Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, February 15, 2007 01:17 PM

  This Just Shows How Ingrained Religious Notions Are Even Without

  It being an obvious factor.

  All the "objections" are firmly grounded in "religious ideals" re: what makes a human being, however they are disguised by thick rationalizations to make it all seem so "purely scientific" as well as in the "interest of the child."

  The objections all say in essense "do we have a right to make this decision for another human being."

  Those that object do so, because their instinctual feeling re: humans is we are "special." Our body almost sacred, and the way it came is the way it should be without being altered except out of medical necessity.

  This "feeling" is hardly scientific, especially since the bulk of their reservations rest on the "sanctity of the intact human body."

  Ironically, science has been teaching us that what makes us "human, more than just an animal" is our mind.

  Without our "mind" we are little more than flesh. A functioning heart, lungs, liver Etc. canNOT make us human. ONLY OUR MIND does that.

  Yet the distance between the true source of their objections and their rational thinking mind is so great, few would recognize their gross rationalizations for what they are, an attempt to impose the religious (any all religions) sense of what is "human" over the scientific sense of what is human (the FUNCTIONING mind in a human body.)

  So instinctive is the feeling, that they miss the fact that humans with normal mental ability make the decision to alter their bodies every day. Women with large breasts get reductions. As medicine advances the kinds of changes will get more dramatic, and we'll mak them willingly.

  In this young girl's case, her infirmed nature prevents her from making any rationale decision. She is aware of the world like a 3 yr. old, but mentally is probably less capable than that for a 3yr. old's behavior is a result of a growing, properly functioning brain, which this girl does not have.

  So her parents have decided for her, and their choice is reasonable, rational and fair to all.

  They clearly refused to put on the blinders so many of this nation's elite do in regard to the state of healthcare, nursing care and the variety of "social services" this girl would have to depend on IF her body had been allowed to develop into an adult body, while her mind was left behind at 3months.

  They know they do not have the luxury of pretending that our social services network is ready, willing and wants to take care of a child like theirs. They insist on taking into account her likely fate if forced to give her up because she became impossible to take care of at home.

  I commend the parents for making this decision. They sound incredibly compassionate, loving, determined and brave.

  If this girl had been normal, she'd would have had a fantastic life.

  As it is, these wonderful people are ensuring she has the best life she can, unhindered by a physical form that would make it impossible for them to keep her in her later years.

  And yes while unspoken, i think the inference is clear. If the hospital did NOT do this, then in a few years, the little girl was going to be the responsibility of the state, not theirs.

  So not only did they do the best for the child, themselves but also this country's overwhelmed social service system.

  —Jon
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel