Adahn

[size=2]I apologize for starting a Gay Marriage thread.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I wrote this quite a while ago, but I wasn't active on OB at that time, so I didn't think to put it here.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Here she goes...[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]This is mainly aimed at Christianity. I want to make sure that nobody thinks this is aimed at Christians individually, only at what I perceive to be the popular ideology of Christianity. Generally, gay marriage is opposed by the Christian ideology. The reason for this, I believe, is that a certain act act male homosexuals can engage in is a sin. It is from this that the Christian ideology is repulsed. Voting to legalize gay marriage would condone this sin, and so the ideology instructs its followers not to vote to legalize it. Now, while I believe the above statement is the underlying cause for the ideology's position, a different argument is usually used. The Bible defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and so any unconventional marriage would be an affront to God, a sin. On this perfectly legitimate ground, the ideology advises its followers not to vote in favor of gay marriage. While this new statement is used, and rightly so, it raises the question that perhaps all our laws shouldn't be based on the Bible, as that would make us a theocracy. So, the ideology poses arguments about how our country is set up to reward couples for having children, and that people will get married just for the benefits, which will in some way hurt our economy. I don't really know much about this argument, as it smells faintly of beaurocratic bullcrap to me. Now, I'm here to present an alternate position on the issue. A big part of Christianity is recognizing that everyone sins. Homosexuality is a sin, and its magnitude makes it no more or less than any other. The reason for this is that any sin means death. Disallowing gay marriage, I believe, will do little to stop people from being gay. It will, however, keep gay people from having faith in God. When an ideology oppresses a group, that group usually does not flock to follow that ideology. I sin and you sin, but our sins are not politically important enough to have us discriminated against, and thus forced away from God. I've used the words oppressed and discriminated here, and you may not like them, so I'd better explain them. I don't have the Bible memorized, but I do believe Jesus said something along the lines of, "Let he who is sinless cast the first stone." To me, it seems that Jesus is saying that we are all sinners, and have no right to cast stones against other sinners. In this case, the stones represent pain and death. While homosexuals are not likely to die from not being able to be married (unless you think legalizing gay marriage would increase the monogomy rate, and thus decrease the risk of contracting fatal STD's), the inability to commit themselves to each other through marriage hurts them emotionally. So, I think that while Jesus would not approve of gay marriage, he would not attack it as the Christian ideology has. As a great lover of metaphors, I can't resist including one. Back in the good old days of ancient democratic Athens, votes were cast using colored stones. I think a white stone meant one stood in favor of some law, while a black stone stood against. Our voting is much like this casting of stones, as we pride ourselves on being a democratic republic. To cast a stone against gay marriage is to be the sinner who casts a stone at another sinner in Jesus' presence. To cast a vote against gay marriage is to be the sinner acting as if he/she were sinless. Remember, allowing gay marriage will cause no harm, only allow other sinners like ourselves to live happier lives, and it may help to bring homosexuals to God. If any homosexuals read this, I hope you are not offended. Every single Christian, including myself, sins. Some sins we deny, because we do not feel they are sins. However, we ask God to forgive us for all our sins, even the ones we cannot bring ourselves to recognize. You may feel that homosexuality is not a sin, and this is absolutely fine, because it does not set you apart from any other Christian who lives in God's eyes.[/size]

[size=2]I peed on the picnic table because my friends told me to. They wanted to watch, but I made them drive away first before I let it out.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I obey authority very much. I always do what I'm told, and if an authority figure tries to impress his/her opinion on me, I accept it at face value. If any of [i]you[/i] managed to convince me I should follow you, I would probably agree with you about everything, and do anything in my power to advance your own arguments.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]As a counter to the authority thing, I am very persuasive when I need to be. I may royally suck at it here, but in real life, I could be a cult leader if I wanted to.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]It's been very nice reading about you guys. Hearing your own virtues and vices has helped me to further reflect on my own.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Gosh, what's with all the girls? I thought [i]they[/i] were the one's that were supposed to be open about themselves![/size]

[size=2]First of all, since you said 'any carers she ever has', I believe you mean 3 months old, not nine years old. Second of all, the parents themselves are concerned about abuse by her caregivers, as can be seen in my second quote. They also voiced their concern earlier in the blog, saying that sexual abuse of and subsequent impregnation of the mentally disabled is common. Thirdly, she will not always have an underdeveloped vagina. I don't know exactly what effect the hormones will have on her, but won't the estrogen treatment speed up her vagina's maturation?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]This is why I'm concerned. Very soon, she will have a fully developed vagina due to the hormone treatments, and since she has had a hysterectomy, it will be much easier to hide abuse.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Now, I am almost positive you won't like what I'm going to say next. I want you to know that I very, VERY much hope I am completely and utterly wrong in this.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]We have a girl with no breasts, will always be small in stature, cannot become pregnant, cannot communicate, and will have a fully developed vagina.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]A side effect of the treatment is that she has become the perfect sexual object for a pedophile's attentions. Oh please God, let me be horribly wrong.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Excuse me while I go vomit (not really, but almost).[/size]

