Reinventing Autism Self-Advocacy?

Post Reply New Topic

Ideological beliefs do not supersede Universal Human Rights Law. The ethical judgement was with concern to public awareness I influence and those I educate in the macro media about this issue with future papers. This issue is not just a dynamic between law and self-esteem but that of the ethics of the mainstream political sphere. I will issue my findings of facts and provide insight as to which parties may be ideologically compelled a certain way and the other not and vice versa. What matters is the law and in the preservation instinct realm for pro-cure toward the preservation instinct for the unborn the party that wishes to preserve unborn life typically as well does not support social services and safety nets as much let alone some kinds of treatment research as doctrine. Bias is fairly clear.

The issue then goes on into the realm of national security thereafter should more life be born with autism with additional fiscal requirements but the preservation instinct of dignity and the histology of the democratic party favors equality notions as a counter adaptation. This issue differs as well from but resembles directly the anti-abortion stances of some African American (or said black American) individuals whom claim eugenics are being used to prevent black life from being born. If genetics have played a factor in autism and people with autism let's say in some forms have children with autism this furthers the social psychological theory of mainstream abortion issues.

The purpose of the Autism Advocacy Network website is not to highlight these sub-matters. The idea is for the public, self-advocates, parents and advocacy groups to understand these issues, the biases and understand potential special interest involvement. I believe whole heartedly that transparency in organizations improves public trust and that when a public is educated will on average better benefit the intents of an organization and or movement in it's moral and equality pursuits. This is also a human rights issue indirectly as without trust in complex matters such as autism human rights are not provided for or reduce in quality.

Nathan Young

I understand that ideological beliefs do no supercede universal human rights laws, but on the other hand in the US Universal Human Rights Laws do not Supercede Ideological beliefs because they are protected by Freedom of Speech.

For the most part, I agree with your political analysis, but there is little to no chance that abortion laws or Social programs are going to change within either party. The best bet is to vote Democratic if you want Safety nets and Social Programs. The abortion issue is pretty much set in stone. The idea of Eugenics and abortion is just another ideological issue protected by Freedom of Speech.

I like your plans for your self advocacy group; it is not likely to attract many anti-cure or anti-prenatal test folks; I see no problem with that because there is already a group for that. And my understanding from your post is you are not going to make ideology a highlight of the group, so it seems like it may work out well.

I have a feeling anti-cure will have to be more strictly defined as time moves on. Otherwise it's just a matter of political gesturing. Anyone that agrees with the development of treatment is simply pro-cure with potential of being pro-equality, pro-dignity and or even anti-selective-abortion as well. Anti-cure violates human rights from a ideological perspective when the new strict definition is made clear. You can't be anti-cure and pro-treatment as well otherwise it's like saying apples are oranges.

Therefore in this context anti-cure ideology does not supersede Universal Human Rights despite the freedom of speech to oppose established law as the right to receive treatment and have those treatments be developed. The modality of cure is very simple as the development of treatments. Anyone saying it is impossible is simply seeing themselves vanish suddenly without further thought or is thinking about abortion.

----

ADDED

Anti-Prenatal testing is a violation of the human rights of the unborn life at the stages where the life form is viable? It is also a violation of the mothers right to know and potentially the right of the unborn child to receive treatment in the womb? Anything else technically has to do with abortion politics it would seem which is simply the mainstream political conflict.

Any comment?

[b]No it is only ideology for those people that are concerned with Eugenics related issues. There can be no violation of human rights because this ideology does not significantly impact whether or not a prental test is developed. The law already protects research for this.
People have all kinds of ideologies that are bizarrre that are protected by freedom of speech, but they are not a violation of human rights as long as no one is harmed by the bizarre ideologies. In other words an ideology in itself cannot be a violation of human rights unless it actually violates human rights. If it does it is addressed on a case by case, individual basis. So any significant concern with this is related to just the issue of abortion protected by law that is a separate issue from the anti-prenatal test ideology.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWGjrFMC9lA&feature=artistob&playnext=1&list=TLrdI6FR-ZXCQ[/youtube]

Anti-prenatal testing enact in law is a violation of or in conflict with current law for a womens right to know and that of the unborn child's right to treatment upon being able to survive outside of the womb. Prenatal testing politics has to do with abortion agenda's plain and simple and if evading a womens right to know it has to do with womens rights to her own body which seems obviously having to do with the selective abortion agenda to prevent her from knowing.

Ideology enact into law is what I'm saying. The law might not always be moral in some or more social circles but the law is the law. I have to figure out at times the thoughts of others in my writing and speaking to assure I am explicit enough because it's hard to tell what structure of presumption others have. I've been told to write as if I am talking to 7th graders but I thought that would be insulting perhaps.

If the law is changed I can change my framework of assumptions better I think.

Superseding means to manifest one right against the other as policy given the current dynamic of the law in relation.

