There are no jurisdictions banning abortion and SF can't do jack about whether circumcision-providers will get funding or not, to try and enact what you consider a "soft" ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Printable View
There are no jurisdictions banning abortion and SF can't do jack about whether circumcision-providers will get funding or not, to try and enact what you consider a "soft" ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Botox is medically regulated and part of that regulation is the strong suggestion not to use it on minors. A doctor COULD administer it if he felt its use was warranted, so yes, a parent could possibly get botox for their kidlets under the current legal environment. Minors have and do get breast implants and tattoos and even, I should imagine, clitoral rings *they can certainly get all sorts of other piercings* and such procedures are ostensibly supposed to have parental approval. In most jurisdictions a parent can also potentially force their child to remove/reverse such procedures, on the basis of their powers as legal guardians. Age matters but from a strictly legal-objective standpoint, the ages at which certain things are acceptable are just major cultures trying to express dominance through forcible imposition of cultural mores.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Since I've never been interested in piercings and you're the closest thing the board has right now to a contemporary medical authority, would you mind explaining to me the qualitative difference between the physical invasiveness/danger of piercings and male circumcision? From my thoroughly uneducated position they look to be on about the same medical level.
This issue, as it's been coming up in the US and on this board, is just a bunch of hypocritical bullshit. There are no medical or scientific assurances one way or the other, there isn't even a consistent application of moral or ethical standards. There is nothing but a kneejerk "oh, that's just wrong" over-reaction to the magical power of the concept "genitals/private parts" and subsequent rationalizations to support and enhance that knee-jerk reaction.
I think you mean, kneejerk over-reaction to the idea of unnecessary surgery done without informed consent. But that's no biggie.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Claiming to base anything medico-legal on the informed consent of minors is nothing but a deliberate distraction. Minors can't give informed consent there without significant legal hoops. Parents make the decisions. And that's not something you have any major objection to in general, you've just ascribed medically-unwarranted magical "specialness" to genitals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Just a page ago I was discussing the similarities with parents deciding to lop off pinkies or breasts. You don't get off that easily.
Yes, as always you tried to conflate something you dislike with something much larger Should anyone make a well-written and well-reasoned challenge you will go off on all sorts of other tangents on "terrible, nasty, evil" until people stop trying to talk with you, and then you'll enjoy that little endorphin rush you get when thinking "ha, I win." Enjoy that little game of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I am glad your many years in the professional field have given you this insight into my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Without animosity (which apparently you will not accept), it's okay if you prefer men with cut schlongs, or want to justify your own cut schlong, or whatever. It really is! It's very human, and it's okay. I can accept that. But never in a million years will you accept that, because thanks to my years in the field, I am sure you have to rationalize and intellectualize everything so that you are in the right, for the right reasons.
On the face of it, there is little difference between lopping off, say, the left ear-lobe or the left arm of the child, or their fore-skin. The ear-lobe has a function in determining the direction of perceived sound, but in today's society, it's not all that necessary. Living with one arm is perfectly feasible, although admittedly somewhat more uncomfortable and expensive. But the little tykes who have that much more reason not to invest in condoms due to their foreskin-less granted perceived immunity might end up more expensive than the rest, too. Who knows?
The point is, without hyperbole, that so long as parents have good, preferably religious, reason to cut something out of the child, they have the right to do so. Right? They cut the fore-skin off the protestant children because that reduces masturbation probability, maybe a hypothetical sect would cut off the dominant arm because that, too, would reduce chance of masturbation. But either way, it's the parents' choice. The fact that you, personally, find arm-cutting more offensive than foreskin-cutting is, I do think, your personal problem.
On another level, I think it would show much more adherence and acceptance of culture if a man of 18 or 22 decided to have his fore-skin removed for the sake of being one with his Jewish brethren. Because it is a choice, not something blindly administered to you by your parents, for reasons beyond your reason and control. But none of that matters, does it? Genitalia are magical in your world, and surgery in that area is protected whereas cutting off arms or ear lobes is "terrible, nasty, evil".
You appear to see circumcision as akin to cutting off an arm, I see it as akin to tattoos and ear-piercings. No good way to resolve that difference of interpretation, though I can't help but suspect that medically, I'm closer to accurate than you are. Since you've suggested that my "live and let live" opinion must be about my uncut dick, I'll go ahead and return the favor. All of your hyperbole is your own desperate hostility to your mismatched sexual and gender identities. I'm very sorry you're having profound penis issues but kindly leave them out of legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Just had to interject here. During Prohibition in the US, religious uses of alcohol (mostly wine) was strictly regulated but allowed (and that's from a constitutional amendment!). So yes, I imagine that there might be legal ways to allow a variety of otherwise illegal practices to satisfy the 'free exercise' clause of the US Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm not surprised... thanks for the info :up:
Fuzzy, circumcision is a surgical procedure. It has its benfits but it also comes with short- and long-term risks. Like botox it has medical indications as well as non-medical ones. I oppose circumcision of little boys because I'm generally averse to unnecessary, potentially harmful and permanent meddling with the bodies of kids. If a parent wanted to have their baby girl's clit pierced i'd be against that. if they wanted to tattoo "angel" on their infant's lower back i'd be against that. If they wanted to practice a less extreme form of fgm i'd be against it. if they wanted to spank their kids i'd be against it.