[font=Tahoma][size=2]Hello![/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I have some information I haven't seen here, so I'll add it.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][url="http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/blog/"]The parents' blog[/url][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I found a couple things from their own words that I found interesting.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][quote=The Parents][/size] [size=2]In early 2004 when Ashley was six and a half years old, we observed signs of early puberty.[/quote][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]This is what prompted the parents to develop and pursue the treatment Ashley was provided. The treatments were performed, as you know, in July of 2004. One could say that the origin of the idea was sexual in nature. Sexual development prompted the surgery.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][quote=The Parents][/size] [size=2]3-[font=Tahoma] [/font]Large breasts could ?sexualize? Ashley towards her caregiver, especially when they are touched while she is being moved or handled, inviting the possibility of abuse.[/quote][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The parents say that the breast bud removal was performed in part to desexualize their daughter.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][Quote=The Parents][/size] [size=2]Furthermore, ?sterilization? is a side effect of the ?Ashley Treatment? and not its intent.[/quote][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Which is followed by...(when talking about the hysterectomy)[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][Quote=The Parents][/size] [size=2]Additional and incidental benefits include avoiding any possibility of pregnancy.[/quote][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Many people on this thread have said that their decision was not in any way sexually related, when the parents themselves say that it is.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]1. Sexual development prompted the surgery.[/size] [size=2]2. The breast bud removal was performed to desexualize Ashley, possibly preventing abuse.[/size] [size=2]3. The hysterectomy was performed in part to prevent Ashley from being sexually abused and impregnated.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]There is one thing that truly concerns me, though. If Ashley is sexually violated by a caregiver now, she will not become pregnant, thereby eliminating the best possible evidence of sexual abuse. If this is such a large concern of theirs (and it seems to be, by their own words), why would they make it so much more difficult for there to be evidence of sexual abuse?[/size] [size=2][/size]

[size=2][Quote=The Article][/size] The committee ruled in his favour and a combined hysterectomy, breast-bud removal and appendectomy (lest it rupture at some later stage and cause pain) was carried out in July 2004.[/Quote] [size=2]This was done 2 and a half years ago, so it's hardly new.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]We should quit trying to make the other person see our way? I've already eliminated the argument that her breasts were sure to become large and cause her a problem in that manner, and that all happened [i]today[/i]. In order for a debate to be old, it generally has to remain unchanged for a significant period of time. The whole thing has changed in a day, Aaryanna. Just because you're a moderator and you don't like me doesn't mean every thread I try to talk on should be closed.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Now, the reason her breast buds were removed is that it would let her lie down in more comfortable positions.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Why did the parents have her breast buds removed, rather than have her breast size reduced if/when they become uncomfortable for her?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The solid ground the parents stood on was that genetically, she would have huge breasts that would be difficult for her to support. That's vanished between their feet, and now they're teetering over the edge, relying on an extremely pre-emptive procedure to let their daughter keep her most comfortable lying positions.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Your position isn't disgusting. You've done absolutely nothing wrong. I understand completely where you are coming from. You believe the parents did the best thing for their daughter, and you accept their arguments in support of the procedure. If I weren't here to oppose those arguments, there would be no discussion at all. There would only be the observation that an operation was performed 2 and a half years ago, and nobody has anything wrong with it.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Booooring.[/size]

[size=2]Deep down, everyone loves to talk about themselves, and if people are interesting enough, listen to others talk about themselves.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Nobody, however, only wants to brag, and nobody wants to listen to other people only talk about how great they are.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, here it is. Brag about yourself, but be honest. Let us know everything you love about yourself, and why we should all love you.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]But, when you're done with that, tell us what a horrible person you are. Give us your worst flaws. Open yourself up and let it out, if you've got the guts.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'll go first.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'm smart, and I don't mean above average smart, I mean ridiculously smart. Straight A's smart. I have an amazing memory, but I don't rely on memorization. It's very, very easy for me to understand anything someone teaches me. Have you ever been in a class, and just not understood something? Don't get it? I get everything, everytime, all the time. I've probably done better than you did in school and/or college, and I'm probably still doing better than you. I got an A in every single class in high school, except for ONE A- in a class called Parent and Child development. I graduated salutatorian with a 3.994 cumulative GPA. I got a 30 composite on the ACT. The individual scores were 33 english, 32 reading, 30 math, and 25 science reasoning. I took the Spanish AP test as a junior, and got a 4. The only other person who got a 4 graduated valedictorian that year. Almost everyone who took it my senior year got a 2 or 1 (failing grades). I got a 5 on the AP Biology test, and a 4 on AP English. I took the right kinds of classes, and get a SMART (acronym, not my capitalization) grant of 4,000 dollars a year for each of my last two years in college. I'm a second term junior, and my overall GPA is just over 3.9. The GPA of my major is something over 3.96. My major is Cell and Molecular Biology (pretty impressive sounding, huh?). I'm in a program now that will streamline the transition to grad school, and I expect to get my PhD. Since nothing has ever really been difficult for me, I expect it to be a piece of cake.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Besides that, I'm actually very generous.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Now that you've skipped over all that, it's time for the fun part.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I really, really like talking about myself, but I don't get many opportunities because it's not socially acceptable to brag. I've got a big 'old gut, and probably weigh in the neighborhood of 190-200 lbs at 5'10', so I'm overweight. I like to be a jackass sometimes, and can really piss people off. I'm extremely lazy. I can be a real crybaby if I don't get my way (yes, a 20-year old crybaby). I'm borderline socially retarded, and suck very much at making and keeping friends. I'm a huge nerd (which you might not think is a flaw, but it is socially). I was extremely excited to get my Nintendo Wii, and I have spent more money on video/computer games/accessories than anything else. I've got a pretty sick mind that I can hide pretty well, and that I won't elaborate on here. I pee in the stalls even if all the urinals are open. I don't cut my toenails until they get disgustingly long. My skin is reddish/orange and rough around my feet, and now on my knuckles a little, and I have absolutely no idea why, but it's probably kind of gross. I pick my nose and wipe boogers all over the place. I don't shave or shower if I don't have to go to a school/family/social function. I've probably gone as long as a week, and have gotten pretty gross. When I had gym class in high school, I NEVER washed my gym clothes, and they eventually smelled like mushrooms. I've peed on a public picnic table. I really, really hope it rained before someone tried to eat off it. If it isn't obvious already, I'm as conceited and full of myself as it is possible to be.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Well, I'm drawing a blank, so that's it for now. Feel free to tell me what a sick weirdo I am, or post something about yourself. I do hope this gets interesting.[/size]

