Popular Youtuber Advocates Aborting Autistic/Mentally Handicapped People in the Womb

[Deleted member 60295]

Beyond the simple inhumanity of it, isn't it true that most diagnoses of asd can't be made until a person is much older than "in the womb." I mean, aside from the disgusting inhumanity of the statement to begin with.

Click to shrink...

Some diagnoses aren't even made until long after people have hit adulthood, and primarily because the individuals in question seek out a diagnosis on their own. The very idea that autism is inherently a mental disorder/disability is flat out wrong. There are many people on the spectrum that still don't even realize they are, because they function just as well if not better within society as "normal" people do.

 

[Cenauru]

Not everyone gets their idea of autism from anti-vaxxers or Autism Speaks.

I don't like the "I'm pro choice but..." because you don't know those women personally and don't know why they made and abortion, it's what they choose and why some people here act like women aren't already shamed and insulted for getting abortions? Not to mention in some places go to jail if they get one.

Click to shrink...

This is something that does not exist. This is literally fear-mongering. Moving the discussion about autism to something that does not exist, instead of what exists right now, is exactly what I mean when I talk about rampant fear-mongering. How about we focus on trying to make autism more accepted and understood instead of focusing on anti-vaxxers making slippery slope arguments? This hypothetical is literally just another anti-vax talking point to try and get people to agree with them. This is why Autism gets such a bad reputation, it's always about slippery slopes and never about what's happening right now, and if we ever bring it up, people avoid the actual issues around it and go directly to the hypotheticals.

I don't care about the hypotheticals and I messed up by even entertaining the thought of it one day happening. I only talked about it because I wanted to have an open mind and tackle this from all sides, but people are unwilling to focus on anything but the hypotheticals so I'm going to put my foot down too. It doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter, because you cannot detect it in the womb, end of story. Anti-vaxxers only bring it up because they want to talk about eradicating Autism like it's a disease, and if that means getting people on board with a hypothetical that is against Autism, then they'll do it. They know most leftists are pro-choice, that's why they make this slippery slope argument in the first place.

 

[uncelestial]

Are people ignoring the actual discussion here and instead assuming those of us who are autistic are against women's bodily autonomy and right to choose?

The larger point we're trying to discuss isn't denying abortion rights.

Click to shrink...

Then don't bring it up?

 

[subpar spatula]

This is something that does not exist. This is literally fear-mongering. Moving the discussion about autism to something that does not exist, instead of what exists right now, is exactly what I mean when I talk about rampant fear-mongering. How about we focus on trying to make autism more accepted and understood instead of focusing on anti-vaxxers making slippery slope arguments? This hypothetical is literally just another anti-vax talking point to try and get people to agree with them. This is why Autism gets such a bad reputation, it's always about slippery slopes and never about what's happening right now, and if we ever bring it up, people avoid the actual issues around it and go directly to the hypotheticals.

I don't care about the hypotheticals and I messed up by even entertaining the thought of it one day happening. I only talked about it because I wanted to have an open mind and tackle this from all sides, but people are unwilling to focus on anything but the hypotheticals so I'm going to put my foot down too. It doesn't matter and it shouldn't matter, because you cannot detect it in the womb, end of story. Anti-vaxxers only bring it up because they want to talk about eradicating Autism like it's a disease, and if that means getting people on board with a hypothetical that is against Autism, then they'll do it. They know most leftists are pro-choice, that's why they make this slippery slope argument in the first place.

Click to shrink...

How influential are these anti-vax movements compared to movements and programs that promote inclusivity and accepting of people with autism?

 

[Deleted member 18360]

This. People are either pro choice or they are not.
I feel like this mindset leads to shaming women for having a abortion when they don't know their story at all.

Click to shrink...

This is nonsense. Pro choice means that you agree that people should have a universal right to choose that is protected by the state, not that individuals have to personally agree with every case where that decision is made in order to satisfy a condition of 'respecting their right to choose'.

If you're prepared to abort a kid solely because they might have autism then you should probably be prepared to answer questions from autistic people regarding whether or not they have a lesser right to be born. Everyone is entitled to have their reasoning questioned, what choice doesn't allow for is for that choice to be overridden, vetoed, or coerced.

 

[Omegamon]

This is nonsense. Pro choice means that you agree that people should have a universal right to choose that is protected by the state, not that individuals have to personally agree with every case where that decision is made in order to satisfy a condition of 'respecting their right to choose'.

If you're prepared to abort a kid solely because they might have autism then you should probably be prepared to answer questions from autistic people regarding whether or not they have a lesser right to be born. Everyone is entitled to have their reasoning questioned, what choice doesn't allow for is for that choice to be overridden or vetoed.

Click to shrink...

Women don't owe you answers and women already are questioned and guilt tripped for getting abortions, all the time.

 

[Jarmel]

Genetic engineering debates are going to be wild in the future.

 

[subpar spatula]

This is nonsense. Pro choice means that you agree that people should have a universal right to choose that is protected by the state, not that individuals have to personally agree with every case where that decision is made in order to satisfy a condition of 'respecting their right to choose'.

If you're prepared to abort a kid solely because they might have autism then you should probably be prepared to answer questions from autistic people regarding whether or not they have a lesser right to be born. Everyone is entitled to have their reasoning questioned, what choice doesn't allow for is for that choice to be overridden or vetoed.

Click to shrink...

There are many reasons why someone will choose to have an abortion if it's detected the child will have a disability. This doesn't mean the person believes a person with a disability has a lesser right to being born. Children with disabilities are almost always more expensive, can lead to life long care, etc. Some folks just aren't mentally, financially, and what not equipped to raise a child with a disability. It isn't on them to explain that. You need to accept they didn't want the child. It doesn't make a person with a disability less of a person. It has nothing to do with you.

 

[Darryl M R]

You should be able to get an abortion because it's Thursday; the reason doesn't matter.

There is a separate conversation regarding how governments support those with handicaps and their parents, which can directly influence a woman's choice. But this thread is not having that conversation.

This is nonsense. Pro choice means that you agree that people should have a universal right to choose that is protected by the state, not that individuals have to personally agree with every case where that decision is made in order to satisfy a condition of 'respecting their right to choose'.

If you're prepared to abort a kid solely because they might have autism then you should probably be prepared to answer questions from autistic people regarding whether or not they have a lesser right to be born. Everyone is entitled to have their reasoning questioned, what choice doesn't allow for is for that choice to be overridden, vetoed, or coerced.

Click to shrink...

This is a bad post.

 

[zoltek]

This is such an uneducated take. You can't diagnose autism in the womb.

Also, there are literally millions of women in the developed world that abort when they know that something significantly aberrant is present (e.g. chromosomal abnormality and/or significant birth defect). Whatever my feelings are about the topic. I more strongly believe it is the mother's right to choose.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

Women don't owe you answers and women already are questioned and guilt tripped for getting abortions, all the time.

Click to shrink...

If the sole differentiating factor is whether a kid has or might have ASD it's good form to be able to stand by your decision. If you're making the choice out of a naive attitude or unreflective stigma regarding ASD then maybe you have a duty to people with ASD not to perpetuate those attitudes.

And we're literally talking about a case where the purported reasons are publicly available in a YouTube vid, just in case you forgot that. If you're making the claim that maybe a broad policy of aborting a fetus that might have ASD should be socially acceptable then you should be prepared to hear objections to that claim.

Putative rights conflict all the time and literally nothing will erase the autonomy that women have over their bodies. At the same time a blanket policy or unreflective social attitude devaluing the lives of people with ASD shouldn't be something that people with ASD have to tolerate.

 

[Darryl M R]

If the sole differentiating factor is whether a kid has or might have ASD it's good form to be able to stand by your decision. If you're making the choice out of a naive attitude or unreflective stigma regarding ASD then maybe you have a duty to people with ASD not to perpetuate those attitudes.

