Do you think we should be allowed to mate?

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose that my condition is not related to childhood autism described by Kanner. My parents and siblings had not speech delay. I also had not it. I suppose that in Northern America my case would be named as "(social) NLD", not as Asperger's/autism/PDD. My problems may have something to do with quite significant hypotrophy on birth. So many of my problems may be not genetic in origin.

I have not many autistic traits, such as marked sensory problems, literal thinking, lack of knowledge about emotions and mental states of others. Texts about "NLD" appear to fit me more than texts about ASD. So my genes may be not so bad, at least in "mental" area. I have "need" of having the female partner since quite early childhood. I want to be fully asexual.

1. I can´t help but think of "racial hygiene". I think, the idea is just chilling, despite, that some autistics suffer.
Fat people suffer, the natually far too thin people suffer, the redhaired used to suffer.....all, that are not mainstream suffer one way or the other.

2. If, in an imaginary world, this "hygienic act" were to be carried out, we would have a little problem - or a dozen:
Since no objective measurements exists, but only descriptions of traits and ways of functioning, we would have to ask from this perspective:

We are all different, so who would be considered autistic?
How many traits would it take to end up in the group, that would be forbidden to reproduce?

By which set of norms should people be judged?
Who would be qualified to judge?

...and will NT (???)people cease to bear autistic children into the world? (hardly, right?)

The list of questions go on.....

Definitely not a good idea.

My brother doesn't have Autism, but that doesn't mean his kids won't.

I think anybody entertaining eugenicist thoughts should be subjected to pain, tortures, and horrors beyond human comprehension.

LOL

Treating someone in such a way is scary and I do not want to treat someone in such a cruel way. I have a concern that allowing people with autism (also high-functioning ones) to procreate would be a sin due to high risk of having autism in the case of offspring. I had (and (maybe) still have) scrupulosity and religious area is problematic for me.

I suppose that not everyone with autism is so severely affected by mental health problems to conclude that it would be irresponsible to allow the to have biological children. But children may be not as high functioning as parents (for example a child is not only autistic, but also has intellectual disability and is obviously handicapped)...

Absolutely not. Every diagnosis should include mandatory chemical castration. I mean, we're all too socially inept to find partners anyway, right...?

And what exactly are those odds? Or are you just making this up?

So: sterilization for all, because you can't be too careful.

It would solve a lot of problems.

But I like kids, and the idea of a future for the species.

No.

Anyone advocating Eugenicism should just be....STERILIZED!! !! !! !!

I don't see a point to that, though. Poetic justice aside, eugenicism isn't promulgated by biological reproduction but by discourse. Preventing eugenicists from reproducing doesn't stop them. Silencing known would-be Hitlerites permanently effectively combats that discursive reproduction of eugenicist memes; and torturing same prior to execution provides incentive not to follow in their footsteps, as well as personal gratification to would-be victims like me who are ready to fight back.

It's time to dehumanize the dehumanizers.

I have a concern that allowing people without autism to procreate would be a sin due to the high risk of having non-autistic offspring. Such people (if they can be called that) live miserable existences requiring continuous interaction with and feedback from their fellows in order to function, and are generally regarded as categorically incapable of original thought. What sort of monsters are we, to allow our ethics to interfere with ending their obvious suffering?

I second this

While I don't hate kids, I don't want any of my own because I would never have time to work on my art or writing. That said, I don't think people with autism shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, that sort of thinking is essentially eugenics.

I don't quite understand the extreme negative reactions to eugenics in general, is it simply due to its nazi connotations?
I'm still on the fence though when it comes to autism, maybe a better start would be implementing mandatory social intervention and promoting possible drugs that can help.
I never got either of those, I might not be so messed up right now if I had..

Part of it is Nazis and the other part is how far the U.S. states took it in the first half of the 1900s.