Lurker and I have been having a nice exchange in one of my blog posts comment section. I'm going to rework one of my responses so that brand new readers inclined to think incorrectly about my positions can have a simple position statement. I thought I'd been fairly clear, but hey, I can add to it for those who have questions.
So, to my previous post, http://counteringageofautism.blogspot.com/2009/07/and-yet-again-i-am-twisted-thank-you.html, readers can add the following:
I believe in OT, PT, speech, sensory integration therapy, play therapy, ABA/cognitive behavioral therapy and other evidence based therapies, although my children have not used all of them. (Or at least, that if done correctly, they may be helpful while having no chance of harm to the child.)
I support parents who choose to use medications to treat symptoms (having been there and done that; it at least has decades of clinical evidence behind it as well as some double-blind studies-- I would not choose it at this time with my children and their particular behaviors), vitamin suppliments (but not megadoses), and specialized diets for children with additional food allergies.
Since I do not believe that autism is heavy metal toxicity, I do not condone chelation. I do not condone lupron. I do not condone HBOT.
Reaching out to adults on the spectrum, to other parents, whatever their beliefs on the cause of autism is the right thing to do. Calling folks on their BS is also the right thing to do. Ideally it can be done tactfully and some consensus or at least an agreement to disagree can be reached. And we can all still gather and sing kumbaya.
Not wanting a cure, at least not in the way you (Lurker) appears to mean, since it appears obvious where your beliefs lie, doesn't mean I don't want my children and other children with autism to receive every effort to help them achieve independence and satisfying, fulfulling lives.
It means that I acknowledge that autism is a neurological condition, not vaccine injury, that is primarily genetic and set by birth (and in many cases caused by in utero trauma) and that the effects of autism in and on the brain are systemic.
So, no, I won't trade a cure for who my children are. We are our neural network. I'll bust my ass to give them the tools they need to do well in this world while working to make this world a safer, softer place for them.
I don't particularly care if that means I get lumped into some fictional movement that exists only in the minds of some truly angry and emotionally disturbed individuals.
I've said what I stand for, and I've been consistent, minus the one typo in a comment where I said I wasn't for therapy (obvious to anyone who read the comment that it was a typo).
That doesn't mean I have the same ideological stance as everyone I talk to and choose to publicly admit to reading and following. After all, I apparently spend a great deal of time reading AoA.
And this particular blog would never have existed if they would have engaged in dialogue. They choose to moderate heavily, in essence, censoring.
Anyone is welcome here at this blog and posts without moderation.
So you tell me who's more inclusive? Who's willing to engage in discourse?
And to respond to Lurker's comment about equality -- "I mean equality in how much mental capability to learn and in amount of ability." -- I'm sorry, but that doesn't exist in neurotypicals. We are all different, born with varying degrees of ability. That kind of equality isn't possible, nor should you want everyone to be evenly matched as you seem to be defining equality. Read "Harrison Bergeron" at http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html and tell me you'd be for that.