And we're literally talking about a case where the purported reasons are publicly available in a YouTube vid, just in case you forgot that. If you're making the claim that maybe a broad policy of aborting people with ASD is it should be socially acceptable then you should be prepared to hear objections.

Click to shrink...

This is another bad post.

A woman who chooses to have an abortion does not have the duty to do anything of the sort. And a woman who chooses to have an abortion isn't inherently making a political statement about the reason she aborted.

 

[subpar spatula]

If the sole differentiating factor is whether a kid has or might have ASD it's good form to be able to stand by your decision. If you're making the choice out of a naive attitude or unreflective stigma regarding ASD then maybe you have a duty to people with ASD not to perpetuate those attitudes.

And we're literally talking about a case where the purported reasons are publicly available in a YouTube vid, just in case you forgot that. If you're making the claim that maybe a broad policy of aborting a fetus that might have ASD should be socially acceptable then you should be prepared to hear objections.

Putative rights conflict all the time and literally nothing will erase the autonomy that women have over their bodies. At the same time a blanket policy devaluing the lives of people with ASD shouldn't be something that people with ASD have to tolerate.

Click to shrink...

so what is your solution?

 

[Omegamon]

If the sole differentiating factor is whether a kid has or might have ASD it's good form to be able to stand by your decision. If you're making the choice out of a naive attitude or unreflective stigma regarding ASD then maybe you have a duty to people with ASD not to perpetuate those attitudes.

And we're literally talking about a case where the purported reasons are publicly available in a YouTube vid, just in case you forgot that. If you're making the claim that maybe a broad policy of aborting people with ASD is it should be socially acceptable then you should be prepared to hear objections.

Click to shrink...

No, a woman getting an abortion for whatever reason does not have a "duty". It shows you still think abortions are a bad thing and people have to explain themselves, they don't. But if it bothers you so much why don't you raise those kids yourself?

 

[Deleted member 18360]

This is another bad post.

A woman who chooses to have an abortion does not have the duty to do anything of the sort. And a woman who chooses to have an abortion isn't inherently making a political statement about the reason she aborted.

Click to shrink...

Dude, look, the reason we don't typically question women about their right to choose isn't because this one choice can never be called into question ever, it's instead because this question is historically called into question when it is inappropriate to do so or it is called into question as a mere strategy of controlling their behaviour.

Literally any question that exists can be questioned for legitimate reasons if for no other reason than to ensure that it's being made on a sound basis. If someone has no experience or knowledge of ASD we can absolutely question whether their doubts or reservations are based in reality!

 

[Darryl M R]

Dude, look, the reason we don't typically question women about their right to choose isn't because this one choice can never be called into question ever, it's instead because this question is historically called into question when it is inappropriate to do so or it is called into question as a mere strategy of controlling their behaviour.

Literally any question that exists can be questioned for legitimate reasons if for no other reason than to ensure that it's being made on a sound basis.

Click to shrink...

No, because it is a decision between a woman and her healthcare provider and not a policy proposal on the treatment of those with disabilities.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

No, a woman getting an abortion for whatever reason does not have a "duty". It shows you still think abortions are a bad thing and people have to explain themselves, they don't. But if it bothers you so much why don't you raise those kids yourself?

Click to shrink...

You're right people with ASD should just tolerate diet-eugenics with no opportunity to see any accountability at all paid to their life experiences.

 

[uncelestial]

If you're prepared to abort a kid solely because they might have autism then you should probably be prepared to answer questions from autistic people regarding whether or not they have a lesser right to be born.

Click to shrink...

Not really. They can fuck off and leave women alone, autistic or not.

You're right people with ASD should just tolerate diet-eugenics with no opportunity to see any accountability at all paid to their life experiences.

Click to shrink...

Ohh, you're one of those kinds of people, good to know.

 

[Cenauru]

How influential are these anti-vax movements compared to movements and programs that promote inclusivity and accepting of people with autism?

Click to shrink...

Enough for this thread to exist, with the video referenced in the video linked in the OP literally advocating for a cure for Autism, and that it's "wrong for people with high-functioning autism that 'can live normal daily lives' (this is fucking bullshit) to support neurodiversity and not support a cure because they're basically normal people (which is completely false) and are 'hurting' other autistic people by being against a cure" (literally talking out of their asses and speaking for people that they haven't even tried to understand)

 

[Omegamon]

You're right people with ASD should just tolerate diet-eugenics with no opportunity to see any accountability at all paid to their life experiences.

Click to shrink...

And I guess women have to tolerante men telling them what to do...wait! we already do, all the time.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

No, because it is a decision between a woman and her healthcare provider and not a policy proposal on the treatment of those with disabilities.

Click to shrink...

Because the presumption is that doctors have the relevant information to help guide an authentic decision, and that's exactly what's in question with this as a broader policy.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

And I guess women have to tolerante men telling them what to do...wait! we already do, all the time.

Click to shrink...

If only people with distinct rights claims could have some way of addressing their disagreement. Maybe via discussion where they're able to articulate their respective values and rights to life with no expectation that anything will come of it or that it will ultimately change anyone's decisions or feelings.

 

[DavidDesu]

I still struggle to interact with people. Its been a catalyst along with chronic depression which really made life extremely difficult to where making it through each day is very tough. Having been abused and rejected so much of my life for things I can't help, hearing people talk about how I shouldn't have existed just feels like an extra invisible gun to my head.

Click to shrink...

Hey. Fuck those people. We are all worthwhile. We all matter. Don't let any cunt make you feel like shit. You never deserve it. The sooner we grow up as a species and understand everyone is different, and beautiful for that, the better.

 

[Darryl M R]

Because the presumption is that doctors have the relevant information to help guide an authentic decision, and that's exactly what's in question with this as a broader policy.

Click to shrink...

And the discussions the doctor would be having with their patient should have zero to do with how others will feel about an abortion.

You would have to be extremely dense not to understand that an individual woman's reason to abort is not a conversation for a larger societal discourse.

 

[Omegamon]

If only people with distinct rights claims could have some way of addressing their disagreement. Maybe via discussion where they're able to articulate their respective values and rights to life with no expectation that anything will come of it or that it will ultimately change anyone's decisions or feelings.

Click to shrink...

Only the woman making the choice have claim. Why are you trying to police women you didn't even impregnated? Lol

 

[Deleted member 18360]

Only the woman making the choice have claim. Why are you trying to police women you didn't even impregnated? Lol

Click to shrink...

The action, with all other things being the same, suggests that they don't value people with ASD as much, just as sex selection denotes that girls are less valued.

If you're putting that out there in any way, people can fucking ask "oh, why do you believe that to be the case?"

That's literally all we're talking about here, that people be modestly prepared for that question, because it's a natural question to have if the topic ever comes up!

 

[Darryl M R]

The action, with all other things being the same, suggests that they don't value people with ASD, just as sex selection denotes that girls are less valued.

If you're putting that out there in any way, people can fucking ask "oh why do you believe that to be the case?"

That's literally what we're talking about here.

Click to shrink...

The action suggests that a woman wanted an abortion. That's all.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

The action suggests that a woman wanted an abortion. That's all.

Click to shrink...

This, the logic is that no person exists yet.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

The action suggests that a woman wanted an abortion. That's all.

Click to shrink...

If that's the only thing that shifts the pregnancy from a wanted pregnancy to an unwanted one, I don't see why it's inappropriate to ask why that is. People with ASD are left to internalize every vague social justification for why they maybe 'shouldn't' exist, and in opposition to that attitude they should have the right to assert the value of their existence to people who are perhaps in the dark about that.

 

[Deleted member 18360]

This, the logic is that no person exists yet.

Click to shrink...

Except if you generalized that attitude to everyone, then people with ASD wouldn't exist anymore.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Except if you generalized that attitude to everyone, then people with ASD wouldn't exist anymore.

Click to shrink...

Then you would restrict abortion if that would be a possible outcome?

 

[B-Dubs]

Locked on OP's request