Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Scientists come up with a brilliant way to "cure" autism: Simply get rid of autistic kids before they're born   (townhall.com) divider line
112
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

2023 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 03 Aug 2006 at 2:06 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



112 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
CcSteff
2006-08-03 10:59:28 AM  
Oh for f*ck's sake. Read the other articles this douchebag has written. He's a nutjob.
 
esle_enoemoS
2006-08-03 10:59:53 AM  
Being a friend of a parent who has autistic children, TFA made me a bit sad more than scared. Children, regardless of their condition, are a beautiful thing, and I would not want to sacrifice many male children for the sake of having one that is not autistic. This is just sick!

\Pro-life
 
sigdiamond2000
2006-08-03 11:01:07 AM  
Let's play "About the Author":

n 1969, Colson was appointed as Counsel to President Nixon. Colson also became involved in the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP or CREEP). Known as President Nixon's hatchet man, he is purported to have once bragged, "I'd walk over my own grandmother to re-elect Richard Nixon." Colson authored the 1971 memo listing Nixon's major political opponents, later known as Nixon's Enemies List. At a CRP meeting on March 21st, 1971, it was agreed to spend $250,000 on "intelligence gathering" on the Democratic Party.
 
CcSteff
2006-08-03 11:01:10 AM  
esle_enoemoS: This is just sick!

It's also sensationalistic and misleading.
 
Blues_X
2006-08-03 11:07:05 AM  
By some estimates, 90 percent of these people-who, if allowed to live, can live happy and healthy lives-are aborted.

By some estimates, I have the biggest peener ever.
 
A7r3ides
2006-08-03 11:07:34 AM  
This isn't abortion though. They're screening out male embryos, right?
 
brap [TotalFark]
2006-08-03 11:09:30 AM  
It's great how he wrote that like he had Downs himself.

A brilliant parody, his mastery and adept use of Mongoloid regional vernacular harks back to some of Twain's best work.
 
mediaho
2006-08-03 11:14:26 AM  
[image from upload.wikimedia.org too old to be available]
 
eddyatwork
2006-08-03 11:16:41 AM  
Leaving this article aside, I never understood the reluctance to cull the herd. If we simply aborted every fetus with a disease that is hereditary, we could wipe out so many diseases within 60 years. Why is this so bad?
 
Mr. Anon
2006-08-03 11:20:37 AM  
eddyatwork: Leaving this article aside, I never understood the reluctance to cull the herd. If we simply aborted every fetus with a disease that is hereditary, we could wipe out so many diseases within 60 years. Why is this so bad?

because every sperm is sacred.
 
binnster
2006-08-03 11:21:25 AM  
I'd suggest reading this article, rather than the one linked. It contains facts instead of opinions.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 11:23:54 AM  
eddyatwork: If we simply aborted every fetus with a disease that is hereditary, we could wipe out so many diseases within 60 years. Why is this so bad?

Yes, and we could get rid diseases, addiction, homosexuals, minorities, ugly people, whatever else we find undesireable. What a beautiful future!
 
Headso
2006-08-03 11:24:06 AM  
eddyatwork: Why is this so bad?

a more PC solution would be to pay people to get sterilized...
 
kingMountain
2006-08-03 11:26:08 AM  
Nabb1
Yes, and we could get rid diseases, addiction, homosexuals, minorities, ugly people, whatever else we find undesireable. What a beautiful future!

ugly people, eh?
 
mediaho
2006-08-03 11:28:12 AM  
That's what you get for marrying the first hippo that would let you stick your peener in her.
 
mediaho
2006-08-03 11:28:47 AM  
This is sooooo the wrong thread.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 11:29:29 AM  
kingMountain: ugly people, eh?

Yeah, that could be tough, though. You ever know a really attractive person whose parents looked like cave trolls?

Now, if you could screen embryos for lawyers, we might have something.

/Lawyer
//Hey, it would decrease the competition.
 
secretagentwang
2006-08-03 11:29:54 AM  
eddyatwork: Leaving this article aside, I never understood the reluctance to cull the herd. If we simply aborted every fetus with a disease that is hereditary, we could wipe out so many diseases within 60 years. Why is this so bad?

You're gonna get attacked... but I do agree in a more limited sense. People can keep their bad genes, but I do think that it's a plausible way to reduce down-syndrome. Sorry, I guess I'm heartless.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-08-03 11:31:31 AM  
brap: some of Twain's best work.

Veneration of Mark Twain is one of the roots of our current intellectual stalemate.
 
eddyatwork
2006-08-03 11:33:04 AM  
secretagentwang: You're gonna get attacked...

Oh I knew that when I posted, but it seems like so much suffering could be alleviated if we just took a simple step. There is no reason to have hereditary diseases that cause pain when it is easily preventable.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 11:33:52 AM  
secretagentwang: People can keep their bad genes, but I do think that it's a plausible way to reduce down-syndrome. Sorry, I guess I'm heartless.

A lot of children born with congenital defects like Downs Syndrome do not reproduce (Downs kids usually don't live into their twenties). The conditions overwhelmingly arise due to parents who are probably in all other respects healthy but simply carry the gene. I would imagine that to eliminate the disease altogether, you would have to screen out all potential carriers of the defect, which would include perfectly healthy people.
 
my_word_is_poontang
2006-08-03 11:34:08 AM  
Here in the states, bioethicist Ben Mitchell said that "if unborn children are being eliminated for a genetic disposition to autism, no one is safe . . . Today autism, tomorrow intelligence below 70 I.Q., the next day male pattern baldness. When will this madness stop?"

with an end to the current theocracy, perhaps? :)

The delicious irony of suggesting using PGD is that it involves an IVF step - which is associated with a whole range of problems including ASD (autism spectrum disorders). That said, if a couple has two autistic boys, and wants to up their odds of having a healthy (female) child... why the hell not? [Difficulty: books written 2000-4000 years ago are not authorative on the subject.]
 
mediaho
2006-08-03 11:36:13 AM  
hillbillypharmacist: Veneration of Mark Twain is one of the roots of our current intellectual stalemate.

I've seen you post this before. Explain.
 
Katie98_KT
2006-08-03 11:38:13 AM  
eddyatwork

Mostly its an hypothetical situation anyway. Yes, we can find the genetic causes of certain diseases, like autism.. but they think many diseases have many many multiple genetic factors (aka, its not just one chromosome). They're not certain they'll ever find the cause for some of them, or even many of them.

*shrugs* And I"m not going to even comment on whether or not to act on it.. I've had intelligent debates on it before.
 
secretagentwang
2006-08-03 11:38:53 AM  
Nabb1: you would have to screen out all potential carriers of the defect, which would include perfectly healthy people

Maybe instead of killing these people :), we could inform them of the risk? Or are we already doing that?
 
I_C_Weener [TotalFark]
2006-08-03 11:39:41 AM  
Well, we could always go back to using thalidomide to fix that autism thing.
 
President Raygun
2006-08-03 11:42:10 AM  
The best arguement I've ever seen against Eugenics, i.e. culling the herd for diseases, are the credits at the end of "Gattaca." It lists like 20 famous and history shaping people that were born with mental, physical or genetic defects. Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein and so on...
 
President Raygun
2006-08-03 11:42:48 AM  
I_C_Weener There were only a few flipper babies!

/KITH rulz
 
my_word_is_poontang
2006-08-03 11:43:33 AM  
eddyatwork: There is no reason to have hereditary diseases that cause pain when it is easily preventable.

I'm with you in the sense that we should screen parents for underlying heritable disorders - they should know the risks for as many common genetic disorders as possible. "Culling" afflicted individual embryo will have a neglible effect on the frequency of disease causing alleles in the underlying population - your 60 year plan is a no go. On the other hand, for parents to be able to make the decision not to go through the trauma of a having a child that will never be healthy, and never have a reasonable quality of life (I'm not think of Down's here) - well, I don't see why they shouldn't have a role in the decision making if the technology exists.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 11:43:43 AM  
secretwang: Maybe instead of killing these people :), we could inform them of the risk? Or are we already doing that?

I'm pretty sure anyone can get tested for any genes they may be carrying to get an idea of their potential risk. Of course, just looking at your own family might give you a clue as well. I think if you are that concerned about possibly having a defective child to the point that it would influence your decision, then you might want to get tested, along with your partner. Personally, I will accept my children as the come, unconditionally. The suggestion of screening out potential defects to remove them from the gene pool as being discussed smacks of eugenics, and strikes me, quite frankly, as barbaric. There is a very serious question of where you draw the line. Some rare conditions would sentence a child to a very short, miserable, painful existence with so little quality of life as to make the decision really almost humane. But, autism, Downs Syndrome? Where do we stop after that?
 
my_word_is_poontang
2006-08-03 11:50:06 AM  
secretagentwang: Maybe instead of killing these people :), we could inform them of the risk? Or are we already doing that?

Yup and yup... depending on the disease. It's not routine - it's a question of bang for buck. You don't screen Caucasians for the sickle cell allele for example.

