Frozen in time

[Adahn]

[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]

[Retribution]

[size=1]Ah, I feel it in the air. This thread's getting closed down soon.

[quote name='Adahn][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][/quote]
Please ask yourself whether this point has any relevance to the debate at hand, you will find the answer is a resounding "no". You've gotten sidetracked, and now what we have is trench warfare over a point that has little bearing on the larger issue.

What matters? Menstruation will, mostly likely, cause her pain on a monthly basis. Normal bathing will be an [i]insanely[/i] arduous task for her parents, let alone during menstruation.

And in large part, the size of her breasts are insignificant to the debate as well. The biggest part is that she will develop breasts, and the problems that will arise from their development.

[QUOTE][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][/QUOTE]
Even if she developed moderately sized breasts, they would still be an additional burden. I mean, the child is essentially a sack of potatoes. A really heavy sack that can only feel pain and want food and warmth. Adding any more weight/mass to that sack only makes it more cumbersome, to be blunt. The more cumbersome she becomes, the lower quality of care she receives. It's not because of neglect, it's because it's [i]so damn hard[/i], and I don't think you're acknowledging the magnitude of difficulty these parents would have dealing with a full grown woman.

But at this point, I realize that the fundamental difference in opinion you and I have is that [i]you[/i] don't seem to think that pragmatism is justified in this situation, while I do. It's an irreconcilable difference, so there's no real point in debating this further.[/size]

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DarkRed][QUOTE=Adahn][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][/QUOTE]I think both of you are missing the point. Hysterectomy?s are performed to correct issues that are not normal for a healthy woman. Excessive bleeding, damage from giving childbirth, etc, Since her brain is damaged and she will not be growing up to be a normal healthy woman in that respect, it is being treated as a problem that she does not need. It does not mean that menstruation itself is a disease. You see it as them treating it as a disease where the parents see it as something that will burden their daughter with unnecessary pain and suffering. For the little girl it could be considered a disease, but overall it is not. [quote name='Adahn][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][/QUOTE]Here?s the thing, for a three month old baby, or someone with the mind of one, any type of breasts whether they are small are large, are going to be confusing and uncomfortable for her. She simply will not understand it. If they have already stunted her growth, it doesn?t take genetics to realize that breasts on the body of a nine-year-old child will be larger than they would on a fully-grown child. People are forgetting that this is referring to her having them as a nine year old not as an adult. It?s not the same thing. [QUOTE=Adahn]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[/quote]Last time I checked they weren?t trying to turn her into a little boy, she?s not having a sex change, and she?s still a girl. ;)

The argument that she has a living brain proves nothing. You could use that argument to disagree with all sorts of controversial treatments. However, none of us are fully qualified to understand the situation. About the only one here who at least understands a part of this is Aaryanna_Mom as she at least has experience in taking care of children.

It?s obvious that you do not approve of what they have done and in the end it?s not your place to disapprove nor is it mine to approve. One some level we have to step back and quit condemning others when we all have things we do that someone somewhere does not approve of. We each have our own opinion on the subject so lets start respecting that.

Allamorph isn't the only one guilty of implying others are stupid, so I expect this snipping to end here folks. And that includes myself if anyone felt that some of my statements were abrasive, then I apologize for them. [/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[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]

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]They didn't remove them cause she had no use for them. They removed them because it would've been a problem for Ashley, and affected her quality of life. Useless wasn't part of the reasoning, and your tangent about removing limbs is unnecessary. Sure, Ashley might've been able to use her reproductive organs if she ever developed past this point - but as I said earlier, we have no guarantee that such a cure is even on the horizon, especially when the origins of her condition are unknown, so the parents merely acted on the information we have [i]now[/i] to improve their daughters quality of life. Whether you believe what they did was warranted or not is irrelevant, as Ashley is happy, healthy, and is now in the best position she could be in for care and comfort.

