Why Doesn't God heel amputees?

It is said that God must not like amputees. There is no shortage of testimonies of God healing things like multiple sclerosis, cancer, and so forth. I have heard the overwhelming majority of doctors are of the opinion that God is performing medical miracles today. However amputees are not the recipients of God's loving power, they remain amputees.

My guess is that the issue of amputees is brought up because the veracity is easier to authenticate with amputees than it is with other alleged miracles. Ironically, the greatest skeptic of all time, that great agnostic philosopher David Hume wrote about a case of an amputee receiving a miracle.

There was a town in Spain where a man lost his leg and spent his time in front of the local Church for several decades. He became famous throughout the town. The man of course was healed, and the incident was a well-documented one in which everyone in the town, at the time, would testify to the story.

Hume's use of the incident was in suggesting that we can either believe the testimony of the townspeople, or the much more authentic testimony of experience which suggest the laws of nature hold true. The greater evidence available to us is on side with the uniformity of the laws of nature, which do not allow for limbs to grow back, and therefore Hume concluded the story is false. Hume praised a cardinal for rejecting the story simply because it went against the cardinal's own sense experience.

Hume rejection is rather circular. The concept of a miracle presupposes the laws of nature, observed regularities, otherwise the event would not be so miraculous and praise-worthy. Arguing against a miracle on the basis that it is a miracle is begging the question.

Circular reasoning is not enough to have me abandon the story of the man in Spain, nor is it enough to have me abandon the story of Christ healing the ear of the Roman guard who came to take Him away. I therefore reject the question.