Australian scientists develop genetic test to predict autism

Post Reply New Topic

Selective abortion is a legal issue, an ethical issue, and a moral issue. However, prospective parents whom have a genetic family history of disorders, including Autism are provided genetic counseling, that in part, provides statistical risks, which people already use in a decision in their legal right to choose an alternative of selective abortion. In fact, information provided to some is the alternative to abort male fetuses as they are statistically 4 to 5 times higher at risk of developing Autism than a female fetus.

It's highly unlikely that any individual is going to risk amniocenteses for a prenatal test to determine the risk of a child developing autism, unless there is a family history of the disorder, and they are determined to find a higher potential risk factor above and beyond what is currently provided by genetic counseling.

There is also the potential that if an actual prenatal test was provided and the fetus was not part of the identified 70% and instead part of the 30% without any known association of spectrum disorders, that a child on the spectrum would be born, whereas if the less conclusive information that is provided today through genetic counseling would result in the abortion of a male fetus.

So, people already have the right to end pregnancies where there is a risk of a child developing a spectrum disorder, if they choose to, even if the risks provided by genetic counselors are lower than what might be afforded to them from a more conclusive prenatal test.

And then there are those that do not personally believe in the ethical/moral choice for selective abortion, that use other means of effective birth control to avoid the risk of the potential of having any children, because they do not desire to have children either on or off the spectrum, and for some family history of children on the spectrum plays a role in that decision, regardless if they visit a genetic counselor or not.

While one might agree more with the ethics and morals of the choice of the individual in the previous paragraph, the reality is that it is more likely that a child on the spectrum would be born to the individual that chose the 70/30 prenatal test over the individual that did not personally believe in abortion, and instead chose effective birth control to avoid having any children off or on the spectrum.

Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, and no one is legally forced to endure a pregnancy or have a child when they exercise their legal rights per alternatives that exist. The question should an individual abort a pregnancy at risk of autism is a moral and ethical one of personal choice, as individuals already have the legal right to selective abortion of pregnancies associated with the risk of developing Autism, provided by genetic counselors, or from information readily available on the internet per statistical odds of familial risk.

It's difficult to say what the actual net impact of a potentially more definitive prenatal test for autism would be, as people have already been avoiding having children on the spectrum either through intent or unwittingly ever since the first birth control methods became available.

The impact would probably be the highest among older women that are already receiving these microarray tests that include a risk for autism through amniocenteses when downs syndrome is suspected. Not nearly as likely to have as much of an impact in other circumstances, when more serious genetic anomalies are not suspected in a high risk pregnancy, as procedures that require amniocenteses is usually not an option advised by a physician.

Why can you not believe it? I said it, so therefore you must be able to believe it. Aspy kids needs a lot more work, and autism, you are pretty much trapped for life.

If parents don't want those factors in their kids, and they are legally allowed to abort, then they can do it.

Excuse me?!?!?!

I'm perfectly capable of living independently thank you kindly... Not only that, my Neurotypical Sister has given my parents more of a headache than I have. Furthermore, I wasn't diagnosed with being on the Spectrum until Freshman year of College.

Autism is an entire spectrum, a lot of scientists are on the Autistic Spectrum.

zxy8, are you even on the spectrum and simply have a problem of self-loathing, or are you a NT that has no idea what they are talking about?

Now I've got to call BS here. How is Obama or the Democrats even remotely tied to "curing" autism with abortion?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Check Obama's Illinois State Senate Voting Record, he has a 100% pro-abortion voting record for a reason.

But when was that ever the case for eliminating babies with autism? And frankly, I'm more interested in the positions he's taken in the last three and a half years as President - in which I know he's never advocated genocide against our tribe.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

He was okay with born-alive Down Syndrome babies being thrown in trash bins, while he was a State Senator...

If you say so.
But even if that's true, there is no record of him wanting to abort fetuses to eliminate autism.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That would be a valid point except you've neglected a key piece of information.

Up until now (assuming this test is actually accurate), there have been no tests that could determine if a child has autism while the child is still in the womb.

However, there is past history concerning children with other traits that are often considered undesirable that he is on record supporting abortion of, even for them being tossed into a trash bin to die because they survived the abortion.

I think the President had supported those abortion measures while a state senator simply to protect a woman's right to choose, and not because he has some sort of fiendish thing for seeing fetuses thrown into the garbage. And it's not fair to assume someone is going to take a certain course when that course of action isn't even a reality yet.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I never said you were not capable. I was saying that in general, aspy and autistic kids require a lot more work, and it is harder for the parents. Just because you were diagnosed then, it doesn't mean you never had it before.

It's good that you are capable of living independently, but the majority of people on the spectrum are evidenced as not living independently. Those individuals, particularly the ones that fall through the cracks of those considered permanently disabled by the government vs. those with significant disabilities that are unemployable have President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other legislators to thank for having any potential of health care coverage after coverage is no longer provided under their parents policies, if their parents are fortunate enough to have a job and/or coverage.

While that may not personally impact one if they are able to find a job with health insurance coverage it stands to impact hundreds of thousands of individuals on the spectrum per their abilities to gain life saving treatment for chronic co-morbid conditions associated with the spectrum as well as other chronic illness. It is the most important piece of legislation, providing potential life saving benefits for individuals with disabilities, including people on the spectrum since the passage of the American's with Disabilities Act.

The abortion issue is a completely separate issue from Autism and Pre-natal tests; the government is not forcing anyone to abort any child with a disability; it is entirely up to the individual whether or not they choose to abort per their legal right to abortion, and some people are already exercising that right to abort pregnancies to avoid having children on the spectrum, per genetic counseling on familial risks, and potentially through the prenatal tests already available that provide information for a relatively low risk of autism, in a pregnancy along with risks for 150 other conditions.

The ethical or moral concerns, are those of the individuals who make this decision, as well as any decision for abortion, whether or not someone else agrees with it or not.

What one may not be aware of is that abortion is as prevalent in countries where it is illegal as it is in countries where it is legal, including Mexico where the predominant religion is catholic, and contraceptives are not acceptable among many.

The major difference being that in these medically unapproved illegal abortions hundreds of thousands of women globally are permanently disabled as a result and some die, as well as the greater potential for pain and suffering of the unborn child, per the data from the World Health Organization.

Abortion is a human reality prevalent in most cultures, regardless of the legality of the procedure, that is thousands of years old, as an alternative to Infanticide, Filicide, and even cannibalism, before rudimentary forms of abortion were developed to contend with the harsh realities associated with limited subsistence resources.

One still finds reports of significant infanticide of female children in China and India in areas where abortion is not accessible. It's not a kinder gentler method for those that participate in this method, it's a horrible harsh human reality.

If abortion were ever outlawed in the US, the UN would consider the US as a country of third world status, per the potential increase of permanent disability, death, and pain and suffering of the unborn, that is a common factor in countries where medically approved abortions are not accessible and/or legal. For the UN life or death statistics trump moral and ethical concerns associated with abortion.

If one doesn't find themselves in a circumstance associated with abortion, they can consider themselves fortunate, as it is not a decision that most people want to have to make, but it is often one of continued subsistence and survival, as the safety net provided by society, does not provide the level of assistance required for many people in unfortunate economic conditions, where an abortion can mean the difference between a job and a small family with a roof over their head, or homelessness.

If one supports fewer abortions, considering they are evidenced as occurring at similar frequencies per non-approved medical procedures in countries where they are illegal, one can thank their democratic legislators for providing greater access to effective contraceptives, through healthcare reform, as effective contraception is the only proven effective alternative provided that results in the reduction of abortions legal and medically approved, or illegal and not medically approved, world-wide, per statistics provided by the world health organization.

If one doesn't agree with the legal right to Abortion, Obama is their buddy, because he is the only presidential candidate in the last several decades, that has provided any realistic change in legislation, per the health care reform act, providing the potential reduction of abortions, through greater accessibility/affordability of effective contraceptives by the economically strapped part of the population, that is the most likely part of the population to find themselves in a position to make that decision for abortion, that could easily be prevented if accessible effective contraceptive methods were provided at no cost for those covered by health care plans, subsidized by the government.

If one cares about the pain and suffering of the unborn, one does not want to assist in providing the potential result of illegal non-medically approved abortion, that would definitely result if abortion was ever outlawed in the US. Effective contraception is the only realistic option available, other than voluntary sterilization. There is no credible evidence that "the goal" of abstinence is an effective method of birth control above and beyond effective contraceptives per the general population.

While it is likely that there are some to many scientists on the broader autism phenotype and fewer on the spectrum, there are only a handful of scientists that have publicly disclosed a diagnosis on the spectrum worldwide, and tens of thousands of scientists world wide.

Regarding the claim made that Obama was okay about allowing live fetuses to be thrown in the garbage can, that is a false claim. There was a report by a nurse of one fetus accidentally thrown in a trash bin, and Obama provided no support for that accidental action. Obama agreed that the conditions at the hospital were not acceptable per respect of human life and and the instructions provided to the hospital by the committee he was part of were that the hospital should provide appropriate respect for human life through a comfort room, which the hospital complied with, per records from the committee hearing provided in the link below.

