The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?

[Lord Krunk]

Depends on if they're trying to pull an Octomom or not. If so, no. If not, yeah, I guess it's alright.

Although handling 6 autistic kids... I know people who have trouble caring for 1!

 

[ryukage_sama]

No, it is not morally right. It is a good thing to have children, then raise them responsibly by teaching them to be productive, and as often as possible, happy members of society. Still, people have children most typically because they want to. It's largely a selfish, instinctive drive to reproduce. So, if her children aren't going to contribute, and she knows that, she should STOP!

I would not deny a person the opportunity to have a child (y'know, ONE kid) even with the risk of a disability (painful, young death probably not, but disability, meh), but I would strongly oppose someone choosing to have a sixth autistic child.

 

[HuntrRose]

Society says they can have as many children as they like. So does our psuedo-christian (at least most people in the western world) moral code.

Then again, this same moral code has removed humanity in the western world from the pronciples of Darwin. I.e. survival of the fittest. We now have survival of all, and all get a chance to spread their genes further.

Think about it. All those people that have som genetic defect that would have either killed them, or caused their parents to set them out in the woods just a hundred years ago, are today allowed to stay and spread their genes.

And that is the purely practical view of the situation. The moral or emotional view goes the other way. So I'm not sure. But sides have valied opinions. So, depends what you value the most, the human race, or your own conscience.

 

[Livianicen]

There's far too many people on the world already and the last thing we need is more, whether autistic or not. This is particulary true for any non-Third World country. To put it bluntly, we don't really need any more kids in this part of the world. Enough to replace the work force (even though a lot of that is handled through immigration). America in particular, considering the harsh impact their lifestyle has on the enviroment/global food supplies.

 

[KdS_22]

Also, my genes are far more desirable than yours and your retarded brother.

Ok man this was really a step too far. Even though I don't agree with your reasoning I was completely fine with you stating your opinion, until you made a personal attack on him. There was really no need for it.
By the way, by who's standards are your genes more "desirable"? Are you saying that anyone who isn't perfect is undesirable? If that's the case then we should just nuke the planet and let life start all over again, because there is not a single person on this planet who does not have something wrong with them. And you can't "breed" imperfections out of the human race. They will always be there. But I believe that our flaws make us who we are.

But OT: I believe that this woman has the right to have children as long as she can support them herself. If she becomes a burden on others or is unable to support them, then take the children away from her. However, I believe that it is the basic right of all human beings to live. So I don't believe that the children already born should be killed off because they "harm the gene pool." It is not our place to kill someone off because they don't meet our standards of "perfection." They have the right to live as much of a happy, productive life as is possible for them.

I also have a few friends who are mentally or physically handicapped, and I will say this: the majority of them are better human beings than I will ever be, in my opinion.

 

[Nemu]

No, we have enough people.

If she honestly just loves children and wants more kids, you could ask her if she wouldn't mind adoption.

These two comments are my thoughts exactly.
She's continued her bloodline (and that of the father's), if she truly loves children there are others who could benefit from someone who, by my impression, seems to have a caring soul. Adopting children would be a "better" route.

 

[NewGeekPhilosopher]

Spoiler

While I have nothing against autistic children, being mentally handicapped means that they will most likely forever be taking more away from society than they can possibly put back.

Well, I do agree that it is less likely for a mentally handicapped person to be a productive member of society, but it is erroneous to assume that normal individuals are productive by default. So I don't really think that's a good argument.

Even J-O has admitted herself that " I believe that in my family, it's genetic".

I think this is a far better argument, because if she really believes that autism is genetic, then why would she want to have any more kids? If she is correct then she is literally polluting the gene pool. I know that makes me sound like Hitler or something, but this isn't a superficial feature like hair-color, religion, or skin tone. This is a serious and debilitating disease that should not be propagated.

While not wanting to sound overly defensive, I don't feel like that implies that "normal" people are by default productive. More that it is harder and therefore less likely for autistic children to be "productive".

My point of view: I want at least one kid, so I can protest against eugenics - oh and it would be nice to be a Dad too. But how awesome would it be if I could prove Hitler wrong when he tried to put people like me into gas chambers along with Jews, gypsies and homosexuals?

 

[Cody211282]

As long as they can afford to look after them and make provisions for their care after they are gone then they can do what they like. If they expect other people to foot the bill then no.

This is better then I could have said it.

 

[Kevvers]

Forget all this stuff about the gene pool, the real problem is how is she going to care for them when she's too old to care for herself? The answer is that the children that are capable will have to care for the ones which aren't -- this is very hard on them.

