• 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

Seismosaurus said:
Arguing that cutting off a piece of a person's body is not an injury is an absurdity. On that basis one could argue that there is no such thing as an injury. "Yes I punched him in the face and broke his nose. But can you prove that a broken nose is an injury? No? Then I did nothing wrong."


No. A claim supported by the meaning of the word "injury". If you use a knife to cut somebody, that is an injury by definition.
Click to expand...

By that definition every surgery is an injury.
 
Argumemnon said:
To demonstrate some sort of consistency in your thinking. Do you think parents should be allowed to have the lesser forms of female genital mutulation performed?
Click to expand...

I didn't write the law, my argument doesn't involve the law, so how does addressing an inconsistency in the law demonstrate consistency in my thinking?
 
Mycroft said:
I didn't write the law, my argument doesn't involve the law, so how does addressing an inconsistency in the law demonstrate consistency in my thinking?
Click to expand...

Is it safe to say then you feel the law should not protect the rights of parents to circumcise their children? If so, awesome we agree now.
 
sadhatter said:
Is it safe to say then you feel the law should not protect the rights of parents to circumcise their children? If so, awesome we agree now.
Click to expand...
That cannot be derived from what I said, so what purpose does this serve?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I think there's an important distinction being missed in that most surgical procedures are for repairing or removing damaged or unhealthy tissues but the vast majority of infant circumcision does not have any such justification.

With no preventable health risk to offer as a rational basis for taking a knife to flesh, this procedure doesn't qualify as "medical" to me.

First, do no harm.

Now, it certainly can get more complicated, but net benefit is key in justifying an operation. Doctors are not spiritual advisors or sociologists, so the family and cultural bonding stuff is outside their scope of concern. What is good for the development of a newborn child should be their overriding concern.

30 seconds a day of minimal sanitary effort is what we're talking about. So hey, let's remove baby teeth and gums (future development as well) and install dentures. We're preventing gingivitis!

There is a great deal of very slow change that occurs to the organs and skin arrangement well into puberty that diverge greatly when the procedure is at birth. The structure they are looking at is very different from the final result at adulthood. Not to mention surface area and room for error.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Does this qualify as mutilation?

https://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/health/e/extra-finger-toe
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Ummm, every surgery using invasive techniques actually is an injury. Why on earth would you think not?
Click to expand...
Because neither common usage nor the words definitions support that.

Sure, technically you could refer to a surgical incision as an "injury", but that would be an unusual use of the word.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
Because neither common usage nor the words definitions support that.

Sure, technically you could refer to a surgical incision as an "injury", but that would be an unusual use of the word.



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't.
 
Darat said:
No you didn't.
Click to expand...
Maybe instead you should pick one of them and show me how it's not a strawman.

Do that right after you cite some examples where "injury" is used to describe a surgical incision.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
Maybe instead you should pick one of them and show me how it's not a strawman.

Do that right after you cite some examples where "injury" is used to describe a surgical incision.
Click to expand...
How about "wound?" Surgical incisions are called "wounds" all the time. When an infant boy is circumcised, he is being wounded.
 
Babbylonian said:
How about "wound?" Surgical incisions are called "wounds" all the time. When an infant boy is circumcised, he is being wounded.
Click to expand...
Alright, you get points for that. "Surgical wound" is definitely a thing.

At the same time, do you really say someone is "wounded" after surgery? Be honest. :)



Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk
 
Mycroft said:
Alright, you get points for that. "Surgical wound" is definitely a thing.

At the same time, do you really say someone is "wounded" after surgery? Be honest. :)
Click to expand...
I don't say they've been "incised" either. Occasionally, the word "cut" is used, and it's often intended to be ironically diminutive.

Regardless, when someone has been cut by a surgeon for virtually no measurable medical benefit, it's usually grounds for a lawsuit. And the person cut is usually considered to have been injured in the process.
 
quadraginta said:
Plenty of post-surgery discussion about how the "wound" is healing.

I've listened to enough of it to know. More often than I would like as the subject.
Click to expand...
There are "wound care clinics" all over the United States, too; I'd say the world but I know that terminology differs according to both language and culture.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom