• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Sensitive Topic Screening sperm donors for autism? As an autistic person, I know that’s the road to eugenics...

Rayner said:
Your post is quite valid. It is a moral dilemma, shed in the same light as people wanting to cure autism. Autism isn't somethings that's needed to be cured like an illness. So why make a point of removing autistic genes from the gene pool. Does that all make sense to everyone?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean that autism should be cured or removed from the gene pool. I'm sorry for being unclear.
I actually agree with Ste11aeres. People should be given a choice.
Ste11aeres said:
How about marking such sperm donations, so that the recipients can decide for themselves whether they want it.

And how about screening for stuff like family histories of cardiac disease, diabetes, cancer, strokes, etc, etc? I consider those diseases more serious than AS, or ADHD.
Click to expand...

For example, maybe an aspie woman would only want an autistic child and would wish to reduce her chances of having a NT child.
 
That a very interest thought. Aspie women want to have an Aspie child. *I never would have thought of that from the women's perspective I'm Not sure why considering I'm 17 and male. Should I be concerned?* insert sarcasm here. Babahahaha
 
Wireless said:
I didn't mean that autism should be cured or removed from the gene pool. I'm sorry for being unclear.
I actually agree with Ste11aeres. People should be given a choice.


For example, maybe an aspie woman would only want an autistic child and would wish to reduce her chances of having a NT child.
Click to expand...
Rayner said:
That a very interest thought. Aspie women want to have an Aspie child. *I never would have thought of that from the women's perspective I'm Not sure why considering I'm 17 and male. Should I be concerned?* insert sarcasm here. Babahahaha
Click to expand...
 
Ste11aeres said:
I actually do consider that immoral, even though there's nothing I can do to stop it.
Click to expand...
It's whoever owns the uterus the foetus is contained within that decides the fate of if. It's part of their body so they can kill it if they want. Or would you want them to give birth and for you to take in all the Down syndrome babies? Someone has to look after them, if they don't think they can then they can kill it before it's alive.
 
unsurewhattoname said:
It's whoever owns the uterus the foetus is contained within that decides the fate of if. It's part of their body so they can kill it if they want. Or would you want them to give birth and for you to take in all the Down syndrome babies? Someone has to look after them, if they don't think they can then they can kill it before it's alive.
Click to expand...
Adoption is an option. And if the fact of someone not thinking they can take care of a child is in and of itself enough reason to kill it, then could a parent kill an older child who developed a disability, say, in an accident? And I don't think that the act of birth makes some sudden difference in regards to whether it's alive. (How can you "kill it" (your words) if it's not alive?)
 
Ste11aeres said:
Adoption is an option. And if the fact of someone not thinking they can take care of a child is in and of itself enough reason to kill it, then could a parent kill an older child who developed a disability, say, in an accident? And I don't think that the act of birth makes some sudden difference in regards to whether it's alive. (How can you "kill it" (your words) if it's not alive?)
Click to expand...
Lack of better words. Maybe remove.

Not sure there's high demand for adoption but sure.

And it's not birth that is the threshold, in early pregnancy there's barely anything and that's when all but medical emergencies take place. They could kill it when it's actually alive except that's called murder. Nothing to stop them murdering older children other than that though.
 
I doubt many potential mothers would choose to have a baby with a high risk of autism. I wouldn't unless I was in a long term, stable relationship with the father and had access to extra support. I would need a strong reason to have children with an autistic person. Sounds harsh doesnt it. Well, it is harsh. But its my life, the next 16 years of MY life as a mother raising autistic kids, and probably much further than the mandatory 16 years. Autistic kids may well need further support through their adulthood too. Its hard. I am aspie myself and at the age of 30 I STILL need help. I still suffer. So..... I would never wish this on another person. Of course they screen against autism. Who would CHOOSE this life for their baby?
 
1. It's easy talking for me not being a parent; that's clear. I always figured that part of what makes a good parent is being prepared to accept your kids for who they are, not pushing your own expectations upon them and being able to support them through any issues or problems that will come along, because stuff will happen. You can't choose your children, you can't choose who they become, nor should you. You can only guide them along as best as possible. If you start out thinking 'I want my kid to be like this or that' or 'I don't want them to be like this or that', you're bound to run into a lot of disappointments, and those will rub of on your kids, and their self esteem and psychological well being. And say the parents have the sperm, ovum, or fetus screened for any possible problem, because they wouldn't want to deal with it, what are they going to do if their lovely perfect dream kid gets into some accident 3 years down the road and suffers severe brain damage, or loses both legs? Again, it might be some kind of delusional naive idealism on my part, but having these kinds of requirements in advance doesn't strike me with confidence on the parents' side.

2. Autism might be classified as a disorder, but what does that mean exactly? It just means that we deviate from the 'order', from the median. A lot of us will face certain difficulties through life, some more than others, but how many of those difficulties stem from who we are, intrinsically, and how many stem from living in a world that's not very welcoming to who we are? Let's put it differently: what if they were to say that gay men weren't allowed to donate? Homosexuality was once part of the DSM, and to this day, people in the LGBT community still face a lot of troubles in society. Depression and suicide rates are higher for instance. Does that mean those genes are more prone to this? No, it's a direct result of their treatment in society.

Here's a quote from Neurotribes, from Dr. Lovaas (and Rekers), proponents of helping autistics by extinguishing their autistic traits:
Paying lip service to the idea of tolerance at a time when gay liberationists had started marching in the streets, Lovaas and Rekers proposed that "society probably could afford to become more tolerant with individuals with sex-role deviations" but insisted that "the facts remain that it is not tolerant. Realistically speaking, it is potentially more difficult to modify society's behaviors than Kraig's (and autistic boy who showed an interest in cross dressing)."
Click to expand...

Let's take it a step further: what if they were to say that select ethnicities weren't allowed to donate, perhaps with the reason that they'd have to face racism later on? Great way to solve that issue, isn't it? *sarcasm*

To me it's still eugenics, and eugenics I don't like. Keep the gene-pool murky and brimming with all kinds of life. There's no telling in advance how someone will turn out.
 
I don't know. It might not be hereditary, which would make the screening of sperm donors moot, but given it is not a matter of choice, I'd think there are genes at play in that regard.

The reason I put it there was mainly as an example of how society's views and treatment can change. What was once thought of as a serious disorder, an illness, is now an accepted way of being, or at least it should be, and with that the issues that are related to it have changed for the better.
 
Hmm, gay people do have children actually, through regular straight sex, or techniques like IVF. Some clients of that sperm bank might actually be gay, or autistic, which makes me wonder if they screen the clients the same way they screen the donors.
 
Definitely back then, as people were forced to hide in straight relationships and marriages. People wouldn't come out as gay, out of fear for the judgement it would bring, just as these days a lot of autistics try hard, or are being pushed, to pass as NT, out of fear for the same judgement and repercussions.
Being, and feeling, accepted for who one is, is an important part of a human's well being. These types of policies basically give out the message that we are considered to be second rate human beings who make life worse for the rest, who shouldn't be allowed to procreate, who have nothing to live for and nothing to offer (especially that probably, given I keep on seeing people's worth being judged by their productivity or so), and those are simply things I can't get with.
 
People with other genetic disorders can't donate either. And there's nothing to stop autists procreating.

I don't think it's comparable to us to gays. We get given money and accommodations and such for it, gays wouldn't.
 
Sully said:
I think the right to one's own parents is part of natural law. Having a child is a privilege, but that privilege doesn't override the child's right to her parents.
Click to expand...
What would you say are the child's rights when the parent(s) are not the sort of people who can be trusted with the welfare of a child? Is it alright for someone who isn't blood to take care of a child whose relatives just aren't safe for them?
 
unsurewhattoname said:
Autism runs in families. Mine included. Autistic kids are not something most parents want. The risk should be reduced surely? Don't they also block people with other genetic disorders from donating? I don't see the problem of blocking autism from sperm donation. This isn't designer babies, it's reducing their risk of having disorders.
Click to expand...
I can understand someone paying for a service like artificial insemination wanting a child as disorder risk-free as possible. After all, a parent wants his or her child to be strong and healthy. This want is instinctual and biological.

I have, on my own, decided that having children is not a good idea. Instead, if and when I marry, I will adopt.
 
While I would not choose to abort nor screen for perceived defects of any kind in my own child, were I to have another one. (I won't be doing that at my age.) I do understand that people paying for IVF would probably want to screen for defects. As with any costly item or service, if hard earned money is to be spent on it then, it MUST be as close to perfect as is humanly possible for many.

I would not remove that choice from them unless it were proven that genetics did not play a role in any give defect that can or could in the future, be screened for in IVF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom