I hate hypothetical questions. While contemplating their answers can be an interesting exercise in creative speculation, there is no way to definitively state what really coulda, shoulda, woulda, mighta been via process of imagination. Can any of us actually know what we would do or how we would react if any of our cocktail party contemplated theoretical scenarios were to ever pragmatically occur?

Kim Stagliano, in a May 15, 2007 Huffington Post article entitled, “The Appalled Voice of An Autism Mom,” collaterally raises the rather unpleasant, yet ubiquitous, hypothetical question of what some might or might not do — or would have or would not have done — if a pre-natal test for autism was available. Ms. Stagliano, who is mother to three autistic daughters, was apparently inspired to write her article after becoming disconcerted by a New York Times article about a new pre-natal test for Down syndrome.

The article goes on to state, “About 90% of women given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.” Could that possibly be a true statistic? I suppose the OB’s would know.

So according to the New York Times, there is a PR campaign underway by parents of kids with Down syndrome, trying to tell people that having a child with Down syndrome is OK. In short, “selling” Down syndrome to a nation that turns in its cars every 3 years, demands women never look a day older than 35, and that men dye their hair and beard to attract the older women who are trying to look younger.

Of course 90% seems like a shocking figure when it’s printed in black and white, but it is not terribly surprising considering the rampant epidemic of perfectionism that has plagued humanity ever since our ancient ancestors first endeavored to effect improvements upon the club and the spear.

Ms. Stagliano asks the not-so-hypothetical question, “Is a prenatal test for autism what Autism Speaks/NAAR has in mind with its unrelenting search for the genetics behind autism?”

Well, yes, that is probably a motivating factor. Appalling, indeed, but not astonishing. Of course that is not the only reason for research into the genetics of autism, but it is the scariest and most sensationalist, even if it is unrealistic.

Down syndrome was discovered over a century ago because it is caused by a specific chromosomal abnormality that was detectable using the tools and technology of that era. However, the vast majority of autistic people do not have any chromosomal abnormalities.

Genetic research into autism thus far suggests that there is no single “autism gene;” just like there is no “gay gene,” or a specific gene that determines the physical characteristics that were once thought to comprise different “races” of humans, so the specter of eugenics is probably not going to be materializing anytime soon.

Nonetheless, many current subscribers to the belief that autism is caused by childhood vaccines seem to have become enthralled by oblique projections about “a test to weed out the perceived undesirables so that Mummy and Daddy can have a perfect baby,” as Ms. Stagliano describes it.

This is probably because such scaremongering provides opportunities to denigrate and demonize the promising genetic research that is fast making those old 1990s notions about a connection between autism, vaccines, and mercury into an urban legend, but I could be wrong as that particular line of “reasoning” is far more puzzling to me than autism.

Now, as far as abortion is concerned, I’m pro-choice like I’m pro-free speech for neo-nazis, KKKers, and other anachronistic kooks (and nobody’s gonna stick a needle into any part of my abdomen unless I will die without it), so this hypothetical is a pretty much a no-brainer for me, regardless of what other people think they might or might not do.

In the closing line of her article, Ms. Stagliano expresses her position rather eloquently, “If you’ll excuse me, I’ll abort this piece. I need to go hug my kids. My perfectly imperfect perfect children.”

Amen, to that.

America is the land of the free and the home of the brave because, in a free country, we must have the courage to accept that we, the people, frequently exercise our rights to do all sorts of awful things for all manner and depth of reasoning, and that we get away with it when we do so without violating the rights of others.

Because a majority of we, the people, assert that we would hypothetically terminate a pregnancy in the event that laboratory tests show the fetus is somehow defective, the controversy over the right to choose abortion — be it supported by our not yet officially recognized right to self-determination, or the legal fiction which created some ambiguous “right to privacy” out of whole cloth — could be turned inside out to one day to become a debate about the right to choose against it in the event of some potentially inconvenient abnormality.

I have gotten the autism bug of late, very likely because my youngest, Isabella, is going through the necessary diagnostic processes so that she can get into the exceptional school her older brother, Guy, currently attends. I caught it once before, five years ago, when my son was first diagnosed autistic and I had to come to terms with all that entails.

I became momentarily intrigued by the mercury-vaccines-autism hypothesis and the possibility that autism could be “cured.” I enthusiastically read everything I could find on the subject, in the hope that there might be something to these special diets, vitamins, herbal supplements, and alternative treatments like chelation, which were supposed to “de-toxify” the body.

I really wanted my son to learn how to talk and use the toilet, and stop having horrible tantrums; so I really wanted to believe what I had read about the alternatives to the reality I was facing at the time. After spending a few days reading all about alleged conspiracies and cover-ups, I got angry with the mainstream medical community, the pharmaceutical industry, and the US government. I even tried to rationalize away inconsistencies by avoiding the tough questions.

In the end, however, I could not keep the faith. I eventually came to the troubling realization that I could not defend the alternatives using logic and legitimately proven theories. Whenever that happens, I know that must change course immediately, whether I like it or not, even if it stings my pride something awful.

My son started speaking on his own soon after all of that nonsense anyway. Now, if he had been receiving any sort of “biomedical intervention” at the time, I may very well have attributed his sudden speech to that particular treatment. So, now I wonder, hmmmm, whenever I read anecdotes about how this or that treatment caused some autistic child to start talking. I am sorry if some people find that offensive, but I cannot help it, I’m a natural born cynic.

This time ’round, I cannot seem to stop reading the controversy that is still raging between those who believe that childhood vaccines cause autism, and those who accept the overwhelming legitimate scientific evidence to the contrary. While the debate can be an engaging distraction — lurking or participating — overall, it really makes me feel kind of sad because people are fighting with each other instead of helping and supporting one another.

From the May 20, 2007 edition of the Los Angeles Times, a eulogy for Jerry Falwell, written by Larry Flynt.

On April 23, 2007, my article on the politics of autism was published at Blogcritics. I received mostly positive responses, but the one that sticks out in my mind today was comment #11 by Phil Schwarz who asked, “What if, instead of ‘Autism Every Day‘ and ‘Getting the Word Out,’ we had public relations collateral that eloquently illustrated the ‘make or break’ difference that the right kind of help, advocacy, and support can have, in the lives that autistic people lead?”

I think I got so into the politics of autism and autism charities that I merely complained about them without offering any ideas for improvement, something which I have criticized others for doing with regard to a number of other issues like; the Iraq war, the threat of terrorism, and America’s health care woes. My penance for that offense will be to write an article suggesting ways that autism charities could actually be helpful to autistic people.

However, I will need some help, for I can only speak for myself and my family’s needs and have little to no idea of what would be helpful to those whose circumstances are different than ours. Also, as the neurotypical mother of autistic children, I lack the perspective of autistic adults and what their requirements for services, therapy, job training, etc. might be.

So, I’m going to go on my merry way to spread the word in the hope that some of the good people I have met in my travels through the cyberspace district of the autistic community will stop by and lend a helping sentence or two — or maybe even a whole paragraph — to help answer the question: What kind of help, advocacy, and support should autism charities provide to autistic people and their families?

(Yes, I know they need to stop perpetuating negative stereotypes of autistic people, and that they should not speak of autism as if it is a disease in need of a cure, but I’m looking for the positive answers; what they can do, as opposed to what they should not do, and what would be helpful, rather than what is currently unhelpful.)

Thank you all for your participation.