It depends on the acuity of the test imo. Autism is a spectrum. High functioning and low functioning autism are two different beasts. If they can't differentiate between high and low functioning, I agree that they should do what they can to try to prevent it. If they can predict high functioning, I think there's a real debate to be had. Especially if there are any potential risk factors with the treatment.

Absolutely not. If it were anyone's decision it should be the mother's, and I even find that questionable.

Autism isn't inherently bad, it's just different. There's no duty beyond screenings and providing the knowledge.

> Autism isn't inherently bad, it's just different.

Not true for all manifestations of it.

There are certainly forms or degrees of autism which are totally disabling.

As mean as this sounds to read, it's the truth. I personally know families who had an autistic child, did their best to accommodate and integrate them, but the child grew up to be nonverbal, destructive, etc.

Of course it's not always true. The poster is right that autism isn't inherently bad, just different.

Ask them if they judge their kid is "useless".

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.

>Ask them if they judge their kid is "useless".

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.

"it renders the ailed person simply useless" is not the truth.