Frozen in time

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=Teal]In an extreme case such as this, I don?t understand why people are being so rude to the parents when they are trying to do what?s best for their kid. Not only are the comments about her having sex when she gets older downright stupid, but the way activists are up in arms trying to get the doctor in trouble by saying he violated her rights, something I read in the paper yesterday as you can see here:

[INDENT][B]Activists condemn surgery to stunt disabled girl's growth[/B]

CHICAGO -- Activists are demanding an investigation into treatment performed on a severely brain-damaged girl whose growth was deliberately stunted to make it easier for her parents to care for her at home.

Critics want an official condemnation from the American Medical Association, which owns a medical journal that first published the Washington state case. They also want state and federal officials to investigate whether doctors violated the girl's rights.

"It is unethical and unacceptable to perform intrusive and invasive medical procedures on a person or child with a disability simply to make the person easier to care for," said Steven Taylor, director of Syracuse University's Center on Human Policy.

Taylor said that the treatment was essentially a medical experiment and that a hospital institutional review board should have been consulted beforehand.[/INDENT]
Is just stupid in my opinion. I could understand if they were concerned about it not becoming a standard procedure, which I understand it is not. But to act like they were experimenting on the girl when her parents and the doctors were trying to do what was best for the girl, it just makes no sense to me.

Their whole argument is that her rights were violated when it?s painfully obvious her case was not just one of a making it easier to care for a disabled child. I certainly think stunting a child?s growth shouldn?t be used very often, but if a case warrants it I can understand why they did it. [/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[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]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]I have to admit I'm rather appalled at the so-called humanists who's so blatantly and ignorantly condemned what this girl's parents have done to give her a better standard of life. Neighbours of mind have a son my age with Cerebral Palsy, and I can only imagine their heartache they'll face when they can no longer care for him because of their own declining health.

As has already been stated, she's 3 months old mentally, what kind of sick bastard is going to have sex with a 3 month old in a woman's body, it's not even a logically argument. In the end, this was her parents decision, and from what I've read, I truly believe that they thought this was in their daughter's best interests.[/SIZE]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Even with the edit, your point still makes no sense. So, what, they might be able to undo whatever keeps Ashley at 3-months mentally... can you guarantee when that'll happen? Can you even guarantee that she'll even be able to undergo the procedure as she gets older? I mean, ****, her brain has been static for over 8 years - just being static could cause irreparable damage, eg: development that should've happened mightn't have, connections a brain makes as it develops wouldn't exist. At such a late stage, can you really say her condition is reversible, especially with your presumably limited knowledge of the brain?
[/font][/color][/size][/QUOTE]
Of course I can't guarantee that there will definately be a way to cure this in the future, but there is still the chance that modern medicine may advance to the point where it can do amazing things to advance the lives of those born with such debilitating defects. If it was my son/daughter, I'm sure I would rather risk that possibility than stunting his/her growth and regretting it further down the track if/when some kind of cure becomes possible.

Can you guarantee that it won't?

[quote][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.[/quote]
I agree. A thousand years ago they would have had you on a course of "blodletting" for a headache! Science and medicine is constantly evolving and being refined. Diseases once thought to be uncurable can be prevented althogether with a small prick, or series of pricks.

Stem cell research is in it's infancy. It's beginning to cure smaller things like small brain abnormalities, paralysis and damaged hearts, but who's to say it won't get more advanced as time goes on? Who's to say that it can't happen?

It is playing Russian roulette because you can't say for certain wether or not science will be able to bring this girld the quality of life she deserves. Either way you go, stunting the growth or letting her grow, you're taking a gamble on the future.
[/size]

[DeadSeraphim]

[QUOTE=Adahn][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][/QUOTE]
[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]

[vegeta rocker]

I agree with Dead, even if say in 10 years they find a way to stimulate her mind to develop it won't matter. Human development also depends on the environment.

So she will be a child in an adults body essentially, she won't have had the experience or forks in the road that make us mature.

She would basically be a kid trying to play grown up.

[Adahn]

[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]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE=Adahn][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]
[/QUOTE]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. [quote name='Adahn][size=2][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][/quote]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. [QUOTE=Adahn][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]
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][/QUOTE]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. [quote name='Adahn][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][/QUOTE]As opposed to this: [QUOTE=SunfallE][COLOR=RoyalBlue']The last thing she needs is to grow up and deal with menstruation every single month. If she's got the mind of a three month old baby, there's just no way she's going to understand that. Especially if she's like a lot of women in that it's an uncomfortable process. All she's going to do is suffer every time that happens. If she has the standard length of periods for about the same amount of time most women go though this, that translates to four years of needless suffering. [/COLOR][/quote]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]

[Adahn]

[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]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][quote name='Adahn][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][/quote]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. [QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]As for ridding their daughter of the pain of menstruation...

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][/QUOTE]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]

[Adahn]

[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]

[visualkei]

[QUOTE=Adahn]
[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]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][/QUOTE]

I understand what you're trying to say, and I would have to disagree. Knowing more about the disease and its cause would help you focus on the specifics of the disease and match with a cure. Knowing the cause of the disease can also lead to preventive strategies, and the necessity to find a cure wouldn't be as immediate if there are ways to prevent such a disease from occuring.

The previous posts that agree with the parents' decision believe that what the parents did was in the girls' best interest. You see it as the parents making the kid suffer. Others see it as the parents allowing the child to suffer for a short time instead of suffering for a long time in the long run. A relatively short time of suffering was a way to prevent her from 40 years of bleeding off and on, not to mention all the physical pain. No one even brought up the social implications simply because it's hardly relevant in this discussion. I don't know about you, but where I'm from, commercials for sanitary napkins come on tv all the time. There's no shame associated with it, if there is, it's a personal thing. During puberty alot of girls are embarassed of their periods, but hey, this kid isn't going to go through puberty or have the mental capacity to know embarassment.

[Guest lonelyshadow]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS]I don't think that there will ever be a cure found to help Ashley in time so why let a baby because that's what she is, develop an mature body. She'll never use or comprehend just the what's going on to her. Also if they do help her mind develop more they still won't be able get her to point were she will understand her body changes. Why cause the trouble and pain of living in a body that doesn't fit with your mental development? She'll live all her life with the frustrations of mature body and she'll never be able to furfill them. It's difficult enough for a normal teenager to cope with their bodies changes how can you expect that from a mentally impaired person? Besides her parents obviously love her and want whats best for her so I think they are able enough to make decisions for her. They just want what's best for her. It's their responsibility to care for her so it's their choice. [/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Adahn][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][/quote]
[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.

[QUOTE][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][/QUOTE]
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]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][/QUOTE]
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.

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]

[Adahn]

[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]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Adahn][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]
[size=1]Cures are not hopeless or impossible, but living your life under the supposition that there will be a cure during your lifetime is blind and presumptuous. Until a cure looks likely, you have to live your life as if a cure does not and will not ever exist. The fact that what is limiting her brain activity is unknown furthers my argument that the probability of a cure coming out is even more improbable. You're placing too my faith in the limited scientific method.

[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]
There is of course the added burden of using pads/tampons, replacing them, and bathing a full grown woman who is unwieldy at best. And I'm sorry, but interpreting menstruation as a disease is a leap of logic. There is nothing that supports your claim. You have no ground to stand on.

[QUOTE][size=2]You cannot successfully predict breast size before breasts grow.[/size][/QUOTE]
Genetic inheritance, anyone? It's safe to assume you can estimate within a reasonable margin of error.

[QUOTE][size=2]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]
Yay, surgery for a three month old child. Surely [i]that's[/i] best for her personal well-being. See above about the breast size comment. And again, you're reading into things where there is [i]no support for your claim.[/i] You're assuming that they just don't want their kid to grow up for selfish purposes, when you [again!] have no ground to back your claim.

[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][/QUOTE]
An appeal to emotion that completely bucks all logic. Congrats on that.[/size]

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Adahn]
[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][/QUOTE]
These aren't bad ideas... but how on earth would you find the time to put all of them into action? Looking after a three-month-old is a round-the-clock job. Taking care of a adolescent girl or full-grown woman too heavy for you to lift in your arms would almost require a Time Turner to work. (Her parents are already experiencing great difficulty moving her around.) Between trying to make enough money to support the child and her other caregivers, managing your household affairs and actually taking care of her--from feeding to changing diapers--there's just no way you'd be able to aid research on her behalf.

[QUOTE=Adahn]

[size=2]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][/quote]
Can you honestly tell me that if a man, by some freak accident, ejaculated all over himself in public, that he would not be ashamed? Would it not be equivalent to releasing one's bowels or urinating on oneself in public?

