Maybe the problem is where a policy, practice or simply prejudice would draw a line.
There is autism in my family, some members are officially diagnosed, and while it's not my case (I was born in France in the 1950'), I am certainly not someone with an ordinary world view. Otherwise I managed to have a good enough career, sometimes managing up to 100 people.
The idea that I could have been "suppressed" because some prejudice is frightening.
And if he can't it still begs the same question because we don't see as unborn until x weeks as human yet, that would cancel it out. Otherwise we could use the same argument for every aborted unborn?
- Dan Aykroyd - Anthony Hopkins - Satoshi Tajiri (creator of Pokémon) - Greta Thunberg
Particularly in this industry, autism, ADHD and other's are overrepresented compared to the typical population averages.
I don't have autism myself (I do have ADHD), but I've met quite a few people who do. By the time they reach adulthood (and frankly a long time before), they're quite adept at masking [0]. Pretending to be a normal person to fit into a normal world.
It affects people in different ways and to different severities, particularly in terms of what kinds of accomodations are required. But they can be some of the most intelligent, caring, hard working people you'll come across.
It's problematic because while disabilities suck, people thrive in spite of them. Myself included.
Even screening for Down syndrome feels quite problematic.
Some of the best ways to help people with autism is accomodate them, let them live without masking the things that often put normal people off.
Screening for Down syndrome or autism feels very close to screening for gender.
It's an arbitrary choice made on the foundations of very shaky knowledge. That's not your fault, the general understanding of different neurological conditions is woeful and full of prejudice.
There's legitimate reasons to terminate a pregnancy that are completely unrelated to trying to screen for a "normal" kid.
But this study does not appear to be coming from a good place, or a place of genuine understanding. This snippet highlights it:
> But “there’s a component of suggesting that autistic people don’t have empathy”, she says. “That has been extremely damaging and stigmatizing for autistic people, and is very much at odds with many autistic people’s lived experience, which is often a sort of uncontrollable excess of empathy.”
From personal experience some autistic people have incredible capacity for empathy.
[0] https://www.healthline.com/health/autism/autism-masking#defi...
Nothing about down syndrome, autism or gender qualifies as "very shaky knowledge". It's the woman's choice. It's her body and she has the right to abort for whatever reason she wants.
> There's legitimate reasons to terminate a pregnancy that are completely unrelated to trying to screen for a "normal" kid.
The only legitimate reason is the woman doesn't want to carry the pregnancy to term. If it is wrong to abort an autistic baby, then all abortions are wrong. Think about it.
> But this study does not appear to be coming from a good place, or a place of genuine understanding.
A good place? You get to decide? If you want an autistic kid, you have one. And if another person doesn't want one, they don't have to have one? What ever happened to the choice in pro-choice?