As some one who is let’s say “autism adjacent” it really bothers me when people discuss a cure or prevention. I mean I get it, but this is also who I am and I wouldn’t want to be someone else.
I'm on the spectrum (diagnosed), and also like being me (most of the time).
But what about the poor sods who have so much happening all the time that they don't get the chance to learn to speak, or read, and scream in terror continually at the unending sensory deluge they try to live through? If there was a way to prevent that kind of presentation of ASD I think everyone would be better off. I took "prevention" to be about prevention of the life restricting developments of the condition.
On the other hand, if "prevention" is about culling the gene pool, I'm dead set against that.
> On the other hand, if "prevention" is about culling the gene pool, I'm dead set against that.
Well, you can be against it by raising autistic children yourself, it seems you're in a perfect position for that. Why people feel they have the right to demand that from others is beyond me.
The problem is that when you teach society that a certain “kind” of person needs to be culled, that is a stigma about people in that group.
IME such strong feelings don’t don’t stay relegated to your personal choices, they get reflected at a broader policy level.
People say “well it was your choice to have such broken people, we gave you a pill that would make that not possible. Therefore we las a society will not support them (you’ll hear rhetoric along the lines of “why should we spend my hard-earned tax dollars on social programs for autistic people, that’s a you problem, why people demand I pay for their choices is beyond me”)
Of course that’s when the government offers a “compassionate” final solution to the autist problem. Since autistic people can’t seem to stop reproducing despite the “cure”, we should sterilize them. Or we should make it mandatory because otherwise they are a drain. Then of course for the ones who are “too autistic” (I.e. who are nonverbal or who otherwise cannot be productive), we can euthanize them.
No thanks we have been down that road before as a society. It doesn’t end well.
The slippery slope scenario you described didn't happen with the Down syndrome for which there is a reliable screening. There are a few people want to ban that screening and they use exactly the same arguments (also it's eugenics!). We're lucky that at least these people are rightfully viewed as insane.
I am not familiar with the deaf community nor the controversy surrounding curing deafness. If you're asking me if I support firebombing clinics, no. I don't know what incident you're referring to.
I looked up some info and I find the issue to be far more complicated than you've summarized. One thing I note is that 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents. They are making a decision about implants for an infant based on a reality they want the infant to experience, but they wouldn't even know any alternative way of living. Why do they get to make the decision for the child? Deaf people live like the rest of us. They face struggles, yet they live full happy rich lives.
Devices like implants don't come without risks and drawbacks. For people used to deaf culture, they have to learn how to integrate into hearing society, which can be frustrating and also lead to ridicule, shame, and embarrassment. The devices can be broken and can be distracting and annoying. I can understand why many would not opt for them, and would advocate against them when there is a ready and willing culture to receive deaf people as they are.
Maybe some people choose these implants and that's what they want. That's fine. No one is stopping them from doing that.
But I don't exactly see why hearing people are deciding that they must "cure" their child's deafness. I read that people are calling it child abuse. See, that's something I can't get behind, and it's an admission that our society is abusive toward people with differences.
That's not a reason to genetically alter people so that they conform to the abusive society, it's a reason to change society so that it doesn't abuse people with differences.
So again, I'm not familiar with this debate, here is some info I looked up:
> But I don't exactly see why hearing people are deciding that they must "cure" their child's deafness.
Because past some age, you can't meaningfully learn to use hearing for communication anymore. You can choose to lose hearing as an adult if you really want to. But only if you were given the opportunity to have it in the first place as a child.
The article seems to be focused on people who are unable to live independently.
>For the majority of people with ASD, the condition is a significant disability, with only 10–20% of children diagnosed before 5 years of age able to live independently as adults.
Its also missing how speacalists with traits and hyperfocus are the driving force behind a ton of research. Then again having a retarded kid is like having a 60 ton weight attached to you for life. Yes, yes, we are not allowed to say this, but thats easily said by those who don't wear the weights.
as someone who’s also autism adjacent and content with it, let’s still recognize that it’s not called spectrum for nothing. Yes, one’s norm of "functioning" can be more dependent on society than you’re own opinion, but I’ve witnessed several individuals on the "lower functioning" end of the spectrum who really didn’t seem like they were content with the way they’re living life. I’m not infallible, but it definitely seemed that way.
At minimum we should center such people in these discussions rather than talk about them with pity or only when using them to advance a rhetorical point. I want to hear from people with the highest support needs on this issue the most.
That’s even worse, of course you are allowed your own feelings. What gives me the creeps is when people start talking about prevention it easily slides into eugenics or other things that deny poeople agency or even their humanity.
There is a similar thing for deaf people. Or how screening for Down’s has changed the reality of raising a child with it.
If there is a way to prevent your child a life of hardship resulting from being deaf or born with down's syndrome, are you genuinely saying you wouldn't do it?
It's one thing to be content with who you are, it's another to deliberately impose hardship on someone when it could be avoided.
It’s one thing to prevent being born with hardship and preventing being born at all. Which is the case with Down’s screening.
But it’s not that I’m against it or wanting to forbid it. It’s that these are very tricky subjects with a lot of very hard moral issues that need careful consideration. In the end I believe it should be about letting people have a choice and to remember that people are human even if they are different. To not take away someone’s agency.
Nobody's forcing you to get a cure. But denying it to others is a really weird idea. Until we can tell apart kids who will develop fun quirks from those who won't be able to live independently, prevention doesn't sound bad either.
I have no problem with discussion about making some issues people face better with medication, although I think autistic people should be centered in those discussion.
However “prevention” talk is a whole separate issue and that one does give me eugenics vibes.
But what about the poor sods who have so much happening all the time that they don't get the chance to learn to speak, or read, and scream in terror continually at the unending sensory deluge they try to live through? If there was a way to prevent that kind of presentation of ASD I think everyone would be better off. I took "prevention" to be about prevention of the life restricting developments of the condition.
On the other hand, if "prevention" is about culling the gene pool, I'm dead set against that.