[size=2]DeadSeraphim, we weren't discussing the pain associated with periods. I [i]know[/i] that there is pain involved with them.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]She doesn't have to smack her arm on something, all she needs to do is stick it out as someone moves her past a wall or door to hurt herself.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, the reason for the breast bud removal procedure was that she [i]might[/i] be less comfortable with breasts? It's not okay for her favorite positions to change, you have to cut her open and prevent [i]possible discomfort[/i]?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]If you're not going to argue it anymore, it's not because I refuse to listen to reason, it's because the argument for removing her breast buds is becoming weaker and weaker.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The breast bud removal is key to my argument. The time when it was performed (before breasts developed), and the lack of scientific ground to stand on open the door to exploring the parents' decision. This could help you understand why the [i]majority[/i] of the public AND scientists disagree with the parents' decision.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]As it is now, I stand virtually alone, the only representative of the side that believes the parents have done something in the least bit wrong.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size]

[size=2]DeadSeraphim,[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]She'd had her breast buds for 9 years, and it might have been nice to see her choose new lying positions in response to her changing body. Who's to say it would've been less comfortable? She may have even been more comfortable with breasts.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]They didn't talk about her arms and legs, because you just don't talk about removing a little girl's arms and legs. That's a big step from removing breasts and a uterus. If she has as much control over them as a three month old, however, those nine-year old limbs have probably struck objects near her, and probably have kicked and flailed at her parents, too. Hell, I with my fully developed motor skills still bang into things, and I can control them. They push her around, right? Does she ever move her arms or legs, hitting walls or tables? I think it's a reasonable assumption.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]That's just pain that she'll have to deal with, right?[/size] [size=2][/size]

[QUOTE=Retribution][size=1]Because she's still a human. As a human, her brain (I'm assuming) understands her arms and legs. Not on a complex level that allows motor skills to develop, but those limbs are 'hooked up' to her brain (pardon the crude language). Breasts, on the other hand, are outside the realm of a three month old's understanding. And at some level, you've got to draw the line somewhere. lol[/size][/QUOTE][size=2]Well, she can't even support her head, which I believe is a gross motor skill. If she hasn't developed gross motor skills, then her brain's understanding of her arms and legs is probably limited to uncontrollable movement to get attention. Her breasts, on the other hand, just sit there being breasts. She doesn't need to think about them or worry about them. Unless they were to become extremely large, they would never have caused her pain, and then, they could have been reduced in size.[/size] [size=2]I really, truly think that they were not removed as a matter of pain prevention. That is an excuse, and probably a part of why scientists everywhere condemn the operation.[/size] [size=2]I think, and you may disagree if you like, that they were removed simply because the parents didn't want her to have breasts.[/size] [size=2]EDIT: Retribution, would you care to discuss why the line is drawn at removing uteruses (uteri?) and breasts?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]EDITEDIT: You make it sound as if they gave her some drug to stop her breasts from growing, when they did remove something that was already there (breast buds). They were just smaller.[/size]

[size=2]I have (hopefully) shown that any woman's breast size is completely unpredictable. It is entirely possible that she would have developed very small breasts. We will never know if it would have become a problem, because she will now never grow breasts. The argument that breast size is predictable [i]must[/i] be coupled with the argument that height is predictable, because they follow [u]the same[/u] method of genetic inheritance. There is [u]no[/u] guarantee that her breasts would have [i]ever[/i] become a problem. There must, therefore, be a different reason for the breast bud removal.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I wonder if the girl's flailing of her arms and legs ever results in injury. She is in a nine-year old's body, which is rather large. How ever much it hurts her to uncontrollably move her limbs and strike objects, however, there is no reason to remove her arms and legs.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The question is...[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][i]Why[/i] remove the breast buds, and not the arms and legs, which have much more potential for causing her pain?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]kalon,[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]That last part of your post struck me as interesting. The parents want her to be as functional as possible. Since they stunted her growth, it is also important that she be easy to move around. If her arms and legs will never be able to function (grabbing things, walking), and they make it more difficult to move her around, why are they still there? Once they're gone, the girl will not be able to understand that they were ever there. Removing them will not harm her, and would be in line with the parents' interests (making her easier to move around).[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Why is it okay to remove her breasts and uterus, but not her arms and legs?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I truly hope [i]someone[/i] can see what I'm getting at, as it would open the discussion to new and different directions that would be very interesting to explore (and all [i]very[/i] related to what was done to the girl, and thus the topic in itself).[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Please, someone humor me.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size]

[quote name='Aaryanna][color=teal']No he's completely wrong.[/color][/quote] [size=2]Would you care to elaborate on how I'm wrong, seeing as I agree with everything you've said? I find it insulting and disrespectful to be dismissed without any sort of explanation. Also, I would honestly like to know what you think is wrong with what I said.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Thanks,[/size]

[size=2]Retribution,[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Your argument is that menstruation is an unnecessary bodily function that will make the girl's life more difficult, and make it more difficult for her parents to take care of her. Her breasts would have been extra weight, and since she has no use for them, there is no harm in removing them.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, this girl has no use for her uterus, and no use for her breasts, so why not remove them?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]What else, Retribution, does the girl not have a use for? Her arms and legs are completely useless, she cannot use them in any way, and they weigh much more than her breasts ever would have. If she has trouble moving them, she can develop bedsores from being left in one place too long. They are only a burden to her.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Tell me why, Retribution, they removed only the uterus and breast buds.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]indifference,[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The only thing I said that could be loosely interpreted as calling someone 'stupid' was my observation that nobody here has a useful understanding of the genetics involved. I did what I could to explain what was going on, and Retribution caught on well enough. He's accepted that the girl may not have developed gigantic breasts, which led to my new argument above.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Which reminds me, Retribution, why do you call for a thread to be closed that continues to generate intelligent, if heated, discussion?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size]

[QUOTE=Allamorph][font=Arial]The [u]issue[/u] everyone is having is the [u]disease[/u] part of your assertion. You're misunderstanding our points, and you're getting uppity about it for no reason. [/QUOTE] [size=2]So you have a problem with me saying that menstruation is treated like a disease? I'll keep it really simple for you. They had a hysterectomy performed on their daughter because having a functional uterus leads to monthly pain and bleeding. Let's see if this is in any way related to disease.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]1. Symptoms- monthly pain and bleeding.[/size] [size=2]2. Disease name- menstruation.[/size] [size=2]3. Cure- hysterectomy.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Hysterectomies are performed to treat a number of diseases, as can be easily found [url="http://www.4woman.gov/faq/hysterectomy.htm"]here[/url]. Hysterectomies are not done for any reason other than to treat a disease. If the disease isn't menstruation, my new friend, then what disease did the parents intend to cure/prevent?[/size] [size=2][/size] [QUOTE=Allamorph] Yes. I do. Remember, the women on [i]both sides of Ashley's family[/i] have a history of this trait. Now, the Y chromosome is the dominant one in the male genes, suppressing the female alleles on the X chromosome that would express/trigger feminine characteristics/body parts. The man still has the alleles from his mother that contain that trait, and, by virtue of Ashley being a girl (XX necessary), he passed those feminine traits on to his daughter. If they had stated that the women on only [i]one[/i] side of her family had a buxom history, then I would agree with you. But the genes were present on [i]both[/i] sides, and so what have we. [/QUOTE] [size=2]You reveal yourself to have a weak understanding of genetics. Let me help you out, here. Breast development is a sex-limited trait, which means that even though men have genes for breast size (just as many as women), they will not develop breasts. If you would like proof, you may research androgen insufficiency. In my genetics class, we learned about sexual disorders, and if a male has androgen insufficiency, which affects testosterone receptors, he will develop female secondary sex characteristics, namely a (generally shallow) vagina, and breasts. We were shown a picture of an XY male, and he had very large, full breasts.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]You seem to have the misconception that all sex-limited traits are X(or Y)-linked, when in fact breast size is autosomal, which means the genes for breast size are on other chromosomes than the sex ones.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]In order to understand my point, you need to also understand multiple alleles. There are two types of traits. Traits are either continuous, or discrete. Discrete traits are those such as whether one has a widow's peak or not, attached/unattached earlobes, or the ability to curl one's tongue. You either have it, or you don't. Other traits, such as height and breast size, have a wide range of continuous values, and it has been found that there are many, many genes that govern continuous traits, and they all contribute. Discrete traits tend to have only one gene that governs them.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, why can you not predict the breast size of a child? The same reason you cannot accurately predict her height. Multiply allelic traits are in their nature unpredictable, due to the many variables involved in the final phenotypic trait. The girl's mother can give any number of her breast-size genes to her daughter, and if her breasts are gigantic, which means she has many genes with two active alleles, she can [i]at most[/i] give her daughter half of those genes, and half of the breast size. Her father, even though large breasts run in his family, has a completely unknown number of active alleles to give her daughter. It is quite possible that he has very few at all. Again, since there are so many different genes involved, it's unpredictable.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The parents' decision to perform a breast bud removal on their daughter on the assumption that she [u]would definitely[/u] develop large breasts is at the very least misinformed. If they had consulted any geneticist on the issue, they could have told them this much. Perhaps they did, and ignored it. Perhaps they didn't want to seek out any information that could contradict their plans. If genetics didn't play a large role in their decision to remove her breast buds, then what caused them to have the operation done?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I should have written this all out before, and I apologize. I saw that they removed breast buds from a child, and I [i]knew[/i] that the decision was not based on genetics. This is where my own interpretation of the reason behind the parents' decision comes from. If you would like to argue the genetics further, I would be more than happy to teach you more about it.[/size] [QUOTE=Allamorph] Her mind is permanently halted at the stage of development equivalent to a three month old baby. She cannot progress mentally. At all. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, and despite the age of her body, she is still three months old. She'll be a three month old forever. She is also [i]their[/i] three month old. Thus: [/QUOTE] [size=2]I know all this. They changed the body to conform to the mind. Sex change operations and plastic surgery are all the rage, and very interesting. Just watch Nip/Tuck. The problem is that whatever the diagnosis of her condition, this child has a living brain, and therefore has the potential to develop if some treatment is discovered. However unlikely, that [i]potential[/i] exists. We both know what potentials for the child exist no longer.[/size] [QUOTE=Allamorph] I know I've said this before, but you just sound juvenile and inexperienced, like you haven't spent hours thinking about your arguments, analyzing them, looking for flaws/fallacies, determining whether they came from human error or lack of information or otherwise.[/font][/QUOTE] [size=2]Why should I spend all that time on something in which I have only a passing interest? I've stated my ideas, been yelled at and called stupid, and I've replied. I find this all very interesting, and I can't wait for you to have a basic enough grip on the scientific issues to respond intelligently.[/size]

[font=Tahoma][size=2]Oh dear, what have I gotten myself into? From what I've read, I'm standing with the [i]majority[/i] here, though not on the forums.[/size][/font] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Retribution, whether a cure is developed or not is a matter of speculation. What is not speculation, however, is that a cure is no longer going to give this girl a normal life. She has zero potential for that, now. I'm not even sure if it would be a good thing to cure her, forcing her to live in her small, breastless, sexless body. If you've read The Vampire Chronicles, Anne Rice delves into the idea with Claudia. I don't reference it as some fact to make my point better, rather as something interesting to consider.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]As for menstruation, I know you don't want to hear about it, but there's more to be said. A large part of our society was taken from the Bible, which I think is the source of the shame and dirtiness associated with menstruation. When you're menstruating, you're unclean. When you're giving birth, you're unclean. I've read enough literature on this part of our society to know it, and there's nothing I can put here to make you see it for yourselves. It's one of the things from the old testament that stuck with us.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]You want genetics? Since breast size is a continous trait (there are no discrete values), it most likely stems from multiple alleles. Alleles are inherited from the mother and the father. The father doesn't express breast size phenotypically, so very little can be inferred about his genotype. So, we have lots of active alleles from the mother, and an unknowable number from the father. It's entirely possible for the daughter to have breasts half the size of her mother's. It's also possible for them to be larger than her mother's. With only one phenotype to look at for a continuous trait, the phenotype of the children is very unpredictable. Before you say I'm full of ****, try actually [i]taking[/i] genetics.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I refuse to take a completely logical stance on what was done. Logic is what the parents used to justify their actions, and that seems to be what is valued here. I surely value logic, but I think there's something deeper going on here.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Dagger, you've got a good point. It would be easier to take care of her if she were smaller and had less bodily functions to deal with. When I weigh that against the hope of my (theoretical) 9 year old daughter having a chance to someday live a normal life, I would choose to take the more difficult path for both of us. She could have 60 or 70 years left to be healed, and I've got a lot of patience.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]As for your counterexample to the public bleeding, public ejaculation isn't so much a problem, and is not something natural or unavoidable [i]in public[/i]. Being a woman, experiencing a normal bodily function for a week, however, is natural and unavoidable. There isn't enough similarity between the two situations to draw a reasonable comparison.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Aaryanna, you're absolutely correct in that I am stating my opinion. My opinion stems from the projection of myself into the situation. For those of you who say I don't empathize with the parents, I do. I just don't agree with them. They made a radical choice, and I cannot believe they did it completely out of logic. I'll tell you what they don't want to say.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]"We don't want people looking at our daughter like a woman! She's our baby, only 3 months old! I can't stand the thought that some man will walk by and be attracted to her somehow. It's sickening! I don't want people to have that chance. She's going to be our baby forever, and we won't have to deal with people looking at her like she's anything but."[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Oh yes, I've put myself in their shoes. Perhaps you should really try them on.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I don't have time to get to you now, Allamorph, but I must ask one thing. How old are you to be calling me a child?[/size]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']The probability that a cure will be found is low enough that it was reasonable to assume that it would not exist within this girl's lifetime. Do keep in mind that the brain is the organ of the body we know least about, and also happens to be the most intricate part of us as well. Our primitive and clumsy knowledge pertaining to the brain could not feasibly 'repair' her brain so that it developed normally. I would liken your stance to keeping a comatose and brain-dead patient alive under the supposition that "there might be a cure that can reverse this". You're being ridiculous.[size=2][/quote][/size][/size] [size=1][size=2][/size][/size] [size=1][size=2]When the Human Genome Project was started, it was estimated to take a significant amount of time, 250 years being a reasonable idea. How long ago was it that people died of tons of diseases because there was no such thing as vaccines or antibiotics? I'd say it's been about of lifetime, and the breakthroughs come faster and faster. I do not share your position that cures are hopeless and impossible. I intend to eliminate those sentiments about some diseases myself. As for your 'likening', you've omitted a couple important details. It costs a ridiculous amount of money to keep a brain-dead patient alive. It costs an infinitessimal fraction of that money to allow a healthy female human body to perform its natural functions. Also, the girl has brain activity, and the cause of what limits her development is unknown. I'm having trouble coming up with a worse example to describe my 'ridiculous' notions.[/size] [QUOTE=Retribution] It's a remedy not because of the shame it induces, but because of the pain it would inflict on what is essentially a three month old child. Monthly. It's not a disease, it's the fact that menstrual cramps are apparently excruciatingly painful, and it just wouldn't be fair to make a three month old child go through that sort of [relatively] agony monthly. There was no part of the article that even hinted that menstruation was a disease or state of dirtiness, please, stop trying to make it into something it's not.[/QUOTE] [size=2]The pain and length of menstruation varies from person to person. If pain is exhibited (3 month olds can let people know they're in pain), one can take ibuprofen, a muscle relaxer, to lessen the pain. Now for that last part, about it not talking about menstruation as a disease in the article. Come on. We're interpreting the choices made, and sometimes, you need to read between the lines. This isn't about what is or isn't written in the article, it's about what was done to the girl.[/size] [QUOTE=Retribution] Listen to what you just said. Breast development, which in her family apparently, is very large breasts. This would take away her favorite laying positions, snuggling positions, and would only be a hindrance to [i]her personal comfort.[/i] No, I would posit that her becoming sexually viable did not play a significant (if at all) role in the parent's decision. They based their decision on what would be best for their daughter, and what would allow for them to make their daughter's life more comfortable.[/QUOTE] [size=2]You cannot successfully predict breast size before breasts grow. I can't even believe you're arguing for this! What do you think was going to happen? Are her breasts going to blow up overnight like a peep heated up in a microwave? If they become too large, one can get breast reduction surgery. No, they didn't want to wait to see if it would ever actually become a problem. They didn't want their child, who THEY want to always be a child, to develop breasts, ever.[/size] [QUOTE=Retribution] It's only shameful for those who refuse to empathize. What [i]your[/i] position stands for is essentially causing a three month year old girl more physical discomfort and her parents more difficulty in taking care of her. The result is caretaking of inferior quality when compared to if she had the operation.[/size][/QUOTE] [size=2]The parents were ashamed of their daughter becoming a woman, so they sought scientific and moral support for their decision to permanently keep her from doing so. If you want to buy it, fine, but it makes me want to vomit. I don't empathize with monsters who mutilate their children. The only part the girl's physical discomfort plays into the parents' decision is as an excuse for them to avoid their own discomfort with their brain-damaged daughter developing secondary sexual characterisitcs.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Disgusting.[/size]

