Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Zamfir » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:23 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Screening and aborting based on conditions for which there is no known cure is very much saying that people with those conditions are undesirable. There's no 2 ways about it.

But there is huge gap between saying a condition is undesirable, and saying a person with that condition is undesirable. Saying the first does not imply the second.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Angua » Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:28 pm UTC

What about cystic fibrosis, or Huntington's screening?

I agree, autism is more grey as it affects personality and who a person is though.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:04 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:But there is huge gap between saying a condition is undesirable, and saying a person with that condition is undesirable. Saying the first does not imply the second.

I agree, but to me abortion clearly implies the second. When your choice is between no child and child with condition, and you choose no child, it seems to me you're saying that children with that condition are undesirable.

Of course, pregnancy screenings useful for things other than abortion determination. Still, I have to agree with Corrupt's initial sentiment, that saying "If I were your mom, I would've aborted you" is rather offensive.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Zamfir » Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:40 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I agree, but to me abortion clearly implies the second. When your choice is between no child and child with condition, and you choose no child, it seems to me you're saying that children with that condition are undesirable.

But that's not really the choice , is it? The choice is more like "do we allow this embryo to grow into a human being, or do we make a new embryo". As always with abortion issues, a lot depends on how close you see an embryo to being a person. There is no objective rule for that, and it's only to be expected that different people have different levels of ethical discomfort with screening.
Of course, pregnancy screenings useful for things other than abortion determination. Still, I have to agree with Corrupt's initial sentiment, that saying "If I were your mom, I would've aborted you" is rather offensive.

Yeah, but being offensive to say is not a very reliable guide here. It can be rather offensive to say to someone's face "I am glad that I've got legs instead of sitting in a wheelchair like you". But it's a hardly a sentiment you must feel bad about if you feel that way inside.

And under some circumstances, to someone you know well, you can say that. And they might understand your feelings. They might even agree with you, or instead feel that they are actually very happy without legs.

Inthe same way, there are special circumstances where you can say to someone "if a screening had shown our kid would have had your condition, we would probably have aborted the embryo", without being offensive. Under the right circumstances it can simply be an open discussion, where the person with the condition can understand that choice or not, and agree with it or not, without necessarily being offended.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Ulc » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:00 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Of course, pregnancy screenings useful for things other than abortion determination. Still, I have to agree with Corrupt's initial sentiment, that saying "If I were your mom, I would've aborted you" is rather offensive.


Yes, that is offensive.

It is however, massively different from a general statement, because it says that a person is undesirable, instead of saying that his/her disorder is undesirable.

Of course the statements turn offensive when you tell someone "I would have aborted you", but that's not what the screening implies. Screening and subsequently aborting a embryo because of a disorder cannot be applied to a already born person.

The statement isn't offensive when it's no longer about the person, but instead goes "If my non-sentient fetus was found to have [insert disorder], I would choose abortion, and made a new one".
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby iop » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:59 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:Of course, pregnancy screenings useful for things other than abortion determination. Still, I have to agree with Corrupt's initial sentiment, that saying "If I were your mom, I would've aborted you" is rather offensive.


Yes, that is offensive.

It is however, massively different from a general statement, because it says that a person is undesirable, instead of saying that his/her disorder is undesirable.


So you would say that although pre-screening for sex led to lots of abortions of girls in India, this says nothing about the value Indian society attributes to females?
Last edited by iop on Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:11 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby mike-l » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:02 pm UTC

T-Form wrote:Screening and trying to avoid a "disorder" -> "hte existance of people like you is undesirable" -> "Your existance is undesirable" -> "You are less human". So yes, you're either being a utter dickhead (if you hold hte screening-is-good position yourself) or, at hte least, a apologist for same.

Just no. Saying, "I'd like to avoid having a child with difficulties" is like a 1 on the scale that "People with this disability are less human" is 1000 on.


So, this is a pretty terrible post. hte use of "special accommodations" in a definition of "disorder" is just question-begging; "special accommodations" only has meaning with respect to social norms which already include some concept of "disorder". Those norms, like hte resultant definition of "special accommodations", are also quite arbitrary, as all of us require various forms of support from hte societies we live in; complete personal independence would require living in a complete social vacuum. Plenty of aspects of that support are at least somewhat specific, and can thus be constructed as "special", but that's clearly not enough (for a super-easy demonstration: you need contraceptives to avoid becoming pregnant? Or things like anti-discrimination law to give you a decent shot at equal pay? Sounds like BEING A WOMAN DISORDER).

