 
Support Wrong Planet!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kyethra
Snowy Owl
Joined: Dec 16, 2006
Posts: 135
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: About using reproductive technology to eliminate autism |
 |
|
| I've read some discussions about things like PGD and Autism Spectrum disorders specifically online. I was surprised to find that much of what I read in terms of reaction to the idea of using something like PGD to have a baby that didn't have Autism was negative. Of course currently there isn't even technology available for that as no one knows exactly what genes and so forth cause autism or leave one predisposed to autism. One thing I did notice about those reactions though was that responders seemed to assume the an Aspie would have an Aspie baby-- not a baby that had a much more severe form of autism. Or at least it certainly seemed like responders assumed that the children would be able to care for themselves. Is that part of the negative response? I think there is a great deal of difference between milder forms of AS and more severe forms of Autism having lived with both of them (myself and my brother). And as far as genetic diversity and genius... I don't know any parent who wants to create the next Steven Hawking or Bill Gates. Most parents just want their babies to be healthy and they hope for normal and happy I think... In a couple of years I'll probably be wanting to have kids and with the high incidence of autism in my family, this is an issue that comes close to home. Would you choose to have a child without the use of reproductive technology if you could use reproductive technology to ensure that your child wouldn't have a disorder (like autism) that would make their life much more difficult? Why or why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
beentheredonethat
Grouchy Old Man
Joined: Nov 01, 2005
Posts: 703
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: Why not reproductive technology (selective breading) |
|
|
A few years ago...well, more than a few years ago.....the term was Eugenics. It is immoral. First, many autistic people (my son included) are brilliant. Second we don't know enough about the brain to know what else we're "breeding out" when we use such technology, and third, once you start selecting for no autism, you (well not your personally), will start selecting for many other things, and pretty soon they will start making laws about who can reproduce and who can not.....and we're already one foot into a completely controlled society. Fortunately (given that I'm in my 60s, I think this crap is far enough away that I won't live to see it), however, you in your 20s be extremely careful what you wish for, because you might just get it. If you can select for autism, for example, you can select for other traits, and maybe you could also select for brilliant people, those who would live well, and that selection would, eventually, become political, and those of us without a lot of money would be the drones, and those with money, the beneficiaries of it all (wait, isn't it like that already?).
Sex is fun, and it should also be used for the purpose for which it is intended, reproduction. The less interference, the better.
But wouldn it......my answer is no, it wouldn't. People with money will always find some way to use it to enslave people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pbcoll
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: England
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
beentheredonethat, eugenics is already a routine practice to prevent genetic conditions like Huntington's disease. In developed countries it is only applied to this sort of conditions; in other words, with proper regulation and supervision it need not mean parents selecting things like eye color.
Personally, i would not have children of my own unless there were a way of weeding out AS genes (from personal experience, it is an awful, awful condition). I would not pass AS on to anyone, much less risk low functioning autism. For me, the only morally acceptable options would be to do without biological children, or use reproductive technology if and when available.
_________________
I am the steppenwolf that never learned to dance. (Sedaka)
El hombre es una bestia famélica, envidiosa e insaciable. (Francisco Tario)
I'm male by the way (yes, I know my avatar is misleading). |
|
| Back to top |
|
Apatura
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 25, 2006
Age: 36
Posts: 1398
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think I would ever abort a child because it was autistic, even if they could discern between severe and mild autism (which they can't do clearly yet). That being said I am afraid that I could have a really low-functioning child one day, just given my own state and the fact that I've got two fairly affected children already. But I don't think that will prevent me from conceiving again (exhaustion might, though).
Like someone else said... we really don't know what we're weeding out. I would prefer not to mess with it.
