The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?
- Thread starter Pimppeter2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Is she abusing them? If not then she has every right to have as many kids as she wants. There's no law against it and there never should be.
Let her do whatever she wants to do. I don't like her, and I don't like what she is doing, but I don't think anyone should stop her from doing it.
Although if you feel like kicking her ovaries, I will not judge you.
Although if you feel like kicking her ovaries, I will not judge you.
No. It would be impossible to care for that many children that have special needs both financially and emotionally.
One of my concerns however is how is the child that isn't autistic treated? If they are treated fine then great, but I have a tough time accepting that the child would be happy receiving even less attention.
One of my concerns however is how is the child that isn't autistic treated? If they are treated fine then great, but I have a tough time accepting that the child would be happy receiving even less attention.
She does what she wants and sticks by her decision, if there is guilt on her part, she has to live with it. If not, she doesn't. I happen to know that autistic children and people can get as much as anybody without autism can out of life.
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.Pimppeter2 said:
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.Pimppeter2 said:
if they have one of the better forms of autism like asperger's then fine because people like that (and like myself) can live mostly normal lives. As for the more severe forms, she's just being irresponsible and needs to have her tubes tied. To me anymore then two kids is too many, be they normal or disabled.
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".daemon37 said:
I'd say it was her choice whether she wants to keep having kids or not. Some cases of Autism aren't that bad, and some Autistic people do actually live pretty normal lives. I think treating it as if they will all have severe cases is unfair.
NIEN! Sie sind eine Beleidigung für die meister rennen!
(translate it yourself)
In all seriousness though, I believe it would highly unethical to have anymore children, since by her odds, there is a five out of six chance they will be autistic. They would more than likely not be able to fully care for themselves and would be a burden of the state after the deaths of her and her husband.
What is really sad though, is that she is against treatment for autism. Why the hell would you not want to work to fix it? Thats simply retarded.(Buh Dum Tish)
(translate it yourself)
In all seriousness though, I believe it would highly unethical to have anymore children, since by her odds, there is a five out of six chance they will be autistic. They would more than likely not be able to fully care for themselves and would be a burden of the state after the deaths of her and her husband.
What is really sad though, is that she is against treatment for autism. Why the hell would you not want to work to fix it? Thats simply retarded.(Buh Dum Tish)
I'm not quite sure what to think, to be honest.
On one hand, there is a high chance the next child will be Autistic, and the child wil probably end up not contributing to society in any way.
On the other hand, it isn't our place to decide who can begin some one's life, and it is perfectly legal (I think) to, as long as you can care for them, have as many children as you want.
On one hand, there is a high chance the next child will be Autistic, and the child wil probably end up not contributing to society in any way.
On the other hand, it isn't our place to decide who can begin some one's life, and it is perfectly legal (I think) to, as long as you can care for them, have as many children as you want.
Dude, not cool.Wardog13 said:
Why are there so many children? 6 billion is already too much. Doesn't she use protection? Is she Catholic?
Plus she shouldn't be giving birth to kids she knows are almost certain to be autistic - it's not fair on them.
But no, for some reason it's a different order. This is like what we discussed in my English class, with political correctness. e.g. Calling disabled people "differently able".
Seriously, what does "differently able" mean? Nothing. You can't call someone who is actually impeded from doing certain things as "differently able". They can't do different things; they do less of the old things because of their condition. You can't change that by aggrandizing their condition.
So it's not a disorder, but a "different kind of order"? Huh? And this woman is not a scientist; it's not her place to consider this. She's a hotel reservations clerk for Jeffrey Archer's sake. Last time I checked that had nothing nothing to do with neurology.
Anyway, before I forget what my point was, she's doing more harm than the good she thinks she's doing.
Plus she shouldn't be giving birth to kids she knows are almost certain to be autistic - it's not fair on them.
But no, for some reason it's a different order. This is like what we discussed in my English class, with political correctness. e.g. Calling disabled people "differently able".
Seriously, what does "differently able" mean? Nothing. You can't call someone who is actually impeded from doing certain things as "differently able". They can't do different things; they do less of the old things because of their condition. You can't change that by aggrandizing their condition.
So it's not a disorder, but a "different kind of order"? Huh? And this woman is not a scientist; it's not her place to consider this. She's a hotel reservations clerk for Jeffrey Archer's sake. Last time I checked that had nothing nothing to do with neurology.
Anyway, before I forget what my point was, she's doing more harm than the good she thinks she's doing.
I think this brings up a bigger question: Why does she want to keep having kids?
I mean that many kids, just normal kids, would be difficult to take care of but that many autistic kids? Is she just a masochist who loves having tons of children who will never look her in the eye or say "I love you"?
Personally, I think there should be tests for allowing parents to have children. I mean, remember "octo-mom"? The unemployed woman who already had 6 kids and then had another 8 simply out of her own selfish desire to have a huge family. She's living in a 3 room apartment with 14 kids and her mother, surviving on donations and the like because she decided that, rather then wait till she had a stable life, she was just going to have a million kids right freaking now.
While I'm all for personal freedoms this is just plain irresponsible and cruel to both the children and society. She's basically just creating this massive burden that will eventually have to be picked up by society.
I mean that many kids, just normal kids, would be difficult to take care of but that many autistic kids? Is she just a masochist who loves having tons of children who will never look her in the eye or say "I love you"?
Personally, I think there should be tests for allowing parents to have children. I mean, remember "octo-mom"? The unemployed woman who already had 6 kids and then had another 8 simply out of her own selfish desire to have a huge family. She's living in a 3 room apartment with 14 kids and her mother, surviving on donations and the like because she decided that, rather then wait till she had a stable life, she was just going to have a million kids right freaking now.
While I'm all for personal freedoms this is just plain irresponsible and cruel to both the children and society. She's basically just creating this massive burden that will eventually have to be picked up by society.
I personally believe that she should not. If she doesn't have any more, it's not like she's killing the possible child, just preventing it from a lifetime of being an outcast.
I disagree totally. That's saying that an autistic person has no right to life basically. Society not withstanding you cannot and should not put a limit on a persons freedom to birth no matter how horribly it ends up. Autism is not debilitating. Without sounding all high and mighty, if you ever spent time with an autistic person you would strongly disagree. They are the blueberries in life's delicious muffin. A totally different kind of human being. Weird and impossible to understand. I love people like that. Looking after a child or sibling who is autistic is difficult but well worth it.
I and nobody here have the right to say this lady can't bring a child to this earth, but I think this is irresponsible. Adoption is a better method here if she truly wants more kids, it's a win-win for all currently living beings.
What about when they can't afford to keep them anymore?angjn said:
they themselves will be too old or infirm to care for them one day and then who are they going to come begging to?
Its just irresponsible, they may say its about love but we all know her husband just likes it bareback