Ashley's Treatment and an Open Question

Probably you have all heard in the last couple of days about the Ashley story, a 9 year old girl in Seattle who is severely handicapped (she has the brain of a 3 months old) whose parents have been giving her hormone treatment and also have opted for surgery to block breast growth and had her uterus and appendix removed, in order to stunt her growth. The parents also have a blog that explain their actions. The say that "because she will remain the weight of a child, it will be easier for them to move her around, bathe her and involve her in family activities - movement that will benefit her physical and mental well-being." But the operations is mostly for Ashley's sake herself and not so much the convenience of the parents. "Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it. The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said. The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.

So that's the summary. What's my view? I think in this situation, there is nothing wrong with what the parents have done. Even if the operations were done for the benefit of taking care of her, I say it is ok. She would be forever 3 months old. Being a woman has so many extra bodily discomforts - getting your menstrual cycle itself is a mess that is difficult enough to handle when you are fully capable.
So I understand what the implications are. We are playing god to a great extent. Where do we draw the line? Can this lead to operations which are not justified as is the case here?

Maybe my opinions are too harsh. But I really dont see the point of living when you can't comprehend the world around you - I don't mean anyone who is mentally handicapped, but definitely include forever-3 months olds. I had a discussion recently - if a fetus is detected to have mental or physical disabilities, would its abortion be a justified? Is it fair to the child or the parents to be forever responsible for this new life - thus taking up resources of the world while weakening what the parents can give to the world because of the extra care it requires. I am being extremely blunt, not minding my language. But it is really of interest to me what the issues are here. So I would love to hear your thoughts.