Would you want your kids to be autistic at all?

Post Reply New Topic

Of course not. But ASD just seems to create a whole new level of difficulty for kids... ASD kids will do fine in life. They can be happy. But it would be harder than for NT kids. It is just not something I would choose for my kids. I also wouldn't want my kids to be homosexual, or unusually tall/short, or extremely overweight, or anything else that may cause others to think differently of them. But ASD seems to be a harder thing for kids to have, only due to the way society treats them, and the way I have seen my girlfriend suffer in so many ways because of her autism, and hate being autistic. I have heard her on countless times talk about feeling worthless, and like a freak. In school, she was often teased and called a freak. It is something I wouldn't want my kids to go through.

I agree with you 100%. Having ASD is more a negative than a positive for most people and we are not even talking about the risk of giving birth to a highly autistic person requiring a lot of services. Why would anyone do that on purpose in today's world? Autism is already a 35-50 BILLION DOLLAR a year problem for our state. YES that is a problem and has the potential to reach the same costs as our obesity epidemic even. I especially find interesting the views of the people who cannot even care for themselves financially that feel that brining a child into this world who will potentially require services is just fine. Sure if the world was made of money and the proper services just magically existed for all, then I would feel differently. But since reality is that this world is NOT quite that way and our nation's financial situation is only getting worse before it gets better so I don't see money raining down from the heavens to support this mindset.

Just doesn't make sense to my black/white way of thinking I suppose....

Fair enough if that's your opinion, but I respectfully disagree. Being different is a good thing. If I had a kid who was autistic, gay, short, and overweight - all the things you don't want your kids to be for some reason - I'd feel the same about as I would if I had a kid who was "normal".

I do strongly disagree that growing up having autism is any harder than growing up as an NT. As an NT, you have to worry about peer pressure - you'll always be worried about keeping up with all the crap your friends are doing, whether its drugs or drinking or house parties or whatever. Whereas, as an Aspie, you have none of these issues, but you will have different ones. That's it - different issues, not issues that are any worse.

Bear in mind I'm an Aspie who was still in primary school ten years ago, so I know what I'm talking about from personal experience.

I find many of the ideas on this thread depressing. It's living proof that being autistic does not mean you're so free from influence by your society's common belief systems no matter what fantasies some autistic people have otherwise. Medical model of disability everywhere, stereotypes of disabled people as drains on society, etc. Total lack of understanding of what the difference between disabled and nondisabled even means.

Here's the difference:

Nondisabled people are the people a society plans for. Their needs are not considered special or costly even when they cost billions of dollars more than disabled people in various areas. (For instance, they need seating everywhere they go, they don't take their chairs with them. They require lighting everywhere as well, even though it is totally within their capacities to learn to navigate without it. These are only two out of hundreds of examples every one of which is incredibly costly. But nobody would dare blame them for the drainage of money their needs represent because these things are taken for granted as "stuff you just have to do".) No matter what the specific needs for their type of body, their society will step up and provide those services. And those services will never be considered special, nonessential, too costly, etc. nor will anyone ever blame people for bringing into the world more people who need hundreds of different kinds of (totally accepted) services. For that matter, nobody even considers these things services or dependence. Nondisabled people are those who can be called independent even as they require massive amounts of services (some of which disabled people don't need) in order to survive or just be comfortable. (Their comfort is also taken as a need rather than a want.) When nondisabled people have deficiencies they are never ever called that or called attention to no matter how severe.

Disabled people are everyone else. The ones whose needs aren't planned for and seamlessly provided for by our societies. The ones deemed too costly when we require just a fraction more services than the nondisabled need (or even if we don't require services, such as lighting, that eat up tons of resources). And make no mistake: The services required by the most severely disabled people (read: those furthest from cultural norms) are only a teeny teeny bit more than what nondisabled people get, percentage-wise. But since this assistance is considered nonessential, then it's considered perfectly fine to highlight it in big bold letters and point at it as this hugely expensive stuff that a society should not have to absorb. Even if, in a truly inclusive society, it would be woven into the fabric of that society, therefore becoming less expensive, and would never ever be highlighted and pointed out as different and less essential than what everyone else needs.

To most people, this is theory. Abstraction. They have so thoroughly absorbed their culture's ableist BS that they see disability as always having to be how it's seen right now. This isn't theory to me. My family on both sides has more disabled than nondisabled people, but few of them even know this despite not all being "mild" by any stretch. That's because in the small rural cultures they come from, interdependence is the norm. Disabled people are not separated out as different and requiring special extensive services. People help each other. It's that simple. Disabled helping disabled, nondisabled helping disabled, disabled helping nondisabled, nondisabled people helping nondisabled, until few people notice a difference between the two. I'm not talking utopia here either, just people who had never been exposed to the mainstream poison that is its ideas about disabled people.

The people I'm describing here were poor. Often very poor. Not just my family either. Someone I know whose family is from a Mexican village says similar things about disability, including people with undiagnosed severe intellectual disabilities being totally integrated and not considered different. If poor people can absorb disability in this way then so can the comparatively richer places that claim they don't have enough money to handle disabled people. Some of the issue is exactly that these richer areas separate disability services from regular services, use unnecessary and costly "therapies" that are massively overpriced, don't integrate these things into the fabric of daily life, etc. Also there's an entire disability that artificially jacks up prices for insurance purposes awhen they don't actually need to charge that much, they do it because they can, and this results in people being charged $10,000 for a $400 device for instance. I rolled my eyes watching a woman describe her autism services for her son as sending her son to Harvard every year. My family (not even my temporarily middle class immediate family growing up) could never do that for disabled family members, no matter how severely disabled they were, and the disabled family members did not die or fare all that ill as a result. There's a mentality fueled by greed and advertising among professionals, that if you're not doing something expensive every moment of the day then you're neglecting your disabled child. But somehow poorer families can usually manage without that. (Can't always, but usually.) And have been managing without that for generations around the entire world.

So from understanding the differences between the culture I live in and the cultures much of my family is from, I can attest that this is real. This difference between nondisabled and disabled being all about who is accepted and planned for and who is... extra. The difference between interdependence, and the utterly fake choice between independence/dependence. These things are not theories to me. They are descriptions of a reality I have watched all my life. And this is how I know that this conversation would never take place without a really twisted view of disability, that too many people take for granted as "reality". And my entire extended family would never exist if many of you had their way. It's not just a view of disability though. It's a view of human beings in general in terms of dollar value, and a lot of other artifacts of a disgusting element in society that frames issues in this way. (If you only knew the history of that view, you might never have used it.)

I have memories of a severely physically disabled ("bedridden") relative caring for, and being cared for by, her autistic son, for decades. Nobody would have ever used those words though. That was just how life works: Everyone does what they can for each other, even if they're poor and living in a tiny falling apart house smaller than my current apartment (which is small and located in low income housing). The key is not to make sure nobody has kids that could become disabled, nor to argue that disabled people are just tooooo expensive (while nondisabled people are just normal and okay regardless of expense), it's to ensure that this view of interdependence and disability takes hold and spreads. And you cannot simultaneously hold this much healthier view of disability, and say some of the disgusting stuff that passes for "normal" views of disability these days in mainstream America and similar countries.

I find it highly disturbing how few of you question what your culture has taught you about disability. It's as if you actually think your views are objective and factual when they're riddled with prejudice and lack of understanding of the (cultural, economic, historical, etc.) issues that are involved in thinking the way you do. Unfortunately I don't know the best place to find out about these things. So few people question what they've been taught. Also, try to remember that at minimum one in five people at a time is disabled, and it goes closer to one in one over the course of a lifetime. It does every person on the planet good to work towards a better understanding of what disability is and isn't, and how best to avoid doing a huge disservice to existing and future disabled people. Most people can't even imagine how disability would be viewed in a more ideal society -- it becomes virtually invisible, and even when it causes things like pain that nobody wants, that pain is considered part of the normal problems of life, rather than a special need. It's hard to explain the difference but believe me the world I want is not a fairy tale.

I never thought of it that way but now that you write it, it makes sense.

