aspergers and the majority

Post Reply New Topic

You've proven nothing apart from my original theory that you're a whiney emo. Oh, though you've also managed to prove you're an ignorant troll. Go you. I can quote back evidence of this to you all day, but frankly thats more trouble than its worth. Tell you what, you carry on with your misguided opinions about eugenics and how sh***y AS is, and I'll classify you as not worth the oxygen you breath, whilst KNOWING different. Meanwhile, would you mind dreadfully if everyone else could get on with reasoned debate and discussion? In the immortal words of some comic or other " Be quiet son, you bother me."

Look people. These are the emotional driven posts I so frequently talk about. Macbeth has been broken. Easy, huh? Predictably, he/she has resorted to blind insults. Where is your statistical thinking now, Beth? Ahahahaha! You emotional fleabag.

Are you still talking? Who the hell is Beth?

Continue spouting off insults all you like, they will be ignored. The simple fact that you have detiorated into a rabid insult throwing psycho suggests you've been broken. I'm done with you.

BACK ON TOPIC!
Who agrees or disagrees that it is selfish and cruel for two individuals, knowing their children will have deformities, illnesses, or some other condition, ignore this and bear children anyways.

Humans often overlook the cruelty behind this. They think it is the norm to have children, and that by NOT doing so they are in the wrong. And please don't pull a Macbeth and begin throwing the unecessary elementary school retorts. Just share your opinion.

Actually, even if a condition is a debilitating one people have a right to have children.

There's more to life than whatever condition you have, and whatever condition you have tends to actually not be any predictor of happiness either way. Even severe conditions that require a lot of medical treatment. This has been studied.

Some people are happier people than others, and unhappy people will blame their unhappiness on a lot of things. If they don't have any particular condition (medical or otherwise) to blame it on they'll blame it on their hair not being the right color or having breasts that are too small or a lopsided nose or something. You look at most of the unhappy people out there in the world and it's not because of a medical condition.

My parents passed on to me all sorts of things, some good, some bad, some neutral, some mixed. My family is so full of neuro-atypical people that "a little quirky" in parts of our family would be "moderately to severely disabled" in anyone else's family, our "normal" is already very far off-center. And we're for the most part not ashamed of it, nor does anyone regret passing things on.

I have a number of conditions that could be considered debilitating, some of which are very painful, some of which are considered technically "deformities", and you know what it's not the end of the world, it doesn't make me an unhappy person, and I'm not unusual in that, nothing special to me, just the fact that happiness isn't dependent on the vast majority of physical or mental functioning. Most severely disabled people have the same range of happiness and unhappiness as anyone else. So it's rarely accurate to blame a person's unhappiness on their condition, although unhappy people will try it and non-disabled people will often accept that because of their own biases about what our lives must be like.

If you just list off a bunch of conditions a person has you're seeing a part of how their body works but you're not seeing their capacity for happiness or any of the other details of their life. A lot of people will look at a list of conditions and go "Yeccch who would subject someone to that by giving birth to them?" but they're only thinking about those few parts of how the person's body works, they're not thinking of who the person is overall and the happiness that there's no way you can predict based on medical (or heavily medicalized) conditions.

As an example I could list off: Autism, moderate-severe asthma (currently not well-controlled), severe daily migraine, neuropathic pain, hypermobility syndrome w/joint pain, "deformed" jaw and mouth structures (some of this leading to severe pain and functional problems), assorted stomach and bowel problems, post-traumatic stress disorder, early-onset gallbladder disease, complex-partial seizure disorder, parkinson-like movement disorder, probably undiagnosed Tourette's and OCD, etc. (I actually don't normally think about myself in terms of a list like this so I forget some.) Could list off a daily living score of about 45 (on a test where the scores go from 40-130 and 100 is average) and other stuff that certainly makes myself look plenty "debilitated", and if you actually looked at me you would not see a "normal-looking" person. A lot of the things I just listed run in my family, too.

And what would that tell you about my real life? About how happy I am? About what contributions I can make to the world? Nothing. And you could say another person has none of these things and no recognizable impairments or anything, and who is "normal," even "above average" in a lot of things. And what would that tell you about all those things about them? Nothing as well. They could be an unhappy and destructive person or a happy person, just like anyone with the list of stuff I described above could be anywhere on that range. It's an illusion to think that if you were normal you'd be happy, and if you're not happy it's because you're not normal, or that a person who isn't normal in some way will be unhappier, some of those illusions can be comforting in some weird way to people but they're illusions and destructive ones at that.

You've got hypermobility syndrome? Me too. Except, I'm a stubborn bastard and continue to work out extensively anyways. My cousin's is so bad he can barely walk. The joint pain's a b***h, yeah. How bad do you have it?

