This is one of the most disturbing and downright horrifying things I have read recently. Since I don’t have enought time right now, I encourage you to comment with your reflections. I don’t see any reason to be nice. Someone will, of course, object that “this is such a difficult choice for parents to make.” Why? There’s nothing difficult about it. And even if it were difficult, how does difficulty equal absolution? As if the harder the choice, the more excuse one has. No, there is no excuse. If anything, the greater the difficulty, the greater the failure if one chooses wrongly.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Balaam's Ass 
Tim,
Before I respond. What were you disturbed by. I have to admit, that once I made it about half way I started skimming, so I could have missed something. (other than the fact that we aren’t angels despite what the Pagan Temple of Precious Moments may say)
I agree…this is downright disturbing. I ended up blogging on it as well.
Tutal,
Don’t you think there’s anything disturbing about stunting your child’s growth and removing her breasts and uterus? I just can’t see the supposed benefits that the parents see.
There was a child who was born a boy some years ago, but he didn’t have fully formed genitals so the parents decided to take his penis fully off and give him estrogen so that he would grow breasts and basically be a girl. Well, that’s not how things work, and he went through all sorts of problems and issues before he decided to live as a man.
Both of these are against nature, by which I mean God’s nature, i.e., how He created things to work. The parents seem to think that two evils make a good. But let me know what you think.
Tim
Tim:
That was the case of David Reimer, who eventually committed suicide after all of this.
No matter what has happened genetically, to “reassign” gender to intersex people has done more harm than good.
I wondered how does the Lutheran church minister to intersexed people. By “intersex” I mean those whose DNA have both male *and* female chromosomes.
We are all born broken, in some manner or other.
Usually, we embrace medical surgeries as a means to make ourselves less broken.
Sometimes we think it makes us better, while others think that same operation makes us worse.
This is a situation where the parents removed otherwise healthy tissue in an effort to make things better. How is this any different that a man getting “snipped”, or a woman having her tubes tied?
Something to think about:
If this where a case of removing a cancer node, it would not be an issue. But what would happen if this girl develops, then has breast cancer, resulting in a mastectomy later in life? This operation now, may help her from getting cancer in the first place.
I’m not arguing in favor of the surgeries in question, just thinking out loud.
I wondered how does the Lutheran church minister to intersexed people.
Which Lutheran church?
Lemme reword the question:
“I wonder how Confessional Lutheran Doctrine is ministered to intersexed people?”
Consider this:
We are all born broken, in some manner. Our physical bodies are not perfect, as a consequence of sin. Yet whatever sex we are born with here on this earth and whatever problems we have now, they are irrelevant with regard to the state of our souls when our physical body dies.
Well…
We are aware that homosexuality is considered a sin in Confessional Lutheran doctrine. That is: male-to-male or female-to-female sexual contact and whatever goes along with it.
If you are intersexed…that’s a new ball game. Genetically, one who is intersexed have *both* male and female chromosomes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality
Take a woman who has Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, for instance– one of many facets of intersexuality. Genetically, she is “XY”, but due to development and the fact herself as an embryo was resistant to the androgen, she took on a female form. She is female in every way…except in her chromosomes.
The question to consider is whether she can establish a relationship with a “XY” male when she is “XY” herself.
We are also aware that any sexual contact outside of marriage, including heterosexual, is considered a sin in Confessional Lutheran doctrine.
“The question to consider is whether she can establish a relationship with a “XY” male when she is “XY” herself.”
In context of marriage, probably yes. Because marriage is between a man and a woman, and XY people do identify more strongly with one of the sexes.
Part of the debate is whether or not to cosider XY couples homosexuals. My opinion is no, because the definition of homosexuality does not translate clearly in this instance. Others would disagree with me on this.
For context:
I believe homosexuality is a choice based on sinful temptation, not because of predestined assignment by nature. Much like my sinful temptation to drink too much beer from time to time. I don’t view homosexuality tendencies as any more or less sinful than alcoholism.
Back on track:
However, in the context of sin, it would be adviseable for these people to not enter into a relationship or marriage that could never come close to meeting the intent or purpose of traditional marriage.
In this case, the best option for many people (XY or not) is to remain celibate and avoid the temptions of their sinful human nature.
Whether we are normal, XY, or consider ourselves homosexual, we are all still sinners. Sin doesn’t discriminate. But the real message is that Christ’s Grace doesn’t discriminate either.
Correction:
I said:
“In context of marriage, probably yes. Because marriage is between a man and a woman, and XY people do identify more strongly with one of the sexes.”
I meant:
“In context of marriage, probably yes. Because marriage is between a man and a woman, and XY people do generally individually identify more strongly with one or the other of the sexes.”
Thanks for stepping up to the plate, Lawrence. With all of these genetic variations (mental, physical, gender, whatever) we seen in our bodies and offspring, there is this drive to get rid of or hide abnormality. (This is not to be confused with combating disease.)
In Christ, we are whole, and wholly His.
“there is this drive to get rid of or hide abnormality.”
Translated into Christian Doctrine, we could also define it as “our drive to hide our sin.”
Like Adam and Eve trying to hide from God by covering themselves with leaves and hiding in the bushes. It wasn’t their nakedness they where trying to hide. They where trying to hide their sin from God, which is exactly the same thing humanity strives for today, and why it is so important for us to be “Confessional Christians” by Christ’s Grace.
Is it ethical to remove an organ because there might be a problem with that organ later? Where do we draw the line? Is it ethical to remove “unneccesary” organs in the severely disabled children but not in “healthy” children?
Tim,
I went back and re-read the article. Yeah, some of the surgical procedures do seem to be a bit presumptuous. At the same time, I am having a tough time, just based on this and your most recent post, drawing a line and being able to say up to here and no further. It is messed up, but so is the condition that their daughter is in. It is the horrible effects of a fallen creation. The whole situation makes me just want to pray, “Come Lord Jesus.”
“Is it ethical “ ???
Good question.
We could also ask:
Is it moral?
Is it right?
Is it sinless?
Tutal has the right idea. We must first remember that this is a fallen creation, and anything/everything we do is tainted by sin. Even the ‘good’ things we do.
Is it ethical to perform these operations that lessen the future suffering of this girl?
In most cases, Yes.
Is it moral?
In some cultures, Yes. In others, No.
Is it right?
Depends on what we define as right.
Is it sinless?
No.
In our fallen creation there is no true altruism, except for God’s/Christ’s Grace.
>>>
So then, we ask, is something like this a necessary evil that we can consider a right thing to do under the circumstance?
I think the answer is, in a Christian context, No.
I think the answer is, in a Christian context, No.
Is this to say that for the non-Christian it would be the right thing to do?
Is this to say that for the non-Christian it would be the right thing to do?
No.
However, anybody can argue that the answer is Yes, simply because they need an argument to justify their desire for a Yes answer to this question. Which is exactly what these parents have done.
Humanity twists these arguments like this all the time, in order to justify whatever we want to feel is right at any given time.
I catch myself doing this on a regular basis, but I have not faced with such serious decisions as the parents in this case. It is easy for me to talk about what these parents should have done. But I honestly do not know what decision I would reach if was in their shoes.