Defending Immoralities From Autistic People: The Return

December 12, 2021

I saw this horrible article, which was speaking of two immoralities as if they were perfectly amoral: damaging property, and self-injury. The former immorality was involved in the situation described in the article, in which a child (if he is indeed a child, the action should still be discouraged and punished, so he does not learn to keep committing the action as an adult) or adult (13 years or older; enough age to be responsible for morality) is banging the corner of an iPad against the wall of the house that his parents pay for and own more than him. Someone can't just burn down their house if they live with their parents (it would also cause tremendous loss to them, but that's besides the point), who would have their property, their house, which only they pay for, burnt down and destroyed.
"He's autistic! Don't judge his actions because he's disabled and intellectually challenged [it does say that on his mother's blog]!"
The moral standard I go by has no exceptions to morality for autistic people or intellectually challenged people, unless the person is so intellectually disabled that they can't understand the relevant basic concepts, such as that their parents own the house he lives in, and the like.
How about the self-injury? How is that immoral? Humans, who are created in God's image, are meant to... survive, and be alive. Part of our purpose in the world is to... exist; to be alive. It is thus immoral to attempt to destroy one's life or the life of another, even if no killing is involved [only injury]. It is immoral to damage the body that God gave you to fulfill a purpose, to be alive. It's going against your purpose in the world.
"You don't understand! This child [or adult] clearly has problems!"
What don't I understand? What fact about this person am I not understanding which makes my judgments invalid? I don't see it. And just because someone "has problems," they still have free-will and are expected to live up to God's standards for morality. Someone who has a disability which causes them to desire to injure themself... doesn't have to listen to the fucking desire. Just like how "gay people" who claim to be "born gay" just mean that they have the desire to be homosexual, but they can conquer it.
Being classified as autistic, I find it somewhat more personal when someone implicitly denies such humans' being made in God's image. The mother in that article seems to think that autistic people are not responsible for certain misdeeds that they obviously are, and maybe don't even have free-will in some areas sometimes that they obviously do.