Warbler

DuracellEnergizer said:

Between the disbeliever who loves and cares for his brother and the devout whose eyes burn with hatred and whose tongue drips with venom, I know who is closer to God.

thejediknighthusezni said:

Between those who give aide and comfort to monsters and those who want their victims protected, I know who is closer to Satan.

DuracellEnergizer said:

The only Satanist I see around here at present is you.

I feel as if I’ve missed something here.

somehow, I still think learning Spanish when your original language is English to be quite different than learning any spoken language when your only language has been sign language(remember you are not just learning language, you are learning how to operate your vocal chords to make speech sounds).

oh.

I would love to know what was originally said.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

I think “saying people should make a different choice” is fundamentally different than “denying people a choice.” It seems we’re not going to agree here.

I suppose it ok to advise someone not the take the cure, as long it is remains that person’s choice.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

Cure to some, changing their identity from a deaf person to a hearing person to others. Will opting them out as a child mean they’ll be unable to take an implant when they turn 18? Nope, that choice is still out there for them to freely make–a very different scenario from Christian Scientists who don’t let their kids have antibiotics.

1. we were also talking about autism. Curing autism in order to do any good, would have to be done before brain development.

I’m not actually sure that’s the case. While autism starts to present around age 2, that’s not because the kids are neurotypical until age 2 (that fallacy is, in fact, the core argument of the antivax folks).

What I meant was that a cure would have to be done before the person was born, before the brain was physically developed in the womb.

The behaviors or neurotypical and autistic zero-to-two-year-olds are often simply too similar to distinguish. Now, there are some early-intervention-type therapies which help build skills at a young age, and that’s a different thing entirely, and early diagnosis and intervention is great. But it’s skill-building, not a cure.

You’ve probably got autism as a zygote–which, yes, is technically before brain development, but probably earlier than you were thinking. And you’ve still got autism after your early intervention therapies help you more easily pass for neurotypical.

um, when did I say I have autism? I probably do have some sort of mental learning disability or something like, but I doubt I have autism. I certainly have never been diagnosed as such.

2. As for deaf people, yeah they can opt for an implant at age 18, there can be problems with that. Speech for example. In order to be able to speak normally, they would have to get the implants as a child. I think it would be much easier as a child, when they are in a school environment already. I suppose they could get the implants at 18 and still learn to speak normally, but it could take several years. Also if you deny them the implants until age 18, you deny a childhood of being able to hear. Think about that.

I’m sure they take that into consideration. I’m not sure what their answer is on that one, but it may have been covered in the documentary. Probably something along the lines of their language skills still develop normally using ASL, and lots of people have difficulty with their second language. Although that’s pretty lazy–at least grade-school-level exposure does help with picking up second languages. But it’s a common laziness, at least here in the states where it seems learning any second language is a late-teen thing, if at all.

Someone how I am not seeing learning a second language the same as learning how to speak any language when you’ve be deaf for the first 18 years of your life.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Late (maybe too much) to the autism discussion, but perhaps this dialogue from X2 might help:

Nightcrawler: Excuse me? They say you can imitate anybody, even their voice.

Mystique: [as Nightcrawler] Even their voice.

Nightcrawler: Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else.

Mystique: Because we shouldn’t have to.

Maybe we’re past this, but I skipped several pages, so I will wrap it up by pointing out, as Catbus said, that there is a culture among the deaf or the autistic. I have a brother with Down syndrome, and recently there have been advances that could potentially lead to a “cure” of the condition. Read this article to see how people feel about it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/could-it-be-cure-breakthrough-prompts-down-syndrome-soul-searching-6C10879213

Yes, technically, it is a disability. Nevertheless, there is a value to it. While some might want to escape or want their children to escape the difficulties that come with the genetic anomaly, others feel that such a change would result in a net loss rather than a gain. The common culture among members and families in these groups often feel like they are a variation of normal, just like Mystique does, and see no need to try to be like everyone else. They are exactly how they feel they should be. Why should they change?

I’m not saying this is right for everyone. I’m not saying we should not offer such “cures” them. But to expect it as the better option for all of them is a bit presumptuous. I don’t think I would ever want my brother cured. I love him as he is, and I’m so grateful for all he has taught me and my family. I can see why a cure to autism might be equally repulsive to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOo3jzkhYA

Should you be the one deciding whether or not your brother should be cured?

What if curing your brother of Downs was only way he’d have the ability to make his own decisions in life?

Again I ask was Jesus wrong to make the blind see and the lame walk?

edit: I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming your brother doesn’t have the ability to make his own decisions. I should asked “What if your bother didn’t have the ability to make his own decisions, and curing the Downs was the only way he could have that ability?”

He certainly does not have the ability to make his own decisions, so your assumption was spot on.

Therefore, denying him the cure(if there was one) would be denying him the opportunity to be able to make his own decisions in life.

Parents deny their children certain rights all the time.

How often do they deny them the cure to a condition they have?

Why? Because sometimes it’s in the child’s best interest. Not saying it is always right not to, but my parents are my brother’s guardians. He cannot make a decision on his own. At this point it life, it would in fact probably be detrimental to introduce him to a life of normalcy. He’s 37 years old and does not even have the intellect of a Kindergartener. How could he find success at this point? It might in fact be cruel to grant him a normal mind at this age. These are factors one must consider.

Why do you say would it be cruel? Yes, he’d have a lot of catch-up learning to do and it would difficult, but he would have a normal mind. Also keep in mind I was specifically talking about curing people when they are at age 37.

Jesus cured people, but how many people did he leave uncured? Why do you think he didn’t cure everyone of everything? Why do you think he allowed my brother to be born with trisomy-21? Perhaps he allows people to be different to allow for a different type of blessing to come to people.

I don’t know why he didn’t cure everyone. I tend to think that I did know why he didn’t cure everyone, I’d be God.

No speculations? Perhaps he thought that there were other lessons to learn? I think you can guess at God’s plan without being God.

I have a seen a whole lot of people try to guess at God’s plan and get it wrong.

And his disciples asked him, “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.”

John 9:2-3

and then Jesus healed him 😉

Indeed he did, but my point is that sometimes the works of God are manifest in other ways. Did my brother or parents sin, resulting in my brother’s disability? I don’t think so. I think God had a work to manifest through my brother.

I never meant to imply that you, your brother or parents sinned and that is cause of your brother’s disability. I think one of the lessons of those verses is that disabilities aren’t necessarily the result of sin. Its says elsewhere in the Bible that it rains on the just and unjust alike.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

I think “saying people should make a different choice” is fundamentally different than “denying people a choice.” It seems we’re not going to agree here.

I suppose it ok to advise someone not the take the cure, as long it is remains that person’s choice.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

Cure to some, changing their identity from a deaf person to a hearing person to others. Will opting them out as a child mean they’ll be unable to take an implant when they turn 18? Nope, that choice is still out there for them to freely make–a very different scenario from Christian Scientists who don’t let their kids have antibiotics.

1. we were also talking about autism. Curing autism in order to do any good, would have to be done before brain development.

2. As for deaf people, yeah they can opt for an implant at age 18, there can be problems with that. Speech for example. In order to be able to speak normally, they would have to get the implants as a child. I think it would be much easier as a child, when they are in a school environment already. I suppose they could get the implants at 18 and still learn to speak normally, but it could take several years. Also if you deny them the implants until age 18, you deny a childhood of being able to hear. Think about that.

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

Late (maybe too much) to the autism discussion, but perhaps this dialogue from X2 might help:

Nightcrawler: Excuse me? They say you can imitate anybody, even their voice.

Mystique: [as Nightcrawler] Even their voice.

Nightcrawler: Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else.

Mystique: Because we shouldn’t have to.