This is a natural, unavoidable part of being a man, and it is so stigmatized that you take it completely for granted!

;)

~Dagger~

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=Teal][QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]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]The decision reeks of shame.[/size][/QUOTE]Do you think your unwillingness to accept that she never will be a sexually viable human being is part of the confusion here? The idea that the decision is shameful is your opinion and nothing more. There is nothing shameful in treating individuals to the best of our ability to improve the quality of life. [QUOTE=Adahn][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.

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 characteristics.

Disgusting.[/size][/QUOTE]How in the world could you even know what they wanted? This isn?t a case of they wanted their girl to never grow up, you?re making this into an issue of they wanted a little girl forever when that?s just not true. How is making her comfortable mean that they are ashamed of her becoming a woman? If she had no brain damage and didn?t have any issues they wouldn?t even consider doing what they have done.

You keep jumping to the conclusion that they are uncomfortable with her development somehow, something that unless you are the parents you don?t really know. Stop talking as if you know what they feel.
[/COLOR]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Okay, before I start ranting, Let me just reiterate something that everyone seems to be missing over and over and over and over.

[I]The girl is [U]nine years old[/U]. Her [B]mind[/B] is stuck at [U]three months old[/U].[/I]

Right. [COLOR=DarkRed]Adahn[/COLOR], I really hate to just bust people like I'm going to do to you, but you need it, and I apologize in advance. Stop calling foul on misunderstandings, because you yourself have barely any idea what you're talking about.

Weak arguments first (mine, I mean).
[quote name='Adahn']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.[/quote]
Not necessarily. At any rate, your logic is flawed. As has been said before, in order to find a cure, one must know the cause.

As to the hopelessness aspect, your point is almost valid. However, let me propose an innate human characteristic to you called [I]stubbornness[/I]. And one called [I]will[/I]. And another called [I]tenacity[/I]. I could go on. If necessary, I will, so don't challenge me. Point is, if the cause of a disease is known and nothing else in that field is known, don't you think that instead of giving in to hopelessness, those in the position to do so would begin working tirelessly until more was known so a cure could be found? Humans do not give up easily, boy. Ever. Use your head.

[quote name='Adahn']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.[/quote]
Those sentences there are enough to provide me with hope.
[quote name='Adahn']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.[/quote]
With the cause of cancer known (it is a malfunction of the growth limitation mechanism at the cellular level, causing the cell to grow beyond normal perameters and destroy/consume anything in its path), there is the chance a cure exists. We have as of now not found a cure to it yet, despite years of study. All we have are procedures that are significantly more excruciating than the surgury Ashley has gone through, and there is no garuntee that any of them will work from person to person. I understand what you're trying to say here, but you're not doing a good job of it.
[quote name='Adahn']You want statistics? I'm sorry, but I've only got personal experience.[/quote]
Not good enough. You want to hold your own in debates like this? Find yourself some d*** statistics. And don't act so bloody offended. 'Only being in college' is no excuse. Ask your professors or the people around you for help.
[quote name='Adahn']Statistics can be played with to give weight to someone's efforts, and so I trust my own experience more.[/quote]
Quite possibly one of the only good points you've made yet. However, in this scenario it's irrelevant. There is no reason for anyone to alter/misuse statistics about percentage of those devoted to the study of the brain, and even if there were, they are required to provide the numbers as well. A little background work can quickly clear up fraudulent statistics.
[quote name='Adahn']When the Human Genome Project was started, it was estimated to take a significant amount of time, 250 years being a reasonable idea.[/quote]
What was the purpose behind the Human Genome Project, again?
[QUOTE=Wikipedia][FONT=Arial]The Human Genome Project (HGP) is a project to code the 3 billion nucleotides contained in the human genome and to identify all the genes present in it. There are currently two human genome projects: the first is the international HGP which is being produced by a group of international government bodies and organizations, and the second by a private company Celera Genomics. The "genome" of any given individual (except for identical twins, and cloned animals, though no human has ever been cloned) is unique; mapping "the human genome" involves sequencing multiple variations of each gene.

Initiation of the Project was the culmination of several years of work supported by the US Department of Energy, in particular a feasibility workshop in 1986 and a subsequent initiative by the Department of Energy. This 1987 report stated boldly, "The ultimate goal of this initiative is to understand the human genome" and "Knowledge of the human genome is as necessary to the continuing progress of medicine and other health sciences as knowledge of human anatomy has been for the present state of medicine."