kids can get various procedures done with parental consent, but if they're being forced to get a tattoo against their will i'd want child services called in. if they're engaging in sexual relations with their parents i'd want them out of their parents' care and never mind arguments about "where's the harm". if they were being denied blood transfusion i'd want to go over both their and their parents' heads.
i don't feel handicapped by my lack of a foreskin, but i am against its removal in principle. I actually remember how i felt about it. i was four or five and after the operation i cried and yelled for a long time about wanting my penis back.
circumcision of little boys for non-medical reasons is legal now, but it could be illegal. ot could be legal only for religious and medical reasons. i don't think it should be legal if it's about winning a junior pageant, unless it's a jewish junior johnson pageant
Don't even get me started on the ridiculousness of requiring this particular vaccine to enter school. I understand requiring vaccines for illnesses that are spread through everyday contact with peers, but when we get into requiring ones that are sexually transmitted I am hesitant. (and really, the HPV vaccine may not even cover but a small portion of women that get it) I'm not saying I won't vaccinate my child when the time comes, but I really think in this case requiring it may be a bit extreme. But who knows, in the future that may be a requirement for all kids, to be fully vaccinated from every single possible defect they could possibly have. Even if it has nothing to do with your everyday interactions at school. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
This isn't really directed at you, Minx, but at a number of posters here. I get your objections completely, but I'm going to raise a question I raised in the last circumcision thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Do you feel it would be reasonable to allow parents to do elective reconstructive surgery on their children's genitalia? This is a very real question - in certain genetic disorders, infants are born with ambiguous genitalia (a classic case is virilization of female fetuses with congenital adrenal hyperplasia). While in the past such children were often changed to 'female' regardless of their actual genetic sex, in the last 3 or so decades it has become common to try to reconstruct the genitalia in the approximately 'normal' configuration for the child's actual gender.
The important point here is that most of the reconstructive surgery is essentially cosmetic and not therapeutic, and there's no particular reason (other than psychological, and some dealing with the healing response) to do so on an infant rather than an adult. Yet it's widely accepted for parents to do this, outside of some militant circles arguing that parents are foisting a gender identity on their child.
Do you think parents should be allowed to do this? If you think so - and feel that circumcision should not be allowed on infants, given that it is (for most Westerners) an elective cosmetic surgery on the genitalia, why the difference?
I honestly don't care much about this whole debate, but in general I've found the knee-jerk response I've gotten to the question vis-a-vis ambiguous (but functional) genitalia has been all in favor of parents being allowed to carry out the surgery, even when there's a great deal of hemming and hawing about allowing the same for circumcision.
I think the double standards abound. If I look at myself I feel that I entirely agree with Aimless; I have seen some pretty sorry outcomes from less than perfectly performed circumcissions (in hospitals) and yet I am living happily without a foreskin on a bodypart that otherwise is fully functional and gives me a fair share of pleasure. I wouldn't have it any other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Holy crap. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Not to trivialize your experience, but that's sort of one of the main reasons [non-religious] parents prefer to do it soon after birth instead of much later in life.
The "soft ban" the last 20 + years has come from insurance companies denying claims for infant circumcision. It was deemed a cosmetic procedure, not medically necessary. Medicaid won't cover it either (AFAIK), so it's cash out-of-pocket. Physicians will still do them if parents ask, after explaining that even medical literature/studies are conflicted on any "health benefit".Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
The history for medical reasons goes back ages, including masturbation as an "illness". Our military used to promote it as protection against STDs for soldiers in combat, loosely connecting that to foreskin hygiene. Recent studies in Africa claimed circs reduce risks for HIV/AIDS, but longer-term was inconclusive (or invalidated, I can't recall which right now...) because it's hard to separate out sexual behaviors in different cultures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ion_since_1950Quote:
By the 1920s, advances in the understanding of disease had undermined much of the original medical basis for preventive circumcision. Doctors continued to promote it, however, as good penile hygiene and as a preventive for a handful of conditions local to the penis: balanitis, phimosis, and penile cancer.[citation needed]
The notion that it's "wrong" has a history that goes back farther than you may think, but not always related to genitals. It's literally amputation of a body part, not just snipping off extraneous unnecessary tissue. We used to routinely remove healthy tonsils, appendixes, gall bladders (even breasts and uteruses) in the name of prevention.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Well, shit, maybe it'd be better to wait till they can give informed consent before we start chopping bits off, then?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Muslims in general do it a little bit later. I also remember the procedure relatively vividly, it didn't hurt more than cutting your hair, but still felt somewhat odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Eh, maybe, but only if they decide against it. If they consider their religion relevant they will still go ahead with it, and with a bigger risk of complications. Also a lot more scar tissue most of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
I think you have to ask yourself serious questions about a religion which makes chopping bits of your dick off a requirement.
