Kalashnikov

That's what I said. If you cannot afford disabled kids, don't have any. Abort them.

Warthog is a ground support aircraft. Flies low altitude and provides cover fire for infantry, at least that's its traditional role. Why was it deployed to Hormuz? Are they planning a ground invasion?

And - we do understand autism. There are things that are unanswered as with many psychological disorders that primarily affect the brain, but to say that it is not understood is misinformed. What would be short sighted is to bring someone to a world where they will face significant hardships into a family that is not prepared to care for them.

I wasn't talking exclusively about autistic individuals, but rather disabled individuals. Certain parts of the autistic spectrum contains individual who are disabled. My comment does not apply to all autistic individuals.

"Cleansing the world of autists" is exactly what we should do. Autism Spectrum Disorder is a disorder, and we should try and cleanse the world of it, just as we should try and cleanse the world of heart disease or cancer or schizophrenia.

When doctors are able to determine if a fetus has genetic disorders that will impair its life and require disproportionate amount of resources from its parents, then the right thing to do is to abort said fetus, especially if the parents cannot spare those resources. Women should be able to make that choice - that's hardly eugenics if a woman wants to abort a fetus with, say, down's syndrome.

Many women do make that decision, every day. And some women do make the wrong choice, sometimes, and the children bear the consequences - because they have to deal with a disability their entire lives and will not receive adequate support that they need.

Aborted fetuses with genetic disorders is better than neglected living children with genetic disorders.

Not adequately caring for a disabled child is child neglect.

No, the neurodiversity movement claims that certain types of mental disorders (such as, for example, autism spectrum disorder) aren't disorders at all, and they should not be cured. That is stupid, reckless and dangerous.

Disabled people have the right to exist and deserve support and aid when they need it (This goes for every single human, not just disabled people). This is separate to the neurodiversity movement. There is no known cure to autism, but we should try and cure it as much as we can, because autism spectrum disorder is a disorder. The neurodiversity movement claims otherwise, and is content with the suffering "neurodivergent" individuals, their families and communities go through because of their disorder.

Oh! Really? So you would much rather parents raise children that they cannot afford to raise because they were conceived instead? That's just pro-life with extra steps, dawg

Why won't you fix those internal websites? I wouldn't think it is that hard? It is just html and css isn't it?

I never said that. I said that children take up resources, and if you cannot spare said resources (time, energy, money etc.), then you shouldn't have them. Disabled children often take up even more resources than the average child, and if you cannot spare those resources, you should abort fetuses that you know for a fact would become disabled children.

Children, disabled or not, will become a burden on you if you as a parent cannot invest time and energy on them.

But I feel like you’re focussing too much on the effect on the mother and not on the lives of disabled people

Fetuses aren't people.

And not every disabled person has high support needs

That is true, and sometimes families are capable of providing high support, which is why this should be a decision.

I also don’t think that the neurodiversity movement claims that autistic people aren’t disabled, on the contrary.

The neurodiversity movement claims that autism isn't a disorder, which it is.

I happen to think that fetuses that would grow up to have incurable disorders that would put considerable strain on the family to raise them should be aborted by those families that cannot spare said effort. You should not have a child if you do not have the resources to provide for that child, and the unfortunate reality is that disabled children take up more resources. But it should be a personal decision made by the woman.

I could absolutely never judge a mother who would choose to abort a disabled fetus. I have seen many families who raise disabled children worn down to the core from all the extra support that you have to provide to them.

Having heard of the struggle they go through, especially in places where they do not have a developed support system for disabled individuals, if I were a woman, I would make the choice to abort a fetus that would grow up to be disabled.

Autistic individuals are not a blight upon humanity - Fascist ableists however, are.

But autism is indeed a disability - I personally do not agree with the neurodiversity movement. Autism spectrum disorder is a disorder. Individuals with disorders should be provided with the help and support they need. Fetuses, however, are not individuals. The capitalistic way of judging individuals' worth by the profit they can make for our overlords is inhumane and ableist, and leads to the unnatural assessment that disabled individuals are "worth" less than the average human.

If a prospective mother can screen for a disorder and choose to abort a fetus based on that, I think that should be allowed, or even encouraged to make sure that women don't go into a lifetime's worth of commitment without realizing the implications.

Take Helen Keller - it took the life time dedication of several full time teachers tending to just her to make her who she was, and she was only able to do that because her family had the resources for that kind of thing. If Helen Keller were to be most people's daughter, she would have died an unknown disabled person without achieving as much as she did.

This is not scary at all. You must trust any code that you execute on your computer. Pirated games, if they were malicious, can already get whatever they want done on your computer, because you are giving it arbitrary code execution privileges. Fortunately there is a vast network of p2p and scene crackers that are trustworthy, who you can trust (even more so than some publishers) to respect your user rights.

The level of access hardly matters. If you were a malware developer masquerading as a legitimate cracker, there are many privilege escalation tricks you can use once you have any amount of access to a machine. And even if you didn't, the lowest level of access is typically enough to do financial crimes (stealing browser cookies to access your bank account, or ransoming your documents folder).

Piracy gives you a better user experience than paying for games. Take steam - you have to run a proprietary application to launch your games, which can take these games away at any time, can modify your games to remove copyrighted music, leave them in unplayable states etc. Not to mention the performance impact from DRM, and the constant badgering about accounts/updates/logins/restrictions.

With piracy, everything is seamless. Go to your trusty repacker, click download, click install, and now you have a game that you cna enjoy for the rest of your life.