[QUOTE=indifference][color=darkred]That still implies that being unknown somehow makes the answer easier. When the truth is that many diseases went for decades even centuries of killing people even though the cure was simple and something that did not exist in current medical knowledge. Unknown does not=easier. It simply appears easier since we haven?t a clue so the assumption is that the cure will be simple once it is found. I think the problem here is semantics in regards to what each of us are saying and I?ll leave it at that. In that case our society is bringing all of us up to be ashamed of our bodies as we regularly go to the doctor and take remedies to treat all sorts of pain. It?s not an issue of shame but one of comfort. And thinking it is upbringing that conditions a woman to feel pain is one of the most ignorant things I?ve ever heard anyone say about menstruation. It would only be a curse to someone who couldn?t learn what was happening and understand why they felt pain. Much in the same way you were saying surgery would expose them to pain they wouldn?t understand. There is no shame in having a menstruation cycle, I?m not even sure where your notion that there is came from or how it?s even relevant to this discussion. [/color][/QUOTE] [size=2]It's not so much an issue of semantics as it is of understanding. Knowing the cause of a disease, and knowing that no cure exists can lead to hopelessness. When less is known, there is more room for hope. More hope doesn't mean a cure will be easier to find, it only makes it easier for one to believe that a cure will be found.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Menstruation is associated with shame. I wish it weren't so, but it's true. Are you calling the procedures performed on the young girl a [i]remedy[/i]? You're serving to perpetuate the notion that development into a woman is a disease.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]As for your last statement, where you don't know where the notion came from, I have a question. Have you ever watched t.v.? If you have, then you've seen commercials for 'feminine hygiene products'. This seemingly innocuous name implies that during menstruation, a woman is dirty. Every product is designed to hide the illness, so a woman can be out in public, happy, hiding her monthly disease from the world. Can you honestly tell me that if a woman on her period happened to be wearing white pants, and blood was showing, that she would not be ashamed? Would it not be equivalent to releasing one's bowels or urinating on oneself in public?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]This is a natural, unavoidable (except through the drastic measures performed on this girl) part of being a woman, and it is so stigmatized that you take it completely for granted![/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]How is this relevant to the discussion? The newsworthy part of this story involves ridding a young girl of menstruation, breast development, and growth. Do you think that the parents' unwillingness to see their mentally deficient daughter develop into a sexually viable human being didn't play a part in their decision?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The decision reeks of shame.[/size]

[QUOTE=indifference][color=darkred]Make up your mind, first you say knowing the cause and yet not knowing how to cure it makes it more hopeless. And yet in the end you have to know what is wrong to even begin to fix the problem. That whole statement was a mass of contradictions. How wonderful the world would be if a break through as you put it would be in a field that needs it or that we feel is due for one. Or how about some statistics to back your idea that people are sprouting left and right to study the brain, it?s usually a good idea not to go by what seems to be a trend when it may not actually be one. Perhaps reading every post might give you better insight as to why people agree with the parents. It?s a nice sentiment, but flawed to think you could truly decide now what you would actually do in such a situation. We can hope that we would choose a certain path, but in the end only experience will tell the tale. As opposed to this: I don?t recall ever hearing of a surgery that took over four years to recover from. And yes for some women that time of the month is as painful as recovering from surgery is. [/color][/QUOTE] [size=2]My statement was not so much a mass of contradictions as your reply is a mass of misunderstandings. With the cause of static encephalopathy as yet unknown, there is the chance that the cure exists (or would be easy to find), because the true cause to the disease is in someway related to some other disease we have already extensively studied. If the cause were known AND it was not related to anything that exists in medical knowledge, then it would be even more difficult to cure the disease.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'll state my point again to see if it gets through. The more that is not known about the disease, the better chance it has of being related to current medical knowledge. That potential still exists, and it would not exist if the cause were known, and no previous research was found to be related to it.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]You want statistics? I'm sorry, but I've only got personal experience. I'm in college, and here there are many students learning about brains. There are many seminars given by professors and former students that relate to brains, even if they're not all human. Hell, I even have to deal with brains in my own research, and it's hardly my area of expertise. Statistics can be played with to give weight to someone's efforts, and so I trust my own experience more.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I have my own personal values, and they are subject to as much change as a mountain. Sure, an earthquake could shake them, but it's very likely that they will remain largely unchanged.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]As for ridding their daughter of the pain of menstruation...[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Our society has been made to cause women to be ashamed of their bodies, especially menstruation. I myself know pain, even if not so often as women do, but I suspect much of that pain is a result of their upbringing. Perpetuating the idea that the parents have done good by ridding their daughter of the monthly curse only serves to further women's shame of their own bodies.[/size]