. . . . . .

The work on interpretation of genome data is still in its initial stages. It is anticipated that detailed knowledge of the human genome will provide new avenues for advances in medicine and biotechnology. Clear practical results of the project emerged even before the work was finished. For example, a number of companies, such as Myriad Genetics started offering easy ways to administer genetic tests that can show predisposition to a variety of illnesses, including breast cancer, disorders of hemostasis, cystic fibrosis, liver diseases and many others. Also, the etiologies for cancers, Alzheimer's disease and other areas of clinical interest are considered likely to benefit from genome information and possibly may lead in the long term to significant advances in their management.

There are also many tangible benefits for biological scientists. For example, a researcher investigating a certain form of cancer may have narrowed down his/her search to a particular gene. By visiting the human genome database on the worldwide web, this researcher can examine what other scientists have written about this gene, including (potentially) the three-dimensional structure of its product, its function(s), its evolutionary relationships to other human genes, or to genes in mice or yeast or fruit flies, possible detrimental mutations, interactions with other genes, body tissues in which this gene is activated, diseases associated with this gene or other datatypes.

Further, deeper understanding of the disease processes at the level of molecular biology may determine new therapeutic procedures. Given the established importance of DNA in molecular biology and its central role in determining the fundamental operation of cellular processes, it is likely that expanded knowledge in this area will facilitate medical advances in numerous areas of clinical interest that may not have been possible without them.

The analysis of similarities between DNA sequences from different organisms is also opening new avenues in the study of the theory of evolution. In many cases, evolutionary questions can now be framed in terms of molecular biology; indeed, many major evolutionary milestones (the emergence of the ribosome and organelles, the development of embryos with body plans, the vertebrate immune system) can be related to the molecular level. Many questions about the similarities and differences between humans and our closest relatives (the primates, and indeed the other mammals) are expected to be illuminated by the data from this project.

The Human Genome Diversity Project, spinoff research aimed at mapping the DNA that varies between human ethnic groups, which was rumored to have been halted, actually did continue and to date has yielded new conclusions. In the future, HGDP could possibly expose new data in disease surveillance, human development and anthropology. HGDP could unlock secrets behind and create new strategies for managing the vulnerability of ethnic groups to certain diseases (see race in biomedicine). It could also show how human populations have adapted to these vulnerabilities.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
First, a note. If you will notice, the [I]entire behefits section of the article[/I] (occuring after the dots) was written in statistical language. Interpretation: there is [I]no garuntee[/I] that the HGP will actually benefit anything. At best, it can provide [U]possibilities[/U] about information that was unknowable before, but even then, more study must occur before anything can be pulled out with any degree of certainty.

If I recall correctly, and I almost always do, the HGP allowed us to [I]diagnose[/I] certain genetic-related illnesses, like Down's Syndrome (trisomy 21). Not treat, [I]diagnose[/I]. That's it. That's all. There is no cure for trisomy 21, despite the extensive research in that field.

Now the big one. Boy ? and when I say 'boy', I mean as in key word [I]male[/I] ? you need to lay off the female body bit, 'cause you haven't got a clue. You haven't got a single, bloody, godforsaken clue. To start off, I am utterly baffled at where you came up with the 'menstruation = disease' bit. There is nothing, [I][U][B]nothing[/B][/U][/I], in our culture that insinuates menstuation as a disease.
[quote name='Adahn']If you have, then you've seen commercials for 'feminine hygiene products'. This seemingly innocuous name implies that during menstruation, a woman is dirty.[/quote]
Yes. [I]Dirty.[/I] Not diseased. Dirty. And there's nothing implied about it. If something is not clean, then it's dirty. End of story.

Now, if a female were to abandon the use of hygiene for herself during menstruation, then diseases may develop from the resulting uncleanliness, just as gingivitis can develop if oral hygiene is abandoned. But that's the only link between the two. Uncleanliness [I]can promote[/I] disease?it itself is [I]not[/I] disease, and I see nothing that says otherwise. Oh, and you were speaking earlier about twisted statistics? Information and meaning can be twisted just as easily.

[quote name='Adahn']You cannot successfully predict breast size before breasts grow. I can't even believe you're arguing for this![/quote]
[quote name='Retribution][SIZE=1']Genetic inheritance, anyone? It's safe to assume you can estimate within a reasonable margin of error.[/SIZE][/quote]
All your talk about research and you miss the genetics. Bravo.

Okay, bucko. If the women [U][I]on both sides[/I][/U] of Ashley's family have a [I][U]history of large breasts[/U][/I], then guess what? Odds are incredibly high that Ashley will inherit said size. Seventh grade science class could come up with that.

[quote name='Adahn']Are her breasts going to blow up overnight like a peep heated up in a microwave?[/quote]
Great analogy. It goes to show your level of discussion maturity. Lashing out at another's argument with a completely ridiculous one of your own is not the best way to get listened to.

And I fully expect you to try and turn that statement back on me. Go ahead.

[quote name='Adahn']If they become too large, one can get breast reduction surgery.[/quote]
I echo [COLOR=DarkRed]Retribution[/COLOR], here. Don't be a fool. You talk about monstrous parents having a painful, desensitizing operation performed, yet suggest another painful, desensitizing operation as an alternative. And also, [I]she's freakin' nine years old.[/I] They'd already stunted her growth. So now we have a nine year old with large, adult breasts. Yippee. She'll be so thankful and proud of them.

She can't even appreciate them.
[quote name='Adahn']They didn't want their child, who THEY want to always be a child, to develop breasts, ever.[/quote]
This just demonstrated to me how much you yourself just don't understand. She will always be a child, no matter if she grows into a woman or not. Her mind cannot develop past the equivalent of that of a three month old baby. She can learn nothing, can comprehend nothing. In the words of Morpheus: [I]"The body cannot live without the mind."[/I] Having the body of a woman does not a woman make. What good are breasts if the one who has them doesn't even realize what they are or what they do?

[QUOTE=Adahn]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. ... 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.

Disgusting.
[/QUOTE]
Unsupported inference. You saw a scenario, made your condemnation, and sought rationale to prove it to yourself. Completely bass-ackwards. Again, bravo.

[quote name='Adahn']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.[/quote]
Wonderful. I am honestly glad for you. No sarcasm, no snideness, just honesty from me there. I really laud you. :)

However, you made that statement defiantly. Which brings me back to stubbornness. It is a good quality to have, but only in certain situations. And here, coupled with defiance, you remind me of a mule digging its hooves into the ground. (I wanted to use ***, but as you can see, the censors can't distinguish between animal and obscenity.) Your statement screams [I]"Try and move me! I dare you! I don't care if I'm wrong! I'm staying right here, and you can't do anything about it!"[/I] And that depresses me. I can deal with arguments where my opponent can't see that they're wrong. But when I run into someone that [I]won't[/I] see that they're wrong, and they continue to fight, then what am I supposed to do? That's what each of your replies to [COLOR=DarkRed]Retribution[/COLOR] has said to me. And if you won't listen, then there's nothing else anyone can do.

This doesn't mean I disapprove of your having an opinion. You're going to have an opinion. If you don't have one, then there's something wrong with you. I just disapprove of defending an opinion with nothing legitimate at all at the top of your lungs.

And I hate saying this stuff. I hate being demeaning, insulting, harsh. But you need it, boy.

Use your head and your emotions together. Head first.

-A[/FONT]

[Rachmaninoff]

[quote name='Adahn][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][/QUOTE]No, you only think it?s associated with shame, don?t confuse your personal opinion with facts. Being a guy myself I don?t experience it, but I?ve yet to meet a woman who thinks it?s shameful. Nor is there a notion that developing into a woman is a disease. Again this is your notion and not necessarily what others think. [QUOTE=Adahn][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][/quote]Being dirty doesn?t not equal shame. I?ve seen hundreds of commercials all aimed at keeping the body clean and odor free. Not because the actual reason is shameful, but because it?s smart to take care of yourself. Again you are forcing your opinion on this topic as if that is how people really perceive it.

It?s not an illness nor are the commercials saying they can be happy hiding their period, it?s saying don?t let this natural part of life interfere with what you enjoy doing. I understand that periods can be very painful and uncomfortable, and who wants to run around with blood on their clothes? It?s about being hygienic in the same sense that using a public restroom instead of going in your pants in public is what is considered socially acceptable, due to health reasons. [QUOTE=Adahn][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!

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?

