Article-Undiagnosing Einstein, Gates, Jefferson by J Mitchel

Post Reply New Topic

This is in response to Henry Williams's thread questioning MemberSix:

Nor implicitly.
I was at serious pains to point out that eradicating the genes is not eradicating LIVING Autistics.
The sole point was to eradicate suffering.


Many major diseases will be eradicated by gene manipulation.
Autism causes severe suffering to many, many people and their families.
Why pretend it's some sort of blessing to a baby - or child - or adult - indeed, to humanity at all ?

ambuend, your ability to communicate and free-associate is striking.

As someone who has both physical and mental conditions, ones that have caused me a great deal of trouble of many sorts, I nonetheless fear the day where such conditions are gotten rid of entirely. The world will not be nearly as bad off with people who are different, and yes, even disabled, as it will without such people, therefore allowing ignorance and intolerance to run rampant without at least the chance to learn to coexist. And there are always, ALWAYS going to be differences, ones that pop up right when people think they've solved everything, so it's best that more effort is put into coexisting than into fixing people who stand out.

Under different social circumstances - it still would not be perfect, but nonetheless - "normal people" and those who are different bodily or neurologically could live together and learn from each other, perhaps even be of use to each other mutually, much as different racial, ethnic and religious groups have been able to in the U.S. to a large extent in recent times. Unfortunately, as long as the world keeps throwing people away over arbitrary qualities and no one recognizes this to be the true problem rather than those people who are thrown away, such a thing can't be real. However, it's pointless to see ourselves as the problem. We aren't the problem or the solution. We just are, with our own qualities and worth in part derived from our unique experiences, and that perspective shouldn't be lost to the world entirely, since it might have its own inherent value, and might bring about things that would not happen otherwise.

Besides, the day that people can "choose" their families like they choose a house or a car, for status, aesthetics, or otherwise selfish preference, is the day that unconditional love is obsolete. That is a world I don't want to live in, and I can't see why anyone else would.

Your argument that choosing a non-Autistic child is in some way, the same as choosing not to have one on aesthetic grounds is disingenuous, to say the least.

Nobody is arguing that existing Autistics have no value to society.
EVERYBODY has value to society.

I also find the way you compare race and sexual-orientation to a pathological condition extremely offensive.

Eradicating serious suffering is not Nazi-style Eugenics - and the suggestion that medical research to relieve that suffering somehow is, is despicable.

If autistics living now have value to society, why won't autistics in the future have value, value that is worth preserving in spite of certain hardships? If a cure had been developed 10 or 20 years ago, would those lives still be valuable, or are they only valuable until an alternative is available? I can't help but think that the "everyone [currently living] has value to society" argument is just a way to avoid a more controversial suggestion of euthanasia-based elimination of autism, rather than the significantly (to most) more palatable elimination of future autistics, and make your position look ever slightly more acceptable.

Facing both aesthetic issues and spectrum issues, I am going to say it isn't as "disingenuous" as you would say. In fact, probably if genetic engineering is perfected to the point being discussed in this thread, aesthetic quirks and problems like mine will be the first to be "eradicated." And they'll use the exact same arguments that you're using to say that life as a normal person is better than life with X trait. The only difference is the way in which one is specifically affected by their oddity.

I think race and sexual orientation are HIGHLY comparable to disability, mental and to an extent physical, at this point in time, where it is possible to live equally long and quite possibly fulfilling lives with such conditions. We are what we are. I am offended that physical and mental disabilities are NOT considered minorities on the same level, because by denying the comparison, it is implied that we are somehow less than them, that our identities as they are, are less valid than that of another minority. I grew up listening to the stories of the civil and women's rights movements, thinking, why should someone like me, indeed, all people like me, present and future, not be able to fight and win equality and recognition of our existence as another, equally as good, ones? Because I don't view myself as broken or defective, just as a me that is different from the general population, I fail to see how my struggle IS much different from a gay or black person facing discrimination. Just as they are not wrong but different, and deserve respect accordingly, so do I and all people like me.

To be fair, I said nothing about "Nazi-style eugenics." The idea that there needs to be a "fix" for differences that are for the most part socially constructed is bad enough on its own without needing to employ the "OMG FASCISM!1" argument and invoking Godwin's law (though technically it would still be eugenics, Nazi or not, as the technical definition for eugenics is eliminating qualities seen as "bad" and trying to enhance those seen as "good"). What is truly despicable is treating people who are mistreated as the problem rather than those who do the mistreating. And that is what this is about. It doesn't matter that we aren't killing living people with conditions now - it is implied enough through the suggestion that there should be no more such people that it would've been better to exist as something else than we are, or to rephrase, to not exist as ourselves at all. I, the person who is on the spectrum, who has ectodermal dysplasia, who has a cleft lip, who has a lazy eye and any other number of oddities, and the person from which these traits are inseparable without making me another person, am not the one whose existence causes suffering, and nor should I or any future people like me be seen as such.

