|
Rhandhali posted:You're not legally allowed to let your diabetic child die because you believe in prayer over insulin, you shouldn't be allowed to deprive your children of potentially life saving vaccines because Dr. Oz said not to. You might want to check on that. We've been allowing Christian Scientists to kill their children over BS religious rules for awhile now. The US in particular seems more than willing to kill children because of their parent's outmoded thoughts, which is somewhat ironic considering how regressively anti-abortion we tend to be.
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
No.44 posted:My dad's cousin caught polio when she was young, it left her so physically crippled that she's in a wheel chair and can only communicate by shaking and nodding her head and making noises that vaguely sound like 'Yes' or 'No'. To top it all off, she was misdiagnosed as being severely mentally disabled and was never taught how to read or write. Having know people with severely autistic kids, you are very wrong on that. I'd put the worst end of the spectrum up against polio for the level of debilitation-- what's the point of your body working if every kind of social and physical interaction causes you incredible pain and terror? That being said, vaccines aren't the cause of it, and the poo poo who are putting their kids and other people up for horrible diseases need something done about them, like life-crushing civil suits or prison time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
TURN IT OFF! posted:They should be prosecuted like religious parents who don't take their child to a doctor because they want to pray the sickness away. But we tend to do a poor job of that. As a egeneral rule, the US allows people to use religion as a reason for not conforming to society, so of course it tends to drag more regressives and general denialists than it would otherwise. If we stopped with the religious exemption poo poo, I figure the regressive church would be dead in a generation. This is also a problem on the left with woo-woo crystal bullshit, but as a rule I have found the state is less receptive to their demands (if you don't have a thousand years of tradition behind you, your religious/spiritual beliefs are less valuable it seems) so it's less of a problem of them being able to negatively impact the forward progress of society.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
BUSH 2112 posted:God, parents are the loving worst. Something about having a kid turns like 3/4 of people into drooling retards who have to hover over their kids 24/7 and obsess about all of the stupidest bullshit. Thank god my ex isn't an anti-vaxxer, but as soon as we had a kid she became obsessed with this stupid poo poo, like she won't let our son watch "Spongebob Squarepants" because there was a study that showed that kids have a lowered attention span immediately after watching it. Basically, there's an enitre segment of the media designed to scare the poo poo out of parents and make them incredibly afraid of everything. Everyone wants to give their child the maximum advantage of everyone else's kid (natural but a huge problem) which now means that people are constantly reading articles about poorly designed research. So parents start jumping at their own shadows.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:04
|
|
|
TURN IT OFF! posted:As a side-note; new research gives "clear and direct evidence" that autism is formed as early as in the womb Saw this yesterday. Makes me sort of sad, in that it's getting obvious that autism isn't going to be generally curable. Maybe we can get a prenatal test for it eventually like we have with Downs Syndrome, but with the way things are going in this country I doubt that would solve the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In the end, many autistic kids can lead fairly normal lives thought, given the right access to education resources and therapy. And lots don't too. A parent should have all the testing possibel ahead of time to ensure their child is not a boat anchor around their neck for the rest of their lives. Autism is not a bad as Down's in many cases (particularly that children with Down's are born more often than not to older women) but the solution is going to be screening to end the problem. If we can get poeple to be as reasonable as the Ashkenazi has been with Tay-Sachs (i.e. genetic screening and adopting instead of concieving if at least one person has the defective gene) that would be optimal, but there are enough "God's Will/Just World" style morons out there that we can't really be certain of that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Besides, if people are so terrified of having a child who's autistic then they shouldn't be parents in the first place. I think we can link part of it to the poor social safety net. Having a special needs child is a good way to sink out of the middle class, as well as ruin any chance your other children have of a normal life. We need to socialize the burden a bit more, rather than playing just world and FYGM with it. Part of that is going to be preventing these kinds of pregnancies in the first place, but we also have to actually support the unlucky people who have special needs much better than we've been doing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
AlistairCookie posted:Truth. A special needs child is all but guaranteed to bankrupt you in your lifetime, unless you are solidly in the upper class. Once they're adults, and age out of the special ed system, you are poo poo out of luck. I've been seeing all this around me for some time, and I have no idea how nobody's burnt poo poo down over it. And you're right that adulthood is the real issue. Your options are to institutionalize your child, knowing that they have a life of phsyical and sexual abuse just waiting for them, or try to keep them at home and understand that you'll be living hand to mouth for the rest of their lives. I've got an older gaming buddy (50ish) who's younger brother has Downs. Parents were older, had an oops kid and were too dumb/traditional to worry about testing and an abortion. Now, you have 70 years olds taking care of a sick guy (Downs is hell on the rest of you-- piles of physical issues on top of the mental ones) when one of them dies in a car accident. How is a single mother supposed to take care of her very sick adult kid on a single SS check? This is the kind of thing that creates huge intergenerational issues, in that you quickly get brothers taking care of their sick sibling and killing any chance their own children have of normalcy. And we're too loving stupid as society to either fund the 10 cent solution (testing + abortion) or the hundred dollar one after you fail that (full time and responsible care of the infirm) Getting back to the main point, I can see exactly why parents get suckered into being anti-vaxx. We tell people they are SOL if they have a special needs kid, and then have hucksters telling them how this basic stuff will turn their kids autistic. While I think we need to punish the stupid parents because you've reached criminal neglect well befor you get to this point, the real criminals are the idiot celebs and woo-woos who push this poo poo in the media. It's like we've reached the point were the 1st ammendment passes into just general fraud.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:No. Legal actions (I'm not saying that those actions were legal in the case you quoted) that result in harm or death should be prosecuted when possible. My objection was to mandated prophalactic medical procedures, not to there being legal ramifications for people who opt to not protect their children medically and then fail to protect them (or others) from the increased risk caused by their choice. Cool, so instead of nobody in prison and no dead kids, we get both. Truly we live in the best of all possible worlds. Also, why are we acting like children are an extension of their parents? An infant doesn't have religious beliefs to violate any more than a fetus does. Your religion is your own, not something you get to inflict on other people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 11:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Anti-vaxxers suck but blaming them in the event of a terrorist's biological weapons attack is a stretch. For real. Smallpox isn't vaccinated against because it doesn't exist in the wild anymore. I was hoping we could say the same with polio soon (only good thing Bill Gates ever tried to do), but our government had to gently caress that one up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2014 11:51
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:What's the story behind this? I've heard the islamaphobia version of people claiming Allah said not to get vaccinated so they were refusing WHO polio vaccines but, I haven't heard anything about it being a problem state side. The US government used vaccine missions as cover to hunt for Bin Laden, (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/world/asia/12dna.html) because obviously catching a decreasingly important terrorist is of more use to humanity than annihilating polio or other easily preventable diseases.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:The CIA used fake tests/vaccines to track and kill Columbian counterfeiters as a dry run. Then they used stolen vaccines and a to get Bin Laden. In both cases the targeted populations were allowed to believe they were inoculated. Wait, we didn't even actually give these people the vaccine? Jesus tapdancing Christ, that's getting to Captain Planet levels of super-villainy. Seriously, we jack up assholes who do things like give fake cancer drugs to selfish reasons($$$), then turn around and have the government do a similar drat thing? gently caress us. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jun 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Were they or their families ever compensated for this? (I'm guessing either no or not much.) They were ($9 million and  free medical care as a court decision), but considering nobody went to prison/was executed for the sham, it seems a little hollow.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Much of Autism Speaks’ money goes toward research, and much of that research centers on finding a way to eliminate autism, and thus, autistics (which will likely be done through a prenatal test, in the same way that the Down’s Syndrome test is conducted). What's wrong with this? Seeking to cure or eliminate diseases is a good thing, not a bad one. Or are we at the point where doing things like destroying Tay-Sachs is now considered awful because it involved screenings and some abortions? EDIT: Am I the only one picking up the same weird vibes as the "deaf culture" idiots who see Cochlear implants as some sort of genocide? Not having a disease is objectively better than having one. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jun 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Magic wands; like suicide but nicer for everyone. You could say the same about someone who's suffering from mental illness. Is treating them wrong? And if the opportunity to actually fix them permanently was available, is that wrong by definition? Lobotomy is a poor choice is drat near every case due to the other side effects, but would a permanent solution that didn't involve disability be a bad thing? Hell, you could make the same argument with Downs Syndrome even better, since the worst of it isn't the intellectual disability, but the heart, GI, and other brain issues that go along with Downs. It seems like people get really hung up on being authentically "themselves", which makes less and less sense the further you move away from the illusion of free will.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I think that there are some compelling arguments that high-functioning autism could be considered less a disease and more like a divergent perspective. A shift from social to mechanistic thinking can make one a bit awkward at cocktail parties but its very useful in a lot of fields! Lots of diseases can have a positive side effect or at least cause-- take sickle cell anemea. It doesn't stop them from being something worth trying to treat or fix. Seriously, you're "I wouldn't be me anymore" line is something I remember saying as an excuse for not getting mental health treatment when I was younger. It's lazy thinking and is based on the idea that there's some platonic you out there floating in the ether that you need to be similar to-- this is obvious nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
TURN IT OFF! posted:To bad not every autistic person can be high functioning. Exactly. While most of the genuinely autistic people (throwing out the self-diagnoses idiots) are high functioning, I've also met the children of people I know that were incredibly crippled by the disease, to the point that it was obviously causing them near-constant pain. Not wanting to find a cure or mitigation for these people seems sociopathic to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Killing them in the womb seems like a pretty extreme cure/mitigation. Abortion is legal and is not murder. I'd figure someone as MUH RITES as you would get be all about protecting a 9th ammendment right like abortion, but I guess you're just being selective about that as is usual.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Though there is an idea to which you are comfortable being similar. Medical averageness can be objectively shown via statistics. There is no ideal you sitting in the ether. Trying to be authentic to what you somehow suss out as being the real you is just bunk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:There isn't one when you take into account sufficiently advanced hypothetical screenings. But while the idea of a woman terminating a pregnancy because she found out the fetus she was carrying would be autistic/gay/brown-eyed makes me seriously loving uncomfortable, to promote the idea that she should have no right to terminate on those grounds (or whatever utterly arbitrary reason she likes) is to say that there are times when a woman has an obligation to donate her body to the gestation of another human, and that idea makes me even more loving uncomfortable. Number one, putting gay in there makes no sense. There's not a lot of evidence of it being that genetic, though I have seen some stuff suggesting it could involve in utero conditions. Number two, we have amneocentesis and have people regularly aborting fetuses with Downs Syndrome-- this is much of the reason why we don't have lots more children with the condition after maternal age has increased. We also regularly do the same for piles of other congenital defects. Get the whole "abortion = murder" line from anti-choicers out of your head-- the choice between being born and never existing isn't murder. Otherwise it follows that birth control or really anything that didn't maximize the number of potential births would be murder. The fact that you got to step 6 before becoming alive instead of step 1 or 2 isn't relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I'm not claiming some separate entity. Regardless, people can still be comfortable as themselves. Claiming that someone has to change because they don't meet your level of acceptability is just bunk. Except that we do this all the time. That's the point of society. Otherwise, we get into the idea that it's okay for the violent schizophrenic to refuse hospitalization or medication because they are not comfortable being "someone else". The idea of an authentic you that needs to be protected makes no sense, especially since your state is determined by everything but your mind (i.e. your genetics and all the environmental effects that have happened to you)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I thought we had moved on to telling people who don't want to be cured that they were wrong. I was more dealing with the whole idea of a cure being wrong to go for. That's what I saw LeJackal as arguing. But anything getting people to drop the whole idea of free will and the integrity of the mind is a good thing IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Except that we don't do it for everything all the time. It is a function of a person's ability to cope as they are. Yeah, but that's more a function of society being horribly inconsistent than anything. I see the whole issue as more similar to it being better for society to pay to have someone given working prosethetics (not that we're there yet with these) than continuing to pay them a disability payment. We'd be better off fixing the broken structures that cause autism versus just trying to mitigate the symptoms. We already are fine with fixing autistic people via therapy, so there's no reason to think that fixing the underlying structure that causes the problem wouldn't be the more efficient and better solution. The brain is just another organ, and there is no rational reason to act like fixing a broken brain is any different than fixing a broken liver or missing legs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I believe that in the case of Autism Speaks, we're not talking about autistic people "not wanting to be cured." We're talking about them not wanting to have been screened out and aborted before they came into existence. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 22:45 |
|
|
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
|
|