At least his insults have a degree of thought behind them.

My opinion is that it is a matter of choice. I personally choose not to have children, but purely for the reason that I feel that I will not be a fit parent.

However, what constitues a deformity or illness? And for that matter, what if they don't know? Many conditions are caused by spontaneous genetic mutation. That is, they are caused when a small mutation reverts the genes in a reproductive cell to a 'illness' state rather than normal. Predicting these is not feasible. And people with autism or AS can still lead productive lives. You just seem blinkered by experience and cynicism.

My mother and father did not have autism or AS. Would you suggest they were cruel in bringing me or my brother (who does not have AS) into the world? Or would you prefer that those with AS not breed? Either way, you are wrong. If it were, say, Tay-Sachs disease, then certainly prevent breeding. But AS and autism? Merae fabulae sunt, et eas esse tale scis.

And as a friendly suggestion, considering the flaming that went on before with your avatar, may I suggest this image of a man you seem to take after, although I'm sure Sir Francis Galton had never even heard of AS.



It suits you.

Yeah I do, so do a ton of people on this board (check the members-only section, I think we had a thread on it). I don't know how bad it is, the bendiness is not super-bendy for someone with HMS but not super-not-bendy either obviously, and the joint pain can get pretty bad at times, particularly ankles (when either walking or pushing my wheelchair with them, but worse walking).

Although he is my hero.. no.

Well then. There is only one solution to us being in the minority.

We must breed like rabbits!

Then the world may finally seem so much less awkward

Just trying to be, if not nice, conciliatory. Besides, remember where Galton's need to quantify everything got him.

He once resolved to try everything in the Pharmacoepia, something that stopped once he reached C.

For Castor Oil.

In case you're vaguely interested, another Galton picture, a portrait of him when he was young.

I already know this and everything about him.

@Ramsus:

Since you seem like an intelligent and educated person, you are certainly aware that there is hard evidence in biological science, that reproduction is practically the most basic drive of every living being. I dont think that you are going to argue against that. You could make the point though, that humans are conscious and have abilities to impose self-control upon them, that are unmatched by any animals. So maybe you want to argue, that because humans are somehow "higher beings", they should be able to to choose not to have children, because it would be immoral = "cruel and selfish" to knowingly pass an unfortunate condition unto their children.

Since genes are essentially selfish, for this to be possible, humans must be able to act against their natural tendencies and their biological background. I'm not arguing, that this is not possible, I'm even certain it is. However you might then consider the possibility, that it is also possible for humans with a condition like asperger's to overcome their natural tendencies and still lead a happy life.

You are a fan of statistics. Certainly you dont believe, that 100% of all people with asperger's syndrome will be miserable. Although there is no reliable data, it seems there are some happy aspies, from which we can conclude the 100% hypothesis must be wrong.
This means you would have to do some kind of "expected value calculation", meaning if you knew that a certain percentage of all aspies will be miserable, it is "cruel and selfish" to have children.

However you cannot find this cut-off point with logic, it is subjective. Shall it be 60%? Shall it be 70%? Maybe you can come up with an logical argument, I'm interested what you think about this.

All in all it comes down to this: You think you can solve a problem of morality with logic alone. If you look at the world though, morality doesnt necessarily come from logic. Look at the different laws in different cultures / countries. Why is it possible to drive in the USA at the age of 16, but drink at the age of 21, whereas in comparable western european nations, it tends to be the other way around? Sure morality != the law, but in most cases, the law is some kind of practical expression of the commonly accepted social norms.

And of course the way you are treating this problem, is much too simple. Consider this hypothetical problem
"Parents A+B are chronically deaf. Their condition will be 100% inherited by their children, meaning they will be deaf too. However there exists a guaranteed harmless procedure that will remove the faulty genes before the children are born. This way they will not get the parents' condition and will be able to hear, which seems to be clearly beneficial to them. However the parents do not wish that this procedure will be applied. They want their kids to share their culture and be similiar to them, meaning deaf"

Even on this seemingly more simple problem, their have been hundreds of pages written and no doubt many more will be written on similiar problems, when the practical application of genetics through technology becomes more widespread. You take a much more radical stance, not allowing aspie parents any children at all, but argue it in a few sentences. Dont be offended please but it seems a little bit to me that essentially your argument is "This should be so, because I think/say so!"

On a personal note: My mother was 45 when she gave birth to me, someting which according to you, she should not have done. I got asperger's and social anxiety and like you, I'm not really happy with my life, but I'm probably not as unhappy. However it would never come to my mind to accuse my parents of cruelty. If I didn't want to live with my condition, I simply would not live!

It is my decision and I have the choice and thats exactly what it should be like. You want to place this decision solely on the parents. Emotionally to me this doesnt seem like morality, but rather cowardice.