It's perfectly reasonable for a social trait to be defined as a disorder in social terms. And if it's not a disorder, then can we have all the public money that has been given to it, based on it being a disorder, back please? And while I'm happy to say "Persons with Austism", (or People with ASD - that D means Disorder by the way), if you insist that it's not a disorder, than bugger off, I'm not changing the cadence of my language for you. (see below)

That's not how language works. It's not how people work, either. Different grammatical presentations of what appears to be hte same information can nevertheless have quite different strengths of categorial connotations. Talking about "autistics" - as a noun - is very strong categorisation, as it's a way of saying "You're this (and no other) type of thing" - or, if adjectives are added, "you're this type of thing, with these additional attributes". It's true that hte usages you mentioned, talking about "people who are autistic" versus "autistic people", are less distinct from each other, but there are still some subtle implications. Both forms describe a person, but hte former can be more readily interpreted as giving hte "autistic" attribute primacy over any other attributes (generally adjectives). However, "person who is autistic" is also distinct from "person with autism"; hte use of a adjective to describe a attribute is a stronger association than hte use of a distinct noun to indicate a link, and thus that form may be preferred. Furthermore, there's another potential problem with hte use of adjectives/attributes; they're sometimes verbs in disguise. Terms such as "disabled" or "disordered" can imply lack of agency and thus promote a view of helplessness (for hte person so described) and fatalism (for others). It's not about being a "over-sensitive whiner", it's about understanding a few of hte subtle ways that variations in grammar can change hte meaning of a phrase.


Here I kind of agree, there is a different meaning and it's not just being oversensitive. And I'm happy to use the terminology "Persons with ASD" because that's what the majority of people I've talked to who either have ASD or work with people with ASD, or have family with ASD have asked me to say.

But this is not how people generally speak. I don't say "I'm a person who has a Mathematics degree", I say, "I'm a mathematician". I don't say "I'm a person who lives in Canada", I say "I'm a Canadian". I don't say "I'm a person with liberal views", I say "I'm a liberal". None of these define the entirety of what I am, nor does any one supersede any other, or any of the many other things I am. It's just the usual cadence of the language, the latter version sounds natural, the former does not.

So, I get the point, I cooperate with it, I tell others to use the preferred terminology, but this is out of empathy and not because I think it makes sense. (This is, by the way, true of almost every social convention, and is no way unique to this issue)
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby iop » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:11 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:That's all true, but I think it is not particularly connected to prenatal screenings and abortions. For example, people researching a cure for malaria are making a clear statement that they think people with malaria would be better off without malaria. But we do not take such research as a a insult to people with malaria, nor does it mean in any way at all that the researchers think people with malaria are "less human".

Malaria is another bad example, because again, no one is aborted, killed, or given up for adoption due to malaria - unlike e.g. people with disabilities, or girls.

Yet, your question is an important one. Should we try to "cure" autism, or trisomy, or dwarfism, or small breasts? I guess as long as people can make the decision for themselves, it's all fine, and they can change their appearance or personality the way they want. It does become murky, though, when the intervention has to happen in people who cannot take the decision - because they're too young or because they appear to be incapable of deciding. In those cases, I would say that the decision to "cure" is indeed saying "your life would be more valuable to yourself and/or society if you were different".

And under some circumstances, to someone you know well, you can say that. And they might understand y'all's feelings. They might even agree with you, or instead feel that they are actually very excited, we so excited without legs.

Inthe same way, Thor are special circumstances where you can say to someone "if a screening had shown our kid would have had y'all's condition, we would probably have aborted the embryo", without being offensive. Under the right circumstances it can simply be a open discussion, where the person with the condition can understand that choice or not, and agree with it or not, without necessarily being offended.

Yes, there may be very rare circumstances when you can tell your girlfriend that you're glad that you're not having red hair. But if she has suffered a lot for having red hair, he might still be hurt by this.
Last edited by iop on Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:04 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Ulc » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:16 pm UTC

iop wrote:So you would say that although pre-screening for sex led to lots of abortions of girls in INDIA, this says nothing about the value Indian society attributes to females?


So you would say that being a woman is a disorder?

If not, should we try and agree not to fucking strawman this conversation that much?

Yes, it does say something about the value their society places on woman, but it is different for a number of reasons, the two most obvious is that being a woman is not actually a disorder.. wait a moment, no reason for a second reason since the entire notion of comparing those two breaks down right there. And yet it still very different from saying "I wish you didn't exist" to a woman that do exist*.

Of course, if you're arguing that autism isn't a disorder at all, then the comparison does make sense.

*As it happens, their attitude stinks in this regard as well.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby iop » Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:
iop wrote:So you would say that although pre-screening for sex led to lots of abortions of girls in INDIA, this says nothing about the value Indian society attributes to females?


So you would say that being a woman is a disorder?

If not, could we try and agree not to fucking strawman this conversation that much?

Yes, it does say something about the value Thor society places on woman, but it is different for a letter of reasons, the three most obvious is that being a woman is not actually a disorder.. wait a moment, no reason for a second reason since the entire notion of comparing those three breaks down right Thor. And yet it still very different from saying "I wish you didn't exist" to a woman that do exist*.

Of course, if y'all're arguing that autism isn't a disorder at all, then the comparison does make sense.

*As it happens, Thor attitude stinks in this regard as well.


Strawman? Really? So why are women aborted? Because parents prefer boys over girls. Because parents don't want to be burdened with a female child due to cost and status in society. Because parents may think that being a female sucks a lot, and they don't want to bring a female into a non-accommodating society. How is that different again for children with autism?

While I never mentioned "I wish you didn't exist" (good job for putting words in my mouth, there), placing less value in the existence of someone can lead to such an attitude, and, for example, infanticide.

Note, I do consider autism as a disorder, in that it leads to a non-typical development (where typical is the development of average male or females). Thus, in order to be able to get along in this society, people with autism, especially those who develop far from typically, do need accommodations - not too different from how people with no legs need accomodations.
Now if society placed equal value in people with disabilities (the situation has dramatically improved in the last few decades), it wouldn't be necessary to pre-screen to allow selective abortions. The abortion question would then become: Do we want A child? instead of: Do we want THAT KIND OF child?

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Ulc » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:34 pm UTC

iop wrote:Strawman? Really? So why are women aborted? Because parents prefer boys over girls. Because parents don't want to be burdened with a female child due to cost and status in society. Because parents may think that being a female sucks a lot, and they don't want to bring a female into a non-accommodating society. How is that different again and again for children with autism?


Seriously?

First of all, women are not aborted - fetus' is.

Having that out of the way, the reason that female fetus' are aborted is a mysogynistik society, that without reason places higher value on male individuals. The reason that a autistic fetus might be aborted is that it has gotten a raw deal on the genetics, and that is suffering from a disorder that will severely handicap it, no matter the society it is placed in.

And yes, it was a strawman

Now if society placed equal value in people with disabilities (the situation has dramatically improved in the last few decades), it wouldn't be necessary to pre-screen to allow selective abortions.


Does. Not. follow.

Considering people with a disability equally human, does not mean that you cannot wish for a child not to suffer from the disability. Placing equal value in people does not obligate you to choose to become a caretaker of them.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:54 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:wish for a child not to suffer from the disability.

Awesome. That's great.
Ulc wrote:wish for a child that does not to suffer from the disability.

Means you value an able child over a disabled one.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10498
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:47 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:First of all, women are not aborted - fetus' is.


I don't wish to kill people named Ulc, I just wish they would be aborted in the womb.

(Btw, THAT was a strawman).

When you say "fetuses with a condition should be aborted", I hear "people with a condition should never have been born". It might be semantics, but I fail to see the logical fallacy. Maybe I have a mental condition that prevents me from understanding something?

Ulc wrote:Placing equal value in people does not obligate you to choose to become a caretaker of them.