Next I think I will be called a socialist then a Nazi by some ideological frameworks. My response would be "It takes one to know one". Yet at the same time the law is the law and I'm speaking of it.

With regards to the definition of anti-cure it is presently so vague that one need be made with concern to the law. Outside of the law simply is opinion attempting to manifest as a mainstream notion and atypically it would seem for political reasons. The law is the fundamental starting point of common sense I'd think. Fundamental potential risks exist with the anti-cure notions in the public relations sense for developing treatments but this is subjective. Also how one views autism is subjective. All of this will be part of analysis.

There cannot be a standard definition of anti-cure because it is an opinion or ideology that varies among people. There is no law against research for a cure or research for a prenatal test so there can be no possible relationship with any law and the anti-cure ideology other than the right to freedom of speech and this allows every individual to define the ideology per their own personal preferences. Since the law is the fundamental starting point, in this case Freedom of Speech is the starting point and if a person respects Freedom of Speech they respect the fact that others have a right to their opinions no matter how much they disagree with them. This also means a person can express the opposing view. There are no laws prohibiting the research for a cure or prenatal test so the issue starts with Freedom of Speech and ends with Freedom of Speech.

There is always the risk that someones opinion may influence someone elses opinion, and in this case someone might change from the anti-cure to cure ideology and they might decide to contribute money for research or they might change from the cure to anti-cure ideology and decide not to contribute money for research; even if you could figure out who changed whose mind more, it would be a waste of time because they have a right to change their mind. Everything about ideology or peoples notions is subjective in the sense that it does not have to be based on facts.

So, I suggest when you discuss the subject of anti-cure vs. cure ideology as related to laws or rights the focus should be on the only law or right that applies to the ideology and that is Freedom of Speech which protects both sides of the ideology equally.

And finally, if someone wants to call someone else a Nazi because they have an opinion that the other persons cure ideology will result in Eugenics, they can do this because they also have freedom of speech, even though it seems like quite a stretch because if someone does ultimately have the opportunity to have a prenatal test and aborts they are the only one involved in that personal decision.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlKv_KI-DA0[/youtube]

If people want to make pink into blue and mice into elephants they can. However in spite of the freedom of speech the law is the law. I thought that was quite clear. If people with autism want to argue against cure research but then say they are for the results of cure funding as treatments it is ambiguous. They have the freedom to confuse people and others have the right to make sense of all of it. However again the law stands protecting both the right to free speech and the right to treatment and the pursuit of treatment and even if a treatment may indirectly lead to another research project for prenatal testing but the law cannot dictate to someone they must abort. If someone wants to say an abortion issue is not an abortion issue they are free to say it while using every desperate strategy to make people like them feel they are hated and make others feel they are hating and so on. This is a right so as it is a churches to convene and a new age group or malicious cult as well.

My goal is to educate the public with viral marketing strategies and the open mindedness to allow every person to participate and make input. However in my education to the tax payers I will not manipulate them with false guilt trips, re-define words or forcing opinion or else they are discriminating. My job is not to protect solely the interest of the autism community but that of the public and the country as a whole as a private citizen and consultant. I believe rigid views lead to despondency mutually and that it is not in the best interest of the public or the well being of severely effected individuals in spite of the demands for dignity in context to the cure modality which is a conflict of interest and peer pressure of individuals with very high functioning autism.

Certain political interest would love to make autism into a great gift to have so to not fund the help needed. Certain political interest would love to make autism into a great disaster for every individual with it so to fund special interest. The public I believe typically would love to help people but they cannot be treated as if they are stupid or mislead otherwise it could harm those in real need indirectly. This issue is not about abortion to me it's about the living whilst existing with the law as the law is.

Nathan Young

"Anti-prenatal testing enact in law"

Maybe I'm not reading the above statement correctly. Does Anti-Prenatal testing enacted in law mean that you are concerned that there will be a law enacted to enforce Anti-Prenatal testing. If not what does it mean?

I think all anti-cure means to some Autistic people is I'm autistic, I'm okay, and I don't need a cure. If you really want a strict definition this might be it. This is a good attitude to have if you are able to cope with life. I never imagined anyone had an anti-cure ideology for Autism until I visited this website. I've watched alot of news in my life and have never once seen anyone against a cure for Autism. I understand why some of the people on the spectrum feel this way and I support their view for themselves, but it is no where on the radar for the general public. How in the world can it have a significant impact on funding if no one is putting the word out to the general public. Relatively speaking we are talking about a handful of people and billions of others that see a need for a cure or treatment.

Pre-natal testing is widely understood as a device for planned parenthood. It is a controversial issue because of the eugenics issue. It won't be a significant issue in the media until if and when it becomes available. The media doesn't waste much time on things that don't exist and are not currently relevant.

You are supporting a cure ideology that the overwhelming majority of the general public supports and it is considered a compassionate one in the general public. I don't see evidence that the anti-cure ideology goes much further than the Autistic Community.

This website and the advocate online groups may be the only places that anti-cure is even discussed. I really haven't seen it in other contexts. It is an interesting topic here because some would like to see a cure for themselves and some would not want a cure.

The prenatal testing has to do with abortion laws and protest have centered around pity claims, eugenics and all sorts of comparative tactics to other minority groups by ASAN and those member of it. I have said before I want nothing to do with any specific research for a prenatal test but on the other hand I cannot judge a person based on my personal morality. I have to see the law as the law and in my job being for or against a prenatal test would effect outcomes. However ASAN has combined issues and politically attacked the right to receive treatment by means of treatment development effecting outcomes and personal rights and in such ways that when combining issues really has a domino effect for advocacy in general. I think my point is for me, those of special interest and those whom may experience conflict of interest due to ASAN to feel free despite political pressure to feel free to reject ASAN. I am saying so as an individual with autism and who is really different from ARI when ARI attends college and is able to do allot more then me and I am one of the highest functioning part of my local system.

I want my American public, the one that I grew up in a military family moving all over the place to know that I don't support the decisive agenda and psychosocial tactics of ASAN on an ethical basis if needed should they cause more problems for self-advocates and autism as a whole. ASAN is an anti-selective abortion organization and when combined with other issues has created hard feelings and a psychosocial divide using political fear tactics and pressure to get their way. I believe in a wholesome approach. I also have this damn notion of patriotism and ethics stuck in my head that when I see something not quite right to make others know about it as well. I do the same in my own life and job as an advocate off this site. It's about doing what's right not whats always best for oneself.

A prenatal test being developed may not be possible but on the other hand should it be or not other advocacy simply cannot be forced to be part of it nor should the public perceive it is. Ultimately ASAN could be a Republican agenda to prevent services with overt political tactics for those in real need. As I said combining certain issues is not wise and is a conflict of interest. Ari and ASAN is a very smart but he is no way leads nor defines advocacy and it's agenda for 99.999*****% of people with autism and or their families. He won't and no one else will unless they sign up and give him or others permission. I've chosen to keep clear of ASAN, ARI and autism abortion agenda's in general other then stating what the law is and showing the conflict of interest and potential political dangers to those unaware or unable to comprehend.

ASAN has muddied the waters of self-advocacy on the national level and others need to have opportunities to lead for themselves and without association to them in their advocacy awareness empowerment.

Nathan Young

ASAN has taken a stand against prenatal tests; they haven't taken an anti-choice abortion stand.

This statement means that ASAN is anti-choice when it comes to abortion. There are many people that are against a prenatal test that are still pro-choice when it comes to the issue of abortion.

Prenatal tests don't cause people to have or not have abortions; it is the people that are pregnant that make this choice, so how can you jump from ASAN is against Prenatal tests to they are an anti-selective abortion organization. If this were the case than everyone that is against prenatal tests would have have an anti-selective view on abortion and this is definitely not true.

Maybe this is your opinion but it is not backed up anywhere as fact. If it is please present it here. If it is your opinion you should state it as I think or in my opinion, but not as a fact. If you can't prove it is a fact than all it can be is your opinion.

It's okay that you don't agree with ASAN, but there is no need to add something to their views that there is no evidence for, is there?

As far as wanting an advocacy group that does things differently than ASAN, all you can do is contribute to the development of another advocacy group. There is nothing unusual about a stand against a prenatal test, the idea has been polled in the general public and it is pretty much split down the midddle. While I personally would not take a stand against it, the ASAN organization has much right to do it as anyone else. But, realistically, there's nothing they can do to stop research on a prenatal test, is there? Autism Speaks is the big organization that gets the high dollar funding to support the research. ASAN can't stop this from happening, can they?

If Autistic people want a prenatal test and want to be part of an advocacy group other than ASAN the best thing to do to support those people is to make whatever contribution you can in the development of a new advocacy group. I think that's what you want to do, isn't it?

Prenatal testing has a whole lot to do with abortion politics and ASAN wishes to reinvent the image of autism for this reason using pressure based politics for the agenda. Should they wish to prevent prenatal testing for autism this has directly to do with abortion politics because it is fundamentally preventing a decision to be made. It's like pushing one domino making the other dominos fall and saying well I did not push the other domino's just the first one and I did not touch it I just used my breath. It's just a word game he and others are using and as well as talking about Eugenics and pity in the same context. Clearly the organization is in conflict of interest to the truth of autism and with the agenda to prevent a test as a women right to know. I recommend organizations just not have anything to do with the topic if they do not want to yet are pressured. My own organization has nothing to do with funding a test or the prevention of the test explicitly.

No more word games it seems like a snake oil sales man in politics.

