|
SedanChair posted:So is sex-selective abortion completely unproblematic, because parents have the choice to do it? Yes. Or rather if the woman doesn't have an issue with it. Since it is fully a woman's choice, she gets to choose what kind of child she's going to have to extent possible. The man gets no vote. Why should this be an issue? It's not infanticide or anything. Unless you buy into cave person logic where the fetus is a baby already. EDIT: Hell, sex selective abortion bans ars one of the ways that the anti-choice movement is trying to ban abortion overall. Thanks for playing into their hands here. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jun 28, 2014 |
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
rkajdi posted:Yes. Or rather if the woman doesn't have an issue with it. Since it is fully a woman's choice, she gets to choose what kind of child she's going to have to extent possible. The man gets no vote. It doesn't really work that way in practice though, does it? Like in China I'm sure the dude gets a say, and hey presto there are millions fewer women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It doesn't really work that way in practice though, does it? Like in China I'm sure the dude gets a say, and hey presto there are millions fewer women. So what's the alternative? Women can only have abortions if they do absolutely no pre-natal testing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Hell I don't know. In the case of autism, I do think it's problematic to see the eradication of people on the autism spectrum as a solution. I agree with a lot of E-Tank's criticisms of Autism Speaks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It doesn't really work that way in practice though, does it? Like in China I'm sure the dude gets a say, and hey presto there are millions fewer women. There's a solution here that doesn't involve restricting women's rights-- hint, it's the one you didn't choose. By the way, the use of this argument in the West is going to create actual people dying and having their lives ruined, not potential people. I know which one are more important, do you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hell I don't know. In the case of autism, I do think it's problematic to see the eradication of people on the autism spectrum as a solution. I agree with a lot of E-Tank's criticisms of Autism Speaks. Do you feel the same way about Tay-Sachs or other genetic diseases? Note that lots of the prvention here involves standard birth control or steralization methods. Is that just as wrong, and if not, aren't you implicitly agreeing with the anti-choice position? I'm not baiting you here, I'm just trying to understand why you think someone being born disabled is a better condition than them never existing in the first place. Are mental issues different than physical ones? Was Dr. George Tiller a hero who saved people's lives and heartache or a monster who stopped many potential children from having short, pain-filled lives?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
you seem to be under the impression that you are arguing for reproductive rights (which no one is disputing) when it seems to be tipping the scales toward advocating genocide. Do you consider abortion a socially or medically viable cure for genetic defects? This is as opposed to a case-by-case basis where the individual is the ultimate decider and is not coerced in either direction by society or the medical community at large.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Sorry ma'am you can't have this abortion, this child may have autism. That has a nice ring to it, I can see that being the next pro-life move, good job pro women's rights posters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Do you feel the same way about Tay-Sachs or other genetic diseases? Note that lots of the prvention here involves standard birth control or steralization methods. Is that just as wrong, and if not, aren't you implicitly agreeing with the anti-choice position? You're making everything into a choice issue and it doesn't need to be. Autistic people have brains that in many cases provide a benefit to society. They lead full lives with laughter and enjoyment, like everyone else. I don't see why everyone on the autism spectrum should be seen as having a disease that makes life not worth living. Or even as necessarily having a disease.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Wasn't this whole argument the premise of "Gattaca"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Also seriously who's advocating for MANDATORY abortions, this is literally you saying it shouldn't be a choice women have at all vs someone saying yea they probably have the right to decide if they want to have a baby regardless of if it has a disease or not. Yea if there's someone saying we HAVE TO abort every autistic kid that's hosed up but last I checked that wasn't the issue at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Also seriously who's advocating for MANDATORY abortions, this is literally you saying it shouldn't be a choice women have at all vs someone saying yea they probably have the right to decide if they want to have a baby regardless of if it has a disease or not. Yea if there's someone saying we HAVE TO abort every autistic kid that's hosed up but last I checked that wasn't the issue at all? rkajdi posted:But then they don't exist. What is the big deal? Nobody was killed, and nobody's bodily autonomy was removed. You're playing into the anti-choicer's meme of "abortion=murder" at this point. We don't say birth control pills kill thousands of people by making them not exist-- or rather those of us who aren't the American Taliban don't do so. That's the way I construed the first line. I could be wrong which is why I asked outright instead of dancing with euphemisms for 97 pages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:That's the way I construed the first line. I could be wrong which is why I asked outright instead of dancing with euphemisms for 97 pages. I think his primary issue was with the 'abortion is murder' line which just plays into the pro life bullshit because then you're basically saying that everything they're saying is right, it's just murder we're ok with doing or whatever. Regardless, who gives a poo poo what he says, why are people using what SA poster rkajdi says as if it reflects on groups like Autism Speaks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I don't think even Autism Speaks is suggesting mandatory abortions. But if all a mother knew was their propaganda, she might be inclined to think "oh god autism? My marriage will be ruined, get it out of me."