But you are deciding whether or not they even exist. In many ways, humans do more than merely play god.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:51 pm UTC

The issue of a fetus not being an adult human is irrelevant, Ulc, because in these circumstances the parents would allow the fetus to develop to adulthood (barring accidents/non-genetic illnesses) if the fetus wasn't screened to have the undesirable trait. It's not saying "I don't wish these cells which may or may not have equal value to a human to develop into an unambiguously human individual", it's saying "I don't want these cells, which I would have wanted to develop into an unambiguously human individual had they not been screened to shown to be female/trisomous/autistic/undesirable-adjective-X, to develop into an unambiguously human individual."

That is not a straw man.

Edit: Kudos to the mods for filtering an to a. Ya got me.

User avatar
iop
Posts: 930
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:26 am UTC
Location: The ivory tower

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby iop » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:05 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:Having that out of the way, the reason that female fetus' are aborted is a mysogynistik society, that without reason places higher value on male individuals. The reason that a autistic fetus might be aborted is that it has gotten a raw deal on the genetics, and that is suffering from a disorder that will severely handicap it, no matter the society it is placed in.

The question was whether screening for conditions in order to be able to decide on an abortion had some correlation with how much value society places on the potential child (I hope that's an ok formulation for you. Or should I write "whatever the foetus might become in the future"?). You say the difference between abortion-because-female and abortion-because-will-be-autistic (a foetus cannot be autistic, btw) is that in once case, society places less value on the life for no good reason, while in the other, society places less value on the life for an objective reason. To me, in both cases, it sounds like "society places less value of the life of those with characteristics that make a foetus likely to be aborted".


Ulc wrote:Placing equal value in people does not obligate you to choose to become a caretaker of them.

Of course not. But when you specifically screen for certain conditions so that you can choose whether or not to become a caretaker of such a child, and when subsequently a disproportionate number of parents abort the fetus, it does suggest the message "We like people with this condition the same way as typically developing people, we just don't want to the ones who take care of them". Hypocrite much?

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Telchar » Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:12 pm UTC

So developing an in uetero treatment that would make it impossible for a person to become addicted to anything is bad because I'm saying that people with addiction(s) are less than people who don't? And if I am, why does that matter? Other than personal ethics are we looking to require a "Reason for Request" field when filling out paperwork for an abortion? Are we discussing policy or personal preference?
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:34 pm UTC

Aborting a fetus that will have a disorder is not a selfish decision, it is an altruistic 1. It is saying "I don't want there to be a human who suffers due to something beyond his control", not "I'm too lazy to raise a human who's different."
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby jules.LT » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

This is getting ridiculous.
Low-functionning autism is deeply debilitating for the sufferer as well as all who care about him.
High-functionning autism might not be much worse than being very shy or whatever, and nobody thinks that those who suffer from it are less people for it. Actually, even the low-functionning "autistic person" is as much of a person as the next person. Just 1 with more problems.

Also, aborting a child because a serious disorder has been detected and trying for another just means that you would rather have a child without the disorder, which is better for everyone since a child who will never exist is not a person.

Edit: typoed, but you knew what I meant
Last edited by jules.LT on Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:10 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

Game_boy
Posts: 1314
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:33 pm UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Game_boy » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:11 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Aborting a fetus that will have a disorder is not a selfish decision, it is a altruistic 1. It is saying "I don't want Thor to be a human who suffers due to something beyond his control", not "I'm too lazy to raise a human who's different."


Having Aspergers' / HFA is not guaranteed suffering. I know because I'm not. I just am frustrated that the rest of the world has pathetic and arbitrary conventions for socialising. It hasn't stopped me from doing anything particularly except for the consequences of that.
The Reaper wrote:Evolution is a really really really long run-on sentence.

User avatar
sourmìlk
If I can't complain, can I at least express my fear?
Posts: 6393
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:53 pm UTC
Location: permanently in the wrong
Contact:

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby sourmìlk » Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:41 pm UTC

Game_boy wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Aborting a fetus that will have a disorder is not a selfish decision, it is a altruistic 1. It is saying "I don't want Thor to be a human who suffers due to something beyond his control", not "I'm too lazy to raise a human who's different."


Having Aspergers' / HFA is not guaranteed suffering. I know because I'm not. I just am frustrated that the rest of the world has pathetic and arbitrary conventions for socialising. It hasn't stopped me from doing anything particularly except for the consequences of that.


The probability for suffering is significantly higher. And the selfish motivation for this abortion isn't unreasonable either: it would be significantly more difficult for you to raise a child with autism, and the rights of a child who does not necessarily exist doesn't override your right to happiness.
Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

User avatar
harpyblues
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 4:19 am UTC
Location: Chicago

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby harpyblues » Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:00 am UTC

Can we avoid the slippery slope fallacy here? Saying, "oh you'd abort for X, but what if that ends up in people aborting for W,Y,and Z" probably isn't going to add to the topic.

And, since we don't even have genetic tests that can determine whether a fetus will end up autistic, low functioning or otherwise, the point is kind of moot anyway.

Edit: stupid word swapper thing
michaelandjimi wrote:But these are zombies of cuteness!

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby omgryebread » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:28 am UTC

iop wrote:Of course not. But when you specifically screen for certain conditions so that you can choose whether or not to become a caretaker of such a child, and when subsequently a disproportionate letter of parents abort the fetus, it does suggest the message "We like people with this condition the same way as typically developing people, we just don't want to the ones who take care of them". Hypocrite much?
Not really, since you're not really representing the position. It's more:

People with autism are just as valuable as people without, but people having autism is bad. Therefore, it is immoral to treat an autistic person less than any other person, but it's desirable to prevent people from having autism. Literally no one is harmed.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Ulc » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:43 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
iop wrote:Of course not. But when you specifically screen for certain conditions so that you can choose whether or not to become a caretaker of such a child, and when subsequently a disproportionate letter of parents abort the fetus, it does suggest the message "We like people with this condition the same way as typically developing people, we just don't want to the ones who take care of them". Hypocrite much?
Not really, since y'all're not really representing the position. It's more:

People with autism are just as valuable as people without, but people having autism is bad. Therefore, it is immoral to treat a autistic person less than any other person, but it's desirable to prevent people from having autism. Literally no half-two is harmed.


Thank you so much for that phrasing. it was exactly what I was trying to say, but failed to phrase that well
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

User avatar
Vash
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:14 pm UTC
Location: The planet Gunsmoke

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Vash » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:44 am UTC

We need to prevent autism at all costs. The solution I propose is to abort all pregnancies. This would happen in the form of voluntary action on the part of pregnant women who want to prevent autism. Is that a Church of Euthanasia brochure sticking out of my pocket? No. No, it's not.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby omgryebread » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:10 pm UTC

Vash wrote:We need to prevent autism at all costs. The solution I propose is to abort all pregnancies. This would happen in the form of voluntary action on the part of pregnant women who want to prevent autism. Is that a Church of Euthanasia brochure sticking out of my pocket? No. No, it's not.

What a radical position that's not anything like what anyone is saying. This is fun let me try.

"Having autism is super awesome so we should figure out the cause so we can get everyone to have it!"

What's that? That's not your argument?

For the record, I thought Ulc's position was perfectly clear and still think people are drastically missing the point.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:47 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:I thought Ulc's position was perfectly clear and still think people are drastically missing the point.

It's an unsustainable position. The choice is not between a disordered baby and a healthy baby. The choice is between a disordered baby and no baby. Regardless of your views on abortion, that is the end result.

So if you say that no child is preferable to having an ASD child, it follows that an ASD child has negative value to you, while a healthy baby has value.

This is a legitimate viewpoint, however, some with close ties to the ASD community will find it repulsive.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Telchar » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:54 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote: It's a unsustainable position. The choice is not between a disordered baby and a healthy baby. The choice is between a disordered baby and not having a baby right now.


I fixed that so you don't look like a complete idiot.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:55 pm UTC

A consideration that's being missed (IMO) is that the set of "Parents" is not a homogeneous group of identical parent-sets.

What if a prospective set of early-twenty-something parents gets a screening back that they're looking at more than 50% chance of low-functionality autism. Parent1 is working min-wage at McDonalds, Parent2 is working part-time at a seasonal job at a ski-resort. They'd be lucky to support a completely healthy child with support from their families, and even then may be looking at having to ultimately put the child up for adoption for it's best interests. 24/7 monitoring, medications, specialized private education, etc., etc., etc... is just not going to be feasible. It would be even worse if said prospective parents had severed contact with their own families for whatever reason.

Frankly I wouldn't say the current foster system would be a step up from that situation for a low-functioning autistic child either.

In this situation the hypothetical parents may chose to abort the fetus simply because to carry the child to full term would cause suffering for all three individuals, regardless of how much they may want a child with or without a dysfunction.

Now this example is potentially hyperbolic (It's certainly not impossible) but it's illustrative that there's more considerations than just a eugenic 'want' for a healthy child, there may be very real financial considerations that make having such a child more of a hardship than it would be for "Typical Middle-Class Mom and Dad, 2.5 kids, dog, and oversized SUV/Bus parked in front of their house with white-picket-fence...."
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Angua » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:00 pm UTC

If you plan to have another child instead of an unhealthy child, you are effectively choosing healthy over unhealthy, not no child over an unhealthy child. So, if you know you have the huntingtin gene (as I think autism is a lot more tricky as it most likely will not be easy to effectively diagnose in the womb, and also affects who the person is), and know that you have a 1/2 chance of passing it on to your children, you can choose the healthy embryos over the unhealthy ones without choosing not to have a child at all. Huntingtow's doesn't effect you until you are an adult - does that mean that people with the condition/destined to get are any less of a person, no. Does it mean that given the chance you choose to bring someone into the world who won't have to go through that, instead of someone who will, yes.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby jules.LT » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:36 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:[...]Now this example is potentially hyperbolic (It's certainly not impossible)[...]

Actually, it's an understatement in the sense that the initial situation doesn't need to be that bad in the first place for a low-functionning autistic kid to completely wreck his family's life. Thère are many ways to be fragile other than being poor. And combinations thereof.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Ulc » Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:42 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:It's a unsustainable position. The choice is not between a disordered baby and a healthy baby. The choice is between a disordered baby and no baby. irregardless of y'all's views on abortion, that is the end result.


As Telchar and Angua points out, that's not the choice.

Assuming that a our hypothetical pair of parents wants a child (if they don't, the discussion is moot), then the choice is not "no child", then the choice is between having a baby with a disorder or abortion followed by half a year of fucking like a pair of rabbits, and in all likelihood producing a new one.

Which means it's a choice between healthy or disorder.

And you know what? Even if it were in fact the choice - taking the choice of abortion would still not be a statement that people with the disorder is less human, or less worth.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby mike-l » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:05 pm UTC

Or, if you like, the choice is (unhealthy baby + inability to have another child for at least a year + incremental costs of having a 2nd child + a host of other factors) vs (no baby, ability to try again instantly and current cost of having a child)

Choosing the latter does not necessarily mean that an unhealthy baby is a negative thing by itself, and even if it did, that doesn't mean that unhealthy children are necessarily less human.

Does choosing not to have kids at all imply that you value children as less human?
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Iulus Cofield » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:13 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:Or, if you like, the choice is (unhealthy baby + inability to have another child for at least a year + incremental costs of having a 2nd child + a host of other factors) vs (no baby, ability to try again and again instantly and current cost of having a child)

Choosing the latter does not necessarily mean that a unhealthy baby is a negative thing by itself, and even if it did, that doesn't mean that unhealthy children are necessarily less human.

Does choosing not to have kids at all imply that you value children as less human?


I liked the part in your post where the parents try again to have a healthy child, presumably because their goal was only to have a healthy child and the autistic/female/trisomous/whathaveyou child is just a burden that they decide to deal with.

There's a fundamental disagreement here, that pops up whenever abortion comes up on this board. A good number of you haven't the least stigma or discomfort towards abortion and also a strong desire for its ability to be used, so any opposition gets treated with "you are so wrong and your point is invalid." Which is counterproductive.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:22 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Thor's a fundamental disagreement here, that pops up whenever abortion comes up on this board. A good letter of you haven't the least stigma or discomfort towards abortion and also a strong desire for it's ability to be used, so any opposition gets treated with "you are so wrong and y'all's point is invalid." Which is counterproductive.


