[QUOTE=Omegaman]
Can I have your head after your done with it? I would like to mount it a top a stake until it becomes fly blown.
I guess after that it would make a fine ashtray.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t know you were a smoker, Omegaman.
You disgusting bastard. 
I agree with Aspidistra. Further, I would posit that a lot of those people who are vilifying the parents don’t even remotely have a concept of anything they or their daughter face. Dear Og, how horrible all around. And very strange that the worst thing to take issue with out of the whole situation is a bizarre choice of descriptors. I’d think they probably need whatever comfort available. Poor familly.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Looks to me like Too Long, Didn’t Read, I Don’t Know Just Kidding Laugh Out Loud For The Win.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’ve seen it spelled out a dozen or so times now, but I still can’t muster up the lack of apathy to allow it to sink in further than one or two neurons. It will always remain gibberish to me. Like most of his posts.
So nobody’s gonna say anything about “pumpkin babies”, huh? Everyone is gonna just strut right into this thread, big as you please, and pretend that a bizarre reference to ‘pumpkin babies’ hasn’t been thrown down in the OP?
Well, I won’t have any part of the charade…I demand to know what a “pumpkin baby” is. My googling has given me only pictures of babies dressed as pumpkins…no links to disabled children being called “pumpkin babies”.
A little girl was abandoned in Australia. The media there nicknamed her “Pumpkin”.
[QUOTE=Rysdad]
I have never heard of “breast buds” before. Sure, I’ve heard of budding breasts, and I might have even encountered some back in junior high. But I didn’t know that there were disctinct, um, things, as breast buds.
[/QUOTE]
I go to the strip club all the time with some of my breast buds.
[QUOTE=Rysto]
A little girl was abandoned in Australia. The media there nicknamed her “Pumpkin”.
[/QUOTE]
Oh. I remember that now. Thanks. I was all excited though, eager to see what kind of strange deformity would prompt the name “pumkin babies”.
[QUOTE=Rysdad]
I have never heard of “breast buds” before. Sure, I’ve heard of budding breasts, and I might have even encountered some back in junior high. But I didn’t know that there were disctinct, um, things, as breast buds.
Anyway, hers were removed. That raises the question…if she hadn’t had a hysterectomy, would the rest of her breasts continued to develop except where the buds had been, or does removal of the buds mean “no booblets for you”, ever?
[/QUOTE]
Too late! My expensive education in embryology demands use!
There are discrete clumps of tissue that are defined early on during fetal development as breast tissue. They need estrogen and progesterone to proliferate and develop the duct tissue of a functional breast. That happens when puberty hits.
The hysterectomy might have left her ovaries in tact. It is more common to only take the uterus. If so, then she would still be producing estrogen and progesterone, and she would have grown breasts had the breast buds been left.
**TLDRIDKJKLOLFTW, ** this is a truly bizarre and gruesome story, but, good gawd man, don’t lose your head over it. Pillow Angel *is *far more palatable and easy to sell than mangled bugaboo.
[QUOTE=Smeghead]
Yeah, I’ve seen it spelled out a dozen or so times now, but I still can’t muster up the lack of apathy to allow it to sink in further than one or two neurons. It will always remain gibberish to me. Like most of his posts.
[/QUOTE]
You know what’s more annoying than an unusual user name? People who come into a posters thread expecting gibberish, and then bitching about it whether they find it or not.
[QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated]
Oh. I remember that now. Thanks. I was all excited though, eager to see what kind of strange deformity would prompt the name “pumkin babies”.
[/QUOTE]
I thought for a moment they might be off-brand copies of Cabbage Patch Kids.
I honestly thought the OP might be about a product much like “Teddy Babes”.
About the actual story, I couldn’t actually scroll down to read it when I saw the top of the picture of her. Just- God love her & God help her & her poor parents who probably just did what they thought was right, because I have no idea what I’d do in such circumstances.
Well, lets see. She is now 4’6" and weighs 85 lbs.
She has to be lifted, moved, washed, toiletted, and fed. It is way easier to maipulate a shorter, lighter lump than someone who is 5’6" and 130 lbs. The [parents are doing all the work themselves, and they arent getting any younger.
