News story: Autism can be detected in babies

Post Reply New Topic

It is in The Guardian this morning: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... scientists .

I heard about his story on the news this morning. Thanks for posting the link.

Well they are getting closer to being able to detect it in the unborn child-like it seems they want to do so they can detect it early enough so they can give the parents the option of aborting the child-it disturbs me to no end that they are striving for that goal just so people have only NT children.

There was nothing in the article suggesting they were going for prenatal testing, they just said earlier, and from their methods its highly implied it's just babies who are younger than 6 months. This is a good thing, as earlier intervention leads to more successful Autists.

Yes I agree that early intervention is good but they keep trying to push the limits as to how early they can detect it so they can eventually to find it prenatally so they can offer "options" to the parents-it may not have expressly mentioned it in the article but it seems like thats what they are ultimately trying to do in my view. Lets see next month they will find a way to detect autism in a 3 month old and then sooner then sooner after that.

Radiofixr is right.

This all leads to prenatal. It's what phasing in consists of.

This is how phasing in is a success.

Yeah, they are just going to give mothers surgery so they can plant sensors on the fetuses brain so they can measure how it processes social information with nonexistent people. This type of detection cannot be used for prenatal tests, so if that was their goal they would probably be trying a different approach.

You obviously haven't been paying attention.

Genetics.

Here is a paragraph from the article that says it for me-now they are talking about being able to detect autism in a 6 month old and their research


"Future studies will be required to determine whether measurements of brain function such as those used in our study might one day play a role in helping to identify children at an [even earlier age]."
I marked the words-even earlier age-how much earlier or should I say how much earlier do they want to go.

Yes. Phasing in.

One thing leads to another.

Where was genetics mentioned in the article? The closest thing I saw was they mentioned older siblings.

This is about years of research and trying to find the genes. This is just another article.

Radiofixr wrote:

Here is a paragraph from the article that says it for me-now they are talking about being able to detect autism in a 6 month old and their research


"Future studies will be required to determine whether measurements of brain function such as those used in our study might one day play a role in helping to identify children at an [even earlier age]."
I marked the words-even earlier age-how much earlier or should I say how much earlier do they want to go.

To be honest, I've long thought that I shouldn't have been born. Sometimes I even think that parents simply don't have the right to force my kind of life experience on anybody, i.e. to force someone like me into this world. It is wrong to cause suffering, imho.

Then again, my suffering was mainly caused by negative societal feedback and lack of acceptance, so perhaps we should rather work to fix things on that end. But I don't think that human nature can be fixed, so we will probably never fit in and be treated like human beings. In that case, I'd prefer that humans stop breeding like mindless animals and don't bring children into this world that they are unwilling or unable to accept as their equals.

Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 27 Jan 2012, 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Just because you feel that way doesn't mean all autistic children should be aborted.

You can't abort a child, you can only abort an embryo or a fetus. But I agree that eugenics is a slippery slope.

We can't have it both ways though. Parents can either roll the dice and gamble with the health of their future offspring, in which case society needs to respect and treat the resulting human being as a full and equal person. Or we can make sure that newly born humans meet society's definition of normality.

Currently society does both -- first gambling, then inacceptance and rejection -- and the result is enormous suffering on the part of those who are seen as abnormal and treated without respect. That is simply not acceptable. Make up your minds. Either we are all normal and deserve to be loved, or you shouldn't create us in the first place.

Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 27 Jan 2012, 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The real problem are people who want everyone to be the same. Should those people be crossed off the who lives list?

So first Down's Syndrome. Next Autism. What comes next?

There sure alot of depressed people in the world. Why not cut them out too!

All of this is eugenics of the past using different tactics. Psychopathic thoughts. Superiority. Same as it ever was.