Maybe we’re past this, but I skipped several pages, so I will wrap it up by pointing out, as Catbus said, that there is a culture among the deaf or the autistic. I have a brother with Down syndrome, and recently there have been advances that could potentially lead to a “cure” of the condition. Read this article to see how people feel about it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/could-it-be-cure-breakthrough-prompts-down-syndrome-soul-searching-6C10879213

Yes, technically, it is a disability. Nevertheless, there is a value to it. While some might want to escape or want their children to escape the difficulties that come with the genetic anomaly, others feel that such a change would result in a net loss rather than a gain. The common culture among members and families in these groups often feel like they are a variation of normal, just like Mystique does, and see no need to try to be like everyone else. They are exactly how they feel they should be. Why should they change?

I’m not saying this is right for everyone. I’m not saying we should not offer such “cures” them. But to expect it as the better option for all of them is a bit presumptuous. I don’t think I would ever want my brother cured. I love him as he is, and I’m so grateful for all he has taught me and my family. I can see why a cure to autism might be equally repulsive to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOo3jzkhYA

Should you be the one deciding whether or not your brother should be cured?

What if curing your brother of Downs was only way he’d have the ability to make his own decisions in life?

Again I ask was Jesus wrong to make the blind see and the lame walk?

edit: I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming your brother doesn’t have the ability to make his own decisions. I should asked “What if your bother didn’t have the ability to make his own decisions, and curing the Downs was the only way he could have that ability?”

He certainly does not have the ability to make his own decisions, so your assumption was spot on.

Therefore, denying him the cure(if there was one) would be denying him the opportunity to be able to make his own decisions in life.

Jesus cured people, but how many people did he leave uncured? Why do you think he didn’t cure everyone of everything? Why do you think he allowed my brother to be born with trisomy-21? Perhaps he allows people to be different to allow for a different type of blessing to come to people.

I don’t know why he didn’t cure everyone. I tend to think that I did know why he didn’t cure everyone, I’d be God.

And his disciples asked him, “Master, who did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.”

John 9:2-3

and then Jesus healed him 😉

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

Transgender is an identity. Pressuring them to have a sex change, or shaming them into having a sex change, or withholding some other sort of accommodation just because they won’t have a sex change like a reasonable person, those would all be comparable to what we’re discussing. Someone choosing to have a sex change and then doing it? Not a problem.

Yet it seems to be a problem when it comes to the deaf person choosing to get the implants to be able to hear.

According to who?

Multiple people have posted on here that there are groups of deaf people that seem to have problem with it.

You posted the video, but who has a problem with this? I think this might be where we’re talking past each other to some degree. I’ve already said many deaf people do in fact choose cochlear implants, and that society as a whole is very supportive of this, even to the point of subtly pressuring them to make the very choice you’re saying they’re being denied.

I didn’t say they were being denied the choice, I am saying that it seems like there are some deaf groups that would deny them the choice. Multiple people on here have posted about such.

Regarding parents deciding things for their children. That happens all the time on many fronts. It’s the condition of being a minor, and has very little to do specifically with disability.

but how often does it happen that parents get the right to deny their kids the cure to something?

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t see how he’s entertaining. None of his posts are funny.

I’d say roughly 39% are funny. But of course YMMV.

YMMV?

darth_ender said:

Late (maybe too much) to the autism discussion, but perhaps this dialogue from X2 might help:

Nightcrawler: Excuse me? They say you can imitate anybody, even their voice.

Mystique: [as Nightcrawler] Even their voice.

Nightcrawler: Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else.

Mystique: Because we shouldn’t have to.

Maybe we’re past this, but I skipped several pages, so I will wrap it up by pointing out, as Catbus said, that there is a culture among the deaf or the autistic. I have a brother with Down syndrome, and recently there have been advances that could potentially lead to a “cure” of the condition. Read this article to see how people feel about it:

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/could-it-be-cure-breakthrough-prompts-down-syndrome-soul-searching-6C10879213

Yes, technically, it is a disability. Nevertheless, there is a value to it. While some might want to escape or want their children to escape the difficulties that come with the genetic anomaly, others feel that such a change would result in a net loss rather than a gain. The common culture among members and families in these groups often feel like they are a variation of normal, just like Mystique does, and see no need to try to be like everyone else. They are exactly how they feel they should be. Why should they change?

I’m not saying this is right for everyone. I’m not saying we should not offer such “cures” them. But to expect it as the better option for all of them is a bit presumptuous. I don’t think I would ever want my brother cured. I love him as he is, and I’m so grateful for all he has taught me and my family. I can see why a cure to autism might be equally repulsive to many.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsOo3jzkhYA

Should you be the one deciding whether or not your brother should be cured?

What if curing your brother of Downs was only way he’d have the ability to make his own decisions in life?

Again I ask was Jesus wrong to make the blind see and the lame walk?

edit: I apologize for jumping the gun and assuming your brother doesn’t have the ability to make his own decisions. I should asked “What if your bother didn’t have the ability to make his own decisions, and curing the Downs was the only way he could have that ability?”

moviefreakedmind said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?

Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.

edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.

I’m not offended, they are fair questions.

Cancer does not fundamentally change your brain the way autism does. My daughter has challenges that neurotypicals do not,

neurotypicals? You mean people without autism?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical

Another way to look at is this - if I could go back and have my first daughter not be stillborn, would I? I don’t know, because it would change the course of our history. Our second child might have been a boy instead of a girl. We might have only had one child, and almost certainly wouldn’t have had three…so our younger daughter would basically cease to exist. “Curing” my daughter’s autism would essentially erase her from this world, replaced by a different girl.

Here we are talking about the problems of altering history as opposed to the issues of curing something. I’d love to go back in time and break my father’s fall so he’d still be with us, but I don’t think I should be allowed to mess with history like that.

My point is that simply “curing” an autistic person would not just be a simple do-it-and-it’s-over thing (assuming a cure existed) and that it has ripple effects, and rather large ones at that. Choosing to go back and have my first daughter survive would change everything that came after it, and so would “curing” my autistic daughter.

Lastly, the argument that she should be the one to have the choice is a compelling one, however I don’t think she is old enough to make that choice (if the choice were available to us). If we were given a magic wand and were told we could choose to wave it any time in the next ten years, I might feel differently ten years down the road.

But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure iy, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?

My daughter has Asperger’s and is high functioning. She can make decisions already, but at her age I wouldn’t want her making lots of unimportant non-Asperger’s related decisions just because of her age (like if she should watch 14 hours of tv today). My statement was more in relation to the fact that she’s too young to be making certain decisions, independent of her neuro condition.

understood, but as I said before, if I understand things correctly. The only time would be possible to truly “cure” autism is at a time before brain development. This would be way before she could make her own decisions you would have to decide one way or the other. Also this would be before you even knew of any ripple effects.

Consider a story: a man was in a car with his sister. A horrible car accident occurs. The sister is killed. The man is seriously injured. He is brought to a hospital. While there, he meets a nurse and falls in love with her and they eventually marry and have kids. One of this kids grows up and finds the cure for cancer. Now it can argued that that accident had ripples and without the ripples with children would not have been born and cancer would not have been cured. Still, you would not tell someone driving with their not try to avoid a car accident if they could, would you?

We aren’t talking about this, at least I’m not. I’m talking about waving a magic wand and “curing” my daughter’s autism. So I would know the person she used to be and the person she became, and I would fear the consequences.

I guess it is more complicated than I originally realized. Still, what if I were to go back in time to a point before your daughter’s brain developed. What if I were to tell the Frink of that time that his daughter had autism and gave him a magic wand to cure it. What would he say?

I’m not even a parent and I know that that is a ridiculous hypothetical question to ask a parent to answer. It’s like I said earlier, maybe someday they’ll figure out enough about the causes to determine how to prevent it from happening, but “curing” autism isn’t even a possibility.

If you will read my posts I always referred to curing the autism at a time before brain development were to occur.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?

Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.

edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.

I’m not offended, they are fair questions.