AS to the hysterectomy? Why the hell not? would you like to have to deal with her if she turned out to be the type female who had hell periods with huge cramps and bleeding? Not just the mess of dealing with the blood but the CRYING. She is developmentally 6 months old. Infants that age CRY when they hurt. They cry when hungry and wet also. Hungry and wet can be solved in a few minutes. Cramps can go on for not just hours, but DAYS. Imagine her crying from the pain for days? As to the breast buds, why not. They don’t do anything, and breast tissue is a possible cancer location, so why not.
To me euthanasia as an infant would have been a much better idea. 
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Looks to me like Too Long, Didn’t Read, I Don’t Know Just Kidding Laugh Out Loud For The Win.
[/QUOTE]
Seconded. I was thinking, “Well, it’s perfectly comprehensible to me, but then I play far too much World of Warcraft.”
As for what was done to the kid, I think the name is creepy as all hell but the procedure is in an ethical grey area worthy of GD.
I thought “pillow angel” was some sort of stuffed animal, until I read the article.
The hysterectomy, I can see. The rest, eh, kind of disturbing.
(Oh, and does anyone else think that Ashley looks like Harry Potter? Yeah, I know, I’m going to hell.)
Pasolini film? 
I don’t remember cutesy nicknames from Accatone- Salo perhaps?
[QUOTE=aruvqan]
Well, lets see. She is now 4’6" and weighs 85 lbs.
She has to be lifted, moved, washed, toiletted, and fed. It is way easier to maipulate a shorter, lighter lump than someone who is 5’6" and 130 lbs. The parents are doing all the work themselves, and they arent getting any younger.
AS to the hysterectomy? Why the hell not? would you like to have to deal with her if she turned out to be the type female who had hell periods with huge cramps and bleeding? Not just the mess of dealing with the blood but the CRYING. She is developmentally 6 months old. Infants that age CRY when they hurt. They cry when hungry and wet also. Hungry and wet can be solved in a few minutes. Cramps can go on for not just hours, but DAYS. Imagine her crying from the pain for days? As to the breast buds, why not. They don’t do anything, and breast tissue is a possible cancer location, so why not.
To me euthanasia as an infant would have been a much better idea. 
[/QUOTE]
It’s a hard thing to even contemplate, but I have to agree with you and the parents as far as stunting her growth and the hysterectomy. She will never, ever have any use for her uterus, it will only have the potential to cause her discomfort and make her care even more difficult. ISTM that anything that makes it easier for her parents to care for her is in her best interest as well.
I do wonder about the decision to remove her breast buds, though. I think there needs to be a much better reason than “why not?” Yes, they could potentially harbor cancer, but the chances of any one individual developing breast cancer are low, and people with such extreme disabilities as hers usually (in my understanding) have a much shorter life expectancy, making cancer a non-issue.
I’m just speculating, but I can think of a couple reasons to stop her breast growth, neither of which is entirely satisfactory to me. The parents might simply want to maintain her childlike appearance. I can sort of understand wanting this from an emotional standpoint, but as it doesn’t benefit her care, I don’t think it’s a good reason for the surgery. They might also be trying to desexualize her, possibly to protect her from predators if/when her parents are unable to care for her and have to put her in a care facility, or to make it psychologically easier for her father to help care for her. Presumably he helps his wife bathe and dress their daughter, and he might feel that this would become extremely awkward, if not inappropriate, once her body begins sexual development. Sexual predators are a concern in facilities where patients are unable to communicate, but I don’t think they’re common, nor that her not having breasts would be much of a deterrent (particularly since her infertility would attract a predator who was looking for a victim). As for her father’s comfort/discomfort in caring for his daughter, it seems to me that the everyday effort and mundanity would eliminate any sexuality, and I just don’t see this contributing materially to the ease of her care.
Control freak much? I thought pumpkin was a term of endearment. Besides if you decapitate yourself you’ll loose all you bodily functions which means you’ll shit yourself.
[QUOTE=no12u]
Control freak much? I thought pumpkin was a term of endearment. Besides if you decapitate yourself you’ll loose all you bodily functions which means you’ll shit yourself.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it’s so much that Ashley’s parents have nicknamed her “pillow angel” as that they refer to other people with her condition “pillow angels.” It just sounds creepy, that’s all.
Funny, I looked at the picture and the first thing I thought was, “Wow, she looks a lot like Daniel Radcliffe.”
I think my days of crushing on him are now over.