[size=2]Ok, I'll take a shot in the dark here. Your mom and dad fight about you. Your father supports you (perhaps unjustly), and your mother can't stop talking about what a problem you are. You are the object of their fights, but only on the surface. Deep down, they're fighting with each other, and they can't come to a compromise as to what to do with you. Your mom got particularly riled up one day, and decided to blame it all on you. Now, unless your mother is a coldhearted ***** who shouldn't have ever had children, she feels like **** for what she's said. Knowing this, do what you think is appropriate, unless you're a heartless bastard yourself. Go give her a hug and forgive her, and tell her you know she didn't mean what she said. If you're honest and show that you care, she should let up. If she still feels that you're the problem, then she should probably leave, because no child (you) deserves to grow up in an environment like that, even if you are a nasty little ****.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Now, as for you. Even though your dad supports you and doesn't want to punish you, take some responsibility for your actions. It's time to grow up and stop "making mistakes". They're not mistakes, they're stupid decisions, and you need to start making some smart ones.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]My parents got into a lot of fights about my brother, the troublemaker. I'm sure they even came close to breaking up, but I don't think they ever blamed it on him. The best thing my brother could have done was to stop being a complete asshole all the time, but that didn't happen, and my parents reconciled their differences. If you really want to keep your family together, quit being such an *** (and you know you are one).[/size]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]The girl has static encephalopathy. This basically means she has an problem with her brain, with no apparent cause (it happened in the womb), which keeps her at a 3 month old permanently. I'm sorry Adahn, but science can only create cures when they know the disease - and there is absolutely [i]no indication[/i] of what keeps Ashley trapped as a 3 month old mentally normally. All the cures in the world won't help if they don't know what's wrong.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote] [size=2]Actually, not knowing the cause to the disease makes it much more likely there could be a cure. Why? Because if you know the cause of the disease and you have no idea how to cure it, it is that much more hopeless. If the cause were to be found, it's just as likely that a cure will be easy to find as it will be difficult.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I've just read up on static encephalopathy, and all it really means is brain damage, and the cause is usually unknown. It seems to me that people are sprouting up left and right trying to learn about brains, and if any area of medicine is due for a breakthrough, it's that.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I didn't read every post, but I would like to pose a question. If you had a nine-year old daughter with static encephalopathy keeping her mentally at 3 months old, what would you do, and why?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I would let her grow and develop normally, and I would also redirect my research towards finding a cure for her. I would hope that some change would be brought about in her brain by going through puberty, and if not, I would do everything in my power to restore brain function.[/size] [size=2]I understand that she may never be able to think, but she can still taste, touch, smell, and see. I would surround her with nice things and bombard her senses. Just because she's only got a three-month old mind doesn't mean she can't be happy. The last thing I would do would be to put her through a painful, desensitizing surgery. She's already living a shadow of a life. Why should I want to make it darker?[/size] [size=2][/size]

[size=2]If you accept the conclusion that the girl's brain will never develop more than it has now, then the parent's decision is quite practical and logical.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]However, there is always the possibility of a cure. If this disorder has a name, is its cause known? Has it been studied? It seems to affect the brain, and it is difficult to get drugs past the blood-brain barrier, but that doesn't mean it will always be impossible.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Have children like this been allowed to age to adulthood? Perhaps puberty and its physiological changes would provide some way for the girl's brain to gain function.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Are you aware that the (normal) brain retains its ability to learn actively until one approaches death? There are decades of medical advancements to be made, and this girl has had irreversible procedures performed on her.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The parents have made the logical and practical decision to give up on their daughter, and if some treatment becomes available, they will see the monstrous decision they have made for what it truly is.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]For all of you you have faith in the scientists' and doctors' "diagnosis" of the girl NEVER being able to develop, I hope that you understand one thing. Science always has been, is, and always will be FALLIBLE.[/size]