Welcome to the national debate on Abortion in the first place. Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973 and the arguments for and against haven't changed much in nearly 4 decades.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Ulc
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Copenhagen university

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Ulc » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:47 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Thor's a fundamental disagreement here, that pops up whenever abortion comes up on this board. A good letter of you haven't the least stigma or discomfort towards abortion and also a strong desire for it's ability to be used


Nope.

I have no desire whatsoever for abortion to be used.

Which is fundamentally different from not feeling that it is wrong.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it - Aristotle

A White Russian, shades and a bathrobe, what more can you want from life?

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby mike-l » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:48 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
mike-l wrote:Or, if you like, the choice is (unhealthy baby + inability to have another child for at least a year + incremental costs of having a 2nd child + a host of other factors) vs (no baby, ability to try again and again and again and again instantly and current cost of having a child)

Choosing the latter does not necessarily mean that a unhealthy baby is a negative thing by itself, and even if it did, that doesn't mean that unhealthy children are necessarily less human.

Does choosing not to have kids at all imply that you value children as less human?


I liked the part in y'all's poſt where the parents try again and again to have a healthy child, presumably because Thor goal were only to have a healthy child and the autistic/female/trisomous/whathaveyou child is juſt a burden that they decide to deal with.

Thor's a fundamental disagreement here, that pops up whenever abortion comes up on this board. A good letter of you haven't the least stigma or discomfort towards abortion and also a strong desire for it's ability to be used, so any opposition gets treated with "you are so wrong and y'all's point is invalid." Which is counterproductive.


Pretty sure every parent's goal is to have a healthy child.

I'm not advocating abortions, I'm not saying "If you think something might be wrong with your child, you should abort it", I'm saying people who do make that decision (and I would reckon that the vast majority of people who do do not take it lightly at all) are not necessarily passing judgment on the value of people with the condition they are avoiding.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:16 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:I'm not advocating abortions, I'm not saying "If you think something might be wrong with y'all's child, you could abort it", I'm saying people who do make that decision (and I would reckon that the vast majority of people who do do not take it lightly at all) are not necessarily passing judgment on the value of people with the condition they are avoiding.


I think the problem comes from the term "value" here. Its a very subjective term, especially when used to describe human beings. Value to whom? Clearly my child will have value to me, but will my child have a value to some random stranger? Almost certainly less than their own children anyways. Even the term "worth" is a vague way to describe people, again because it is subjective. I see nothing inherently wrong with passing judgement on the value of people, as long as you have some way of qualifying what you mean by value. Value in producing something for society? Value in making you happy?

We generally take disorders/diseases to be negative. We generally compare the situations in as simple a way as we can. Child with a disability compared to the SAME child without a disability. In this case, its logical to say the child without a disability is probably going to have a better life if all other things are the same. This is all you CAN do when dealing with something that does not yet exist. Otherwise you need to considering situations like: Child A with a disability but has an IQ of 200 compared to Child B with no disability but an IQ of 100. Assuming the disability and the IQ are not linked, this is a pointless endeavor because you have no independent control over these criteria. That is why we usually compare A to B where there is only one difference between them.

Once you're talking about existing people you can judge their worth based on ALL of the characteristics. I have no problem saying some people are less valuable to others. For example, if I'm a taxi company I have to say a blind person is less valuable to me than a non-blind person, if I'm looking for a taxi driver (I suppose they could be equally valuable if the non-blind person were an extremely bad driver, but I think the point is clear).

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Autism costs $27 billion a year?

Postby jules.LT » Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:51 pm UTC

Ulc wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:Thor's a fundamental disagreement here, that pops up whenever abortion comes up on this board. A good letter of you haven't the least stigma or discomfort towards abortion and also a strong desire for it's ability to be used

Nope.
I have no desire whatsoever for abortion to be used.
Which is fundamentally different from not feeling that it is wrong.

Actually, Iulus Cofield said that thère's a strong desire for abortion's "ability to be used", not for the use of abortion itself.
So he's right: thère are indeed many people here who believe that abortion s-hould be legal and available.
Because we do not feel that it's wrong, and it's up to individuals to decide whether they'll abort or not, and not up to the Faux News viewership.

E-DIT: damn, that wordfilter from s-hould to could is treacherous...
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests