MGM UK

[Mycroft]

You didn't limit the comparison to cosmetic procedures.

Nor is there any reason to limit the comparison to cosmetic procedures.

You've also now shifted on this point and concede there is no medical value here?

If I gave that impression, let me correct it now.

Now you're feigning ignorance of common phrases.

No, and that's a very weird claim.

Only when you refuse to read or respond to support given.

I have not refused to read anything, and I've certainly responded. Your assertions of harm are weak. If you have better evidence or believe I have overlooked something, please feel free to bring it forward.

Net benefit is not subjective. You just refuse to educate yourself on it.

Of course net benefits are subjective. That is different people can judge the same benefits to have greater or lesser value depending on their own circumstances and preferences.

As I've pointed, even doctor's are morons when it comes to reproductive organs. Religion made it that much of a "no-no" topic that even people who study the human body shied away.

Off topic, but whatever.

OK, but just don't call it a medical procedure.

Why not? Of course it's a medical procedure.

It sounds like you are still comically uninformed or ill-informed on too many facts to make an informed decision about this even for yourself, let alone a defenseless child.

You are needlessly personalizing this.













Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I disagree that I need to justify sati, FGM, and chopping off hands to says that circumcision should be left to the decision of the parents, because none of those are comparable to circumcision.

I suggest you educate yourself on FGM. There are various forms including some that are less than circumcision, some that are comparable and some that are much worse.

 

[Mycroft]

Could someone please present me the legal standard that allows for MGM and not FGM.

Is there one?

The sole purpose of calling circumcision "MGM" is to elicit the emotional reaction of female genital mutilation. It's disengenous at best.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

It's very comparable to several types of FGM though - indeed more drastic than some of them. Is your view of FGM the same as your view on MGM and if not, why not?

Is it comparable with all types of female genital mutilation?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

Could someone please present me the legal standard that allows for MGM and not FGM.

Is there one?

The legislation. FGM only became illegal in the UK around the mid 80s, and the laws have been strengthened since then in a few different acts/bills.

 

[Darat]

The sole purpose of calling circumcision "MGM" is to elicit the emotional reaction of female genital mutilation. It's disengenous at best.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Why are you then using the emotive term female genital mutilation if you are against using a form of words to elicit an emotional reaction?

FGM was a purposefully chosen term to make it clear what happens to victims of what was known previously as "female circumcision" (regardless of the type of FGM). Why do you not still use the term "female circumcision"?

 

[3point14]

The sole purpose of calling circumcision "MGM" is to elicit the emotional reaction of female genital mutilation. It's disengenous at best.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

No, no it isn't.

What one does, during a circumcision, is cut off a bit of a babies penis.

Let me repeat the key phrase: "Cut off". The thing that's being cut off is full of nerve endings and supplied with blood.

What you have, and I'm sorry if this logic upsets you, after a circumcision, is a baby boy with a mutilated penis.


Other cultures have valued different mutilation of their babies and children, ritual scarring, that thing with the neck rings, oriental ladies and their crushed feet, lots of different things.

Just because it's something that's culturally acceptable, doesn't mean it isn't mutilation. It's a textbook case.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Nor is there any reason to limit the comparison to cosmetic procedures.

You claimed most surgeries would fall under "mutilation" the way it was being used. Then you deflect when the difference is pointed out by claiming this one is cosmetic (which it isn't, healthy tissues with functional purposes are damaged or destroyed).

So you changed the scope of the set.

You moved the goalposts.

If I gave that impression, let me correct it now.

Is it a procedure that has medical merit or is it cosmetic and has no particular consequences, you seem to shift around on this point from post to post (or sentence to sentence).

I have not refused to read anything, and I've certainly responded. Your assertions of harm are weak. If you have better evidence or believe I have overlooked something, please feel free to bring it forward.

Two links from me, one claim from you that you can't ingest it just now along with a declaration that you don't really need to anyways.

Of course net benefits are subjective. That is different people can judge the same benefits to have greater or lesser value depending on their own circumstances and preferences.

No I mean literally some of the maluses/benefits claimed by proponents are utter hogwash.

Off topic, but whatever.

The religious viewpoint and relevant historical sociological context is off topic?

Then so are your rants about "muh religions!"

Why not? Of course it's a medical procedure.

It's a superstitious ritual indicative of 6000 year old thinking.

You are needlessly personalizing this.

https://youtu.be/6pTbL7GYUuA

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Is it comparable with all types of female genital mutilation?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

No. Which is why I said "There are various forms including some that are less than circumcision, some that are comparable and some that are much worse."

We have had threads about this before.

The World Health Organization describes FGM as "any procedure that injures the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."

If you drop the word 'female' then that is circumcision - though you'll now no doubt quibble about the definition of 'injures' so...

...Definition of Type IV FGM: "The WHO defines Type IV as "All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, including pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization. It includes nicking of the clitoris (symbolic circumcision)...".

That latter, I would contend is substantially less drastic than circumcision. A small cut is made that is then allowed to heal.

So it's wrong to make a small cut in a female's genital organs but perfectly ok to completely remove a part of a male's genital organs because...?

 

[sadhatter]

What I meant by that is not that doing something for a long time is reason to keep doing it. It's not. I meant that we've been doing this procedure for a long time, and therefore know a lot about it.

Those who claim it's an egregious tragedy... The science doesn't support that. Circumcised people do about the same as uncircumcised people.




Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Botched circumcision are not a tragedy?

 

[plague311]

Mycroft, you definitely have more patience than I do. The passive aggressive and, not so, passive aggressive way you've been confronted was why I bailed out awhile ago. It's basically just being repeatedly called stupid in ways that are allowed here.

I'm with ya though. I didn't even know until this thread that I was a mutilated disgrace with stupid parents that can't think for themselves and love the jeebuz too much.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I'm with ya though. I didn't even know until this thread that I was a mutilated disgrace with stupid parents that can't think for themselves and love the jeebuz too much.

Repeating your strawman does not make it true.

 

[3point14]

Mycroft, you definitely have more patience than I do. The passive aggressive and, not so, passive aggressive way you've been confronted was why I bailed out awhile ago. It's basically just being repeatedly called stupid in ways that are allowed here.

You confuse the accusations. nobodY's been called stupid, however, absent the threat of eternal damnation, cutting healthy bits off healthy children is a stupid idea.

 

[plague311]

Repeating your strawman does not make it true.

Again, we'll have to disagree. Maybe since, as I was told before, I have an implicit bias here I can see the not-at-all-subtle messages in the posts.

You confuse the accusations. nobodY's been called stupid, however, absent the threat of eternal damnation, cutting healthy bits off healthy children is a stupid idea.

Ah, so it's not that they're stupid, it's just that they have stupid ideas? Thanks for clearing that up. Point taken.

 

[3point14]

Ah, so it's not that they're stupid, it's just that they have stupid ideas? Thanks for clearing that up. Point taken.

I'm having difficulty interpreting the tone of this one. Is the point really taken or are you still upset that others assess your actions differently to you?

 

[Seismosaurus]

That would be anti-religious and cultural freedom.

Religious and cultural freedom does not extend to the injuring of others.

I disagree that circumcision equals mutilation

Then you have made a factual error.

and I believe your reliance on that emotive term underlines the overall weakness of your argument.

I would say the fact that your argument rests on denying an objective fact underlines the falsity of your argument.

You are asserting a right to interfere with someone else's religious and cultural freedom. I think it's appropriate to explore the basis of that assertion.

It's simple enough. Religious and cultural freedom does not extend to the injuring of others without their consent. We do not allow people to carry out human sacrifice in the name of religious and cultural freedom. We do not allow people to molest their children in the name of religious and cultural freedom. We should not allow people to mutilate their children in the name of religious and cultural freedom.

 

[Mycroft]

Botched circumcision are not a tragedy?

Rule of so, except you managed to avoid the word “so”.

Of course botched circumcisions can be a tragedy.

 

[3point14]

Rule of so, except you managed to avoid the word “so”.

Well, that's new.

 

[Mycroft]

You claimed most surgeries would fall under "mutilation" the way it was being used.

Yes.

Then you deflect when the difference is pointed out by claiming this one is cosmetic (which it isn't, healthy tissues with functional purposes are damaged or destroyed).

I disagree that was a deflection. You’re the one who doesn’t seem to want to address how broad your definition of “mutilation” is.

So you changed the scope of the set.

You moved the goalposts.

No.

Is it a procedure that has medical merit or is it cosmetic and has no particular consequences, you seem to shift around on this point from post to post (or sentence to sentence).

I think you working so hard to identify or manufacture a contradiction in what I say is your method of deflection from addressing the issue that a definition of “mutilation” so broad as to include circumcision is broad enough to include any surgical procedure. Having “medical merit” and being “cosmetic” are not mutually exclusive to each other, so that should ease your confusion.

Two links from me, one claim from you that you can't ingest it just now along with a declaration that you don't really need to anyways.

Does paraphrasing what I said exempt you from addressing it? Is it a recent study or not?

No I mean literally some of the maluses/benefits claimed by proponents are utter hogwash.

Some benefits being hogwash does not in any way address benefits being subjective.

The religious viewpoint and relevant historical sociological context is off topic?

Non-sequitur would have been more accurate. That is, it didn’t address any point I made nor raise any issue I need to deal with.

Then so are your rants about "muh religions!"

Rant?

It's a superstitious ritual indicative of 6000 year old thinking.

Which doesn’t disqualify it from being a medical procedure.

 

[3point14]

Yes...

(apologies for heavily snipping your post))

Can you say what evidence would be required for you to change your mind?