Does Reproductive Technology Concern You?

Daniel said:

I've seen clinical websites saying reproductive technology is a "Great Hope" for preventing autistic people and people diagnosed ADHD coming into the world.

I doubt these companies would be allowed to be the decision makers of any terminations - all they can do is offer the parents the information for them to make an infrmed decision, presumably one that is within the law.

It is the parents you should be focussing your efforts on - they make the (probable) life or death decision and if they consider autism to be a condition they do not want to pass on then this is legally within their control to decide.

Daniel said:

These bioethicists and medical "professionals" claiming we have no place in this world, and that we do not deserve to be protected from discrimination has made me write a book

Can you back up this rather extreme claim? I assume you have a vested interest in pushing your perpective (ie book sale) so thank you for disclosing this.

I would imaging that there are not cabals of scientists plotting to destroy all autists one generation at a time as this reads like - just people developing tests and trying to make money off them.

I also doubt the scientists are particularly concerned about the economy as this is a politicians job. Getting them together in some sort of think tank could result in the situation you describe but the driving force here would be the politicians.

So I would think that you need to educate the parents that having autistic children is no big deal (a tall order at best) and get to work of finding the politicians behind the policy making processes and expose them.

I've often though through my pre-diagnosis years that I would never want to have children in case I pass on whatever was making my life so hard. If I were able to decide to have children then finding a way to select which embrios were free of whatever the genes are for autism would certainly be a serious consideration.

Deciding after a preganancy would be much harder but if there were some other condition that would make the quality of life for the child very poor then I would have to seriously consider the options here. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision but I would not deny it to others.

In summary, you are barking up the wrong tree.

Yes, I can back up my claims. Just listen to the debates and hear it for yourself. Look up debates between bioethicists about modern eugenics, some now call eugenomics. 

Daniel said:

Yes, I can back up my claims

I'm asking for the details backing up your claims as you have these at your fingertips.

Ideally these should be scientific peer reviewed articles rather than opinion pieces so they have been subjected to a degree of scientific rigour.

Debates are also largely opinion slinging sessions which is why the peer reviewed articles are so important to cut out the disinformation and opinions from both sides and focus on the facts.

Can you provide something to this level please?

Daniel said:

Yes, I can back up my claims

I'm asking for the details backing up your claims as you have these at your fingertips.

Ideally these should be scientific peer reviewed articles rather than opinion pieces so they have been subjected to a degree of scientific rigour.

Debates are also largely opinion slinging sessions which is why the peer reviewed articles are so important to cut out the disinformation and opinions from both sides and focus on the facts.

Can you provide something to this level please?

I already have, don't you look at the variation of laws between countries? 

Daniel said:

They already were safeguards, the safeguards which were there are been removed one after another

can you provide proof of this claim please? Facts rather than opinion links please.

They already were safeguards, the safeguards which were there are been removed one after another. 

Daniel said:

The decisions of what's legalised is not determined by facts, it's determined by political discourse.

Are you saying laws are made without paying attention to the facts? This is contrary to my experience in looking at the way laws are debated and implemented through the parlimentary process, unless you are implying all the politicians are complicit in some way.

Daniel said:

Multiple countries have legalised euthanasia already. 

Good for them. In properly controlled circumstances this is a good thing.

I've known too many people in my long life who have suffered incredible pain and discomfort (typically from cancer) who pleaded to be allowed to die and their doctors were forced by law to keep them lingering in suffering until their bodies failed.

Can the process be abused - probably, but so can almost any medical process. We need to ensure proper safeguards rather than denying free choice.

The decisions of what's legalised is not determined by facts, it's determined by political discourse. 

In 2016 Canada legalised assisted suicide regardless of the facts. 

Multiple countries have legalised euthanasia already. 

Women had to be 35 to be tested, they removed that restriction and test every pregnant woman now regardless of age. 

Countries have already legalised sex selection, nothing medical involved. 

Clearly, legalisation and removal of restrictions is not based on facts by the very fact some countries approve while others disapprove.