People out of wheelchairs need seating provided.

Non-blind people need lighting.

Non-deaf people need speakers and microphones.

But since the vast majority of people are in these categories, the economy of scale comes into play.

When a disability becomes ubiquitous, the economy of scale comes into play so seamlessly that accomodations are also ubiquitous and it no longer is considered a disability. I am thinking of compromised vision. Before glasses were invented, and then before glasses became cheap to manufacture, compromised vision must have been far more disabling than it is now. Accomodations simply didn't exist. I have read that reading itself is part of why compromised vision has become so ubiquitous. It really does damage eyes. But with the ubiquity of compromised vision comes the ubiquity of accomoddations and the economy of scale. Optomotrists are everywhere. Glasses are so cheap to make that you can pop into a mall store and have a decent pair that afternoon for a reasonable price. Economy of scale has made the disability of compromised vision not even counted as a disability even though technically it is--- it comes about from the improper functioning of an eye.

Will the increase in autistic people (if that increase is real) lead to an economy of scale? It would never be as profound as the one that made compromised vision not even be disabling. But the future might bring a streamlining of services that are currently provided in a patchy way and this streamlining would decrease costs.

Suppose all your kids are cookie-cutter normal. Now suppose everyone else's kids are all cookie-cutter normal. How is the society ever supposed to think outside the box or be in any way flexible or creative? If everyone does what you propose society is done. As in goodbye. As in you'll never have progress, even though it's desperately needed. I am not intelligent and well-informed enough to know the precise form society's downfall and destruction would then take, but I am aware that it would be certain.

And people will find someone to exclude and hate. That is human nature. So go ahead and destroy the groups they're focused on now. They'll split along increasingly trivial lines. Someone will be teased and called a freak on each playground where your kids play, whether or not it's them. The only thing yet to be determined is whether it's the kid with the ASD or the kid who's poorer than the others or the kid with achondroplasia or the kid who's an inch shorter than average or acts slightly quirky or has red hair or has long hair or has short hair or has green eyes or is smarter than they are.

There's something so wrong here I don't even know how to explain it. Normally it's a matter of explaining to people that they can put autism in their "different but not inferior" category, but you have no such category. I don't know how to explain its existence. Okay, do you like ice cream? Do you know others who do? Do any of you have different preferences for flavors? Maybe you like strawberry but someone else likes chocolate and someone else likes vanilla. If you all disagree about that, does that mean there's something wrong with one of you? Should you change to all like the same thing?

Also-- anbuend, I suspect you have a selection bias. People who don't feel that way are more likely to avoid this thread, whereas people who do have such ideas about disability will post here.

Yes, I have had challenges throughout life. I have sensory issues with light and sound. I also do not like to be touched unless it is family. I have problems with crowds. I get overwhelmed easily. I have challenges with black and white thinking. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Growing up, before knowing I had AS, I used to think I was alone in the world. As I approached my 30s, I was quite unsettled in trying to find myself. I have gotten depressed in the past. After being diagnosed with AS, it was like a new door opened for me---it was like a rebirth (My journey has just begun). I was not alone. I researched AS a lot. I understood things about it and was able to utilize that knowledge to help me in life. I went through therapy sessions which strengthened the relationship I have with my family---and them with me. We finally better understood each other (my wife and kids). I have learned to try to focus on positives and ignore the negatives more (challenges). But like most of the people on the WrongPlanet---I have challenges that are downright challenging from day to day.

Thank you for responding to my post and asking.

This is why services are essential. I wouldn't want any children to grow up without support as I did. I don't see why this makes the idea of an autistic child so intolerable.



A lot of things would make happiness harder for anyone. ASD is just one thing. You could have children who are not heterosexual, who are transgender, who are female (although I think your reasoning on that is completely unsupportable, but then I think your reasoning about not wanting autistic children is also unsupportable), who have other disabilities, who become disabled during their life. Having children is a risk for you and for the children you have. You cannot protect against every eventuality.