Katie98_KT: Mostly its an hypothetical situation anyway. Yes, we can find the genetic causes of certain diseases, like autism.. but they think many diseases have many many multiple genetic factors (aka, its not just one chromosome). They're not certain they'll ever find the cause for some of them, or even many of them.

Actually autism is a horribly complex example - TFA has to do with the higher propensity of males to be afflicted. So the PGD is for the gender of the embryo, and as the more sensible article that binnster linked (2006-08-03 11:21:25 AM) points out - that's already done for things like muscular distrophy.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-08-03 11:50:16 AM  
mediaho: I've seen you post this before. Explain.

Then you must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age. Begin with the late Romans, including Boethius, of course. Then you should dip rather extensively into early Medieval. You may skip the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That is mostly dangerous propaganda. Now that I think of it, you had better skip the Romantics and the Victorians, too. For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books...I recommend Batman especially, for he tends to transcend the abysmal society in which he's found himself. His morality is rather rigid, also. I rather respect Batman.
 
my_word_is_poontang
2006-08-03 11:51:03 AM  
Nabb1: Where do we stop after that?

Mimes. I farking hate mimes.
 
Katie98_KT
2006-08-03 11:51:30 AM  
my_word_is_poontang

ahh, sorry. Not a scientist, and never plan to be. Thanks for sorting that out.
 
mediaho
2006-08-03 11:52:37 AM  
hillbillypharmacist: Then you must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age. Begin with the late Romans, including Boethius, of course. Then you should dip rather extensively into early Medieval. You may skip the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That is mostly dangerous propaganda. Now that I think of it, you had better skip the Romantics and the Victorians, too. For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books...I recommend Batman especially, for he tends to transcend the abysmal society in which he's found himself. His morality is rather rigid, also. I rather respect Batman.

I guess that beats actually giving a reasonable reply. Talk about an intellectual stalemate.
 
my_word_is_poontang
2006-08-03 11:53:17 AM  
Katie98_KT: ahh, sorry. Not a scientist, and never plan to be. Thanks for sorting that out.

De nada. The article is intentionally misleading.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-08-03 11:55:09 AM  
mediaho: I guess that beats actually giving a reasonable reply. Talk about an intellectual stalemate.

:)

It's a quote from 'A Confederacy of Dunces'. Possibly the funniest book I've ever read. The main character hates Twain.
 
MyrnaMinkoff
2006-08-03 11:56:37 AM  
hillbillypharmacist

Awesome.
 
drdank [TotalFark]
2006-08-03 11:58:07 AM  
[image from fiftiesweb.com too old to be available]

Thalidomide?
 
mediaho
2006-08-03 11:58:22 AM  
hillbillypharmacist: It's a quote from 'A Confederacy of Dunces'. Possibly the funniest book I've ever read. The main character hates Twain.

Ah, gotcha. Is that original quote also from the book?

I've been looking for a new, funny read. This one might just do the trick.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 11:58:44 AM  
hillbillypharmacist

Did you do that from memory? Hilarious stuff.
 
my_word_is_poontang
2006-08-03 11:58:47 AM  
drdank: Thalidomide?

Is that Zipper? He looks surly...
 
I_C_Weener [TotalFark]
2006-08-03 12:00:08 PM  
Nabb1: Where do we stop after that?

my_word_is_p[oontang Mimes. I farking hate mimes.

And boy bands.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 12:01:37 PM  
I_C_Weener:

'Bama fans. (Probably take care of a lot of congenital defects with that, too.)

Hey, as long as we're doing this, let's do it right.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-08-03 12:03:17 PM  
mediaho: Ah, gotcha. Is that original quote also from the book?

Oh yes. Straight from the mustachioed mouth.

The real tragedy is that the author, John Kennedy Toole, killed himself before the book was even published. He thought it was awful. It won a Pulitzer.
 
hillbillypharmacist
2006-08-03 12:03:53 PM  
Nabb1: Did you do that from memory?

Only the Twain line, unfortunately.
 
Nabb1
2006-08-03 12:04:33 PM  
hillbillypharmacist

You know, there's a statue of Ignatius on Canal St. in New Orleans.
 
Mr. Anon
2006-08-03 12:04:57 PM  
I don't understand why gynos don't have a gun to shoot the babies that come out with problems. That would save so much suffering!

/just messin with ya eddy.
 
LyleDAL
2006-08-03 12:06:24 PM  
mediaho: This is sooooo the wrong thread.

And yet somehow the comment still worked!
 
I_C_Weener [TotalFark]
2006-08-03 12:06:42 PM  
Nabb1 Dwarves, but not Midgets. I like proportioned Little People, but no those freaks with the long torsos.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.