- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Sick people will do sick things, breasts or not. The hysterectomy will prevent pregnancy in the event of sexual abuse. Keeping the girl small and thus in the care of her parents will likely prevent sexual abuse, but then if she's in her parents care who are they worried is going to abuse her? The breasts part was just weird, and if there is to be a surgery, why not after her breasts developed?
I think the problem most people have with the procedure is that it looks like the parents are mutilating their daughter for the sake of their own desires and not so much her comfort. The parents may want the best for their daughter and I'm sure they're sincere, but their motives and needs shouldn't factor into this decision at all. Either it's acceptable to do to people or it's not. Put another way, if it's ethical when she's a child, it should still be ethical when she's an adult; preventing her from growing breasts is the same choice as cutting them off after she does.
Sure, she won't be reproducing, so cut out her uterus. She won't be knitting or running either, so cut off her arms and legs as well as they'll just get in the way and make her heavier and harder to care for.