The decision reeks of shame.[/size][/QUOTE] You?ve missed the point. There is no stigmatization; the girl in question is not normal. She has brain damage that is unlikely to ever be reversed in her lifetime. At least enough to have what others would consider more normal. Your point lacks relevancy in that it?s a one case scenario in where drastic measures are being taken to improve the quality of life for one little brain damaged girl. Not something that is being done on a regular basis because it is considered shameful.

It?s already been pointed out, but you are taking the stance that you actually know what the parents feel. This girl even if she does end up more mentally developed is highly unlikely to ever mature enough to understand a sexual relationship.

The real shame here is how everyone seems to keep focusing on the sex aspect as if it?s important. Her happiness, comfort and well-being are all far more important than worrying about her having sex one day ever will be.

[Retribution]

[size=1]Uh, folks. I think the menstruation point is beating a dead horse.[/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Retribution][size=1']Uh, folks. I think the menstruation point is beating a dead horse.[/size][/quote]Maybe in terms that it's already been said, but not in that people's views on the issue are valid. ;) And since I echo the sentiment of how menstruation is an unnecessary burden I'll leave it at that.

I do have one question that seems to be missing here, how many of you even have kids? I know that most of you don't, but your understanding of this would be different if you understood just how much work goes into raising a [B]normal healthy child[/B].

And a very important factor people miss as well, insurance and state assistance are pathetic in these cases. Insurance won't pay for most of their treatment and qualifying for the state to help requires a poverty level on the part of the parents. Which means any family that makes some money, won't qualify for anything and yet will be far from capable of affording to care for their own child.

I'm not sure where I stand on this decision, because not one of us here has enough information to truly make an informed choice. Only her parents did and they have made it to the best of their ability. And whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. The interests of the child are the priority here and it sounds like that's exactly what they are trying to do, put her needs first.

[Adahn]

[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]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial][I]*sigh*[/I]

You don't get it. You really don't get it. I just ... I ....

I don't know what to say to you.

:animesigh

Okay, okay, look. You're talking to a Christian guy who's read a majority of [I]Leviticus[/I] for the sheer, explicit purpose of getting background information on law sources. I know what you're referring to. And, like I said, yes, menstruation is a dirty process. On that we agree. 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 name='Adahn']You want genetics?[/quote]

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 name='Adahn']I refuse to take a completely logical stance on what was done.[/quote]
Nor should you. However, you're letting your emotional discharges fuel and direct your logic. That is what I pointed out.

[quote name='Adahn']I'll tell you what they don't want to say.[/quote]
That's not your place, nor do you have the experience to do so.
[quote name='The Parents (who for some reason are nameless, though their daughter is not)']She's going to be our baby forever....[/quote]
I understand how this seems possessive to you, but it's actually rather fatalistic. I return you to the issue of [I]the mind[/I].

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 name='The Parents]She's going to be [U]our baby[/U] [our three month old'] forever....[/quote]

Also, the thought of a guy looking at a woman with that context is just a little disturbing, no?

[quote name='Adahn']Oh yes, I've put myself in their shoes. Perhaps you should really try them on.[/quote]
If you insist on continually demonstrating your level of maturity to us....

[quote name='Adahn']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?[/quote]
You continue to amuse me.

Your question is once again irrelevant. This is the internet. I could very well say I'm six. I could just as easily say eightteen, twenty-five, or forty-two.

I have, however, made the information you request readily available. Two locations.

Look for them.

And if you want to make smart remarks to me, may I suggest two things:
[list=1][*]I am the king of smart remarks. As I said before, don't challenge me. I don't want to get into a words war with you, because you are completely outgunned. And I don't mean in the "Uzi vs. P90" sense. I mean in the "Popgun vs. The World" sense. I was schooled by the Old Guard. I know how to destroy people. And I hate doing it, so please, I'm begging you, don't force my hand. Please.
[*]Smart remarks do not serve to improve your image in the eyes of those watching you. And I don't mean "improve your image" as in people will side with you more readily. I mean as in people will way [I]"Wow. He knows what the devil he's talking about. He's good."[/I] 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.[/list]

Again, I really don't want to be trashing you, but you're asking for it.

I'm sorry.

-A[/FONT]

[Raiyuu]

Allamorph, please knock it off with the 'tude. You aren't helping your case any when Adahn is putting his points in a considered, mature manner and you're responding like a kid in the playground. By all means refute people's points but belittling other members in the process is unacceptable. Now you've been warned we won't tolerate it again.