Originally Posted by
Long Duck Dong
I will politely disagree.... bluebiyou has said that people who perform circumcisions on children, are child molestors that mutilate children... and other members have refered to children being mutilated at the hands of doctors and parents...... so my statement is valid as I am saying the same doctor can be the one that removes a cancerous growth from a childs penis and prevents future suffering and pain.....and be hailed as a * hero * by parents that would refuse to have their child circumcised by the same * child molestor that mutilates children *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That might well be HIS opinion, it is not a term I would use, or have used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
however I will ask a question, and that is, if a child has a growth removal from their penis, does that mean they are mutilated too, or is it only children that have been circumcised, regarded as mutilated....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is two questions, not one. Answer to the first is no, if a child has an unnatural growth removed from their penis it is not a mutilation, anymore than surgically removing a wart from the end of their nose.
Answer to the second. You would need to ask Blue, but I assume he means mutilated in the sense that an unnecessary operation was performed on HEALTHY tissue, removing it from the rest of the body. He can correct me if I have the sense of his argument wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anyways, back to the circumcision issue
circumcision can be a precursor prevention of non retractable foreskin issues in males.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) That is true, but it is a very extreme method of prevention. As I mentioned before, we don't amputate a healthy leg on the off-chance it might be injured at some remote point in the future, turn gangrenous and need amputation. We generally wait until until it is a medical necessity, after having considered all the other less extreme options. Then and only then, would we pursue amputation. On the premise that if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the argument is used that there is no valid reason to circumcise a person....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) The only person I have seen to suggest that is you. Everyone else has been stating,(time and time again I might add), if an adult in full possession of his faculties wishes to have HIMSELF circumcised, that is entirely his choice.
What I, and they have stated, repeatedly, is that it is morally wrong to circumcise the HEALTHY penis of an infant, to remove HEALTHY tissue from another human being without their consent, in cases where it is not medically necessary. The decision should be deferred until such time as that child becomes an adult and can make that choice for themselves. Their body, their choice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if there is no valid reason, then why are foreskins removed by medical experts cos of non retractable foreskin issues, ... is that not a valid reason to remove the foreskin if there is no other alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My answer) As I understand it, the foreskin in babies is often initially fused to the glans, but separates naturally. If the foreskin is unhealthy and is beyond repair, by any other treatment, then it is removed by circumcision. But such cases form only a tiny percentage of the circumcisions performed in the US each year.
With respect, you know that, I know that, everyone on this thread knows that. LDD. You are trying to defend the indefensible by ignoring the answer you have received, each and every time you have raised this same question.
What the anti-circumcision lobby here object to, is the circumcision of healthy infant penises for purely cultural reasons. Subjecting infants to an unnecessary operation which causes them pain, distress and the risk of post-operative infection on the whim of their parents, however well meaning, is morally wrong.
Every surgical operation carries with it the risk of infection, and going into shock during the operation, and of post operative infection afterwards, during the recovery period. To put an infant at risk of that together with the pain and trauma involved is simply wrong, when there is no medical necessity to do so. That decision should be the child's, when they reach adulthood, and are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves. Not having it forced upon them whether they might want it or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cos if it is a valid reason to remove a foreskin, that fucks near every anti circumcision argument in the site.... cos for a anti circumcision advocate to say yes, it is a valid reason, they have just fucked their own stance that there is no valid reason
btw, I am not being pro circumcision.... I am questioning the validity of a stance....
Bookmarks