Well, that's your opinion. The foreskin thing is rather non-contentious in muslim circles. Here in Turkey they manage to make it something a boy is looking forward to; you get presents, new clothes it's a bit of a rite of passage. And even while I realise it's psychological mostly; I find uncut a tad disgusting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
And for everything else, right? You can't base law on the exceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
If I took the word religion out of that sentence and replaced with literally any other form of social grouping human beings can join - club, political party, trade union, association, league, troupe etc etc - you wouldn't just say that was 'my opinion', you'd think I was just stating something so self-evidently true that you'd think I was likely being fatuous.
So, they bribe you basically.Quote:
Here in Turkey they manage to make it something a boy is looking forward to; you get presents, new clothes it's a bit of a rite of passage.
You me like how you can't say "killing people is illegal, unless it's for self-defense"?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yep, if you have read what I said about it you could have known this question was superfluous. I even know the position has a fair amount of hypocrisy in it. Still your appeal to my logic is going to bounce off because that's not how I feel about my own circumcision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
It's not really a bribe if you have no choice, it's the sugar coating. And really, looking back I wouldn't have it any other way.
No, there the law is general and the exception is. . . the exception. Here apparently it's "minors can't consent by any means to circumcision but parents can otherwise fully exercise their medical proxies." Pfeh, and you all claim to disapprove of the current extent of legal complexity in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Aha. So circumcision is a life-saving procedure then? Like, curing cancer with chemo or cutting out a cancerous growth?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
You learn something new every day. And here I was thinking that the medical ethos went something like: "First, do no harm."
Yes, circumcision may prevent AIDS. May. However, there are several other, non-invasive methods available as well. Such as: Wear a condom, dumbfuck. Because y'know, circumcision does not get rid of the risk of an AIDS infection. It merely reduces (maybe. Did I mention the "maybe" before?)
And there are other STDs which are not impressed by circumcision at all.
Well, we're making some progress toward making the law more general. Now it's "minors can't consent by any means to anything but life-saving procedures but parents can exercise their medical proxies when the procedure is. . . well that's still unclear"Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I don't give a rat's ass if someone decides to get circumcised, if their parents order it done, or if they never have any sharp instrument ever go below the waist. I do care about people trying to legislate their sensibilities onto others. "Thou must do as I want thee to do and no other." You and others keep trying to tie this into a "protect the children" ethical stand but that stand is riddled with inconsistency and hypocrisy on what constitutes harm, when people can consent, what they can consent to, and what others can consent to for them. That's the evidence that this is bullshit, and the hostility is nothing but "circumcision offends me somehow."
You want to say no to circumcision, not just a personal decision but for all people, everywhere, you explain what makes it different from everything else that is not banned.
Meh, circumcision does not offend me, but it is a medical procedure with risks, and ideally you'd wait with it until the patient can consent. It is tricky though, but generally speaking I am against surgeries that are medically unnecessary. And I definitely do not approve of a 'parents can exercise their medical proxies when the procedure is. . . religious'. I mean, human sacrifice is also approved by some religions. You are probably right that I am somewhat of a hypocrite though.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
"Sensibilities". You moron. And I say that earnestly. It's a useless procedure for an infant. There is NO reason why the procedure can't be done later. There are SIGNIFICANT risks involved. It's NOT a flu shot. There are NO advantages for an infant by being circumcised.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Give me one good reason why an INFANT has to be circumcised unless there is an actual medical reason for it. Yes, there are indications. No, "God told me to" is not one of them.
Medical procedures which have no use have NO place being done. It's surgery for Glod's sake! You don't do surgery unless there is a valid reason for it.
I don't see where YOU get to be on the high horse here. Repeat after me: "Medically unneccessary procedures shall not be done on infants and children".
It's so easy a definition, even you might be able to wrap your head around it.
What does that mean? "I personally would not want to have or be involved with a medically unnecessary surgery" is pretty much irrelevant, given the topic. Absolutely no one here is trying to force you into some procedure. So presumably you are against other people engaging in such activity. What form does this take? Disapproving stares? Or do you think your being against something should carry actual weight, i.e. does being against it really mean "this activity should be prohibited"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Jackbooted authoritarian ass. And I say that earnestly. Your meaning is quite plain. Any action or activity involving the human body that does not meet that criteria of the medico-legal term "medical necessity" *a term you throw around with zero understanding* have no place being done. Particularly *but certainly not solely* on minors. Regardless of consent. Anything that isn't strictly medically necessary should be banned by law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I've been wondering, is there a reason why this discussion almost completely shies away from infibulation and the like?
Will look at the rest later, the thought just occurred to me and I had to throw it out there