Wow, you're not that familiar with autism are you? Last time I checked, Sir Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and Paul Dirac all made HUGE differences to the world.Pimppeter2 said:being mentally handicapped means that they will most likely forever be taking more away from society than they can possibly put back
Would they enjoy life more or less had they never been born?AndyFromMonday said: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.
Mcupobob said: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.angjn said: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.
Because she's the bringer of Autism. She quite clearly has something wrong in her head.Demented Teddy said:I agree with you.Pimppeter2 said: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?
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 not have any more children.
Also, why on earth is she against treatment?!
Ok, my point exactly. First Asperger's syndrome IS a Autism spectrum syndrome and is rightfully group in there as such. Second, The exact cause of Asperger's syndrome is unknown so I'd love to know how its "a completely different cause".Bright_Raven said:I myself have Asperger's syndrome, which is not autism (completely different cause), but always get grouped in it. i got a lot of this crap from my sister, that i shouldn't breed, that any asperger kids should be genetically altered or aborted.
SNIP
I mean, it's not like anybody with Autism spectum disorder ever did anything! so lets just kill off Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin
SNIP
even Hitler would say that this is wrong, because he also had aspergers.