In software applications, we had to write a response to an article. I went with the Washington Post’s coverage of the presidential candidates debate on autism. I went with that because of how stupidly insane these opinions are (I think I’ve given you all my opinion on them before). I mean, how is he getting away with these opinions. Ok…im getting ahead of myself. Enjoy my opinion on it below before my next post (lots of me complaining about teens. I sincerely apologize in advance.
The article I chose to read, “The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines and autism,”(Miller, Michael Washington post) talks about the presidential debates about the “correlation” between autism and vaccinations. Dr. Ben Carson stated, “There has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism.” Now, some people are saying that this is what he should have said. In their opinions, this was him saying vaccines don’t cause autism. I do not agree with this opinion. Because of the way he says this, that studies have demonstrated no link, implies that there could be a link that is unrepresented by science. This, in a way, backs trump insisting that vaccines in some aspect cause autism. However, in my opinion, this is not the biggest issue with this debate. In my opinion, the greatest issue is with what trump said here. “I’ve seen people where they have a perfectly healthy child, and they go for the vaccinations and a month later the child is no longer healthy.”(Miller, Michael Washington post) This quote implies two things. First off, it is him supporting his opinion that vaccines cause autism. But secondly it is him basically saying that autism is such a bad thing, a child with it can no longer be considered “healthy.” He is basically claiming that to have a child with autism means you do not have a healthy child. I find this opinion ridiculous. I am not going to lie and say that I think having a child with autism is easy. I might not have that experience, but I do live with autism so I at least have some opinion on this topic. And in my opinion for him to be implying in ANY way that having autism makes a person unhealthy or that having a child with autism is as bad as them not existing is ridiculous. Along those same lines, by him stating that he thinks autism will “drop” if vaccines are more spread out is basically him saying that people with autism are mistakes, and that we (yep, said we) are something that people should hope are not born in the future. This does two very negative things. One, it supports people thinking that vaccines are less important than a “healthy” child (despite the fact that they could save said child’s life) and two, it makes those of us in this world with autism (and there are many of us) be seen, and feel, insignificant and unwanted in this world. When someone basically says oh, if we do this thing that threatens our kids lives just so maybe those kids won’t be like you, its basically calling who we are a fate worse than death. That is one of the things that causes such a negative connotation around autism where there does not always need to be. And I am the last person who would say that it is easy. But I also am the last person who would say I would rather be dead than be who I am. This quote in the article sums up my thinking on this rather perfectly. “Autism is not caused by vaccines — and Autistic Americans deserve better than a political rhetoric that suggests that we would be better off dead than disabled.” (Miller, Michael Washington post) Basically in a lot of fancy words, political people should not in any sense claim a disabled child is worse than having a deceased child, and said political figures stating anything along these lines, in a way, dehumanizes people like me and makes it almost seem like we are a virus to be eradicated, that who we are is a mistake of the world and it should not happen. That is a ridiculous theory that truly needs not exist in the world. At the very least, it should not be being stated and repeated by political figures whom people believe, especially when those figures have no evidence on the subject one way or another. In conclusion, if these political figures are attempting to gain votes, they might want to find an argument that does not insult and dehumanize millions of people.
And sorry about the weird way it got turned into a paragraph stuff doesn’t show up well on here. Weird. Must figure out how to solve this eventually.