Autism isn't inherently bad, it's just different. There's no duty beyond screenings and providing the knowledge.
Not true for all manifestations of it.
Of course it's not always true. The poster is right that autism isn't inherently bad, just different.
And since when do we judge human beings on their usefulness? Should we kill every non productive beings with that reasoning since they're not "useful"?
And nobody downvote you 2 is a shame.
They'll probably say no, but their kid is useless socially, economically, etc. Can't have a job, can't help others, can't have friends, can't have a normal life, hell can't even have a life.
>And since when do we judge human beings on their usefulness?
Since always? That's all we do. And this is not a case of someone who's in a wheelchair or deaf, this is someone who can't do anything other than yell and throw things. That's my experience with an autistic person at the "high end" of the spectrum.
What's a "difference"? You're begging the question by implicitly redefining what would fairly be described as a challenge or handicap, depending on severity, as simply being a "difference" instead.
Inability to properly simulate the mental state of others is, by and large, a deficiency. Mental abilities that you cultivate in the place of that can be interesting, but it's not just a "difference".
If we're going to give people the right to abort, and the right to abort based on screening processes - both of which are huge moral questions in and of themselves - then it only stands to reason that we continue to give parents more power in this situation based on the information we can give them.
Since in many places you can simply abort because you just don't want the kid, which is a pretty simple reason, it stands to reason that more complicated / more concretely justified reasons would be fine also.
Many autistic people have tremendously contributed to our society. The goal in this case is to develop the knowledge and tools that will help everyone use this as a strength.