The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?
- Thread starter Pimppeter2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Their impact on society was irrelevant to my question. Fact is that like in any other life, there will be moments of happiness, sadness, triumph and defeat. My point is that neither you nor anyone else is qualified to determine how much enjoyment they would or would not have had and recommend that they had never been born.AndyFromMonday said:
To address your point (which is a selfish, but typical point brought up by opponents of welfare too), the direct burden they will impose on you is minimal. If you added up the amount of money per person they will drain from your pocket, it amounts to pocket change.
tl;dr Stop presuming to interfere in the lives of others.
I'm autistic and I turned out relatively fine though technically it's Asperger's Syndrome, a high-functioning form of autism, so maybe I'm not one to talk.
But in all seriousness, why would she want more kids, especially if she so sure they're going to be autistic? Isn't that putting a bigger burden on herself?
And there are too many people in the country anyway, I don't see why we need more right now...
But in all seriousness, why would she want more kids, especially if she so sure they're going to be autistic? Isn't that putting a bigger burden on herself?
And there are too many people in the country anyway, I don't see why we need more right now...
This is a touchy subject... I'm not sure, on the one hand she has every right to have more children, and obviously loves them, but on the other hand they'll find it quite hard to function in normal society without therapy, which I think is quite cruel on her part.
I really don't know where to stand.
I really don't know where to stand.
Not an attack on you personally, but you were the last example.CrazyGirl17 said:
I am SICK of people in this thread saying "Oh well I have Aspergers/ Einstein had Aspergers/whatever".
Aspergers is NOT THE SAME as severe Autism. It is a much, much milder version without any of the mental difficulties, apart from the social aspect and co-ordination issues.
Though this doesn't lend the other people's points about "Killing the unclean!" any merit, it's just something that annoyed me.
It's only morally irresponsible from the personal perspective- i.e. The child suffers.
As someone mentioned- there is no moral equation to this if the parents have paid for the child's life (or enough so that the child's adult output covers the remaining deficit).
2 somewhat related examples:
1. A rich family has a child and spoils them rotten. The child grows up a brat and eventually becomes a rich ***hole. This child never amounts to anything more than a layabout in their adult life as they employ investors to manage the family estate. In this case it would be embarrassing and even dishonorable for the parents to not imbue interest in the child for work. However this case, overall, would not be immoral (under input/output view point this person effectively does not put a drain on society, however distasteful the work ethic; under the view that this person was born to parents that wanted the opportunity to procreate this is also is morally null).
2. A child is born to parents that had been genetically tested for diseases and found they had a chance of giving their child a debilitating disease. The child gets a form of debilitating disease that kills the child before adulthood. Under the assumption that output and input are the primary variables of a person's life then this would be immoral if they cannot afford treatment and moral if they can. If under the auspices of equal opportunity of procreation then this would be moral.
EDITED (second to last sentence to include question of affording treatment)
As someone mentioned- there is no moral equation to this if the parents have paid for the child's life (or enough so that the child's adult output covers the remaining deficit).
2 somewhat related examples:
1. A rich family has a child and spoils them rotten. The child grows up a brat and eventually becomes a rich ***hole. This child never amounts to anything more than a layabout in their adult life as they employ investors to manage the family estate. In this case it would be embarrassing and even dishonorable for the parents to not imbue interest in the child for work. However this case, overall, would not be immoral (under input/output view point this person effectively does not put a drain on society, however distasteful the work ethic; under the view that this person was born to parents that wanted the opportunity to procreate this is also is morally null).
2. A child is born to parents that had been genetically tested for diseases and found they had a chance of giving their child a debilitating disease. The child gets a form of debilitating disease that kills the child before adulthood. Under the assumption that output and input are the primary variables of a person's life then this would be immoral if they cannot afford treatment and moral if they can. If under the auspices of equal opportunity of procreation then this would be moral.
EDITED (second to last sentence to include question of affording treatment)
While this statement is bordering on eugenics, I'd be more willing to ask why she shouldn't have children when Josef Fritzl is still allowed to.Pimppeter2 said:
Mcupobob said:
First of all mate im 24, have been done my genetics degree, and now work for a University in genetics research. During those long for years achieving my degree I did a full year of ethics as well. So I can see both sides, She has a right to kids and shouldnt be discriminated against wether they are retarded or not, then theres the self evolution part. Taking their genes out of circulation makes mankind stronger as a whole. Now id totally agree, if I had some form of mutation thatd be a detriment to society, for some guy to say no you cant have kids. I mean there is always adoption.
Plus as this is a discussion, I dont see how its your right to call me an 'asshole'. I have my opinion, you have yours, we respect each others view. Thats how things work in a civilized world, or perhaps you sir need to sterilized?
Well, morally I don't have anything to say about her having more children. But the fact that this sweltering Texas cow isn't giving any therapy to help her children to help her children is fucking ridiculous! I should know I have Aspergers syndrome myself, and if I did not receive the therapy I received I might not be the man I am today.
No. She should not be allowed to have more children.
Not to be mean, but I frankly don't care if they have Autism. Having more than 4 kids threatens overpopulation. What, you guys enjoy EXTREME POVERTY?
It's ridiculous. This woman in particular shouldn't be allowed to have more children, since she wants her kids to be autistic. (refusing treatment on no grounds. :/)
Not to be mean, but I frankly don't care if they have Autism. Having more than 4 kids threatens overpopulation. What, you guys enjoy EXTREME POVERTY?
It's ridiculous. This woman in particular shouldn't be allowed to have more children, since she wants her kids to be autistic. (refusing treatment on no grounds. :/)
Did any of you bother to read the blog attached to this interview with AOL Health?
By your responses, you did not bother.
The mother of these children love them very much. She works tirelessly to provide for
them. They do have therapies. Just not the biomedical interventions that could in the long
run, hurt her children.
All of her children are very lucky to have her as a mother. I only hope you had the
same kind of love they get.
This mother works full-time, and her husband works 2 jobs, so these children will not be
a burden to society.
But, let me tell you this.
If you guys are the future of our society, I will take her kids over you any day.
They are respectful and loving.
What I see from these posts, you are not even close to her kids.
By your responses, you did not bother.
The mother of these children love them very much. She works tirelessly to provide for
them. They do have therapies. Just not the biomedical interventions that could in the long
run, hurt her children.
All of her children are very lucky to have her as a mother. I only hope you had the
same kind of love they get.
This mother works full-time, and her husband works 2 jobs, so these children will not be
a burden to society.
But, let me tell you this.
If you guys are the future of our society, I will take her kids over you any day.
They are respectful and loving.
What I see from these posts, you are not even close to her kids.
You don't think she should what?
Have more children?
Her youngest just turned 9 years old.
You guys are commenting on someone you don't even know.
This site is so angry.
I worry so much more about what you bring to society than the children
with autism this woman is raising.
Blood spattered faces on a blog site?
I fear for the children you will bring into society.
Let us hope you practice what you preach and do not procreate.
Have more children?
Her youngest just turned 9 years old.
You guys are commenting on someone you don't even know.
This site is so angry.
I worry so much more about what you bring to society than the children
with autism this woman is raising.
Blood spattered faces on a blog site?
I fear for the children you will bring into society.
Let us hope you practice what you preach and do not procreate.