The commentator in the linked article below that provides the actual snippet from the committee hearing attempts to suggest Obama talked to the nurse in a previous meeting, however he only stated he agreed with the opinion provided by the nurse that appropriate respect of human life was not being provided at the hospital and reiterated the decision made by the committee that he was part of to direct the hospital to make an appropriate change to better respect human life, that the hospital complied with. The issue was corrected, but the nurse's continued concern that Obama saw no evidence for was that doctors would not fulfill their duties and make unethical decisions to let fetuses die instead of providing care to fetuses determined as medically viable, per appropriate medical standards and procedures.

He considered the proposed bill redundant and not necessary as procedures were already in place to protect viable fetuses.

http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/jill-stanek/2012/05/16/multiple-mistakes-about-obama-and-born-alive-act-new-book-amateur

Amen! I say, Amen, aghogday! Very informative and well said.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Except for the fact the baby was outside the womb and was alive and kicking, most "pro-choice" (really pro-abortion) people would agree with the stance that the woman's right to choose ends at that point (the baby was thrown in a janitor's closet to die I think there is no middle ground on this).



I'm currently stuck in a situation where there are no jobs to be found, and I have to watch how much I make or I lose my insurance. I can't even try to use this time for some internships, you can thank government stupidity for that.

While there are people on the spectrum that can't live independently they often have other difficulties aside from the Autism that is a contributing factor.



Aside from potentially developing seizures during adolescence I don't know of any chronic conditions that are actually tied to autism. Generally you're looking at people that have more than one condition, and those chronic problems can be tied to those other conditions.

Fun fact, the Americans with Disabilities act was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, and was strengthened by President George W. Bush.



No, but parents are pressured into aborting children with Down Syndrome already, my cousin has down syndrome and doctors tried to pressure my Aunt into getting an Abortion. It's going to get a lot worse when government controls healthcare.



Wrong, we're talking about whether or not eugenics is okay.

Inuaysha, there are many chronic health conditions associated co-morbid with autism spectrum disorders, including mitochondrial dysfunction, metabolic dysfunction, immune system dysfunction, as well as the many psychiatric co-morbid conditions associated with the spectrum. My child passed away as a result of a co-morbid condition associated with autism, that research continues to address. That insurance bill would have been close to a third of a millions dollars, had I not had insurance to cover my child for about a month and a half stay in a hospital. One who does not see the importance of health care reform, has not likely visited a place like this.

The state does not enforce eugenics and until they do there is no classical eugenics in the US. Liberal eugenics is an animal and human reality that has existed identified through the fossil record, from some of the earliest known information about human beings. The choice continues, and one cannot impose their morals and ethics on others, when the legal choice is provided, regardless of how they personally see it morally and ethically.

One could look at it from the opposite point of view as well. If you were forced by the state to adopt a child on the spectrum, without the financial ability to care for that child, would you accept the responsibility and the requirement? That is no more of a reality than classical eugenics in the US, as you have the choice to adopt based on your ability to do so, and the state can not force you, if you were female, to have an abortion.

That's kinda surprising because I actually am the healthiest person in my immediate family, I rarely get sick.

The problem with your assumptions (and I'm sorry for your loss) is that government run health care would be okay with trying to save your child, got news for you, because of the diagnosis (unelected officials making judgements as to whether or not people are worth giving medical care to), you probably wouldn't have received any assistance from insurance, in fact it is more likely that they would have pressured you into pulling the plug.



Tell that to the millions of Down Syndrome children, oh yeah that's right most of them were killed before they were born due to abortions...

If this was something about trying to correct the serious health threatening genetic problems and potentially help ensure that the child would be on the higher end of the spectrum, then I wouldn't have that much of an issue. Getting rid of a genetic heart defect for instance.

However, the point of this test is to try to detect autism in-utero in order to abort babies that are on the spectrum, which I would argue is genocide.



Well, I've actually been doing some reading on the subject concerning our problems. Since many of us have sensory issues (myself included), yet my mom was a Speech Pathologist, and I wasn't diagnosed with being on the spectrum until college (she recognized the sensory issues and that I had some other motor planning issues, but I just didn't fit the definition for Autism at the time). Based on what I've read, a lot of our problems could be due to our sensory issues and then many people on the spectrum may have missed key moments of their development in early childhood due to those sensory issues, moments that some of us didn't miss and thus we're able to function independently rather well.