The "Autism family": Is this acceptable?
- Thread starter Pimppeter2
- Start date
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:
If you plan to shoot me down by saying that those 3 were rare cases let me ask you how many non autistic people made contributions to the world that were on par with those 3, and work that out as a percentage of the total number of normal people. Now look at the severe autism cases, and work out THAT percentage.
There are millions, maybe even billions of people who will take out of society more than they can put back in, and it's not genetic. Those people are leeches because their upbringing hasn't given them morals or somewhere down the lines things have gone very, very wrong for them. Those kids, assuming that they have a good upbringing, and it's likely that they will given that she certainly seems to be a family person, will most likely put more into the world than the millions of people with poor upbringings. If you really think that just because they're DNA may give them some trouble in life, you're clearly damn near incapable of thinking in the long run beyond "Oooh, autism isn't too good, and there's a lot of autism here, it must be so bad that I should start a thread about it".
Edit: My apologies that turned into a rant. I believe that she should stop having kids in the same way that anyone else whould stop having kids after a certain point, though I believe that the autism is completely besides the point and I think very little of you for using it a centre point for your argument.
She's 49. There's a very high risk of your child being mentally handicapped when you have it after the age of fourty (the woman's age that is). The risk gets higher the older the woman is. So yes, i think it's very irresponsible for her to have more children.
She can have more children though, it's not my problem.
She can have more children though, it's not my problem.
Mcupobob said:
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.
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?!
OT: She shouldn't be allowed any more children. Heck, if you've had 2 autistic children; you shouldn't be allowed to, in my opinion.
Well, while it is certainly a bad bet that any of her children will be a benefit to society, I do not believe it to be wrong for her to have them.
I base this on the fact that there quite a few members of society, primarily criminals and delinquents, who manage to be quite a detriment to the society they are members of, without the help of anything a skewed moral compass.
There should be no worse treatment reserved for those who might impair a society, than is reserved for those who are actively doing it.
I base this on the fact that there quite a few members of society, primarily criminals and delinquents, who manage to be quite a detriment to the society they are members of, without the help of anything a skewed moral compass.
There should be no worse treatment reserved for those who might impair a society, than is reserved for those who are actively doing it.
There are more than enough people on this planet as there is. The last thing we need is more autistic people.
EDIT: I have nothing against autistic people as such, my opinion would be the same if they would't be born with autism. She has 5 kids already, she doesn't need to burden this planet with any more, regardless of their mental capacity.
EDIT: I have nothing against autistic people as such, my opinion would be the same if they would't be born with autism. She has 5 kids already, she doesn't need to burden this planet with any more, regardless of their mental capacity.
If she has the time, money, and ability to care for yet another child that will require a rather large amount of attention, then yes. If she doesn't, absolutely not. What really frustrates me is how she is opposed to treatment that could help her children cope better with the stresses of normal life. If she is going to deny them the chance to deal with society, then the children should be given to someone who will help them and acclimitize them to the real world.
Ok, just for the record, Asperger's syndrome is the new ADHD, in that it certainly seems that everyone has it right about now. There are very few doctors actually qualified to diagnose it as well, so if you're self diagnosed or just diagnosed by a random doctor or shrink then shut the fuck up. I'm really sick of seeing every nerd and social reject on the internet claiming to have Asperger's syndrome.
Second, pulling names out of your ass and saying they had Asperger's syndrome does not some how add credibility. Its difficult to definitively diagnose in person, so how could we possibly diagnose it on long dead people? Gates has never been diagnosed, though people have guessed that he was or that he exhibits some traits of the syndrome.
Edison was a douche bag who stole the ideas of his staff and had little to none of the marked traits of Asperger's syndrome.
Einstein had an obsession with mathematics and science and didn't like crowds, but practically every math teacher I've met has been like that.
Newton had massive mercury poisoning because of his dabbling in alchemy which explains his strangeness
Pretty much all this speculation comes from Michael Fitzgerald who has made a living of saying that every famous person as had Asperger's syndrome. And here's the thing, if you're going to say that all these men had Asperger's syndrome then you're basically widening the boundaries of what constitutes Asperger's syndrome to the point that practically any intelligent and socially awkward person is going to fall into it. In that case they might as well just call it "Geek syndrome".
There is also the major point that there is a big difference between autism as in Asperger's syndrome and autism as in what we used to call "mental retardation"
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:
Second, pulling names out of your ass and saying they had Asperger's syndrome does not some how add credibility. Its difficult to definitively diagnose in person, so how could we possibly diagnose it on long dead people? Gates has never been diagnosed, though people have guessed that he was or that he exhibits some traits of the syndrome.
Edison was a douche bag who stole the ideas of his staff and had little to none of the marked traits of Asperger's syndrome.
Einstein had an obsession with mathematics and science and didn't like crowds, but practically every math teacher I've met has been like that.
Newton had massive mercury poisoning because of his dabbling in alchemy which explains his strangeness
Pretty much all this speculation comes from Michael Fitzgerald who has made a living of saying that every famous person as had Asperger's syndrome. And here's the thing, if you're going to say that all these men had Asperger's syndrome then you're basically widening the boundaries of what constitutes Asperger's syndrome to the point that practically any intelligent and socially awkward person is going to fall into it. In that case they might as well just call it "Geek syndrome".
There is also the major point that there is a big difference between autism as in Asperger's syndrome and autism as in what we used to call "mental retardation"