• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MGM UK

3point14 said:
Well, that's new.
Click to expand...

I am full of surprises.

3point14 said:
No, no it isn't.

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

A bit of skin from the penis. We all know the definition of circumcision, this adds nothing.

3point14 said:
Let me repeat the key phrase: "Cut off". The thing that's being cut off is full of nerve endings and supplied with blood.
Click to expand...

As is every other part of the human body.

3point14 said:
What you have, and I'm sorry if this logic upsets you, after a circumcision, is a baby boy with a mutilated penis.
Click to expand...

It’s not that it upsets me personally, that’s irrelevant. It’s that the majority of the anti-circumcision argument is to declare it “mutilation” or use other emotionally charged terms. You may as well type in all caps and add a bunch of exclamation points for all the strength it lends to your argument.
 
3point14 said:
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?
Click to expand...
I apologize, I was being sarcastic. Somehow they aren't stupid, they just have stupid ideas. Which makes no sense to me, but I'm sure it equates to some "scientists can believe in God too" style of reasoning. They are smart but have ideas that don't mesh together. Which to me is stupid in and of itself. My parents acted on whatever beliefs or reasoning they had and pretty much everyone in this thread has stated that any reasoning they used is stupid. Whether it be religion or that, to some, there are next to zero medical benefits. As Darat has pointed out, apparently my statement is a strawman and not accurate. I'll take his word on it.

Anyway, I really just wanted to drop by and give props. Didn't want to climb back into this conversation. I've spent more time on it than I feel the topic deserves.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
Ethan Thane Athen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am aware of the different forms of female genital mutilation, and am also aware of previous threads on the topic. I have participated in some of them, and assume that everyone here is familiar with the issues.

Ethan Thane Athen said:
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...?
Click to expand...

Since I’ve never made that claim I’m puzzled that you’re putting this question to me. I think you’ve probably correctly identified a contradiction in our laws, which is common because lawmakers often work from different and competing sets of principles.
 
Mycroft said:
I am full of surprises.



A bit of skin from the penis. We all know the definition of circumcision, this adds nothing.



As is every other part of the human body.
Click to expand...

Yes, and cutting these bits off is considered mutilation. it's textbook.


It’s not that it upsets me personally, that’s irrelevant. It’s that the majority of the anti-circumcision argument is to declare it “mutilation” or use other emotionally charged terms. You may as well type in all caps and add a bunch of exclamation points for all the strength it lends to your argument.
Click to expand...


If you find it emotional to use the clinical definition then, I'm afraid, that's your issue. I see things the opposite way around. circumcision is the soft, we're not really damaging his penis, just cutting a bit off, culturally friendly version. The real-life description is mutilation because, and again, I apologise if this offends, that's what's happened - a small but healthy and functional part of the child has been cut off and cannot be reattached and will not regrow.


The correct word is mutilation. That the procedure is common and culturally accepted (in some places) doesn't change that.
 
Darat said:
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?
Click to expand...

I never claimed to be against emotionally charged terms in all circumstances. The reason I object to it in this specific case has been adequately explained, and you should address that rather than try to manufacture a discrepancy.
 
plague311 said:
I apologize, I was being sarcastic. Somehow they aren't stupid, they just have stupid ideas. Which makes no sense to me,
Click to expand...

Really? I assume you're not stupid. I'm afraid that I also assume that you, like me, have done stupid things in the past.


Someone being 'not stupid' is not immune from stupid ideas or stupid acts. Peer pressure (which is sort of where we are with this) I can guarantee has made many people who were not stupid do stupid things.

If you have never done anything unwise or stupid because you're so clever, I congratulate you, but I don't think you're representative of the population as a whole. Everyone ***** up.



but I'm sure it equates to some "scientists can believe in God too" style of reasoning. They are smart but have ideas that don't mesh together. Which to me is stupid in and of itself. My parents acted on whatever beliefs or reasoning they had and pretty much everyone in this thread has stated that any reasoning they used is stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's not to say that they were, themselves stupid, but I think, and again, my apologies, I think they did a stupid thing. I think cultural pressures can make clever people do stupid things all the time.


Whether it be religion or that, to some, there are next to zero medical benefits. As Darat has pointed out, apparently my statement is a strawman and not accurate. I'll take his word on it.

Anyway, I really just wanted to drop by and give props. Didn't want to climb back into this conversation. I've spent more time on it than I feel the topic deserves.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Understood. I have tried not to offend.
 
Mycroft said:
That would be anti-religious and cultural freedom.
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, US law on 'the surgical modification of female genitalia for non-medical reasons' expressly rejects the invocation of religion and culture as a justification for such procedures.

Why should boys be treated differently based on religion and culture? The idea lacks even basic logic.
 
Seismosaurus said:
Religious and cultural freedom does not extend to the injuring of others.
Click to expand...

If this constitutes and “injury” or not is a fundamental part of our disagreement. I don’t think it does, and nobody here is supporting it beyond presenting hyperbole or just making an assertion.

Seismosaurus said:
Then you have made a factual error.
Click to expand...

A claim supported only by your assertion.

Seismosaurus said:
I would say the fact that your argument rests on denying an objective fact underlines the falsity of your argument.
Click to expand...

I’m wrong because I’m wrong? That’s as good as any other argument I’ve seen.

Seismosaurus said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the reason this is so unconvincing to me is that I’ve been circumcised and do not consider myself to have been mutilated or even harmed. I also strongly disagree that circumcision can rationally be compared to human sacrifice and child molestation.
 
GlennB said:
As mentioned earlier, US law on 'the surgical modification of female genitalia for non-medical reasons' expressly rejects the invocation of religion and culture as a justification for such procedures.

Why should boys be treated differently based on religion and culture? The idea lacks even basic logic.
Click to expand...

I don't believe I have ever claimed that boys and girls should be treated differently under the law.
 
Mycroft said:
I never claimed to be against emotionally charged terms in all circumstances. The reason I object to it in this specific case has been adequately explained, and you should address that rather than try to manufacture a discrepancy.
Click to expand...

Why then do you support the change of "female circumcision" to "female genital mutilation"?
 
Mycroft said:
If this constitutes and “injury” or not is a fundamental part of our disagreement. I don’t think it does, and nobody here is supporting it beyond presenting hyperbole or just making an assertion.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I can even invent a definition of injury that includes all of the traditional injuries but excludes actually removing a functioning, nerve filled part of a person.

What definition of 'injury' are you using that allows such scope?
 
quadraginta said:
One which includes, "Because God said so."?
Click to expand...

Or - "never did me any harm"

Or - "otherwise it is a smelly part if the human anatomy that no one has ever been able to keep clean in the history of humanity"

Or - "It won't look like his daddy's"
 
Mycroft said:
I don't believe I have ever claimed that boys and girls should be treated differently under the law.
Click to expand...

Would you welcome an extension to the law (quoted above) that put both sexes on an equal footing?

If you would, and the new law used the same phrasing, then male circumcision would be illegal. Would you be OK with that?
 
Mycroft said:
The sole purpose of calling circumcision "MGM" is to elicit the emotional reaction of female genital mutilation. It's disengenous at best.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, as Ethan notes, male circumcision is more drastic than some forms of Female Genital Mutilation. Pretty much any cutting of female genitals is FGM, therefore male circumcision can legitimately called "Male Genital Mutilation."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom