the one hand, I am aware that some similar trends have taken place in relation to Down's Syndrome, but I have yet to see that it was a concerted ORGANIZED effort on the part of any particular group or groups. Only individual actions, which, in a free society, no one can stop as long as it's legal.



Again, this seems to me to be all postulation and hypothesis, not based on anything Autism Speaks or the Autism Genome Project have actually stated as their purpose or mission. If you know of somewhere these things are actually stated by them, please educate me.

I just don't see this kind of thing happening at all unless political environments change drastically. This is the kind of thing Hitler's Nazis actually tried to do, and yes, it was frightening, horrific, and shameful. So I'm not above admitting this sort of thing is certainly possible, however it would take the kind of "perfect [political] storm" that brought a man like Hitler to power in the first place. I don't see that kind of storm brewing. At least not here in the U.S.

IMHO, if that is the sort of thing you fear, the prevention for that is to stay awake, and make sure that kind of political environment doesn't happen here, or wherever you are.

I do not think the answer is to malign organizations that for all intents and purposes appear to want nothing but to find answers, and do something positive, based on what "could or would happen" in a worst case scenario.

If all we ever do is plan for worst case scenarios, especially those based on pure speculation, postulation and hypotheses, we wouldn't have time to live, much less make any progress on anything.

On the other hand, I'm also not saying we shouldn't at least keep the possible dangers "in mind," always being cautious and aware that worse than we ever expected, could, and sometimes does happen. I suppose the uproar over this project is, in a way, doing exactly that. But it's doing far more than that. Some of the web sites out there are making it appear that genocide is the ultimate intent of the project.

I have seen NO evidence whatsoever that it is.

I'm not getting where "unscrupulous" plays into this at all. You've lost me on that comment.

What I am seeing [so far] is that 3 percent doesn't explain anything at all. And if that's the case, what's all the uproar about "Autistic Genocide?"

To me, it's beginning to look like BOTH sides of this issue are grasping at straws.

To me, it's pretty much a NON-issue.

well thought out thing is, the cause, is natural, you get two lifeforms that procreate by merging DNA, and what'll happen with the two DNA's is some of it will get deleted (Deletions), one section will get copied the other wont (Copy variants) and another section will be copied but inverted.. (Inversions)...

eliminate that and your looking at directly cloning.



certainly dont, and heres why, skin colour even though it can result in a FATAL condition, is not labelled a disease, its a difference, even though it appears the basic mechanism for this differences is the same as almost all genetic disorders.



it is postulation, but it exsists because there's no safe gaurds at all and, if you read up on This guy (link) you'll find that Autism Speaks employed him KNOWING his veiws, hence Autism Speaks being something of a target in the autistic community. (that and silencing some people with threats to sue for parody site and Tshirt)



Nor have i seen evidence, however it wont exactly be advertised, the problem is, the logic behind the idea that has many scared, is fairly sound, autism, IS at base genetic, evidence of environmental factors/toxins/virus etc being the main cause, is getting dismissed, evidence of autisms genetic basis is growing steadily.

The issue really is that even in this day and age its STILL a possibility, there is nothing concrete that prevents Eugenics in terms of backdoor treatments, and these treatments apparently are being sought by Autism Speaks who cheered the Genome projects most recent discover as being one step closer to treatment protocols.

Its looking more and more like there is only one "cure" for autism, many treatments to help the AS in an NT world certainly, but only one cure.. and thats the freaky thing.

Doctors have alot of power when it comes to the "mentally handicapped"

Hoo boy! Okay, now we've just gotten into an issue I've managed to avoid on forums until now, but I knew one day, if I ever decided to pursue this line of thinking, I would either have to decide to quit avoiding it, or quit the discussion. Guess it's time to quit avoiding it.

Okay, so you say the cause is "natural" because two lifeforms procreate by merging DNA. Well, the only way to even begin addressing whether it's "natural" is to start talking about what's natural, and what isn't, and who decides what is and isn't. Thanks bunch for THAT can of worms!

Well, before we can even begin that discussion, we have to ask each other what we consider natural to be. Wait for it! Unless you think the universe is some small dust ball under the toenail of some humongous giant named Herb, or something similar, in which case the whole discussion is rather moot, what you and I might consider "natural" is heavily dependent on what we believe the origins of the universe, and by proxy, the human race are.

If one believes in Evolution (as a purist - who does not believe in mucking about with nature), I don't see how anyone can determine what "natural" is, other than to leave things alone, and let "nature take its course," in which case, as long as we are messing with anything, everything is natural, including every realized pattern of neurological make up, and genetic make up of all living things. To me, that ends the discussion right there. There's nothing to fix, because it's all natural, and evolution will take care of itself.

If one believes in Evolution in the sense that human development is part of that Evolution, and that our ability to effect changes on our environment are just manifestations of "survival of the fittest," then we not only have the power, but the practical right to effect any changes we see fit on our environment, and our genes. But then things get complicated very quickly. Who decides for whom? Do we let the "powers that be" make the call as to who is fit to live, and who isn't? Wouldn't that be their "right" by virtue of their own rise through the ranks of the "fittest?" After all, they managed to come to power by virtue of "survival of the fittest" in the first place, so isn't it just "nature taking its course for them to begin determining who lives and who does not?

Before we even get into the third scenario (and I bet you already know what it is), let's consider the realities of the two above scenarios (intentionally ignoring whether we accept them as reality or not - just for the sake of argument). In the first scenario, we shouldn't mess with anything at all. Pretty much end of story. People are born the way they are, and we just accept them as individuals and deal with them as they are (what a concept huh? I kind of like that!). In the second scenario though, we're "supposed to" manipulate things to suit our needs. So we do what we can with what power we have, trying not, in most cases, not to annihilate ourselves, and gain some kind of happiness and content from life. But sometimes there are those who don't like some things going on, or someone, or group(s) of someone(s), and decides they want to change what they don't like. Sometimes that means whoever "has the power" for the moment, gets to make decisions some of the rest of us don't like, sometimes resulting in harm and/or death for some of the rest of us. Not nice for those of us who are harmed or die, but it's just "nature taking its course." Sometimes some rise up and try to affect change upon those who don't want it, and those who don't want it quickly "evolve" into a stronger organism and prevent it from happening, sometimes by eliminating the ones originally attempting to affect that change upon them. (Think WWII). In the end, it's all just "nature taking its course," sometimes beautifully, sometimes in very ugly ways. Still, it's just nature, and "survival of the fittest."

In that second scenario, what happens to Autistics? Well, we either just sit back and get wiped out, if that's what someone is trying to do, or we fight back, and either prove ourselves stronger, or get wiped out anyway. Either way, it's all just nature taking its course, and survival of the fittest. "All is fair and love and war."

But what if neither of the above scenarios is valid? Yeah, I'm talking about higher power now, and morality above and beyond anything we define for ourselves. What if there IS a God? More importantly, what if that God is the creator of all things, and all those things were perfect to begin with?

Now we're dealing with a whole different can of worms! What if there IS a baseline by which we can "measure" what is "natural" or "normal" and what isn't? Well, okay, even in this scenario, who of the human race actually can? If there is a God, then isn't he really the only one who truly knows what's normal and what isn't? Are there really any humans on earth, if there is a God, who are able to do so?

Well, if you believe in either the Qur'an or the Bible? (For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter which) If you believe in either writings, you believe that humans were once perfect, and now no longer are. What this means is that no one is perfect, and therefore no one even knows what "perfect, normal, or correct" even is. If there IS a God, there is no human on earth that can determine what the "perfect gene sequence" is supposed to look like, because not one single one of us has ever seen one! If you adhere to the Bible (I won't address the Qur'an anymore, because I just don't know enough about it), you probably believe that procreation through human sexual relations is the natural means of multiplying, because that's what the Bible says. More than likely, you probably believe that messing with human life in any way shape or form is wrong. That abortion is wrong, and by extension messing with the unborn's genes is also wrong based on the same principles. "Letting nature take its course," to most Bible believers means allowing what God created to work the way he intended it to, and without interfering with it. "Let nature take its course," to a Bible believer, really means, "Let what God intended take place."

Well, if one is an adherent to Biblical or Qur'anic teachings one also must believe that God, in the end, will take care of all things, correcting the mistakes we've made regardless of how horrendous those mistakes may be. In addition, if your adherence is to the Bible, and more specifically to the teachings of Jesus, it's worth mentioning that Jesus never got involved in politics or world affairs. In fact, when Peter chopped off the ear of a Roman officer attempting to arrest Jesus, Jesus healed the officer's ear and told Peter to put his sword away. Jesus never tried to change the world, but to preach that his father would do it in his own good time. He did however, speak out against the unfairness and wrong behaviors he observed. He did topple the change tables of the merchants in the temple, but never instructed his followers to do similar things. In his mind, that was his own father's "house" and he had the right as his son to perpetrate that act. There are no accounts of the Apostle's doing anything like that. "My kingdom is no part of this world." "Pay back to Caesar that which is Caesar's." He never once encouraged his followers to be political activists. His only instructions were to spread the message he had brought that all would eventually be made right by God, not by Man.

When all is said and done, whatever happens, will either just be "nature taking its course," or will be corrected by God when all is said and done. That is, of course, taking only the above three scenarios into account. There are, of course, other belief systems and ideas i haven't taken into account, but that would require a far longer post, and this one, I think you'll agree, is long enough already.

Even if we were to consider many other systems of belief, the end result would be much the same. Either things can and will happen as they will, or they won't. I know it sounds like a "Que sera sera" attitude, but it isn't really. I prefer to call it realism. I also prefer not to assume the worst in people or organizations unless I'm offered some evidence that I shouldn't.

I happen to believe that we are all imperfect, and as such are ALL defective in some way, shape or form. I happen to believe that no human has the right to decide for another whether they are "worthy" of life, be it their neighbor, their children, someone they've never met from across the globe, or a fetus.

I do agree that altering genetic make up of anyone is beyond what we should be messing with. That isn't the issue between us, I don't think. I think the issue is between us is whether the Autism Genome Project and/or Autism Speaks is even considering doing what you propose, supports the idea, or may somehow be responsible if others attempt to use the knowledge they gain for immoral purposes.



No, skin color is not a disease. I've never heard anyone say it is. Cancer though, IS a disease. Since skin color seems to be related to likelihood of getting it, why wouldn't scientists study that link?

The reason I asked the above question is because you made the comment about findings that skin color affects the frequency of Cancer somehow being linked to the probability that genetic links to Autism, meaning that the links to Autism could be used to "cure" autism by genetic selection. I didn't see that link since no one has ever used genetic selection in connection with skin color ever used to cure cancer.

My point is that genetic research has revealed something quite valuable about a link between skin color and cancer, and that has never been used to commit genocide on Caucasians. Therefore, your bringing it up actually lends credence to my lack of fear of it happening because of genetic research on Autism.



"It is a postulation, but it exists...." (?)

A postulation, by definition is an assumption without proof. If it exists, then you should be able to prove it. Where's the proof? I'm not seeing it. I don't see it in the web site posted at all. I see one person's opinion, supposedly backed up by an article linked to there, but do not see anything in the linked article to back up the statements made. What I do see are a couple of statements in the linked to article that require postulation to reach the conclusions made by the author you linked to. What the article you linked to amounts to is hearsay.

Buxbaum said: “If we get to the point where we have 10 genes that predict risk to some significant degree, then there is a prenatal test." From that the author of your article get's "eugenic abortions?" Quite a leap in logic I think.

The rest of the article is all about a guy named Watson. Dear, sweet, idiot, Watson. Yeah, he's a MORON, but as proof of Autism Speak's connection with him, all that is offered is a link to a page with a picture of him standing next to Bob Wright, founder of Autism Speaks, with a brief caption below it that isn't revealing of much of anything. Guilt by association? I'd say so! Tell me you don't have any bigots in your family. I do. Does that make me a bigot? Sorry, but it simply isn't PROOF of anything other than that a picture was taken with him standing next to a bigot.



Sorry, I'm just NOT seeing this at all. Pick ANY organization, and there is someone out there somewhere maintaining a sight that bashes them, no matter who they are. I will only buy it if I can "follow the logic." Sometimes there are sites that offer very good evidence for what they claim. I haven't seen a single one yet with claims like this that offers any solid evidence at all. Nothing but dead ends, leaps of logic, postulations and hypothesis. NO proof.

The closest thing I've seen yet to evidence in support of what these sites say has been posts and statements (from other sites) one has to make extreme extrapolations from in order to reach the conclusions made. Until I see something far better than what I've seen so far, I'm not buying it.

what they should do is work on a cure, remedy, or effective treatment which would work with early detection.

As far as I can see, that's exactly what they are doing.

Ooo boy im a bit too tired for this but here goes..

Sort simple answer on my belief with regards to natural is essentially simple,
natural = what exists without mans intervention.
not natural = what man has caused or made by intervention/change.

Mankind had Nothing at all to do with the mechanism by which a lot of species reproduce, (combining of DNA with random mutations(deletions copy varients inversions etc) with in turn a bias too precedent DNA, can only use what youve got after all).
has man screwed with it, of course.

Hence terming the mechanism "causing" autism, and hair colour, eye colour, height and such, "natural", because it exists and existed without man's intervention/change.

And the can of worms gets closed by, man closing the lid, putting it down and walking away, because (contrary as this seems) its not man's place right or even actual capability to -determine- what is natural and what isn't, but it is man's right to define words that express a concept of it.

The really fun part is that its a none issue in a way, the second scenario IS reality even in nature itself, the snake does bite its own tail.

they did, that's why they know, its a simple case of high melanin in skin cells absorbing DNA damaging UV radiation. the hypothetical difference is, dark skin colour was only viewed as a disorder for a little while and by a majority that did not have access to the human genome or even knowledge of DNA, it was the majority that had a genetic trait that led to illness, not the minority that was believed to be 'ill'/defective/non human.

And that's where we come back to it, autism is still seen as a disease to be cured and the foundational technology to get there is present day, i suspect had victorian england had the knowledge of genetics our scientists do (but not the knowledge on cancer or illness), well give a think how that would have turned out.

Thats it, does light skin cause health issues, yes it certainly can when compared to the other option, but.. its not perceived as a disorder to be treated, why.. majority rules and the majority stopped thinking dark skin colour is bad pre evidence of cancer resistance, and now the majority is a high number of people of varied skin tones.

How we approach something and what we do about something depends entirely on our perception of it, even had this information been in existence five centuries again, genocide would have been unlikely, just war ending probably in a genocide, for the simple reason of how colour was viewed then, this is today.. the knowledge is around, and autism is a disease to be cured, suspectibility ot skin cancer due to inheritied genes that control skin tone, is not veiwed as a disease, that's why there's fear, that's why skin colour and its different issues is ignored (also because its not considered PC).

similar thing, different view upon it, different end result.



I have to agree with this one TBH, i don't know a lot on Autism Speaks I was explaining WHY there was a sometime notion of Autistic Genocide, however close Autism Speaks and Doc Watson is, for me isnt quite a give away.

though


That quote from Autism speaks site is interesting, what "novel treatments" can you physically come up with for the "underlying biology"(umm, genetics or was this missed?) of autism.
Nothing novel about special classes or adaptations to routine etc...

The whole issue is one of fear mostly, and that in itself is the problem.

for me personally it jsut comes down to this



either way, your terminating the individual, whether its by gene manipulation or straight abortion, and here's where my veiws get alittle conflicting, do i believe a woman has the right to decide regarding her own body, yes.. do i believe a woman has the right to terminate a life based on whim or agenda (other than physical survival), no.
do i believe a woman or anyone else has the right to use a technique like genetic modification to terminate, no.

There's ethical ways to do things, or at least More ethical ways to do things, lethal injection is a more ethical mode of termination than hanging or electrocution.

sadly the autism 'cure' is looking more and more likely to be GM.
and to my limited knowledge, there is no law that prohibits the modification of humans, extant or inutero, the current laws only state that a modified animal/person CANT be permitted to develop beyond a certain embryonic stage.

So the door is probably still open for "fixing" things like "blue eyes when the parents wanted brown".

If someone from the government comes along and tries to force gene therapy on me, I'll pop a cap in their ass.