If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
In the article it mentions the pregnancy issue along with the period issue.
Apparently it's because it would be uncomfortable, tbh this is the only thing in the case that I have a problem with. There's no need for it.
I really do doubt a male with the mind of a 3 month old baby has the ability to get it up nevermind have full intercourse, now a female with the mind of a 3 month getting raped and impregnated. Bit more believable methinks.
Very base logic you have there.
I don't think it would be the "male with the mind of a 3 month old" who would be getting it up, or lying on the bed with a come-hither stare; more likely the abuser would be playing a big part in it. For all they are trying desperately to infantilise someone [in this case a female, but that's of no consequence generally speaking] who would physically grow into an adult, they would still respond to sexual contact I'm absolutely positive.
I'm not saying it is likely that a male with the mind of a 3 month old will be getting people up the duff left, right and centre but I also doubt many females with the mind of a 3 year old will be getting pregnant any time soon. If you do for one you do for the other.
Like I said it's Pandora's Box, and seemingly it doesn't have to make any sense to the logical mind.
I could simply just use the old argument, how many female sex offenders do you know?
But that doesn't mean they don't exist and it certainly doesn't mean that females in a position of trust haven't abused their charges in the past - physically, mentally, sexually.
Ok, don't want to make a farce out of this. But what women, insane, sick or not would actually want to stimulate a man with the mind of a baby, have sex and actually carry his baby. It's not the sex part, but actually wanting to carry the baby. Sick!
Its one thing being a carer and thinking "blimey, I wish they were a bit lighter" But another thing thinking "i know, lets get an operation to stunt her growth. Doesnt anyone here believe in a persons right to bodily integrity? or is that only for non-disabled people?
Was watching the news earlier (ITV I think) and after they reported the story, they spoke to a family whose son has the same condition (he's about 9 and he started walking when he was 8 or something) and they don't agree with what this family have done to their girl.
I guess I'm slightly unsure where I stand on this - part of me agrees with it but part of me thinks in some ways it's wrong.
If anyone actually thinks that the prevention of pregnancy is a valid reason for performing surgery on a 9 year old body and that it is the only way then they have serious weird and skewed priorities. Maybe ensuring she doesn't exist in an abusive environment would be better than these scary, FUCKED UP preventative measures.
As far as I am concerned it's bordering on assault and was done more for the parents benefit than for the childs.
For the supporters: Do you think that something like this should be available on the NHS?
Quote me where I said it was. It's a preventative measure in case she does get abused.
Of course it will prevent anyone finding out about it though.
Oh so you can't tell if someone has been abused it they don't get pregnant or have any tits. :yeees:
I'm sorry, I just assumed it by your [and others'] complete acceptance of a 9 year girl being given a hysterectomy as seemingly the only means of her not becoming pregnant (!). "In case" she does get abused is a very strange way for anyone to look at such a case, and a deeply scary reason to put a child through surgery.
It should surely be assumed that she won't, and that pregnancy will never, ever be an issue. The whole story gets weird and weirder. My cousin was never given a hysterectomy, I guess we just assumed she wouldn't be a victim of abuse. It must be a scary position to be in if you can't guarantee safety for your child you spend your whole life caring for.
Ok I'm not suggessting periods are like childbirth, unexplainable pain but I'm sure they're not all rosey, plus can you think of the trauma this child will be going through when all these adolescent processes take place. The child can't think properly, therefore it's only logical to assume the parents know best. They've cared for the child and believe that the child being in a state of a 9 year old or whatever would be much better for her than hergoing through an ever lasting process of ageing. The doctors agreed so I don't see what the big deal is here.
I kinda agree. 'Unnatural' intervention has kept her alive this long ...
They have a duty to provide care for this child. Anything whihc they do must be treatment either preventative or reactive. yet in this case I cannot see how having her breasts and womb removed and having hormone therapy, just so that her parent will find it easier to care for her, can be considered treatment.
I take back what I said earlier about this bordering on assault though. I'm now convinced that is exactly what has happened.
Where did they say that they would stop loving her if she got too big? You are just making up stuff for effect.
I agree with you in many ways but if the parents do not have the resources or facilities to look after an adult-sized person, they would have to give her up to care (if they could afford it). Who knows how she would be treated then? The UK doesn't have a particularly unblemished record in the care of the disabled either so maybe being at home is the best place for her to be.
The child has the mental capacity of a newborn baby- her mental state isn't just restricted, its practically non-existent. For both the parent and the child physical bonding- that's holding her and carrying her- is very important, and if the treatment had not taken place then they would no longer be able to do this. Periods pains are uncomfortable (if they're not, why do so many women use pills and coils to avoid them?) and possibly traumatic for someone in that mental state. The risk of pregnancy would also cause a great deal of harm to someone in that mental state; I think the sexual abuse angle is a bit of a red herring, but if it did happen, can you imagine a three-month-old baby having the cognitive ability to deal with pregnancy?
This isn't a normal case, and sometimes the normal rules don't apply.
As for the attacks on the parents as "lazy" and "superficial", well, if they were that lazy and superficial do you think that they would have spent the last TEN YEARS caring for her? Really? It doesn't get any more "inconvenient" as the years go by, does it? And as for whoever said that they did it because caring for adults is "icky", its not any more "icky" than caring for a child- the shit and the piss smell and feel exactly the same, don't they?
If the parents were acting out of convenience and selfishness they'd have just smothered her with a pillow ten years ago, wouldn't they? Or maybe that would be better, at least its "natural"!
This isn't just about pregnancy, it's about wellbeing. I can't sleep face down because my boobs make it uncomfortable, if, as I have already said, I were never going to have kids then I'd have a hysterectomy to avoid having to have periods, they're fucking nasty.
And as for "she doesn't even know if she's weeing or pooing" no, clearly not, that's why babies cry when they fill their nappy isn't it? In fact, that whole arguement is self-destructive, if she doesn't know when she defecates, then she won't notice missing boobs and uterus will she?
Furthermore, if she were to ever show any improvement, considering her non-change status for the last 9 years, do you really think she's ever going to reach the point where she'll have the mental capacity to choose kids, and the mental capability and physical abiltiy to care for them? She's not missing anything but blood streaming between her legs one week in four.
As for holding and carrying her, well she's a good height and weight already so it's not like they can cradle her in their arms anyway as you would with a three month old baby. I repeat that there are many physical adults with the mentalities of children who haven't had their growth stunted in order to allow carrying and inclusion on family trips, and they have not experienced a poorer quality of life for it. I find it all inexcusable. I haven't said at all that the parents are lazy and selfish parents, but it is undeniable that they have made an elective - and imo very, very bad - decision about their child's health which will essentially serve only themselves.
Eugenics are go!