[size=2]Thanks for the comments, and I'll try to clarify what I intended to happen.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Kane wakes up confused, and has a feeling that something horrible has just happened. When he feels his heart racing, for a moment he remembers his dream completely. This includes what he saw when he touched the black sphere. However, what he saw was so horrible that his mind blocks it out, feeling that such knowledge would overwhelm and even possibly destroy Kane's mind.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]So, he lies down and recalls most of the dream, but has completely forgotten what happened after he touched the sphere. That part of his memory has been blocked off, but as the story continues, he will begin to recall what he saw. I wanted it to be subtle, but if it's [i]too[/i] subtle, perhaps you have a suggestion as to how I could modify it?[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I'll post more of the story after I finish the first chapter, modifying this post if necessary.[/size]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Hello! This can probably stand alone as a short story, but I intend to continue it, and I may post updates here, or create a new thread if the rating of what is written changes.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Kane opened his eyes. It was still dark, and the light of the moon shining through his window blinded him for a moment. He squinted, and after his eyes adjusted to the darkness, he was surprised to see that nothing was wrong. ?Why should anything be wrong?? he thought to himself. Kane then noticed that his heart was trying to beat its way out of his chest. Putting his hand over it, he tried to concentrate on what, if anything, had just happened. Suddenly, his memory returned, and he was seized with terror. However, as soon as those memories came to him, they were gone, and his fear rapidly dissipated. Left with a strange sense of calm, Kane lied back down on his bed and had no trouble recalling his dream.[/size][/font] [size=3][font=Times New Roman]Kane stood in a small white room with a domed ceiling. Looking around, he noticed that there were no obvious exits, and panic began to rise in him. It was then that he noticed the pedestals, each with a different colored orb sitting atop it. There were six, and he felt compelled to approach them. His footsteps strangely made no sound, and barely a moment passed before he stood before the first orb. It was deep red, and though it sat motionless, Kane could sense that it [i]raged[/i]. As he stood mesmerized by the orb, something within it flickered faintly.[/font][/size] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]As Kane focused, he could somehow see within the orb. A small flame was burning within it, and warmth emanated from it, warming Kane. As he stood there in comfort, the flame began to grow. Some invisible fuel was feeding it, and it was now the size of a campfire, rather than a burning candle. The fire continued to grow, and it soon seemed to be consuming an entire forest. The heat from the orb intensified, and Kane backed away. As he moved farther from the raging sphere, its heat and image no longer seemed intense. Kane thought he could see the whole world enveloped in flame before the orb sat lifeless again, just a red ball.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Wonderingly, Kane walked towards the next pedestal, with a brilliant blue sphere set upon it. Immediately, a sense of coolness and calm washed over him. This orb reminded him of sitting at the beach, watching the waves smoothly move towards the shore, and gently recede. Soon, the waves grew larger, no longer lapping the shore, but now attacking it. In the distance, Kane saw an enormous wave coming. Afraid of being washed away, Kane turned and ran from the orb, and out of the corner of his eye, the orb seemed to be a whole world drowned in water, before it too lost energy and definition.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]Although Kane could now sense some sinister aspect to these objects, he moved the next orb, this one of the purest emerald green. Within the orb, rolling hills seemed to spread out in all directions, covered in soft, inviting grass. Kane felt so relaxed by the scenery in the orb, that he could not sense the hills were no longer rolling in a stationary manner. The ground began to slowly undulate, and small tears appeared across the countryside. As Kane snapped out of his reverie, the land was rent with fissures, spreading out in all directions. Kane quickly backed away from the violent sphere, and he saw torrents of earth being hurtled in all directions before the image faded away, leaving the calm, yet sinister object behind.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]So far, Kane had simply been observing these miraculous objects, and reacting to them. Even though he was extremely curious, he stopped to think before going to the next orb. If this is a dream, why is it so vivid? Why does it seem so real? What are these orbs, and what is their significance? ?Fire, water, earth?? Kane said, thinking aloud. Suddenly, he understood. These must be the four elements! Fire, water, earth and air he knew, but what of the last two? Kane looked over to the three remaining orbs. One was a wispy sort of grey, almost translucent. ?That must be wind.? He said. The other two were of purest white and darkest black. Kane could imagine the wind sphere himself. It would probably start with a gentle breeze, and after a few moments it would be all tornadoes and thunderstorms. Kane decided to pass over that orb, which left him with the black orb, and the white orb. Kane had always been more curious about the darker side of nature, so he made his way towards the black orb.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman][size=3]As Kane walked towards the orb, images appeared within it, as they had before. It was night in this orb, and everything was filled with life. Bright green grass grew underfoot, and healthy leaves swayed in the breeze. Birds were chirping, and rodents skittered around the underbrush. As Kane thought this orb must have something to do with the night, the sounds started to fade away. Leaves began falling from the trees, changing colors in the moonlight from green, to red, to orange, to yellow, and finally to black as they hit the ground. The ground was now covered with dry, dead grass, and cracks appeared everywhere as the life of the whole world seemed to dry up. Kane was not afraid. He had always been fascinated with death, and for the first time, he sensed power within the orb. Kane reached out to touch it, and as his finger touched the orb?Kane opened his eyes.[/size][/font]

[size=2]I'm against separating males and females in classrooms.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]If people want students to be less distracted, they should have harsher measures against students carrying on unrelated conversations in class. Whenever I heard people talking, or someone tried to talk to me, it completely threw off my concentration on the subject.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]If there's one thing classrooms will always foster, it's sexual frustration. Whether your object of attention is present or absent, the inability to express oneself physically is constantly denied in a school setting. Completely removing visual heterosexual attention will only serve to eliminate the only available expression of sexuality for those people, which is looking upon an object of desire. If anything, it would cause those individuals to divert more of their attention to fantasies, removing them even further from the learning environment.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]The whole idea of separating people by their method of learning is ridiculous. I learn differently from most females, and I learn differently from most males. It would probably be better for my learning to get individual attention, but there aren't the resources for that sort of thing to be implemented publically. The more you separate people into learning groups, the more you'll learn that separating people into learning groups is impossible. The only way to do the job is the quick and dirty method, which is to lump everyone together and teach them the same way. If they don't 'get' it, then they can ask questions, and the teacher can maybe offer a different perspective.[/size]

[size=2]I am not in any place to tell people to do or not do something with their own bodies.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]It's a shame, though, when people feel forced to change their bodies to conform to societal requirements for advancing in a job, attracting a husband/wife, or fitting into a certain group.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Oh dear, I feel a metaphor coming on.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I don't blame the dog for chewing through its own leg to escape a bear trap, but I wish it didn't have to make the decision in the first place.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Our society's infatuation with a certain kind of beauty (natural or unnatural) is the bear trap, and the people who need to mutilate themselves through plastic surgery to escape the ramifications of 'ugliness' are the dogs chewing their legs off.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]I don't support cosmetic surgery because I know that my sentiments may lay another trap on the ground for someone else to step in.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][/size]

[font=Verdana][size=2]I'd rather kiss a grandma than get a mouthful of ashes from a hot smoker. I'm attracted to neither, just less repulsed by the old woman.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]As for the broad scientific analysis of human nature, it was meant to be a joke. I don't know anybody who takes everything people say seriously, but if I met someone like that, I probably wouldn't enjoy talking to them.[/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2][/size][/font] [font=Verdana][size=2]Oh, Raiyuu, I thought it was amusing and descriptive, but for you, I'll soften my posts with a little literary laxative. From what you've said, I suppose we're moving in the right direction. That makes me happy :D [/size][/font]