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Genocide would imply it's required. A woman has bodily integrity, so she gets to choose if she wants to carry a child. Plus, the exact argument being put forward against this has been used to varying degrees of success to limit a woman's right to choose. So engaging the issue on it's actual consequences seems normal to me. But I'll also say I have zero issue with someone aborting a child because of defect-- I'd prefer to see things fixed at earlier stages by things like birth control or other less invasive methods, but that's out of pure cost/risk analysis. In anything resembling the world we live in (i.e. one where the costs of a child are born by the parents) I see this as pure survival mechanism. Having a disabled child will ruin your life economically, and will do the same to your other children. The costs are phenominal and cannot be born by even upper middle class people without ruining any chance at an education and normal life for other children in the family. If we want to develop a decent safety net (i.e. one that socializes all the extra costs and makes sure the siblings thrive too) I'd change my position on this slightly, but still there are huge opportunity costs that aren't going to be able to be socialized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
I don't think people want to ban abortions, they want to counter the scaremongering leading to an abortion. Women should have the right to abort for any reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think even Autism Speaks is suggesting mandatory abortions. But if all a mother knew was their propaganda, she might be inclined to think "oh god autism? My marriage will be ruined, get it out of me." A disabled child is a good way to ruin a life, and thus a good way to ruin a marriage. Until we live in a state with a fully functioning social system, this is the kind of advice we should be giving people. We need less people thrown into awful situations, because they are increasinly victimized economically, which hurts not only them but all other workers who have to compete against the lowered standard. EDIT: Also, you're putting the lives of actual people below a fetus, again. Way to go, the Christian right loves it when useful idiots fight battles for them. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I don't think people want to ban abortions, they want to counter the scaremongering leading to an abortion. Women should have the right to abort for any reason. Wait, so the anti-choice people's propaganda leads to abortions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Wait, so the anti-choice people's propaganda leads to abortions? I think he meant the "Autism Speaks" crew's propaganda, which in many ways plays up the worst possible cases as if they're the expected baseline for any autism-spectrum child.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:I don't think people want to ban abortions, they want to counter the scaremongering leading to an abortion. Women should have the right to abort for any reason. Scaremongering? Autism is pretty drat debilitating in a lot of cases. We have selection bias with the people we're talking to here on the basis that they are by definition more high functioning. Down syndrome is worse, in that the parents are often older and thus we see mutliple generations of the family saddled with the burden. Acting like this kind of thing isn't a gun to your head economically unless you're already rich enough to not worry about money is pretty drat insane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think even Autism Speaks is suggesting mandatory abortions. But if all a mother knew was their propaganda, she might be inclined to think "oh god autism? My marriage will be ruined, get it out of me." I don't agree with every thing they've done, I think "I am Autism" was a stupid thing, but most of AS' deal is telling actual stories from actual people who have dealt with this stuff. Calling that propaganda feels very disingenuous. It's wrong to make it sound like it's the only outcome, but I don't feel they're in the wrong giving voice to people who actually have had their lives hurt by a mental illness that can be devastating. Again, no one is talking mandatory things. If you're a high functioning autistic who has no desire to be treated, rock on, live your life, but the flipside of that is that damning people for spending money on research is telling someone who has a child who can't even function in life who would want their child treated 'nah you fuckin live with that forever, and if you have any problems with that you're literally advocating genocide'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I don't agree with every thing they've done, I think "I am Autism" was a stupid thing, but most of AS' deal is telling actual stories from actual people who have dealt with this stuff. Just no autistic people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Again, no one is talking mandatory things. If you're a high functioning autistic who has no desire to be treated, rock on, live your life, but the flipside of that is that damning people for spending money on research is telling someone who has a child who can't even function in life who would want their child treated 'nah you fuckin live with that forever, and if you have any problems with that you're literally advocating genocide'. The bolded part is the main issue I saw. This line here to deaf culture (which actively attempts to keep their deaf children disabled versus providing them early in life surgery) seems very easy to make. I think we need to treat disabled people well (note that we are a million miles away on this), but we also need to use science to keep the number of newly disabled people down. The whole thing is bizarre to me in that I doubt you'd see someone with polio advoicating against vaccines because it's genocide to "polio culture"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just no autistic people. Considering they are also trying to show the low functioning end of things (which gets missed otherwise) there may be a reason for this...