04 Jan 07
The girl is disabled and the parents decided to keep her as a child
forever thanks to hormone tratment, as well as removal of the uterus
and the breasts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm
I think it gives place for a very interesting debate here.
Are the parents the reincarnation of Josef Mengele?
04 Jan 07
1 edit
no doubt people on here will criticise this non-stop and waffle on in their rightous tones like they do, but who are us to say we wouldn't do the same in a similar situation with one of our children... i can see the parents point of view here and i think the situation they're in is an extremely difficult one; to quote Josef Mengele and the parents in the same context is just ridiculous, please read your history books; we can argue this case and say the basis of all life is to grow and age but nature was the first to take this right away from this person, not the parents
04 Jan 07
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenNo, the parents just decided that it would be inimical to her "quality of life" to be cared for and treated as an adult.
no doubt people on here will criticise this non-stop and waffle on in their rightous tones like they do, but who are us to say we wouldn't do the same in a similar situation with one of our children... i can see the parents point of view here and i think the situation they're in is an extremely difficult one; to quote Josef Mengele and the parents in ...[text shortened]... row and age but nature was the first to take this right away from this person, not the parents
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenThis sounds like eugenics to me which was outlawed in the US in the 1970s. Parents all want the best for their children, but this takes their own self-interest to a new level.
no doubt people on here will criticise this non-stop and waffle on in their rightous tones like they do, but who are us to say we wouldn't do the same in a similar situation with one of our children... i can see the parents point of view here and i think the situation they're in is an extremely difficult one; to quote Josef Mengele and the parents in ...[text shortened]... row and age but nature was the first to take this right away from this person, not the parents
05 Jan 07
Well, independently from rook, who seems to be suffering such
drama in own flesh thus takes it quite in an itchy manner, I may
say that the comfort of the girl is above everything yet the
'experiments' performed by the parents smell like eugenics.
I may be wrong. However...
To what extent a parent has the right to modify the appearance of
the offspring?
What's the moral justification to do so?
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by RedmikeLook at the whole having her uterus removed so she can't be sexually molested or have children.
I think what the parents have done here is morally extremely questionable - they seem to be doing this in order to make the girl easier [b]for them to care for.
However, I don't see how it has anything to do with eugenics, and it certainly has nothing to do with Mengele.[/b]
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by DoctorDaraI don't see how this prevents sexual molestation, even if we thought that it was an acceptable reason for carrying out this procedure.
Look at the whole having her uterus removed so she can't be sexually molested or have children.
The reason the parents gave, as I understand it, was simply to prevent natural growth.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by DoctorDaraIt isn't really about genetics, but ethics. I don't think they're preventing her from having children in order to prevent her genes from passing on, but for ethical and practical reasons.
Look at the whole having her uterus removed so she can't be sexually molested or have children.
As far as I see it, I disagree with their reasons (I don't know the exact extent of the arguments presented) because it seems to me they're turning her into their little plaything and attempting to claim they're deciding on what is best for the child. Interestingly enough, the doctors were convinced, but I fail to see why exactly.
05 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorDaraYeah, indeed. Regardless of the parents' motivations, the removal
Look at the whole having her uterus removed so she can't be sexually molested or have children.
of organs to avoid conception resembles enough the concepts such as
'purification' or 'improvement of next generations'. Just like the 'Angel
of Death' did it. Of course, the distance is enormous and motivations
are different (individual vs. large scale, the idea of superiority, etc.
etc.), but the fact of doing it's drastic in its own.
I still have problems, though, connecting their 'comfort' to her
'comfort' or, better yet, let's call it convenience.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by SeitseBut the organs weren't removed to prevent conception. They were removed to prevent growth.
Yeah, indeed. Regardless of the parents' motivations, the removal
of organs to avoid conception resembles enough the concepts such as
'purification' or 'improvement of next generations'. Just like the 'Angel
of Death' did it. Of course, the distance is enormous and motivations
are different (individual vs. large scale, the idea of superiority, etc.
etc. ...[text shortened]... cting their 'comfort' to her
'comfort' or, better yet, let's call it convenience.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by RedmikeDamn, Mike, I promised myself not to exchange posts with you
But the organs weren't removed to prevent conception. They were removed to prevent growth.
anymore... but it's just too tempting and, besides, office has been
quite boring this morning.
"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said
The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.
-S-
05 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseBut that wasn't the reason the procedure was carried out.
Damn, Mike, I promised myself not to exchange posts with you
anymore... but it's just too tempting and, besides, office has been
quite boring this morning.
"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said
The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.
-S-
These are effects of the procedure - not the reasons for it.
The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by RedmikeThe parents expressly said it was to avoid conception. Maybe not
But that wasn't the reason the procedure was carried out.
These are effects of the procedure - not the reasons for it.
The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.
the primary, maybe yes, but a reason anyway.
05 Jan 07
Originally posted by SeitseI have a friend with a disabled daughter, aged 23, she has not had these treatments. My friend has had to have hoists and pulleys etc installed and her garage converted into a bathroom extension. The daughter has extreme mood changes and severe pms - and has done since age 9!
The girl is disabled and the parents decided to keep her as a child
forever thanks to hormone tratment, as well as removal of the uterus
and the breasts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6229799.stm
I think it gives place for a very interesting debate here.
Are the parents the reincarnation of Josef Mengele?
I can see the parents side of the disabled girl you speak of, be it right or wrong, and I'm sure they are trying to make life easier all round. Unless we are in this situation ourselves we do not know what we would do. It's too easy to sit on the outside and judge.