5 ms·

Chill with the pity party. Autism is a spectrum and for every person like you who is doing fine, there is a child whose brains doesn’t work fine and can’t talk,

Chill with the pity party. Autism is a spectrum and for every person like you who is doing fine, there is a child whose brains doesn’t work fine and can’t talk, can’t socialise and can’t communicate. Parents of children like that become full time, life time caters and I’ve seen with what happens when they realise their children won’t ever get “better” and have to figure out who will loom after their kids for the rest of the child’s life after they pass.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Indeed. A family friend (single mom, dad bolted, financially stretched, we all pitch in when we can) has an autistic daughter who, in her mid teens, is barely potty trained (and who might never be higher functioning). Her other younger daughter, without autism, acts out because she gets whatever attention is left over after the mother has provided all the care necessary for the autistic daughter. The mother I refer to should have the right to opt out if this type of existence if she could have. If we’re going to support woman having reproductive autonomy, genetic testing pre and post conception (and any resulting termination) goes with that. If someone doesn’t want to have an autistic child (and medical technology can provide a high level of confidence when making the decision), that is their choice.
- em-bee 7y ago
  there is a huge difference between aborting a child because it has been diagnosed with something, vs choosing a partner based on how their medical history could affect their children. everyone should be free to choose who they have children with.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Everyone should be free to choose who is contributing genetic material to their child (if you read the entire article, the donor in question was not entirely honest about the facts about themselves they put forth). But I think you’ll see people err on the side of caution, just as birth rates have plummeted across the world when you have reproductive freedom. Ain’t no prizes spending your life being miserable.
    - em-bee 7y ago
      yes, that's the point. the donor/agency was denying that choice by not having all the information. but i don't get your second point. yes, people err on the side of caution, so what? if we develop a society where having children is difficult then we are doing something wrong. and to respond to the start of the thread, if we develop a society where having autistic or handicapped children is difficult, we also ought to change things. but either way we need to make these changes by choice. we can not force people to have children, nor can we force people to take risks that they don't want to take. this is especially critical in the US where there is little or no support for people who end up carrying the burden. i heard someone say something like this once: "handicapped are not suffering by themselves, but they are a test for us in how we treat them". if they suffer, we are doing it wrong.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

Indeed. A family friend (single mom, dad bolted, financially stretched, we all pitch in when we can) has an autistic daughter who, in her mid teens, is barely potty trained (and who might never be higher functioning). Her other younger daughter, without autism, acts out because she gets whatever attention is left over after the mother has provided all the care necessary for the autistic daughter. The mother I refer to should have the right to opt out if this type of existence if she could have. If we’re going to support woman having reproductive autonomy, genetic testing pre and post conception (and any resulting termination) goes with that. If someone doesn’t want to have an autistic child (and medical technology can provide a high level of confidence when making the decision), that is their choice.

em-bee 7y ago
there is a huge difference between aborting a child because it has been diagnosed with something, vs choosing a partner based on how their medical history could affect their children. everyone should be free to choose who they have children with.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Everyone should be free to choose who is contributing genetic material to their child (if you read the entire article, the donor in question was not entirely honest about the facts about themselves they put forth). But I think you’ll see people err on the side of caution, just as birth rates have plummeted across the world when you have reproductive freedom. Ain’t no prizes spending your life being miserable.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    yes, that's the point. the donor/agency was denying that choice by not having all the information. but i don't get your second point. yes, people err on the side of caution, so what? if we develop a society where having children is difficult then we are doing something wrong. and to respond to the start of the thread, if we develop a society where having autistic or handicapped children is difficult, we also ought to change things. but either way we need to make these changes by choice. we can not force people to have children, nor can we force people to take risks that they don't want to take. this is especially critical in the US where there is little or no support for people who end up carrying the burden. i heard someone say something like this once: "handicapped are not suffering by themselves, but they are a test for us in how we treat them". if they suffer, we are doing it wrong.