Writing a Perusasive Speech...Looking to write using Autism

Post Reply New Topic

I am writing a persuasive speech for English. I want to use Autsim as a topic, but I can't come up with a topic that will be usable as a persuasive speech. Any ideas?

I am considering an anti-cure stand on the issue, but I just don't know how to incorporate it into a speech.

Is that a good idea? I'm open to others.

I suppose that you could simply take the position that autism is simply a different state of being, and not a malady to be 'cured'. Too many people see autism as just a kind of ret*d, like downs syndrome. Setting them straight will take some persuasion, I'd say.

Try to argue that even autistic people can hear and understand the world around them even on the sever end of the spectrum. Also use a lot of metaphors and analogies like comparisons to other handicapped people, deaf, blind people who have sensory issues. Try to explain that handicapped people do not look on their handicaps as a bad thing, society does that.
Do not try to make autistic people look like savants as the media is so want to do. Some of us like me are marginally intelligent but do want to contribute to society. Write from your heart and go out and talk face to fcae with a lot of autistic and handicapped people.

Autistic behaviors can be changed, but it will eventually be shown to be genetic, and thus non-curable.

You need a beginning (I will talk about why Autism being cured is a bad thing), then a middle with 3-5 points in it which you expand and finally a conclusion (where you sum up your argument)

And don't forget to flap your hands ! !

For logical, I'd point to advantages those on the spectrum have, like higher I.Q, task focus and logical thinking. Chances are, a lot of our advances in arts and sciences are owed to someone on the spectrum. Don't know any examples offhand, but somebody here will.

Ethically, you could point out that by imposing its definition of 'normal' on society at large, those who would 'cure' us are depriving the world of a subset of humanity who have every right to live and thrive that anyone else does. OK, so we don't make eye contact a lot...is that worth ending our lives in the womb?

Emotionally...well dammit, I like who I am. And so do a lot of us, despite the problems we have. I'm not a mistake, I'm not damaged goods. And neither are you. And to hell with anybody who'd disagree. How's that?

'Hand flapping'. that's pretty good and amazingly it is probably a fitting gesture depending on who the audience is.
You guys crack me up with 'realisms'. You'd think that maybe there was autism at work.

You need to find a way to 'connect' with your audience. To persuade them to accept something they may already feel. You might build up your side of the argument in favor, exaggerate slightly the problems of 'curebies', (avoid jargon, unless you define it beforehand)

Maybe go into the recent pre-natal studies on testing for AS; play up slightly the Eugenic aspect of that (probably will work with those who are opposed to Eugenics in general). Explain how you've come to terms with Aspergers or Autism, show how it's made you a better person.

Things like that.

How does this angle sound?

Since what is 'normal' is in it self objective, yet not apparently solid or set in stone but is based on culture values, ethical standards and values of the dominate culture and what appears to be the 'standard' or 'ideal' model or mode of what the 'normal' is percieved to be.


Since being born with Autism as well as other people born with out Autism, the general population is dominated by those not born with Autism (and its variants on the spectrum).

In times past, those who were high functioning Autistics on the spectrum contributed to society as artist, inventors, scientist, philosophers and other fields.

Why should something such as Autism be treated as an illness or dysfuntion in which it needs to be cured because it exist in a small part of the general population?

If what appears to be 'normal' and the baseline, outline and other metrics used to measure what is 'normal' changes or shifts over the next few centuries, a percentage of teh population which would fit the 'normal' characteristics in present day terms are likely to no longer be considered normal.

It is more evident that being born as what is known as Autism and in the course of a person's lifespan, this is normal to them.

Should a person deviate what is normal to them and strive to be what they are not to conform what the majority of the population is striving for as the 'objective belief of what normal entails"?

Should the ability to adapt to the enviroment be of more importance than to change someone from what is more natural into something which is less natural?