 

[Enkidu88]

Autism isn't really as bad a condition as say, Down's syndrome, in that there are a lot of treatments available and many autistic people can go on to lead productive lives. I'm not saying it's easy to live with autism, not at all.

I think 5 kids is a bit much for anyone really. I mean why have that many kids? It was fine in the dark ages where most people were dead by 30 and most infants never survived the first year, but today with all our medical technologies? I think 3 should be the max for any family.

I don't think we should start restricting people due to their genetic make up though. It'd be difficult to know where to draw the line. Sure you could deny a Down's syndrome sufferer with an IQ of 30 from having kids without too much wrangling with your conscious. But what about that woman who has a history of aggressive breast cancer in the family? What about type-1 diabetics? Parkinson's? Hemophilia? Which diseases are too draining on our resources to allow them to breed?

 

[florence500]

*burns hands* Aaaagh! Hot topic!

I say no.

1. Seven kids is too much anyway, it's called overpopulation people!
2. These kids will most likely need caring for for the rest of their lives, this means someone else will have to take the burden of taking care and looking after them. You have to think of the consequences for other people too.
3. Why would you do that? Why keep having kids if you know they'll be born with a mental disability and a decreased quality of life caused by that disability?
4. Odds are they won't have jobs, so living off the government :S
5. It's selfish, you have to think of the child and how it's life is going to pan out, I mean i'm sure its not easy living with autism.

Feel free to disagree, opinions make the world a varied place.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm not sure why you're cursing at me, and I'm not sure why you're talking about euthanasia. If you just need to rage, please direct it at someone else.

I was saying that it's unethical to judge people for reproducing simply because they are carriers for a genetic disorder. In this case, autism hasn't even been established as a purely genetic syndrome, so it's doubly true.

So I guess what I'm saying is... What are you talking about, dude?

I'm not cursing at you, my friend, I'm actually agreeing with you. I'm speaking in general and towards some of the people on this forum who's opinion it is that the world should be cleansed of all genetic undesirables.

 

[Bradd94]

I am all for the regulation of births. We're at a stage now where we have the technology and the capability to ensure genetic problems are eradicated. Now I understand that abortion is not accepted by all, but if we overlooked the morals of it for one, single generation, we'd conquer so much.

Can only dream, however.

 

[ToothedCube]

I think the people arguing for the wole 'WE SHOULD KILL THE UNDESIRABLES NATURAL SELECTION FTW RARGABLARGABLARGH!' are being a little extreme. We've emerged from the primoridial soup aaages ago (or whatever), got our shit together and conquered the ENTIRE PLANET, and we're now exploring space.

I think natural selection has pretty much gone out the window by this point. Call me wrong or whatever but I think that we're doing fine as it is, the contest is over, there's pretty much NOTHING more natural selection CAN do, the contest is over, WE WON. You wouldn't stay up all night studying if there were no exams/tests/whatever to do, would you? Of course there's going to be folk who can't walk, or can't think as well as most, but they can be useful, productive members of society; people who can't walk still have perfectly good minds, people with autism or whatever can still do manual labour, who are YOU to decide who lives and who dies? this single-minded sacrificing of innocent lives for some non-important 'goal' of 'preserving the gene pool' is kind of outdated.Even Darwin was a humanitarian.

Sure, this would have been the way to go back when we were fighting off animals and all that assorted crap back in the caveman days, but we have developed technology and medicine to a point where pretty much anyone can do regular stuff (e.g. wheelchairs, bionic limbs, etc), and there is no reason why these perfectly innocent children would be put to death. People cannot control their genes. Plus, if we were to kill EVERYONE with a faulty gene, that's pretty much 3/4 of the planet dead right there.

As long as she can CARE for all those children, why should YOU care?

TL;DR: People can do what they want, Natural selection is dead, People are awesome ^_^

 

[AndyFromMonday]

The logical standpoint here is to force her not to have children anymore. It's pretty obvious these children will never fully enjoy life due to their disability and bringing another mentally ill individual into the world will benefit neither the child nor society.

Would they enjoy life more or less had they never been born?

Their life will more or less consist of going from therapy session to therapy session. They will probably not get a job, they will constantly have to be taken care of AKA they will be a burden to society and a burden to themselves.

 

[ragestreet]

I think she can have as many kids as she wants unless the government has anything to say about it. I really hope they do.

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

Being against any therapy or thing to improve the abilities and lives of autistic children alone makes her unworthy to spread her genes around.
The genetic faults like autism is not enough of a reason, but the fact she is of the opinion she is then there is far more wrong with her mentally then her genetics.

I have a partially autistic nephew and would jump at any chance to get him help.