Cancer does not fundamentally change your brain the way autism does. My daughter has challenges that neurotypicals do not,

neurotypicals? You mean people without autism?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical

Another way to look at is this - if I could go back and have my first daughter not be stillborn, would I? I don’t know, because it would change the course of our history. Our second child might have been a boy instead of a girl. We might have only had one child, and almost certainly wouldn’t have had three…so our younger daughter would basically cease to exist. “Curing” my daughter’s autism would essentially erase her from this world, replaced by a different girl.

Here we are talking about the problems of altering history as opposed to the issues of curing something. I’d love to go back in time and break my father’s fall so he’d still be with us, but I don’t think I should be allowed to mess with history like that.

My point is that simply “curing” an autistic person would not just be a simple do-it-and-it’s-over thing (assuming a cure existed) and that it has ripple effects, and rather large ones at that. Choosing to go back and have my first daughter survive would change everything that came after it, and so would “curing” my autistic daughter.

Lastly, the argument that she should be the one to have the choice is a compelling one, however I don’t think she is old enough to make that choice (if the choice were available to us). If we were given a magic wand and were told we could choose to wave it any time in the next ten years, I might feel differently ten years down the road.

But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure iy, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?

My daughter has Asperger’s and is high functioning. She can make decisions already, but at her age I wouldn’t want her making lots of unimportant non-Asperger’s related decisions just because of her age (like if she should watch 14 hours of tv today). My statement was more in relation to the fact that she’s too young to be making certain decisions, independent of her neuro condition.

understood, but as I said before, if I understand things correctly. The only time would be possible to truly “cure” autism is at a time before brain development. This would be way before she could make her own decisions you would have to decide one way or the other. Also this would be before you even knew of any ripple effects.

Consider a story: a man was in a car with his sister. A horrible car accident occurs. The sister is killed. The man is seriously injured. He is brought to a hospital. While there, he meets a nurse and falls in love with her and they eventually marry and have kids. One of this kids grows up and finds the cure for cancer. Now it can argued that that accident had ripples and without the ripples with children would not have been born and cancer would not have been cured. Still, you would not tell someone driving with their not try to avoid a car accident if they could, would you?

We aren’t talking about this, at least I’m not. I’m talking about waving a magic wand and “curing” my daughter’s autism. So I would know the person she used to be and the person she became, and I would fear the consequences.

I guess it is more complicated than I originally realized. Still, what if I were to go back in time to a point before your daughter’s brain developed. What if I were to tell the Frink of that time that his daughter had autism and gave him a magic wand to cure it. What would he say?

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love?

I think it influences my personality a lot. Being “cured” would be taking a part of me out, it would figuratively make me a different person.

No offense, but are you saying you have autism?

None taken, and yes.

Well, that definitely proves to me that autism doesn’t always render a person incapable of making their own decisions. I’ve been posting with you for a long while and had absolutely no hint or idea that you had autism.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

Transgender is an identity. Pressuring them to have a sex change, or shaming them into having a sex change, or withholding some other sort of accommodation just because they won’t have a sex change like a reasonable person, those would all be comparable to what we’re discussing. Someone choosing to have a sex change and then doing it? Not a problem.

Yet it seems to be a problem when it comes to the deaf person choosing to get the implants to be able to hear.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?

You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉

I stated that badly. What I should have asked was "Are there cases where autism renders people incapable of making their own decisions.

Possibly, but not in any of the cases I’ve known (but I’m just Random Internet Dude, not Autism Specialist Dude). Younger than 18, they’re a minor, over 18 they’re good to go. The problem of course is that people with significant neurological impairment are often more hidden from view, so people don’t know about them.

So what about those with “significant neurological impairment” would you deny them “the cure” if it meant they would be able to make their own decisions?

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?

Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.

edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.

I’m not offended, they are fair questions.

Cancer does not fundamentally change your brain the way autism does. My daughter has challenges that neurotypicals do not,

neurotypicals? You mean people without autism?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical

Another way to look at is this - if I could go back and have my first daughter not be stillborn, would I? I don’t know, because it would change the course of our history. Our second child might have been a boy instead of a girl. We might have only had one child, and almost certainly wouldn’t have had three…so our younger daughter would basically cease to exist. “Curing” my daughter’s autism would essentially erase her from this world, replaced by a different girl.

Here we are talking about the problems of altering history as opposed to the issues of curing something. I’d love to go back in time and break my father’s fall so he’d still be with us, but I don’t think I should be allowed to mess with history like that.

My point is that simply “curing” an autistic person would not just be a simple do-it-and-it’s-over thing (assuming a cure existed) and that it has ripple effects, and rather large ones at that. Choosing to go back and have my first daughter survive would change everything that came after it, and so would “curing” my autistic daughter.

Lastly, the argument that she should be the one to have the choice is a compelling one, however I don’t think she is old enough to make that choice (if the choice were available to us). If we were given a magic wand and were told we could choose to wave it any time in the next ten years, I might feel differently ten years down the road.

But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure iy, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?

My daughter has Asperger’s and is high functioning. She can make decisions already, but at her age I wouldn’t want her making lots of unimportant non-Asperger’s related decisions just because of her age (like if she should watch 14 hours of tv today). My statement was more in relation to the fact that she’s too young to be making certain decisions, independent of her neuro condition.

understood, but as I said before, if I understand things correctly. The only time would be possible to truly “cure” autism is at a time before brain development. This would be way before she could make her own decisions you would have to decide one way or the other. Also this would be before you even knew of any ripple effects.

Consider a story: a man was in a car with his sister. A horrible car accident occurs. The sister is killed. The man is seriously injured. He is brought to a hospital. While there, he meets a nurse and falls in love with her and they eventually marry and have kids. One of this kids grows up and finds the cure for cancer. Now it can argued that that accident had ripples and without the ripples with children would not have been born and cancer would not have been cured. Still, you would not tell someone driving with their sister not to try to avoid a car accident if they could, would you?

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

What about curing a disability?

As I think I’ve said before, in their lexicon, disabilities are identities. Deafness is a subset of disabilities. Therefore, from that viewpoint, deafness is an identity.

But it is still a disability.

SilverWook said:

Warbler said:

SilverWook said:

One could probably make the argument that if every deaf person was cured, the uniqueness of deaf culture would be lost.

To that I again answer with this). How do you justify denying the woman in the video the ability to hear?

I could never justify denying someone the ability to hear. Just pointing out some in the deaf community have a different point of view.

Maybe those with that point of view need to watch the video I posted.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.

I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right to decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured?

That’s really up to the person. I know I wouldn’t want to be cured if the option was available, and that’s because…

You missed the my point here. I was asking Frink this. We were talking about him deciding for his daughter instead of her deciding for herself.

Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love?

I think it influences my personality a lot. Being “cured” would be taking a part of me out, it would figuratively make me a different person.

No offense, but are you saying you have autism?

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

However, it’s hard to imagine everyone with a disability thinks the same way. What about the deaf people who want to hear? Should “cures” be shunned by the larger community even when some would welcome them?

At least WRT cochlear implants, many deaf people do in fact opt for the implants, and (at least as far as I know–I’m not Mr. Cochlear Implant) the cures are not shunned by the larger community at all. A large part (maybe most) of the deaf community treats them like poison, but almost all of the hearing community treats them like “We fixed your deafness. You’re welcome.” And later “We have no idea why you’re being so unreasonable, just get the implants and stop asking us for interpreters. It’s not necessary anymore.”

My reaction is neither of those. My reaction is “We have the ability to fix your deafness if you want it fixed”.

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure iy, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?

Autism doesn’t render someone incapable of making their own decisions, it’s a spectrum. There are many autistic people smarter than you or I who are more than capable of making decisions.

Are there any cases at all wear autism does render someone incapable of making their own decisions?

SilverWook said:

One could probably make the argument that if every deaf person was cured, the uniqueness of deaf culture would be lost.

To that I again answer with this. How do you justify denying the woman in the video the ability to hear?

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?

This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.

This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.

And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.

How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?

That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.

I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.

But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?

How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?

You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉

I stated that badly. What I should have asked was "Are there cases where autism renders people incapable of making their own decisions.