If they ever develop a cure for her condition, the parents will have a reason to feel guilty then. Until then, though, what they've done is very brave, and will affect Ashley in only positive ways.[/font][/color][/size]

[kalon]

Say the girl does, by some miracle, get a treatment that allows her brain to function like everyone else's, then she could get cosmetic surgery done on her breasts, and she could adopt. But at the moment, where there is no possible hope for her, the best thing they can do is let her live as comfortably as possible. Breasts can be uncomfortable, and I don't know if you've ever had a period, but there is a good deal of pain involved for some women, pain that a baby's mind could not possibly comprehend except as [i]pain[/i]. But, if you read the aticle, the girl, like most any baby, [i]can[/i] kick her arms and legs, so while she might not be able to use them for anything other than just moving, she can still use them.

Parents make medical decisions for their children in an effort to keep the child [u]both[/u] as comfortable and whole as possible. While there's no possible solution to satisfy everyone, they've done their best to reach a livable middle ground, one that keeps their daughter as healthy and happy as the condition allows while still allowing her to be as functional as possible.

[vegeta rocker]

[QUOTE=Adahn]
[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]


I didn't get the impression that Retribution was calling for the thread to be closed, it was just a comment on how if things continue this way and go into irrelevant bashing, which they have't done quite yet, it would probably get closed.

Right now the arguments are intelligent for the most part but if it just went downhill then it probably would.

I agree with Allamorph, but i don't agree on trying to bash you into our point of view. We think it is logical, you think that it doesn't justify the surgery and whatnot to the child.

Logic is something that cannot always be applied to the human race. Like when a captain goes down with a ship or a military faction "leaves no one behind".

Emotion makes us who we are and makes us human.

So in other words, i understand your position and respect it. I mean, i didn't post this article to get everyone to agree with me. lol

Thats not what a forum is.

To Allamorph,even though i agree with you, i think that maybe you might want to chill out a little.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Adahn][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][/quote]
[size=1]I wasn't calling for anything, I was predicting the thread's demise due to the brusqueness of Allamorph's (and yours to a lesser extent) replies.

And Dead covered what I was going to say. Perfectly.[/size]

[Adahn]

[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]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Adahn][size=2']Why is it okay to remove her breasts and uterus, but not her arms and legs?[/size][/quote]
[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

Edit: There's a difference between stopping the growth of what's not there, and lopping off something that is there. Just thought of that.[/size]

[Adahn]

[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]

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]It's the line between sexual characteristics that would serve her more discomfort than not, and things which she's had for 9 years and proven to be of no consequence to her level of comfort. This isn't about useless limbs, or what ifs, its about her overall quality of life - and while periods and breasts might not affect the quality of life of a normal, fully developed woman, the toll it would have on a 3 month old would be significant, especially so as the breasts were removed largely because they would impede her favourite and most comfortable to be in lying positions.[/font][/color][/size]

[Adahn]

[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]

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]It's a pain that can be avoided. Put her on a cushion away from harrd to flail on, or in the middle of a room where there'll be nothing for her to hit. Periods are monthly, unavoidable, predictable, and at the same time [i]unpredictable[/i] in the severity and extent that they will appear. Sure, she'll still have to deal with pain from occasionally knocking her arms or legs into something, but unless she really ****ing SMACKS IT, which is unlikely with her limited motor skills, it's not gonna compare to one week our of four being constant misery.

As for the breasts thing, forget it man. The parents know her, they know she prefers being on her front over being on her back, and laying on breasts is something you've never done - and is something that sounds uncomfortable even from my male perspective. I'm not gonna argue it with you anymore.[/font][/color][/size]

[Adahn]

[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]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Adahn][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][/quote]
[size=1]That's weak and pretentious. He's not going to argue it anymore because he's already given his argument, which is rational, but you disagree with it. There is no changing your mind, therefore the debate is pointless.

Here are the points on the breast removal:
- Laying on breasts isn't comfortable. Unfortunately, that's one of her favorite laying positions.
- Removing the breast buds will in the long run prevent more discomfort than your 'solution' of just making her suck it up and deal with it.
- Removing breast buds to prevent imminent discomfort is not akin to delimbing her to prevent her from smacking her arms into things, simply because one is more likely to cause discomfort in the future than the other, and to a large extent. Dead put it succinctly -- unless you fricking smack your arm into something, you won't really be able to hurt yourself with it.

And that's pretty much end of debate. We see your point of view as callous and unsympathetic towards the child, and you see our point of view as "disgusting". Neither is willing to move.[/size]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=Teal][quote name='Adahn][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][/quote]Nice for who? Or more importantly, why do you care? You?ve already explained what you believe, others have said what they believe and it?s pointless to keep coming back and trying to convince the other person that they are wrong and you are right, since in the end, it?s still your personal opinion. I?m confused as to why people are still focusing on this. I see indifference?s point, we need to respect each other?s opinion and quit trying to make the other person see it our way. [QUOTE=Adahn][size=2]This could help you understand why the [i]majority[/i] of the public AND scientists disagree with the parents' decision.

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][/QUOTE]The majority does not mean that they are right. It means that a lot of people think the same. It?s getting so much attention because it?s new, the parents are trying to do what they believe is best and anytime something new like this is done people get upset. Obviously not everyone disagrees or they would have never found a doctor who was willing to perform the procedure.

I don't see anyone changing their opinion so lets do as Retribution suggests and end the debate as the way I see it, it was over a long time ago.[/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[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]

[eleanor]

[QUOTE=Adahn]
[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][/QUOTE]

[color=dimgray]
I, too, believe that the parent's actions have crossed some sort of ethical border. But since this scientific procedure is so new, it's hard to really take a stance on things other than a woman's physical development. So while the discussion of breasts and menstruation is relevent, it sort of misses the real issue at hand.

From what I've read from your posts, you seem to have a fix on the parent's being ashamed of a woman's sexual nature:

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

I mean, is this really the newsworthy part of the story? Sure, it's a valid opinion that I can understand. Maybe the parents did want to halt the development of their daughter. I mean, let's face the facts. Breasts are sacks of fat, and having extra fat is uncomfortable. Especially for a [b]three-month-old mind[/b]. Period cramps are a *****.

So ask yourself: if the parents did want to halt their daughter's sexual development, was it done in a malicious way? No, probably not. They did it because 1) It would be easier for them, and 2) It would be more comfortable for the baby.

Are there selfish undertones in the decision? Yes. But they're humans. They're parents, and they know how hard it is to raise a mentally healthy child, let alone one whose mind is stuck at three months. You have a right to disagree with that. But to call it disgusting is crude and unsympathetic.

All these specifics on removing breasts and uteruses is a bit juvenile and pointless. And I'm not calling you out on this- [b]everyone[/b] who has been discussing this in depth should stop. It's going around in ****ing circles and if you haven't realized that, take it from me. [/color]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='Lunox][color=dimgray]All these specifics on removing breasts and uteruses is a bit juvenile and pointless. And I'm not calling you out on this- [b]everyone[/b'] who has been discussing this in depth should stop. It's going around in ****ing circles and if you haven't realized that, take it from me. [/color][/quote]Hun, I disagree with you, going in circles is pointless, but the points being brought up are not. They are the very core to this argument in that such drastic measures were used.

It?s not so much an argument as to whether or not the parents made the right decision, but one that if we aren?t careful it will open up the doors to others doing the same thing, but for the wrong reasons. Not all mentally challenged children are as severe as this girl is, but the fear is that people will start doing things like this to them to make caring for them easier.

It?s an ethical question that at this time doesn?t have an answer. I do not condemn the parents because as a parent I know that raising kids is never easy. What I would condemn is a society that did not question the procedure to ensure that it wasn?t not being used as an easy out for someone in that situation.

I would also condemn a society that makes getting help when you have a child with special needs, nearly impossible, as the costs are so expensive. If we are really so bothered by their decision a better course of action would be to lobby for better programs and care for these children, something that can make a difference.

Pointing fingers at someone who already made a difficult and hard decision changes nothing and that truly makes us look juvenile and really is pointless.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Hun, I disagree with you, going in circles is pointless, but the points being brought up are not. They are the very core to this argument in that such drastic measures were used.[/quote]

[color=dimgray] I don't think talking about how big someone's breasts will be and whether or not menstruation is a disease is the center of this argument. Talking about the physical pains is very relevant. Nitpicking the specifics? Feh. Hardly a core.