You have addressed the topic of nature vs. nurture. You are correct in your assertion that we are driven almost purely by instinct. Sex, immediately after the will to survive, is our most strong urge. We are powerless to resist it, no? However, through this logic, one could also deduce that humans should not be logically remaining faithful, maintaining celibacy, and so forth.

Our willpower is greater than any sexual urge. Humans are obviosly capable of refraining from reproduction. But we don't need to resist sex! Our instincts encourage sex, yes - not reproduction. Sexual urges are easily satisfied without having to produce children. There is absolutely NO uncontrollable instinct forcing humans to bear children.

You continue on to construct a situation in which an individual with asperger's overcomes his tendencies towards depression or unhappiness. By proxy, this contradicts your earlier assessment that our nature refuses to allow us to resist its will. I'll end this with a question: If an Aspie is capable of achieving happiness, then is not a human able to abstain from reproduction?



I havn't provided a statistic. There is not one. However, we can reasonably conclude that due to depression being linked to asperger's, the majority of those with it are then accordingly sad. Comparatively, legs are essential to driving. As such, I surmise that the majority of drivers posess legs. Am I wrong to presuppose this?


Precisely! Our world is improperly guided by morality. However, whose morals are the decidedly correct ones? What happens when two individuals bear opposing morals? A fight! Or in the case of countries, we have war. Morality stems from personal opinion alone. Opinion varies from individual to individual. With this as the case, morality should NEVER be used to solve a dispute. Statistical logic is consistant and undebatable. It is unwavering and factual.



I'll respond to that situation with only this: Misery loves company.



I do not understand how a parent can justify bringing a flawed being into existance and putting it through a hard life, all for the opportunity to have children. Happiness is possible, but only at the cost of seclusion from other "normal" kids. The parent(s) will be the only positive source in the child's life. What do you think will happen when the parent dies?



A child has no concept of suicide. Until you reached the point where you were able to actively consider your future life or death, the decision WAS solely placed on the parents. You were lucky enough to have, and I'm assuming here, an average (or at least close to it) childhood.. aye? But what happens when the condition is worse.. what if the child is continuisly tormented by their illness and knows no escape?

Imagine this: When considering reproduction, each parent knows their child will be inflicted with a condition or illness, but have no idea what or how bad. It could be almost nothing.. or it could be outright unbearable. Are they not cruel to gamble and take their chances? .. To risk putting someone through total pain just to have a kid? I'd like to know what you think about this.

Ramsus,

Not all aspies are depressed (at least I know I'm not). While depression is considered part of AS, as a therapist, I am inclined to disagree with this so called 'universal conclusion' that AS and Depression go togethor.

We look at the oddities of mankind and we are, by nature, required to label them so that we have an understanding as to what is happening. Many of us on this site are one of these named oddities. People who have had these 'problems' have breeded through time which adds more risk of a child obtaining the 'problems' as time goes on. However, your line of thinking in terms of reproduction turns those of us who have these percieved 'problems' in to bad guys for emotionally wanting children.

Lets say two aspies have a child who also has AS. Why is an aspie child's life so hard? They do not pick-up easily subliminal forms of human communication.

Ramsus, children are cruel to each other in their early years. They try to emulate most any behavior they see. When they see someone not acting like them, they will do things, not following logical thought, that are cruel and forceful to the AS child that they just wont understand. There is as a result a lot of frusteration. "Why don't these kids like me? I look like they do..."

If you want a reason for all the depression associated with AS, just look to the children the aspie child is around. There is nothing worse for ANYONE then to be outcasted as early as kindergarten by your peers and then wonder why for so very long.

You can also give someone with AS all the drugs you want for anti-depressison. Truth be told, almost all of them INCREASE the risk of SUICIDE in the user. Ironic?

You speak of morals and the problems they cause. Morals are NOT BAD (those little kids in my depression explanation could sure use them). They are actually for the betterment of the human species. War is, unlike what you seem to have observed, just as instinctive as wanting sex and wanting to survive. It is part of the survival mechanism! People wage wars for more than just morals my friend. I think your example, while well thought, isn't much of a help to your argument. Even logic, while it has a much lower risk of leading to it, can lead to war as part of the survival instinct.

You say morals should be abolished and replaced with logic. When it comes to reproduction, Morals and Logic work togethor in todays world. Morally and logically, you shouldn't have children until you can provide for them. On the same grounds, humans logically need children to survive as a species. You postulate that logic should dictate if two people should have children if there is a risk of that child having more 'problems' than the parents. That kind sir is a moral ground. Of which, you have denounced morals vehemently. I am inclinded to call you a hypocrit Ramsus.

Doubble Post. Sorry

Last edited by Murdal on 06 Jun 2007, 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.