The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?

[Grigori361]

Its disgusting, she clearly has a screw lose or no sense of decency.

But really, if I don't have to pay for her to deliberately produce and care for people with such difficulties, I don't care.

That being said: If she can't look after them, or refuses to do so properly, I'd advocate taking them away from her immediately.

Completely off discussion, but that baby-killer fallout thing? I have it printed onto a Tshirt

 

[mrdude2010]

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, also there are alot of misunderstandings about autisim. Most think its a form of retardation but it really effects their social skills more than anything eles. Read the book "the curious incident of the dog in the night time" It completly changed my views on autistic people.

another good book is "marcello in the real world" ... that being said, without natural selection, the gene pool is spread thin enough already, it's somewhat selfish to have more mentally handicapped kids, even if you do have the ability to take care of them

 

[Booze Zombie]

I love all the fuckwits in this thread talking about keeping the gene pool clean and survival of the fittest, newflash dipshits thats not evolution thats artificial selection all survival of the fittest means is the species with the traits best suited to survive will if it does not then it wont. And genetic defects are allways going to be present in nature, are you saying thye are less human? They have less rights no fuck you, you nihilistic prat heres hoping folks like you never procreate not out of some abstract "pure bloodlines" shit just so you cant teach your kids your moronic bullshit ideals.

Finally! Someone who gets that "survival of the fittest" isn't shooting your best friend because he has a limp or is slightly less perceptive than most, it's about just seeing who survives throughout life.

Ants can survive in an area until some guy with a hosepipe comes along and drowns them, they were fit and they survived because of it, but there's always gonna be something trying to kill them without them try to do it themselves.

Humanity has enough problems without people playing God.

 

[mrdude2010]

hey guys! i am loving this thread!

I know I'm going to be hated for this. I do not care.

I think those children should be put down. I believe they should have been put down the moment they were found to have severe autism. I also believe the mother should have been sterilized.

I believe the same for all mental handicaps and disorders, along with some physical. The gene pool should be cleansed in such a way. I also believe that people should only be allowed children based on their monetary status. Poor, one child. Middle class, two. Upper class, two-three depending on where they live, and it's current population. The Earth is becoming too crowded. Hell, I also believe that the elderly should be euthanized. At around seventy, they just become burdens on society, and a waste of space.

I'm a stark believer in natural selection. Sadly, with the way our science and medicine are today, it's become much easier for the undesirable genes to manage to survive.

HITLER APPROVES!

the middle poster is completely wrong. thats just not okay. especially since monetary status literally has nothing to do with good genetics... either way everything in their post is just not okay.. the only thing i agree with is that the earth is too crowded, but that doesnt mean we should start chucking babies off hillsides spartan style

 

[AWAR]

Come on man! I mean in times like these you will get political-correct inquisition on your ass for saying he should be neutered and put on an asylum or something...Whatever, its worth a try

SHE MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE CHILDREN END OF STORY IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT SUCK MY PICKLE.

 

[AWAR]

hey guys! i am loving this thread!

I know I'm going to be hated for this. I do not care.

I think those children should be put down. I believe they should have been put down the moment they were found to have severe autism. I also believe the mother should have been sterilized.

I believe the same for all mental handicaps and disorders, along with some physical. The gene pool should be cleansed in such a way. I also believe that people should only be allowed children based on their monetary status. Poor, one child. Middle class, two. Upper class, two-three depending on where they live, and it's current population. The Earth is becoming too crowded. Hell, I also believe that the elderly should be euthanized. At around seventy, they just become burdens on society, and a waste of space.

I'm a stark believer in natural selection. Sadly, with the way our science and medicine are today, it's become much easier for the undesirable genes to manage to survive.

HITLER APPROVES!

Ohohohoh how droll....

 

[Koganesaga]

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.

I'd like to start by saying; I am a person with a mentally disabled family member, however this will not stop me from using my brain to see what makes the most "sense" (that being logic, not what people like reference as the difference between "right and wrong" because if it came down to that, it's wrong to bring more handicapped kids into the world knowing they'll likely be handicapped). If asked in public, that is the best answer I'd put forward. On the side however, like some others have said, we really shouldn't be weakening humanity's already diluted gene-pool. This is the only reason I liked the concept of the 1000's as back then only those who had the proper genetics could survive. If a society back then (mostly referencing Native American cultures as only with them I'm aware they had life or death rights of passage)allowed the physically or mental disabled to stay, they'd endanger their very existence if they stayed and burdened their society, let alone re-entered the gene-pool. Back to the topic itself, logic would dictate that having as many kids as she did was a poor and overall stupid decision. However, things like our ever changing sense of morals and rights (which also seems to become more flexible) allows her to do such things. At any rate it's all irrelevant, because we can't do anything, and even if we could, a lot of people probably wouldn't do anything. To Jeanette herself, good luck living in Texas, I'm surprised you managed as long as you did.

 

[Therumancer]

This is a complicated situation overall. It's one of those things I'm evil, brutal, and pragmatic about.

Simply put the world has a population problem. What's more mental retardation is something we understand more about now than we used to. We can identify conditions and what they are going to entail. A lot of the mystery of this kind of thing is gone, and this means that the whole arguement about how "some retard could be the next Einstein" is invalid.

I do not believe that ALL of the retarded should be put down, but a good potion of them should be. Starting as infants when their condition is discovered. I understand love and human emotion and all of that, and why a lot of parents will want to care for such children (or even adults) despite everything, but in the end I think this is a situation where society should come first.

Nobody is saying we should start shotgunning people with minor handicaps, or whom can at least think on an advanced level. But I do think mandatory euthenasia should be enforced in certain cases.

Now truthfully, I have mixed opinions about Autism. In cases of so called "Mild Autism" where someone can more or less function normally I don't think euthenasia is nessicary. However someone who needs constant supervision, and is incapable of caring for themselves
or whatever, and will never have a mentality greater than say a six year old? I'm sorry but I'm not entirely sure if Euthenasia is any crueller than letting them live.

Feel free to disagree, such are my thoughts.


When it comes to the lady in question, I tend to agree she shouldn't be having any more children. That is however a difficult thing to regulate on a number of levels (both moral and practical).

Of course if somehow I ever become global emperor I'd probably instate a policy of reproduction restraint to reduce the population. Basically I'd sterlize the entire population (reversibly) and make it a privlege to have kids. Parents having to demonstrate their resources, likely abillity to parent, and of course pass numerous health tests. The idea being that as people die to reduce the global population by a massive amount, and then gradually loosen up on the controls to get the population to the point where it can be maintained given the planet's resources and allow for a decent standard of living. Say overall 10% of the current population present on earth until we finally colonize elsewhere.

This has no bearing on reality however, since you'd need a world unity for ANYONE to do it if they wanted to, and chances are that by the time we got to that point global overpopulation wouldn't be an issue anymore. Rather we'd simply have to take actions to stop a "baby boom" from occuring rather than something maintained over a period of generations.

 

[MONSTERheart]

Kill them all. Let God sort them out later.

EIn all honesty though, that's up to the parent. (Although I think it would be more beneficial to everyone to just not have children).

 

[Kelethor]

hm....this ones a tuffy...On the one hand, I don't really know if it's right to decide who lives or who dies. no one really has that right. on the other hand, Iv gone to school with an Autistic child. he constantly requires at least 2 teachers with him at all times, spends the majority of class time inside a small room, where he is taught....something, I should hope. Iv met with these teachers, and while they say and show that it is a labor of love, its clear that its mentally taxing to deal with his constant shouting, inability to speak, and, Occasional, violent outburst. The sad part is, Im not even sure he has autism, but whatever he has, it's serious.

But, in the end, I honestly think no one has the right to chose who lives and who dies. or who gets to have as many children as she wants. as long as she vaccinates any new children she has, and shows them the love and compassion that any parent should show their child, then she has the right to have as many kids as she wants, just as much as any straight, gay, metro sexual, bisexual, mentally challenged family in this messed up world. we live on.

 

[WJeff]

I say it's cruel to a child to bring them into a world where they'll be both incapable of doing things for themselves, and hated by society.

My younger brother is severely autistic. Had my parents known he was going to be autistic, they would have gotten an abortion. We really love him, he's the greatest, but had we known, it would have been an act of mercy for him to never have lived.

So, no. She'd be cruel to have another child. She's cruel to have had any children after the first autistic one.

Oh, and about money and taxes: autism receives absolutely no coverage from the government or anyone. if you have an autistic child, you are entirely on your own, every penny spent on that child comes out of your own pocket. So don't say the kid is a waste of resources, that's just being even meaner to the kids who are already hated by society.

 

[GiantRedButton]

Autism isn't bad enough so that you could say that the children would be better of dead.
But after the mother is to old and needs to care herself, the children with autism that are not capable to live on their own (won't be all sis but if shes unlucky there might be 4), will bevome a burden on her daughter. And increasing that burden is immoral, considering that the daughter didn't have any input on the situation.
Note that she used to think that autism sole cause is vaccine, and that she denies their Kids treatment that might likely cure them.
The mother isn't fit to have one autistic child.

 

[Aerodynamic]

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 hate myself for chuckling at that.

But honestly she shouldn't have anymore, If she wants to fine, but in the end she may just bring another autistic kid in the world. In the end its just another burden of that state.

 

[Xanadu84]

No it is not morally acceptable to have kids. First off, there is the easiest answer, that it would not be reasonable to have the time, as a parent, to handle all the special needs that an Autistic child has. But then there's the more sticky answer, that I understand, on the surface, sounds a but too close to a breeding program of sorts. However, the fact remains that this woman is allowing a child to have a serious, debilitating condition, which will cause much pain and suffering throughout there lives, because she wants to have the honor having more kids. This is simply selfish. It is well intentioned, but good intentions don't prevent autism. Yes, an Autistic person should be treated with love, fairly, and taken care of in a way that fits there needs, but then again, the same goes for people with broken legs, and it would still be wrong to go around breaking legs.

Humans have advanced a long ways out of our animalistic roots, and we have a responsibility to ourselves to direct our evolution in a way that makes the world a more happy place. This woman having kids causes suffering, and that is not morally acceptable.

 

[Eggsnham]

I don't mind, as long as they're not hurting anyone, and they're not; I am okay with her having autistic children.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I think anyone who has 6 kids has probably had enough.
It seems a little heavyhanded to step in and declare a women unfit to give birth to more children though.
A move that would be politically untenuous as well. The backlash against it would be way worse then the relatively small cost of caring for her children. (relative to annual budgets)

conclusion - she shouldn't have any more children regardless, but it's not our place to say it.

 

[fletch_talon]

First off, no, she shouldn't have any more kids. Six children is more than enough for anyone, I don't even care if they can theoretically support and care for them because there will without doubt be a lack of attention and love for one or more children.

Secondly, no, she DEFINITELY shouldn't have more children considering how likely they are to turn out severely autistic. An autistic child is harder to care for than a normal child (generally) so it would only magnify the problem stated above.

 

[PhiMed]

Well, considering the

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.

The vast majority of autistic individuals do not form deep interpersonal interactions or reproduce. So if it is genetic, that gene is highly unlikely to be passed on.

But I have another question: Should people with sickle cell trait reproduce? How about cystic fibrosis carriers? Women who are BRCA positive? People who are FAP positive (familial adenomatous polyposis, pervs)? People with a family history of color blindness? Hemophilia? Huntington's disease? How about people with achondroplasia? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Mcupobob]

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, also there are alot of misunderstandings about autisim. Most think its a form of retardation but it really effects their social skills more than anything eles. Read the book "the curious incident of the dog in the night time" It completly changed my views on autistic people.

So if it only effects their social skills then why are they treated any different to normal people? why do they get special classes, healthcare ect? Just because they cant say hello to someone else?

The parents should be sterilized if they dont want the treatment therapy. The more kids they have, the weaker the gene pool becomes.

Wow, I like how some of you think your genes are superior. Ok so when the goverment starts opertion de-poplation I hope you the first too go. No one has the right too tell anyone too not have childern if they can take care for them and love them. These people are human beings you asshole, How would you feel if you found the love of your life and wished too have as many kids as possible and then someone says you can't because diabetes, or heart condition runs in you family! Sorry about the rant its just I hate 12 year olds mouthing off saying we need to fix the gene pool.