Please eliminate the suffering of those who actually suffer, and do not appoint yourself or even the "normal" majority to decide which sort of lives will be happy and fulfilling.

I think you've done my side of the argument more favours than your own.
I was hoping for an intelligent debate.

Without elaboration, I can't see what you meant by that. For all I know, it could have been that my writing and formatting proved to be a problem and therefore my post wasn't read at all, and was merely given the most convenient answer for your position that you could think of. With that in mind, I could just as easily as you take this to be a victory for my position as you did for yours.

OK, I see what you mean about BokeKaeru. Let ME try!

1. You CAN'T "choose" to simply have one! They can't simply CURE, so they SELECT! That means that the others have no chance. SO, the argument is that the autistic will basically DIE because of not being "chosen". And here I thought you guys were supposed to believe in survival of the fittest! Did you know that a bird, or chimp, at an earlier point is MORE fit than a human? How do you feel about that?

2. RIGHT! In fact, some NTs have NO value to society. Still, you ARE arguing that AS people don't have value.

3. Autism isn't necessarily pathological. Pathology DOES speak of disease. Some races, and homosexuals, are more likely to have certain problems. ALSO, homosexuality has, likewise, sometimes been reduced to only being considered a "lifestyle"!

4. Actually, it is NAZI style eugenics on the lowest level. THEY wanted to get rid of the existing persons which was really the only way to do it at the time, but it is otherwise IDENTICAL!

I'm not even gunna dignify this utter garbage with a response.

Do you honestly expect to be taken seriously with output like this ?

I think you'd be better off leaving it to BokeKaeru.

What you propose is exactly “Nazi-style Eugenics.” Plus, it will not eradicate any serious suffering. It is both false and inhumane. It would have the opposite of the intended effect.

We're talking about a lot of different things at once. Making the severely disabled Autistics “invisible” is not my intention. For them, we need a rational solution. My point was that genocide does not address the cause and is not a rational solution.

The WORKING THEORY is that Autism is associated with certain genes. I accept that theory. But along with it comes a whole lot of people who have those suspected genes and are not disabled. You can't have it both ways. At most, it is a genetic predisposition, not a single cause. While theories abound, no one yet knows why the predisposition is triggered in a few and not triggered in the majority. (We will probably eventually find multiple triggers.) Focusing exclusively on the severely disabled and ignoring the non-disabled majority gives a false impression about the genetic cause. The non-disabled majority who have those suspected genes are functioning, contributing members of society.

Many people do not know this and have fallen for the false assumption that Autism is caused simply and exclusively by genetics.

You have been around here long enough to know better. You are way beyond willful ignorance. Knowing the truth and deliberately twisting it around the way you do is called LYING.

I'm not looking for a role model or a feel-good self-deception. My issue is PR. The common perception is false and irrational. False information leads to "Genetic counseling" = abortion = genocide. The equation is irrational.

Why you would chose to lie and play the Uncle Tom I do not know. I'm not in your head, but I can toss out a few guesses...

Abused children paradoxically cling to the abusive parent.

Elements of the "Stockholm Syndrome" include:
The presence of a perceived threat to one's physical or psychological survival and the belief that the abuser would carry out the threat
The presence of a perceived small kindness from the abuser to the victim
Isolation from perspectives other than those of the abuser
The perceived inability to escape the situation...

I think in my case, autism gave me an edge, an advantage over my peers in many, many ways. The only draw-back for me was the circumstances of my environment. Had I been allowed the same advantages and priveleges the average person has, things would have been very different in my case. An autistic person is highly sensitive and when those particular people fall into the hands of brutes and morons, the result can only be catastrophic. This is the only true detriment, as I see it. Autistic people are blessed with many gifts that in many instances are astounding. If anyone should be wiped out, it's those other people I described.

Wow !

<snigger>

In that case, please delete all of your own posts - what remains will be more intelligent than anything you, in your current state of TrollMode, have said this week.

DNFTT

Hehe.

That's quite good.

Why, thank you, MemberSix - as you always (used to) say, laughter is the best medicine.