Politics are seldom about the real truth but a bent reality of the truth to fit an agenda.

Anything else to add?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnqP8lBUwgs[/youtube]

There are many people that might wish they could prevent a prenatal test from happening, but that still doesn't mean they are taking any kind of stand on abortion. If you are saying this about ASAN the same thing can be applied to 100 million other people that wish they could prevent a prenatal test from happening.

The issue of abortion doesn't even come into play until a prenatal test is developed and if one is developed no one gets to make the choice for an abortion except the pregnant woman. On top of this, an opinion against a prenatal test is not going to stop the development of a prenatal test so there is no chance that ASAN or anyone else with this opinion is going to have anything to do with a womans choice to have an abortion, in regard to a prenatal test. It is just an opinion.

In taking a stand against a prenatal test ASAN is reflecting the view of many of their supporters. It is not an idea that just a few people came up with. This is the kind of thing is what an organization does and no one has to be part of it, if they don't want to. It doesn't mean they represent everyone with Autism and I'm sure they know this, because many that have autism would like to see a cure and/or a prenatal test; most of them are not part of ASAN.

I think it is more reasonable to relate the Eugenics issue and a Prenatal test to ASAN than abortion, because if you say somehow that ASAN is involved in Abortion Politics because they are against a pre-natal test, it could also be seen as an abortion politics judgement for the other multitude of people in the general public that are against a prenatal test. Many people that are against a prenatal test are also pro-choice when it comes to abortion, so to suggest that these people have an anti-choice abortion view just because they don't believe in a prenatal test could be seen as a judgement against their right of choice and abortion.

If nothing else I would strongly suggest that it is not a good idea to state that ASAN is an anti-selective abortion organization; it is a misleading statement. It sounds like you are saying they are an organization that is against a woman's choice for abortion in general and this is their main mission as an organization. The statement you made in this post that you reccommend that an organization should not have anything to do with the topic of a prenatal test is a more reasonable opinion and respectful of the difference of opinions on this topic.

Like many people then they wish to prevent abortions that happen to be selective and I don't think most anyone really loves the idea of abortion. Even some democrats vote against abortion. However as I've said to prevent a prenatal test for autism has to do with preventing choice whether or not that will come into being. If you mix the idea of eugenics, ask the public for money in the form of more support programs and picket organizations about pity you are trying to prevent advancement becuase the issues are horrid when combined and is self-defeating. Is ASAN an evil organization for trying to prevent advancement for the selfish reason to get attention? Only a little but maybe they just felt desperate and wanted the center of attention. Me I would have used entirely different approaches to get attention and the approaches I use saturate whole areas and without hard feelings intended and are effective. If you want to be confrontational and expect no confrontation by hiding behind scape goats then someone who could also claim a scapegoat could confront them like me and I'm happy to do it. The lack of experience, political immaturity and forethought of ASAN despite sounding smart really does put other advocacy people have worked hard for at risk in general politics.

I'm just saying certain advocacy does not mix. I think ASAN is near done and gone done themselves in. I got my system and others have their systems of domino's. I'm just waiting and seeing if he and others part of it settle down a bit. They are way out of line sometimes and people with autism that have a different mindedness are watching and will go on the media and intervene in future counter protests if needed not to explicitly protect autism speaks but the right for cure and the dignity to have cures be developed and the right to have the applied treatment methodologies result. Some of us have had enough of the really inexperienced and well not so thought out advocacy like I AM NOT A PUZZLE. Well duh autism in science is a puzzle and I and others think of it as something to figure out so call it a puzzle as well. What's the big deal? They just make big deals out of small things as if it's discrimination to get attention. This sort of approach really effects agenda's to end real discrimination like the removal of the development of treatment by people not funding it and not seeing autism as something serious in the public eye.

I really question ASAN and do not trust them. They have to earn that trust. They cannot think they have it because they play political games to gain advantages and make up silly I am offended slogans.

Just don't drink the snake oil, alright?

I respect your opinion on this and you have done a good job in helping me fully understand it. I think it is good that you are standing up for those that want a cure. Everyone experiences autism differently so there is no cookie-cutter approach.

I remember cookie cutter approaches since I was young. I did not like them and feel the education systems have changed. In my case it would have been strong sensory issues and intellectual difficulty with transferring to new focuses. However those days are over and I can educate myself and meet with professionals and get to learn about subject I want. For now though Autism Advocacy is quite divided and I see a good reason for something kind of in the middle.

I like the ASA but I think something progressive that as I have proven can manifest offline in the world and create opportunity and innovative social awareness is needed then just disagreeing and ideological confrontations and manipulations. What already exists as far as services need enabling with public relations and strong leadership(s). I know I cannot do everything and I'd hate to be the center of attention and really disdain speaking arrangements, going on the news and radio which I've declined so far yet I am known well beyond my area in context to autism.