And I feel that we're entering a world where autistic people will be able to support themselves. Society is becoming more cerebral and technical with each passing moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
kyethra
Snowy Owl
Joined: Dec 16, 2006
Posts: 135
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So is it the nature of the disorder then that leads to the slippery slope being slippery or the ability to weed disorders out that makes it slippery? Is it ok with disorders like fragile x and muscular dystrofy? Fragile X can certainly affect inteligence and personality, but not ok with other things like autism? Or is it the technology and fear of gattica type stuff? And wouldn't/shouldn't regulations be put into effect should it look like this might be happening? I have one rare disorder-- narcolepsy that seems to have some genetic role- most likely some sort of predisposition. Its pretty rare to pass it on to offspring. But while it might affect my intelligence at times (I'm not as smart when I am sleepy) and so forth I would be happy to have it weeded out. I'm also a carrier for a rare single gene genetic disorder that affects the lungs and liver. Being sick affects personality a lot. And sure it can give people charachter. But there are better ways to get charachter than being sick. Its another disorder I wouldn't mind seeing wiped out. Its interesting from either perspective. Of course I think money always affects things. Would Temple Grandin still be Temple Grandin if she was born to a family that was poor? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ZanneMarie
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 28, 2007
Posts: 2302
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We had very little money and I was just fine. Certainly money didn't change anything.
The slippery slope does not refer to any specific disorder because it refers to what the Germans did. They passed legislation making it legal to euthanize certain people (and yes, Autistics would have made the list). It started with people in mental hospitals, then branched out to physical disabilities, homosexuality and eventually made its way into different "races." Basically they passed it by arguing that you should be able to euthanize anyone who was completely unaware and without hope. Then, it went down the slippery slope until it included anyone they didn't want around. So, that is what the slippery slope is.
As far as your pie in the sky theory about them regulating this, you can forget it. There are already deaf parents wanting deaf kids and dwarfs wanting dwarfs. They keep approaching genetics firms to screen for that in order to up their chances. Some of the firms say no way, others say it's not that cut and dried. No one is looking at legislation to stop them.
If you are so worried about it, use the current technology to prevent pregnancy and there won't be any chance you'll pass it on. There are homeless kids all over the planet looking for a parent. Many of them are very healthy and normal, they just live in other countries. That is going to be an option for you long before weeding out Autism. They are saying it will be years before they will even know what genes are connected to it for certain. It will take even longer to figure out how they work in regard to Autism.
This is just like that idiot, Alison Singer. She had a brother who was Autistic. She is clearly unhappy that she had a child who was Autistic. Now she does all this fundraising for a cure and whines about how this child has ruined her life. Well, you know what? She could have had her tubes tied and it wouldn't have been a possibility at all. She chose to do it. That's what her Harvard education did for her. I'd like to see the stupidity gene wiped out myself, but it doesn't look like that will be funded any time soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
r_mc
Sea Gull
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 204
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The recent research published regarding "autism genes" found genes that appeared to predispose people to being somewhere on the spectrum. It doesn't appear to be possible to predict where on the spectrum though, as there is more to autism than genes. Environmental factors play a huge role, and many of these factors, such as environmental chemicals, are so all pervasive in the environment you really can't avoid them. It would be useful to know which children were likely to be affected so early interventions could be used to improve their prognosis, but given the stigma surrounding autism and the suffering it causes families, it's more likely to go the way of Downs Syndrome- prenatal testing and abortion of affected foetuses. I don't think the whole "acceptance not cure" movement's really going to get anywhere with the general public. |
|
| Back to top |
|
M02
Snowy Owl
Joined: Dec 04, 2006
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some areas in India have a lower birth rate of girls than boys because of sex selection. It is supposed to be illegal but there are ways of getting around doing the tests. So now there is becoming a serious problem as these young men grow up and start looking for wives.
There are certain cultures in India that value male babies more than females. Female babies are so unvalued that they are aborted. A female child will require a dowry and that will put a demand on the family.
Western society does not value people with autism or Down's syndrome or other "disorders". A child who is perceived as not being perfect (medically) will put a strain on the resources of the family.
The value system is wrong in both cases.
If I was pregnant, I would not take any prenatal test that there was no treatment for. I would not have an abortion anyway, so why the bother. How would having a few more months "to prepare" for the birth of a "defective" child be an advantage? It is just a huge lie trying to cover up prejudice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
r_mc
Sea Gull
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 204
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M02 wrote: | | How would having a few more months "to prepare" for the birth of a "defective" child be an advantage? |
It would allow the parents and their health care providers to prepare an intervention strategy so the child could be treated at the earliest possible stage. By using appropriate therapies, learning strategies and possibly in the future, drugs, most (if not all) of the childs autistic traits could hopefully be neutralised before they became problematic to the child or their family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Immortal
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 28, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 632
Location: Maine
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
What else you are forgetting is that tests can be *wrong*. Prenatal testing determined that I would be born with spinabifida. (And also, that I would be a boy)
I was born a girl...without spinabifida.
_________________
"Never injure what cannot die" |
|
| Back to top |
|
r_mc
Sea Gull
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 204
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Immortal wrote: | What else you are forgetting is that tests can be *wrong*. Prenatal testing determined that I would be born with spinabifida. (And also, that I would be a boy)
I was born a girl...without spinabifida. |
They can be wrong, and having genes that predispose you to autism doesn't mean you'll definately develop it (as far as we currently know), but simply having a treatment plan in place would give the parents to be a lot of peace of mind, and if the child began to develop autism it could be spotted and treated far earlier than it is now, which would give better results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 30
Posts: 3250
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The things to remember are, 1. AS and kanner autism are two completely different things, and 2. AS isn't an epidemic, ignorance is. We need to fight for acceptance, but AS shouldn't be treated as a burden. AS will have a difficult life, but not because we're Aspergian, it's because society is racist. This is something to stand against and fight for change.
AS might possibly be evolution in progress (yes I know aspies don't get laid, but I'm sure cro magnons didn't get much action from neanderthals either, and there is no doubt in my mind that aspies would make a more stable society than NTs would, we'd have far less problems such as hunger, poverty, disease, and war, not to mention breakthrough technology... And we are moving into a computer age, afterall), pre natal testing would only hault it. While I am not against the idea for a cure, keeping kanners in mind, I think that the cure should be optional. But I see the difference between AS and kanner autism being similar to the difference between NT and mental retardation.
I prefer not to see Asperger as a syndrome though because calling it a syndrome implies that there is something horribly wrong and deformed with us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
snake321
phoenix
Joined: Mar 26, 2006
Age: 30
Posts: 3250
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry if anyone objects to me posting here, I am male, but I come in peace. Of coarse then too I've seen women post in men's forum, so I'm hoping that you don't mind me posting this here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
M02
Snowy Owl
Joined: Dec 04, 2006
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| r_mc wrote: | | M02 wrote: | | How would having a few more months "to prepare" for the birth of a "defective" child be an advantage? |
It would allow the parents and their health care providers to prepare an intervention strategy so the child could be treated at the earliest possible stage. By using appropriate therapies, learning strategies and possibly in the future, drugs, most (if not all) of the childs autistic traits could hopefully be neutralised before they became problematic to the child or their family. |
Since when is treatment for autism available from birth? Why can't a genetic test for autism be given after birth then instead of before. The main reason for a prenatal test is so that people can decide if they are going to have an abortion or not. The abortion is the treatment.
I don't need my autistic traits to "hopefully" be neutralized because they are not problematic to me. How insulting! |
|
| Back to top |
|
r_mc
Sea Gull
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 204
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M02 wrote: | | r_mc wrote: | | M02 wrote: | | How would having a few more months "to prepare" for the birth of a "defective" child be an advantage? |
It would allow the parents and their health care providers to prepare an intervention strategy so the child could be treated at the earliest possible stage. By using appropriate therapies, learning strategies and possibly in the future, drugs, most (if not all) of the childs autistic traits could hopefully be neutralised before they became problematic to the child or their family. |
Since when is treatment for autism available from birth? Why can't a genetic test for autism be given after birth then instead of before. The main reason for a prenatal test is so that people can decide if they are going to have an abortion or not. The abortion is the treatment.
I don't need my autistic traits to "hopefully" be neutralized because they are not problematic to me. How insulting! |
Currently there is no treatment avaliable from birth as it is impossible to detect autism, or a predisposition to autism, at birth. You are quite correct that the main reason for prenatal testing is so the parents can choose whether to continue the pregnancy. Waiting till after the birth denys them this choice. I did not mean to insult you by suggesting your traits need to be erased- I was talking about babies, not adults. Whilst it is possible for some people on the spectrum to live full and happy lives, it isn't possible for all given the difficulties autism causes and the prejudices inherant in society. Behavioural therapies and some drugs are already being used with success on young children, and the earlier they are diagnosed the better these work. I had severe behavioural problems as a child and still find it very difficult to understand people and "fit in" in society. I am waiting to be assessed to see if these problems are due to AS or not, but if they are then I wish there had been prenatal testing when my mother was expecting me. I could either have been spared this life or given treatment that would have at least given me the chance of a happier, normal life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