:rolleyes: And now they're talking about what the difference between removing arms/legs is to removing nipple buds and a uterus. [/color]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']It?s not so much an argument as to whether or not the parents made the right decision, but one that if we aren?t careful it will open up the doors to others doing the same thing, but for the wrong reasons. Not all mentally challenged children are as severe as this girl is, but the fear is that people will start doing things like this to them to make caring for them easier.[/quote]

[color=dimgray]I'm irritated that you didn't read my earlier posts before replying to my most recent one. I already adressed this specific issue, as it was the main idea of my argument. [/color]

[QUOTE=Aaryanna_Mom]It?s an ethical question that at this time doesn?t have an answer. I do not condemn the parents because as a parent I know that raising kids is never easy. What I would condemn is a society that did not question the procedure to ensure that it wasn?t not being used as an easy out for someone in that situation.

I would also condemn a society that makes getting help when you have a child with special needs, nearly impossible, as the costs are so expensive. If we are really so bothered by their decision a better course of action would be to lobby for better programs and care for these children, something that can make a difference.

Pointing fingers at someone who already made a difficult and hard decision changes nothing and that truly makes us look juvenile and really is pointless.[/QUOTE]

[color=dimgray] I don't know if that was directed at me, but please don't think I'm pointing fingers. I am in no way condemning or trying to insult the parents of this girl. I see the parents' decision as one of loving intentions, but it still bothers me.

And while I think our communities should certainly be taking steps to help/accomodate people of special needs, it's too easy to just condemn the whole society. It's an important point, but it could be applied to so many other groups of people that are in need of help.

As for questioning the move- isn't that what we're doing right now? If you wanted it to go further, it would involve the government. This is where another ethics concern arises: does Congress have a place in making laws about these kinds of things? I can't even go deeper into that, because I haven't even begun to think about it.[/color]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[QUOTE=Lunox][color=dimgray] I don't think talking about how big someone's breasts will be and whether or not menstruation is a disease is the center of this argument. Talking about the physical pains is very relevant. Nitpicking the specifics? Feh. Hardly a core.

:rolleyes: And now they're talking about what the difference between removing arms/legs is to removing nipple buds and a uterus. [/color]

[color=dimgray]I'm irritated that you didn't read my earlier posts before replying to my most recent one. I already adressed this specific issue, as it was the main idea of my argument. [/color][/QUOTE]Only the first part was directed at you, the rest was directed at society as a whole. And absurd as the argument is, that is how people think about it, the argument, if you do this, then the next thing they will do is this, like the absurd comparison to removing one's arms/legs. They are overblown examples, but they are concerns.

The other specifics as to whether or not menstruation is a disease is something that I see as a personal opinion instead of being a relevant point in this discussion. But unfortunately, to the person who brought it up it is relevant as they see it that way. The problem is the assumption that others see this as well, when none of us really know for sure how the parents really feel.

As for the last, I was not clear enough it pointing out that only the first paragraph applied to your post and the rest did not. So I was not trying to irritate you as I did read your earlier posts. ;)

EDIT: My point about lobbying for changes was to improve the state and federal aid people can get. For example if a family's income is not enough the state will pay for part of their care. But to qualify they have to be at a poverty level; it?s very unrealistic and a lot of families that need help don?t get it. I was not saying congress should make the decision, only that we need to make getting financial help to care for these children more reasonable. I'm on disability myself so I know what a pain it is to get help for treatments.

[Adahn]

[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]

[DeadSeraphim]

[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]I think there point was that those are just benefits on top of the rest of it, not that they were a contributing factor. Observing signs of puberty probably just made them think of her as she grew older, and consider the problems involved with it, which would've then led to the idea of stunting her growth and removing the breasts and uterus. As for the last point...

Dude, no. I'd like to think any carers the girl ever has aren't turned on by someone who is essentially 9 years old (besides, it'd be obvious anyway because of the damage an adult penis does to her 9 year old, underdeveloped vagina, if there was any suspicions.)[/font][/color][/size]

[Adahn]

[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]