MGM UK

[Mycroft]

Well, if you're going to cut off one part, might as well go the whole way and kill the child, right?

Keep the foreskin, throw away the baby?

 

[Belz...]

Keep the foreskin, throw away the baby?

It'll cost you less in the long run.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

One does not normally regard medical procedures as "injuries".

Maybe turn that around? What definition of "injury" do you use that includes circumcision but excludes any other procedure that cuts or removes functioning , nerve filled parts? I.E., every surgical procedure?

 

[Mycroft]

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."

I don't agree that your conclusion follows from your premise.

Do you believe that if female circumcision were limited to "nicking", and never included anything else such as cutting away the labia or clitoris, that it still would be called female genital mutilation?

 

[Mycroft]

One which includes, "Because God said so."?

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"

Guys having fun playing with strawmen? Maybe there should be a special thread for that.

 

[Babbylonian]

One does not normally regard medical procedures as "injuries".

Maybe turn that around? What definition of "injury" do you use that includes circumcision but excludes any other procedure that cuts or removes functioning , nerve filled parts? I.E., every surgical procedure?

If you can name a few other surgical procedures performed without patient consent for no legitimate medical purpose that are generally considered acceptable, maybe people would be willing to engage you in "turn[ing] that around."

As it is, a preemptive appendectomy in the absence of symptoms seems to make as much medical sense as infant circumcision (none).

 

[sadhatter]

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.



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

So no smart people have stupid ideas? Are you saying that you have never had a stupid idea? Or that anyone who has had one is automatically stupid in every way shape and form?

I don't know about you but I've had plenty of stupid ideas, hell like my favorite musician I used to post a "stupid crap I've done" blog. So no I wouldn't consider one stupid idea to indicate someone is a moron.

That being said, my stupid ideas don't tend to involve unnessecary surgery on infants. Which is something I'm pretty against.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

You are against it in this circumstance because is aimed at you.

My opinion is that your post is indicative of a hypocritical arguement and further more that you know this.

 

[sadhatter]

One does not normally regard medical procedures as "injuries".

Maybe turn that around? What definition of "injury" do you use that includes circumcision but excludes any other procedure that cuts or removes functioning , nerve filled parts? I.E., every surgical procedure?

What surgeries are you getting that are removing functional parts?

Actually I can think of one procedure, which is cosmetic scarification, FYI usually done at tattoo parlors, but no my tattoo analogy way way off the mark.

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

 

[Mycroft]

If you can name a few other surgical procedures performed without patient consent for no legitimate medical purpose that are generally considered acceptable, maybe people would be willing to engage you in "turn[ing] that around."

As it is, a preemptive appendectomy in the absence of symptoms seems to make as much medical sense as infant circumcision (none).

The bolded parts indicate where you moved the goalposts and both are questionable statements.

Parental consent suffices as it does in countless other decisions made on behalf of the infant.

The "lack of medical purpose" is not exactly true as there are minor benefits.

So, find me a definition of "injury" that includes circumcision but excludes ever other surgical procedure.

 

[sadhatter]

I don't agree that your conclusion follows from your premise.

Do you believe that if female circumcision were limited to "nicking", and never included anything else such as cutting away the labia or clitoris, that it still would be called female genital mutilation?

I would still call it exactly what it is.

Call me crazy but elective surgery on those who cannot consent is something I'm against.

 

[sadhatter]

The bolded parts indicate where you moved the goalposts and both are questionable statements.

Parental consent suffices as it does in countless other decisions made on behalf of the infant.

The "lack of medical purpose" is not exactly true as there are minor benefits.

So, find me a definition of "injury" that includes circumcision but excludes ever other surgical procedure.

It does in medically nessecary situations.

But as we can see the law is cracking down on the "it's my kids I can do what I want" crowd. Examples abound in regards to faith healing, alternative medicine etc.

So do you believe those type of parents are justified our is this going to be another case of "its only okay when it's me".

 

[Mycroft]

I would still call it exactly what it is.

Not exactly what the question was.

Call me crazy but elective surgery on those who cannot consent is something I'm against.

Is that a blanket statement of principle? If my infant daughter had a birthmark or birth defect, would you object to my deciding to have it surgically corrected on the basis that she cannot give consent?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Babbylonian]

The bolded parts indicate where you moved the goalposts and both are questionable statements.

Parental consent suffices as it does in countless other decisions made on behalf of the infant.

And yet parental consent wouldn't suffice if a deaf couple wanted to eliminate the hearing of their child (to fit into their deaf culture), or if they wanted to remove their child's testicles (to eliminate the possibility of testicular cancer, perhaps because of a strong family history of same), or any number of other procedures with at best possible medical or cultural benefit.

The "lack of medical purpose" is not exactly true as there are minor benefits.

Minor possible benefits.

So, find me a definition of "injury" that includes circumcision but excludes ever other surgical procedure.

No, thank you. Again, you can't seem to be bothered to get specific or address other very valid arguments (such as explaining why male circumcision is so very different from the more minor forms of "female circumcision"). That makes your attempts to increase the burden of proof for the arguments against your very weak ones (e.g., paraphrased, "I'm fine with my circumcision") unreasonable.

This is particularly true since I specifically mentioned preemptive appendectomy, which is not generally considered a reasonable medical procedure despite the fact that it too would prevent [far more dangerous] infections in an allegedly mostly useless part of the human body.

 

[Babbylonian]

Is that a blanket statement of principle? If my infant daughter had a birthmark or birth defect, would you object to my deciding to have it surgically corrected on the basis that she cannot give consent?

I would think it would depend on the birthmark or birth defect. Given your strong desire for specifics, it would be nice if you provided some yourself.

 

[Mycroft]

It does in medically nessecary situations.

As well as countless non medical situations. Special pleading is special.

But as we can see the law is cracking down on the "it's my kids I can do what I want" crowd. Examples abound in regards to faith healing, alternative medicine etc.

I can't speak to what may happen in the future, this is about what should happen.

So do you believe those type of parents are justified our is this going to be another case of "its only okay when it's me".

False dichotomy.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Babbylonian]

Just for the heck of it, I'll offer up another reason the supposed medical benefits of circumcision are bunk: We have antibiotics. Even if someone develops an infection on/around the penis which can be traced back to the foreskin, it will almost certainly be solved with a course of antibiotics. A circumcision would only be indicated if the infections became frequent or there was tissue necrosis.

Similarly, tonsillitis used to be far more often handled with tonsillectomy. Now, the vast majority of tonsillitis cases are readily handled by either watchful waiting (for viral symptoms to resolve naturally) or by antibiotic treatment (when the cause is bacterial). Only when there are multiple infections over time does tonsillectomy become the standard treatment.

 

[Mycroft]

I would think it would depend on the birthmark or birth defect. Given your strong desire for specifics, it would be nice if you provided some yourself.

The only criteria specified by Sadhatter is that it is elective surgery on someone who can't give consent.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[sadhatter]

Not exactly what the question was.



Is that a blanket statement of principle? If my infant daughter had a birthmark or birth defect, would you object to my deciding to have it surgically corrected on the basis that she cannot give consent?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

So a foreskin is a defect that needs to be corrected? If you have evidence of this I'd change my position.

Personally I thought that it was a normal functional part of the anatomy.

You keep comparing cosmetic surgery with nessecary surgery, I'm all about nessecary surgery, it's modifying children's bodies for no valid medical reason I'm against.

 

[sadhatter]

As well as countless non medical situations. Special pleading is special.




I can't speak to what may happen in the future, this is about what should happen.



False dichotomy.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I wasnt talking about the future, I was talking about past and current cases. You are having to dodge quite a bit here good sir. Do you require examples of parents being charged for these things? I'm sure a good portion have whole threads here.