Prenatal Autism test

Post Reply New Topic

Speak for yourselves. Im not sure what your getting at there, but the comparison is meaningful for me because my autistic child is lower functioning than down syndrome children I have seen - and while that may not be palatable to you - there it is and it's what's relevant for him and for me.

Perhaps you could explain why you think Down syndrome and Autism are not valid comparisons in that context?

i definatley agree autism and the trisomy disorders are very very different.i would not agree that abortion is ok for downs or edwards syndrome.

And so you would have aborted him given the chance rather than actually find a cure? That's weak, and it's a betrayal.

Because Autism is a giant, hard to process mess where many of the negative characteristics occur because of the social environment for many, and comparing low-functioning autistics in with others seems to assume that there is not some other disorder or issue at hand that isn't the junk taxon of autism.

even if there's not a post natal test, a good specialist can diagnose Autism when a child is about 1 year old. I agree, early intervention makes a huge difference, it really changes everything! I'm pretty sure that my son's autism is genetic since my husband and me have Aspie traits. The main problem for me, if i will have another child, is money... in my country I can provide appropriate education to my son only if I can pay for it

I consider myself to be moderately pro-choice as well as pro-neurodiversity. I am opposed to prenatal testing research for all high-functioning conditions whether it be autism, Asperger's, ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, dyslexia, schizophrenia, personality disorders and learning disorders. I think if these conditions were allowed to be prenatally tested for then it would demean the value of human life. However, these conditions are indistinguishable from personality itself, and are only considered "disabilities" as a social model: since they do not conform to societal standards they are considered to be "disabilities".

Just as well, if autism were used as the basis for an abortion, it would be the same as a prenatal test for Myers-Briggs personality types. In essence, it would also discount the benefits of having these people in society: people who have anti-social personalities make good lawyers and businessmen just as those with autism are good with technical work. On the issue of Down's syndrome, I think that it is a justifiable reason for abortion.

Although I might be accused of making a double standard for autism and Down's syndrome I disagree: it should be based on the needs of the mother, the needs of society in relation to the utility of the child's intellect and the likelihood of the child to have a meaningful life. For example, anencephaly, a condition in which the fetus is born without a forebrain therefore negating the child's probability of ever gaining consciousness, would be justifiable for an abortion, as the child has no utility toward society and it would be pointless to keep the child alive.

Justifying abortion for Down's syndrome would be no different than allowing abortion for those born in lower-income, crime zones: because these children are more likely to be involved in crime, it should be at the mother's discretion to decide for an abortion to be performed. In fact, statistics show that the 1990s crime epidemic was stalled as a result of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

No, he was never going to be aborted; "over my stinking dead corpse" is the phrase that comes to mind with regards to the possiblity of that.

But as it stands he is classified 'Autistic', and until he is classified something else then the comparison is valid for me when you use the word 'Autism'. Perhaps AS would be a better word (acronym).

AspergianRyan Wrote:


I agree with alot of this, but there is a pro-eugenics undertone to it that I dislike. I particularly dislike the part that I have highlighted. The moment that the level of a child's intellect, their use to society, or whether or not they are likely to be a criminal become factors in the choice as to whether or not a child gets aborted, the door to Fascism and tyranny have been opened. Who decides what is "useful to society"? Who decides what is a crime? Legislation enforcing these considerations would be a tyrants dream. For those in power, society then soon become nothing more than a self-serving status quo, and a crime would become whatever poses a threat to it. Pro-choice yes but only for the individual concerned, and only with their personal considerations.