To me, a more rational approach seems to be, instead of wishing for a white, male, temporarily able-bodied, neurotypical, heterosexual, cisgender child whom you might deem to be less likely to have any problems ever, trying to help the children you do get, to minimize their difficulties, give them the support and care they need, let them know that whatever labels or diagnoses may be attached to them they are still people and still important.

Also, everything Anbuend said.

Maybe it's one of those, "where you lie depends on where you fall" things. It's a spectrum which is then further modified by a spectrum of environments and we'll all have different experiences. Ive seen and done some amazing things but I don't think I would wish my early life on anyone.

And knowing all that, if I then had a fully autistic kid, I would feel additionally guilty.

No parent wants their child to have problems. No ADD, depression, eating disorders, any illnesses, anger issues, etc. Even parents feel the same way about their NT kids.

I would hope they wouldn't be autistic, but if they were it wouldn't change how I felt about them obviously. I'd do whatever I could to make sure they still had the best chances in life

This is true and I completely sympathize, but the realistic, logical stance is that this much control is impossible. Hope for the best, prepare for everything else.

I would like to have a little aspie/autie. Why? Because I know I could do a helluva lot better job raising one than my parents did.

Chances are you'd have an NT. You'd do just as awful a job as your parents did, but since that's not acceptable (whereas it's just fine to do it to us), instead of being commended for it you'll get your kids taken away and sent to foster care.

All well and good but we go back to the question over and over RE where do these services come from? The answer is that they ultimately come from the people who are generating revenue, paying taxes, etc...

The FACTS are that it is a VERY small percentages of ASD folks who are gainfully employed and generating revenue. I have actually seen reports of as low as 3%.

http://www.startribune.com/business/116500248.html

Take ANY demographic of people and make it such that 3% have to support 97% and you have a pretty unbalanced thing going on in general. As much as I want to agree with all the "bleeding heart" messages going on RE human-beings and the definition of disabled, etc... the facts are that our world is about basic survival and basic business.

Again NOT adding up in the dollars and sense (yes, I did mean that sense) department folks.

Talk to me about the dollars of this epidemic...


Reportedly 35-60 billion dollars per year price tag and rising!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press- ... 52006.html
http://support.autism-society.org/site/ ... factsstats
@1 in 150 children are being diagnosed today (some studies reporting significantly higher rates)
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publicat ... ndex.shtml
CDC reports a 57% increase in Autism rates from 2002-2006
http://www.suite101.com/content/nationa ... 10-a190120
Autism Rates of K-12 children have tripled from 2002-2010 in CA.
Autism represents nearly 10% of all special education in CA
Autism is the fastest growing student disability in the country showing a steady 10-17% annual growth rate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/0 ... 18709.html
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_109SLR.pdf
Several states are now adopting bills that require insurance to cover autism therapies
http://renaissanceinstitute.org/news.html
http://www.autismvotes.org/site/c.frKNI ... Oregon.htm


1 percent of the population of children in the U.S. ages 3-17 have an autism spectrum disorder.1
Prevalence is estimated at 1 in 110 births.2
1 to 1.5 million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder.3
Fastest-growing developmental disability; 1,148% growth rate.4
10 - 17 % annual growth.5
$60 billion annual cost.6
60% of costs are in adult services.7
Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention.8
In 10 years, the annual cost will be $200-400 billion.9
1 percent of the adult population of the United Kingdom have an autism spectrum disorder.10
The cost of autism over the lifespan is 3.2 million dollars per person.11

2003, 2006 Copyright the Autism Society. All rights reserved. 

How do we justify this imbalance and support our desires to continue the trends? How is this different than obese people crying that they have a right to continue being obese while the weight of their medical bills crushes our systems?

Another way to look at the above figures^^^^^ is that a whole lot of jobs have been created. You're going to think I'm being flippant but I'm not. Those alarming figures make it seem as though the money spent on autistic people goes into a black hole, never to be seen again. But it doesn't. It goes to employ teachers, therapists, camp counselors etc. Their salaries make up part of the economy. It's a loop, not a sinkhole.

There is also the assumption that current unemployment figures are frozen and unchangeable. It sure does look grim reading from the many unemployed or frequently fired posters but I don't think that is written in stone and unchangeable.