See this poll on: https://poll.fm/6448977/embed
Create your own.
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
closed
Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.
Insofar as we give parents the ability to shape a great deal of the personality of their children through things like teaching them to read, or what is "good" and what is "bad", the reality is that parents are not trespassing on the diversity of a child who has not yet formed a full personality. Indeed, we tend to expect parents to bring up children who can at least function in society, if at all possible, so parents are often given a great deal of leeway in the formation of a child's personality, and consequently, their awareness of the world.
So, do the parents have a moral duty to cure Asperger's? I would say they do not.
Do the parents have the moral duty to *not* cure it? I would also say that they do not.
I believe the parents should decide what their reasonable expectation of a good and healthy life for their child would be. The moral answer is then to act on their best understanding of what they feel the child would benefit the most from.
However, I take this from the situation where the condition is curable at relatively early stage in development such as during gestation or for a year or so after birth. If the child has had time to form their own personality and awareness to the point where they can clearly show a preference, then they should be included as much as they are capable of being at that level of development.
If they feel there is some advantage in curing it, it is their decision to make. If they feel that there is not, then they should not be constrained to do so.
On the other hand, given that particular right to choose, it might be considered that a parent who allows the formation of a socially disabled child and then requires that society to support the child via special programs that they could not pay for on their own, might be considered to be putting their own "creation" in a position where it imposes on others when they had the option of correcting the situation before it became socially expensive. In this way, the choice could be considered selfish and potentially immoral unless they took steps to ensure the burden remained their own.
Not every autistic person is a savant, but every savant is autistic. A savant is a rare kind of person who is an absolute genius in a few areas. Kim Peek, the inspiration for Rain Man, was what's called a Mega Savant. Kim had genius level knowledge in 15 different subjects, possibly more, but he had the social skills of an infant. If you were to cure his autism, all that would be gone. It's the certain neural pathways in the brain that are active because of his savantness that caused it. He also was the only known man in the world with an eidetic memory, he could read 2 pages at once and remember every word he read. The membrane separating his brain hemispheres was missing makimg his brain a giant database.
At the level of a parent who wants to be able to interact socially and emotionally with his children I support a 'cure'. Though at the level of a member of humanity, I see that it adds to our neuro diversity.
Curing people that are more interested in science, engineering and advancing technology than they are socially will be the down turn of society as a whole. Where would we be if we cured all the brilliant minds of the past, gifted isn't normal should that be cured. Not all aspies will create great things but they are more likely to than none aspies.
I have Asperger's Syndrome and it in no way limits me, except socially which I don't care about anyway, I am currently in college as a Biotech major planning on earning my doctorate in Synthetic Biology. My junior year of high school i wrote a mock dissertation on life extension for my AP English class, all of my own research, using synthetic biology teacher was impressed and reviewed it with me, he noted the biggest issue would be that it couls easily become cancerous. My eccentric obsessions that form, partly due to my autism, is one of the things that led me to become a Transhumanist. It was my interest in life extension to be exact, and from there I started getting more and more interested. I have written poems about living with autism, i had a poem published in my newspaper about living with autism. I am a usual guest speaker in my county for a young adult panel at an autism training seminar for teachers. Autism is my biggest strength, and my biggest obstacle in life. I firmly believe that autism is such a major part of who I am, if it were to be cured I would no longer be me. I have always been strngly against a cure, because for high functioning aspies like me, there are so many more pros than cons to having it. The average intelligence for people with Asperger's Syndrome is between above average-superior. My uncle for example, my uncle is an aspie as well and he is a comuter scientist and a member of Mensa. He has several masters degrees and speaks computer languages I never even heard of. And like I said, I am going to college hoping to get my doctorate degree in Synthetic Biology, biology is more my area of expertise, I only have a basic understanding of Java and HTML I'm lost with all the other languages, though I would love to learn them.
... must hasten to add this is addressed to bioprogressives: it doesn't apply to the Amish and others, perhaps Native Americans, say; they wouldn't necessarily want to cure Aspergers in their children- for them, to what purpose? Nature, ancestor worship and so forth matters to them.
What is the point in arguing with them about it?
Before libertarians go ballistic, we are referring to moral obligation of parents to
to cure Asperger's in their children; no one is going to force parents. But if parents don't help their children to the utmost, they are not parents-- they are mere custodians.