Why not? This presupposes that autism is uniformly viewed in a negative way and, whilst it's true that raising a child with ASD can be extremely challenging, more so for some than others, there are also hugely rewarding experiences.
I have two children and, as I'm sure occurs in a lot of cases, I became pregnant with my second before we had any clue about Oscar's ASD so in order to 'police' couples with autistc children then all parents would have to wait a mandatory 3-5 years before being allowed to have another child. This would not be acceptable to many couples who prefer to have their children closer together and many would be annoyed at being penalised for something that does not effect them. Also how would you ensure those couples don't have another child for that period? Even with forced contraception no method is 100%.
Also having siblings can be a very positive thing for ASD kids, I know that in our case my youngest has helped Oscar with making friends at school and sticking up for him when other kids have been a bit mean, this has helped Oscar with his self confidence no end.
On the other hand Leo is well ahead academically because his big brother loves to teach him maths and literacy and Leo has the typical little brother hero worship for Oscar so, in fact, both children have benefitted form their differences. It has also taught Leo not to be too judgemental and to be more accepting of other's differences (as long as that difference isn't that they are a girl!).
There is, of course, a suggested risk that ASD can run in families so any future children may also have ASD but, likewise, there is a suggestion that the children of people with dyslexia have an increased risk of being dyslexic. I know that it isn't on the same scale as ASD but it can also severely impact a child's learning and the individual's self confidence throughout life and may well require government provided resources throughout school life. Does this then mean that it would be unfair to allow dyslexics to procreate? The suggestion is beyond ridiculous.
Whilst kids with ASD do require certain resources and it does cost the government to provide them and, the more severe the ASD the greater the cost, if you decide that the risk/cost analysis is unacceptable then firstly, how would you prevent more children? Extra taxes? Forced contraception or even sterilisation? All, particularly the last two, would see the European Court of Human Rights flooded with cases (and other continental equivalents). Secondly, suppose the parents split up and find new partners, are they forbidden to procreate with them? How could this be policed, particularly in the cases of the parent who does not have custody? Finally the ultimate where would it end question, mentioned above. How, then do you choose who does and does not get to have children? Would it end up in genetic testing to determine whether you have a risk of having a child with ASD, Downe's, Spina Bifuda and how far would it go, would we stop people who might have a deaf child from procreating? It would be a slippery slope and not one that could be climbed back up very easily when it all goes wrong.
Finally, we (arguably!) live in a free democracy with certain rights as a human and one of those rights is a right to life and to procreate. There are plenty of unsuitable parents out there but they are not told when and if they can have children, why should perfectly good parents who are willing to care for their child regardless be denied that?
If it's a case of the NHS straining at the budget seams there are plenty of other ways to reduce costs some as unpleasantly controversial as this. For example, why continue to medicate elderly people to prolong their lives they aren't going to be contributing anymore wealth or service to society? Why not bring in a mandatory time limit for anyone on life preserving equipment? Why not deny people who indulge in health hazardous behaviours such as smoking or poor dietary intake treatment for related illnesses? The answer is simple, we morally and ethically cannot play god. We cannot choose who lives and dies in an arbitrary manner, nor can we choose who can and can't have children.
Interesting topic, I know I may have harped on there but I hope some other people add to this. I love this sort of moral dilemma debate.
Home 
