The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?

[Pimppeter2]

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]

 

[Thwarted]

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.

 

[JWW]

No, we have enough people.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

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.

Pretty much my sentiments.

Although, when is it time to call it quits? I mean, seriously.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

If she can prove she can adequately care for the child, then why should we stop her?

Although I'm tempted to change my answer after having seen this:

No, we have enough people.

 

[Davrel]

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.

 

[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.

 

[GiantRedButton]

In that case, health care should be cut.
The Family is deliberately causing these costs, and should pay for it them-selfs.
The moral implications of attempting to spread a gene into the society's gene-pool so fiercefully, that creates autism are questionable at best.

 

[Embright]

Well why they are incredibly lucky to live in a post-industrial country where they can get help, I think the question of ethics is more in the line of why do they want more children? Now while this may seem a little strange to ask at first, it is well known that some parents have children in order to receive support from the government.

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

 

[The Undoer]

She has six kids, does she want another? That's really the question that comes to mind.

From the view point of someone with Autism, really it's just a bit more of an attention to detail I personally require. Well, a lot. But people generally don't notice until I mention it, if she can deal with having six autistic kids, and what's another. Let her have one.

 

[Kermi]

One of the reasons my wife and I are reluctant to consider children is because her younger brother is autistic. If we had a son, he'd stand a good chance of being autistic as well.
Now my wife loves her brother, and I care about him too - once his parents are no longer around he's going to be our responsibility and we accept that.

If she's had six kids and five were autistic, she needs to stop having kids. It's irresponsible, and unfair for her to bring children into the world when there is already, statistically proven, an 83% chance the child will be autistic. It's unfair on the child, I mean. You wouldn't choose to have a handicapped child (however severe or mild the handicap may be), so at this point what's the difference between 100% and 83%? Frankly I would have stopped after my first autistic child because that's already a lot of responsibility. Granted, you usually can't tell a child is autistic until they're a few years old so understandably if she had all her children close together she may already have had 3 or even 4 autistic children before realising.

 

[Gigaguy64]

Its hard to say, people can have as many kids as they want but, if i knew that there was a extremely high chance that my children would be autistic or be born with another type of major mental handicap then i would not have kids.

It just doesn't seem right to bring a child into the world when i know it would have major mental problems and need to be taken care of for the rest of its life.

 

[Shapsters]

I don't think is is morally responsible, look at the lives the people will live when they are older. Sure it is perfectly fine when they are young, but when you have 7 autistic people to look after ages 20-35, that would be horrible for the parents, and even more so the autistic people. I think it is wrong to keep producing kids that will never live normal lives...

 

[Coldfreeze]

Depends on the grade of autism. I myself have ADHD and well, i turned out ok. I do not think that someone should be prohibited of having kids, even if it's almost sure the kids you have have autism. two friends of mine have it. One has is still on highschool while the other is doing HAVO wich isn't college in my country but one grade higher then highschool.

Autism is in some case a stop on living a normal life, but in most cases people with autism live an ok life.

 

[Jark212]

As there not depending of taxpayer funds, that's fine... I guess...

 

[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.

 

[Samurai Jim]

Unless she has some way to care for these children from their birth until their death she can pump out as many children as she cares to. I really don't think she should have any more children though. I don't care how normal that woman says her children are/can become, they will never me as mentally stable or healthy as regular children, especially with her denying them any sort of medical treatments or therapy.