The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?

[geldonyetich]

A bit torn on it, myself.

On one hand, if you have somebody with a nasty genetic problem and they insist on perpetuating that to children, they are somewhat propagating a genetic problem to the future of the human race. Seeing some of the miserable ignorance in some parts of the country, I can't help but wonder if the United States was wrong to stop practicing Eugenics in the 1970s. Given the safety of society, natural selection just doesn't work anymore, and given that's the case we really need to take responsibility for that.

On the other hand, what's to say we won't eventually get good enough at genetic engineering to make it standard practice to simply treat bad genes during gestation? If that's the case, hey, feel free to pollute your genome all your like, the scientists/doctors of the future will clear that right up.

In both hands, the main problem with Eugenics is deciding just where the dividing line is. I've got heyfever, am balding, require glasses to see 20/20, my mom has late onset diabetes, and my dad encountered heart problems. Any one of those could be considered genetic problems. Just how screwed up do you have to be before sterilization is mandated? Setting the dividing line is very dicey business based off of opinions which are sure to not be universal.

For example, what if they passed a law that everybody who tested below 110 IQ required sterilization? A little IQ test testing bias (for example include a few questions that those raised in African American backdrops are unlikely to know) and we've got a nice doorway for racial genocide. If we set the bar of sterilization at income level, there goes a lot of great genetics in the lower class that may have survived great adversity but simply encountered a societal glass ceiling... and if the upper class are inbred freaks, they'll keep right on at it, since the bar is set at how much they inherited. Later on, if it turns out later on that some eradicated "bad" genetics were actually evolved resistance to a devastating disease that's on a resurgence, we're fucked.

In the end, I think Eugenics are a good idea if and only if we had some means of establishing a universally good and fair criteria. This is the primary reason we knocked it off in the 70s: we couldn't establish that we had. However, I think finding a universal good in this matter will be impossible. Pushing the universal genetic good of humanity would require a true tyrant who is willing to overlook that they simply don't have the means to measure this.

 

[Apackof12Ninjas]

WTF happend to Natural selection???

EVOLUTION HAS FAILED US YET AGAIN!!!

 

[ender214]

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.

I'm going to argue this from a different point. I actually agree that weakening the gene pool is undesirable, but your measures don't need to be taken. In effect, the problem takes care of itself. The chances of a disabled person reproducing is generally quite low, and therefore any genes associated with the disorder are usually not passed through effected persons but by carriers of the gene that do not exhibit symptoms. Thus, these defects will eventually become rarer when the statistics are adjusted for population growth. The measures you suggest would be very unpopular and raise moral questions, and therefore are illogical to implement.

Illogical? No. That is an incorrect word to use, sir, and causes me to question your intellect.

Just because something is unpopular and raises 'moral' questions does not make it illogical by default. Atheism is technically unpopular among the masses. Does that make it illogical? No, far from. And morals? Not everyone shares the same morals, and morals really have nothing to do with logic.

I believe the issue of contention is whether we believe that popular support is useful. Your plan calls for government intervention. A governments ability to act is always based on popular support (even a tyranny would fall if they could not control their people). Attempting to implement your plan would cause popular support to be lost, and therefore endanger the power of the government in power. Meanwhile, enforcement of the policies would become ineffective as resistance would be widespread. Your plan would cause a government to lose more than it would gain.

To answer shortly: The resistance and those against the plan would have to be put down. In a way, I consider that getting rid of the weak as well. The weak willed, unable to do what is required.

Also, as said. It does not make it illogical by DEFAULT. You can argue about it being immoral, but that is all perspective and opinion. Popular? Again, perspective and opinion.

Even if you wish to use force, you must have the support of your army. And when considering a situation that involves more than one person, the opinions of others must be put under consideration in order to take all variables into account. Doing anything less would increase your chances at failure.

 

[Slythernite]

NIEN! Sie sind eine Beleidigung für die meister rennen!
(translate it yourself)

Dude. Not cool.

"Being mentally handicapped means that they will most likely forever be taking more away from society than they can possibly put back."

This sentence actually disturbed me on some deep emotional level. I'm not even kidding. I am seriously concerned about OP right now.

Excuse me? Are we talking about people as mere resource consumers? Are people simply machines that, if not working to efficiency, need to be replaced? Have I suddenly timetraveled to Nazi Germany? Should we remove the undesirables from society so that we, the "superiors" may flourish on the food and resources that would have otherwise been spent on lesser people? Am I the only one that sees a S E R I O U S problem in this way of thinking? Did we not learn anything from the resistance to the Nazi movement?

Honestly, I have Aspergers Syndrome, formerly classified as an Autistic Disorder. If I was treated in this manner, I would be seriously offended.

A person is a person, no matter what conditions they may have. Would we be having this discussion if the children were not autistic?

I don't even know how to say the rest of what I'm thinking. But this is terrible.

Edit: Okay, I wrote this only reading the front page. I am now really disturbed.

"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."

Your previous quoter is quite right, the Third Reich killed men women and children based upon mental disorders that were not necessarily debilitating, and autism would have definitely been something that they would slaughter people like cattle for.

For one, why murder the already living children? They are unlikely to reproduce and therefore not "polluting" your oh-so-valuable gene pool.

People of The Escapist. I am disappointed in you.

You want to lower the population of the earth? Go ahead. You first. Help your lovely human race evolve, by removing the discriminating parties and creating an equal society that does not murder children for disabilities that are no fault of anyone's.

 

[Plazmatic]

I'd first like to start out by saying that this is possibly a very unpopular opinion that I'm about to share. I'd like to first say that I am not insensitive to autistic kids, nor do I mock them, nor am I a fan of population control methods from governments.

The O'Donnelles​

Somewhere in Texas, lives a 49-year-old mother of 6 named Jeanette O'Donnell. Five out of the six children are in fact autistic. Even J-O has admitted herself that " I believe that in my family, it's genetic". Jeanette has been in the public's eye a long time for her stance against possible therapy that improves conditions for autistic children. This thread is about none of that.

What I'm asking, is that is it morally responsible for Jeanette to have more children? I'm not all that into biology, but for the sake of discussion lets assume that if Jeanette had another child, it would most likely be autistic. 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. Regardless, Jeanette already has 5 autistic kids, is it responsible for her as a parent to have more, because frankly, the time and dedication that needs to be applied to a special needs child seems almost impossible to apply to five or six of them.

So, is it morally responsible for a woman like Jeanette to have more children?

EDIT: Just FYI, the majority of her children have severe autism.

More info on Jeanette's family [http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/03/04/caring-for-autistic-children-jeanette-odonnell/?icid=main|main|dl3|link1|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolhealth.com%2F2010%2F03%2F04%2Fcaring-for-autistic-children-jeanette-odonnell%2F]

She should have stopped after one autistic child, she's probably wasting our tax dollars paying for these kids that she can't afford any way, and living off of the government.

and FYI its not morally responsible for her to have more children, she's already crossed the line.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

That is very sad. I think that she should stop having more children and care for those which she has.

How must it be for the one of their children which has a standard intelligence? That must really be hard for her to grow up in that kind of situation.

 

[ultrachicken]

She shouldn't have more kids. It doesn't matter if they're autistic, she already six kids. More kids is not equal to more happiness. If she and her husband have the means to support a seventh child, then that would be fine.

 

[FaithorFire]

I have to agree with you, if they can care for them, then go for it. If they'll need state intervention, then no.

 

[Blatherscythe]

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.

My brother has Autism asshole.

And...?

And everyone has a right to live. Your saying that people should only have so many children based on social status due to over-population, you also state that children should be killed for birth defects that were beyond their control and that the old should be euthanized because in their eyes they are a burden to society. Survival of the fittest my ass, the rich would benifit in your dream society. While the poor would die and lose rights and freedoms to benifit the rich part of society. If you want a dictatorship like that move to China. You obviously don't know how good we all have it. Please do the world a favor, remove your undesirable genes from the gene pool.

You're not very intelligent, are you. You seem to allow your personal feelings to cloud your judgement. I'll try to go easy on you.

And everyone has a right to live.

They don't, actually. Allowing bad genes to continue on weakens the species as a whole, and at times are nothing but burdens to society.

Survival of the fittest my ass, the rich would benifit in your dream society.

How so? Simply because they are allowed to have one more child than the middle class level when the population in their area allows it? And when the population in their area does not allow this, they'd be having the same amount of children as the middle class. Also, the rich would have just as much of a chance to be sterilized as the middle class and poor people. If a rich person has bad genes, or have children born with defects, they'd receive the same treatment as everyone else. Unless you can give a logical reason as to how the rich would benefit from this system, you are doing nothing but whining.


While the poor would die and lose rights and freedoms to benifit the rich part of society.

See, you're just blathering on about nothing. How would the poor die? What freedoms are they losing that would benefit the rich? None, that's what. Again. The rich and poor would be sterilized and killed just the same if they have bad genes. Oh, what? You're whining because the rich can have one to two more children than the poor? It makes sense. Who is more suited to raise more children? A poor person living in a trailer or run down shack, or a person with the money to take care of said children. The only way what you said would make sense is if I said the poor couldn't have any children at all.

Stop making wild claims, fool.

You obviously don't know how good we all have it. Please do the world a favor, remove your undesirable genes from the gene pool.

How good we all have it? What wild nonsense is this. We don't all have it good. Far from. And at the rate this planet is going population wise... well. Things are going to get far worse. You obviously know nothing about what you are arguing against, and should therefore shut up instead of blathering.

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

And everyone has a right to live.

They don't, actually. Allowing bad genes to continue on weakens the species as a whole, and at times are nothing but burdens to society.

Your coming from a scientific point of view, I'm coming from a humanitarian point of view. Who are you to judge who lives and who dies?

Survival of the fittest my ass, the rich would benifit in your dream society.

How so? Simply because they are allowed to have one more child than the middle class level when the population in their area allows it? And when the population in their area does not allow this, they'd be having the same amount of children as the middle class. Also, the rich would have just as much of a chance to be sterilized as the middle class and poor people. If a rich person has bad genes, or have children born with defects, they'd receive the same treatment as everyone else. Unless you can give a logical reason as to how the rich would benefit from this system, you are doing nothing but whining.

The rich have it good in any society that's a fact. Your propose stripping people of their freedoms, rights and their dignity over genetics. You do realize that there are dominant and recessive genes right? Dominant genes (usually) show up 2/3 times, recessive genes (usually) show up 1/3 of the time. You would sterilize people over things they have no control over?


While the poor would die and lose rights and freedoms to benifit the rich part of society.

See, you're just blathering on about nothing. How would the poor die? What freedoms are they losing that would benefit the rich? None, that's what. Again. The rich and poor would be sterilized and killed just the same if they have bad genes. Oh, what? You're whining because the rich can have one to two more children than the poor? It makes sense. Who is more suited to raise more children? A poor person living in a trailer or run down shack, or a person with the money to take care of said children. The only way what you said would make sense is if I said the poor couldn't have any children at all.

Stop making wild claims, fool.

For one they lose the right to have as many children as they desire (not really a right but still). You also said old people should be killed for being a burden on society, everyone has the right to be free of persecution (the rich would find a way to "contribute"). You would also murder those you deemed to have inferior genes (you sound a lot like a certain famous Austrain man).

You obviously don't know how good we all have it. Please do the world a favor, remove your undesirable genes from the gene pool.

How good we all have it? What wild nonsense is this. We don't all have it good. Far from. And at the rate this planet is going population wise... well. Things are going to get far worse. You obviously know nothing about what you are arguing against, and should therefore shut up instead of blathering.

Food, clean water, warm houses, no fear of war, clean clothes, education that sounds pretty damn good to me. We shouldn't punish people for things they have no control over, maybe we could research more into genetics to modify genes to prevent disablities, but the answer is not murder and persecution. If your idea actually catches on we would be in a dictatorship. And another thing, me and my retarded brother have lesser genes than you? You can insult me over the internet all you want but leave my family out of this. Now kindly fuck off you and people who think like you are the reason the earth is the shithole it is. It is not the disabled, the elderly, or those with "inferior genes", it is the bigoted, self-righteous, fascist scum of the earth like you that make the world so terrible to live in.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

The parents are being irresponsible, perhaps even cruel. But you people can jam 'society' right up your ass. Those kids are society.

 

[Pimppeter2]

"Being mentally handicapped means that they will most likely forever be taking more away from society than they can possibly put back."

This sentence actually disturbed me on some deep emotional level. I'm not even kidding. I am seriously concerned about OP right now.

Excuse me? Are we talking about people as mere resource consumers? Are people simply machines that, if not working to efficiency, need to be replaced? Have I suddenly timetraveled to Nazi Germany? Should we remove the undesirables from society so that we, the "superiors" may flourish on the food and resources that would have otherwise been spent on lesser people? Am I the only one that sees a S E R I O U S problem in this way of thinking? Did we not learn anything from the resistance to the Nazi movement?

I never said that they should be removed from society. Your putting words into my mouth.

I never said that they should be "cleansed" because they take away more from society. All I said was that they do in most cases take away from society more than it is possible for them to give back. That does not imply that I think that they should be killed. In fact I mentioned that in the start of the thread that I do not support government population control. I think there is a S E R I O U S problem with your comprehension skills.

If this sounds pissy, its because I'm sick and tired of the handful of responses in this thread claiming I support Nazi like genocide. All I freaking asked is that if it is morally okay for a parent to have a child fully knowing that it would be autistic. So if you want to argue with the people in the thread who believe in population control, direct your message at them, not at me.

 

[Plazmatic]

NIEN! Sie sind eine Beleidigung für die meister rennen!
(translate it yourself)

Dude. Not cool.



"Being mentally handicapped means that they will most likely forever be taking more away from society than they can possibly put back."

This sentence actually disturbed me on some deep emotional level. I'm not even kidding. I am seriously concerned about OP right now.

Excuse me? Are we talking about people as mere resource consumers? Are people simply machines that, if not working to efficiency, need to be replaced? Have I suddenly timetraveled to Nazi Germany? Should we remove the undesirables from society so that we, the "superiors" may flourish on the food and resources that would have otherwise been spent on lesser people? Am I the only one that sees a S E R I O U S problem in this way of thinking? Did we not learn anything from the resistance to the Nazi movement?

Honestly, I have Aspergers Syndrome, formerly classified as an Autistic Disorder. If I was treated in this manner, I would be seriously offended.

A person is a person, no matter what conditions they may have. Would we be having this discussion if the children were not autistic?

I don't even know how to say the rest of what I'm thinking. But this is terrible.

-1 OP is right, you didn't disprove anything.

-2 were debating on whether this woman is being responsible continually having children that are obviously going to be autistic.

-3 Your Aspergers Syndrome is not severe autism, nor any type of severe mental retardation. If it were you would not be able to type to us in an socially understandable manner.

-4 So your OK with people simply leeching off society knowing how that when they birth these children, they are going to be autistic and the parent/s are going to get tax cuts and money from the government? Not only that but purposely giving children, even autistic ones bad opportunities in life. This is why there is abortion, so people don't have to give their children bad opportunities when they are not ready for children, that and some times the child birth will cause the mother to die, or both the mother and the baby.

 

[ender214]

NIEN! Sie sind eine Beleidigung für die meister rennen!
(translate it yourself)

Your German needs some work. "No" in German is "Nein". "Nien" translates to "Britain". So your sentence currently insulting Britain.

 

[z121231211]

You know what I always thought was a good idea: If your doctor is sure that your child is going to have a mental handicap (Mentally Retarded, Autism) and you could abort it, yet you still have the child, the government will not help you support the child (or any more than it would help support an average child).

 

[Slythernite]

Edited for niceness. Lost my head for a second.

OT:

If she can support the kids and make them happy. Feel free. If she is incapable and leaving a child to a life of squander, then no, but I would say that about anyone who already has 6 children. I don't think that the autism should play a part in this.

 

[tsb247]

She should not have any more children. If there is a large degree of certainty that another child would have severe health problems affecting the brain (like autism) then it would be irresponsible to continue to have children.

The cost of caring for them is far more than caring for a regular child, and they require a LOT of special attention in all aspects of their lives.

I also believe it would be cruel to bring a child into the world knowing beforehand that they could have such a condition with a high degree of certainty.

 

[Nalesnik]

WTF happend to Natural selection???

EVOLUTION HAS FAILED US YET AGAIN!!!

That's because evolution is way too ineffective, and slow (to humans at least) With our awesome brainpower, we discovered science, technology, and modern medicine. And with those innovations we greatly outpaced the natural mechanism of evolution. Evolution requires millions of years to make us faster, smarter, better. Medicine/tech on the other hand requires only a few years.

More on topic, it's a lot better/smarter to rely on the rapid advancements in medicine/therapy to eradicate autism, rather than the slow process of evolution.

Not to sound a bit smug, but evolution? We don't need no stinkin' evolution! =D

 

[Slythernite]

I say you're the mentally disturbed one if you can not understand and accept the reasons behind it all.

Lucky me. I am.

She should not have any more children. If there is a large degree of certainty that another child would have severe health problems affecting the brain (like autism) then it would be irresponsible to continue to have children.

The cost of caring for them is far more than caring for a regular child, and they require a LOT of special attention in all aspects of their lives.

I also believe it would be cruel to bring a child into the world knowing beforehand that they could have such a condition with a high degree of certainty.

That's something I could get behind.