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So is sex-selective abortion completely unproblematic, because parents have the choice to do it? It has some troubling social implications in the short term, like causing the male/female balance to be terribly out of whack. But social norms change and it's certainly possible that we adapt to massive wars that kill off a lot of our male population, or a shift to a more matriarchal society that places high value on females, etc. It's only troubling to society and social relations as we understand them right now. Long term, I imagine before terribly long (say within 100 years) we'll have the ability to use arbitrary genetic material to fertilize eggs, and to produce eggs using arbitrary genetic material, meaning male/female ratio stops being very significant. In which case even sex-selective abortions are a lot less troubling. Absent the larger social implications of the male/female, sex selective abortion doesn't really seem that troubling for me at all. Our society loves sex selection, a ton of people clearly want a son or daughter in particular. My girlfriend's family had five kids in their efforts to have one son, and I find having a bunch of kids you don't really want to be a lot more troubling than having an abortion. What is truly problematic in the "sex-selective abortion" question is the value that people are placing on having a son or daughter in particular, but it's a lot easier to just attack the symptoms of sexism than the sexism itself. However, that same argument doesn't really apply to genetic diseases. There is no serious social consequence from having 0 in 20 families with a Downs family member instead of 1 in 20 (purely made-up number), and there's no particular social drive to have Downs kids to support you in your old age. And furthermore, short of banning genetic testing, there's no good way to prevent people from making such decisions without violating their bodily and reproductive integrity, so why get all hot and bothered about a thing you can't change? Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't think even Autism Speaks is suggesting mandatory abortions. But if all a mother knew was their propaganda, she might be inclined to think "oh god autism? My marriage will be ruined, get it out of me." Then we counter it with real information and a much stronger social safety net and medical care. Not by worrying about whether or not to allow abortions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Congrats, you're parroting speaking points from Autism Speaks. Am I wrong on the specifics you quoted? My cousin is 35 years old with a level of autism that allows him to function reasonably well in society, holding down a mcjob and so forth. At the same time however he is never going to be able to move out of the house because he requires a heavily regimented lifestyle to be able to function even as well as he does. She doesn't ever expect to really retire to Mexico or enjoy her old age like my parents do, and she frets often over who is going to take care of him when she is gone. I know that that is atypical for autism and I'm not saying KILL ALL AUTISTIC CHILDREN or anything of the sort, but gently caress you if you think that a woman (or a family for that matter) being able to make an informed decision whether or not they want to carry to term an autistic child is anything but a good thing. Especially if the test would be capable of determining the difference between low and high functioning autism. quote:I don't think even Autism Speaks is suggesting mandatory abortions. But if all a mother knew was their propaganda, she might be inclined to think "oh god autism? My marriage will be ruined, get it out of me. I'm guessing things like this are what caused E-tank to worry, and I get that. I agree absolutely that people who talk bullshit about how all autism is awful and you should immediately abort any autistic child should be shut the gently caress down the same as any other anti-science garbage. Caros fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Just no autistic people. Hm yes why didn't they have the child that the mother was talking about spends all day silently staring at things and screams when you look at him too long give his side of things, excellent point. Like, poo poo dude you know AS is about the people suffering from the bad poo poo right? I'm sure you can find plenty of internet aspies to talk about how they're actually superior to us 'neurotypicals' and that's fuckin cool for them, they can do that forever, but this really isn't about them is it because they don't 'need' treatment and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I think he meant the "Autism Speaks" crew's propaganda, which in many ways plays up the worst possible cases as if they're the expected baseline for any autism-spectrum child. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Then we counter it with real information and a much stronger social safety net and medical care. Not by worrying about whether or not to allow abortions. Excuse me sir but Sweden is that way ----> We don't truck with social justice in this country, I'll have you know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Sex selective abortion is bad because it can create gender imbalances and lead to social problems. The same isn't true when screening for autism because autism is an illness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Autism Speaks thread is up and here. All you people discussing the anti-vaxx movement can rest your sphincters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Congrats, you're parroting speaking points from Autism Speaks. Oh you're one of those people who thinks being deaf isn't a disability too aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Oh you're one of those people who thinks being deaf isn't a disability too aren't you? The thread was just loving rerailed, come on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
So, about those vaccines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
They're pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
I enjoy their presence in my bloodstream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
IMAGE DELETED Look at this poo poo. That poo poo doesn't happen any more. We fixed that. We humans fixed that by sticking needles in each other. Don't ever let anyone tell you that human life is futile. We broke smallpox. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
I got a tetanus booster last week and it made my arm really sore for an entire day 
Filecabinet fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:34 |
|
|
I finally bucked up and got a flu shot for the first time this year. I'm pro-vax, just a crybaby coward about needles and I usually put them off as long as possible. So naturally, I got a flu virus for the first time in years this past month. Lost a day of work and had awful dizzy spells a week before that Still gonna buck up and do it again next flu season. I know how these work, I just got unlucky and picked up one the shot didn't prepare me for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 08:56
|
|
