MGM UK

[Delphic Oracle]

Educate us.

I linked a study. Nobody acknowledged it.

This phenomenon has occurred in these discussions often enough that I have little motivation to dig up more.

Instead we get repeated claims of benefits and told the drawbacks are imaginary when medically speaking, the exact opposite is true.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[quadraginta]

Because the only argument in that post was emotive.

Keep up the pretense. That's persuasive.

Imagine the same argument being used for abortions? "I wonder what the long term result would be if all references to abortion, including within the medical community and literature, were to be replaced with 'prenatal infanticide?'"

Maybe because it would be inaccurate to the point of being a contradiction in terms. An embryo is not an infant.

I can't think of any. Can you name a few?



What was the "medically accurate" part of that post?

.

The medically accurate part of the term, you mean?

Which part of "male genital mutilation" do you believe is not medically accurate?

 

[Mycroft]

Keep up the pretense. That's persuasive.

C'mon, you're better than this nonsense.

Maybe because it would be inaccurate to the point of being a contradiction in terms. An embryo is not an infant.

Easy enough to fix. Prenatal fetacide? Prenatal mutilation? Inflammatory words are inflammatory, it only takes a little imagination to pick a good one.

Which part of "male genital mutilation" do you believe is not medically accurate?

The word "mutilation". Any definition so broad as to include circumcision would also include any surgical procedure.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The word "mutilation". Any definition so broad as to include circumcision would also include any surgical procedure.

Ummm, no.

Needlessly removing functional body parts does not include "any surgical procedure".

 

[Mycroft]

Ummm, no.

Needlessly removing functional body parts does not include "any surgical procedure".

Nor did I say it did. What I did say is a definition of "mutilation" so broad as to include circumcision would also include virtually any surgical procedure.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Rule of "It's been okay for thousands of years now, so ... "

What I meant by that is not that doing something for a long time is reason to keep doing it. It's not. I meant that we've been doing this procedure for a long time, and therefore know a lot about it.

Those who claim it's an egregious tragedy... The science doesn't support that. Circumcised people do about the same as uncircumcised people.




Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Nor did I say it did. What I did say is a definition of "mutilation" so broad as to include circumcision would also include virtually any surgical procedure.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

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

 

[Delphic Oracle]

What I meant by that is not that doing something for a long time is reason to keep doing it. It's not. I meant that we've been doing this procedure for a long time, and therefore know a lot about it.
Those who claim it's an egregious tragedy... The science doesn't support that. Circumcised people do about the same as uncircumcised people.




Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

As a ritual? Yes.

As a "medical" procedure, actually no.

Even today, it's tough to find numbers and data even on rates of population, let alone complications (and it is assumed so ubiquitous that it might not be considered as a factor).

This is from American Academy of Pediatrics and demonstrates the turbulent discussion and limited data available.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686

It's absurd, yes, that even medical science (and especially public health policy) is nearly as squeamish on this topic as your average joe.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

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.

That paragraph is really struggling to make itself sound more important than it is. It's a cosmetic procedure, mostly.

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.

There are minor benefits. I'd list them, but I assume Google works as well for you as it does for me.

"To me." is a very important qualifier, isn't it? If it seems one way to you, but many people don't share that view and it seems different to them, what gives you the right to impose your view on them?

First, do no harm.

That's the crux of the anti-circumcision argument is a very poorly supported assertion that harm is being done.

Now, it certainly can get more complicated, but net benefit is key in justifying an operation.

Net benefit is subjective, so that decision should be left between the doctor and family. You shouldn't have any say there.

Doctors are not spiritual advisors or sociologists, so the family and cultural bonding stuff is outside their scope of concern.

Making the decision is outside of their concern, but advising on the decision is not, nor is performing the procedure safely if the parents want it. People make medical decisions using non medical factors all the time.

What is good for the development of a newborn child should be their overriding concern.

And for cultural, religious, health or esthetic reasons, those concerns could lead to a decision to circumcise a boy.

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.

That sounds like a reason to do it after puberty?

Reasons to do it in infancy include not remembering it, getting it done before the brain does all it's neural mapping, and not getting stitches pulled by erections.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[angrysoba]

I disagree that I need to justify sati, FGM, and chopping off hands to says that circumcision should be left to the decision of the parents, because none of those are comparable to circumcision.

Then you do agree that it is okay to stifle people's religious freedom in some cases. Is that correct?

 

[Mycroft]

I linked a study. Nobody acknowledged it.

I'm sorry I missed it. I'd look it up if I wereon my PC, but I'm on my phone and I don't really know how on tapatalk.

I will say that unless it's a very recent study, I've probably already read it. A few years ago I decided to research the topic deep, and I read everything I could find from every point of view.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Mycroft]

Then you do agree that it is okay to stifle people's religious freedom in some cases. Is that correct?

Correct, religious freedom is not absolute.

At the same time, I also think you would need a very good reason, and I really don't believe this qualifies.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

 

[Darat]

The function being to keep a few drops of urine on the glans to promote inflammation and bad smell, and also as a collection place for smegma.

Your claims regarding the function of the foreskin are not informed by actual facts.

 

[Darat]

Nor did I say it did. What I did say is a definition of "mutilation" so broad as to include circumcision would also include virtually any surgical procedure.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

You did say it, you were wrong of course but yes you did say that.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That paragraph is really struggling to make itself sound more important than it is. It's a cosmetic procedure, mostly.

You didn't limit the comparison to cosmetic procedures.

You've also now shifted on this point and concede there is no medical value here?

There are minor benefits. I'd list them, but I assume Google works as well for you as it does for me.

No?

Ok. Hard to discuss this with someone who refuses to be consistent from one sentence to the next.

"To me." is a very important qualifier, isn't it? If it seems one way to you, but many people don't share that view and it seems different to them, what gives you the right to impose your view on them?

Now you're feigning ignorance of common phrases.

That's the crux of the anti-circumcision argument is a very poorly supported assertion that harm is being done.

Only when you refuse to read or respond to support given.

Net benefit is subjective, so that decision should be left between the doctor and family. You shouldn't have any say there.

Net benefit is not subjective. You just refuse to educate yourself on it.

As I've pointed, even doctor's are morons when it comes to reproductive organs. Religion made it that much of a "no-no" topic that even people who study the human body shied away.

Making the decision is outside of their concern, but advising on the decision is not, nor is performing the procedure safely if the parents want it. People make medical decisions using non medical factors all the time.

OK, but just don't call it a medical procedure.

And for cultural, religious, health or esthetic reasons, those concerns could lead to a decision to circumcise a boy.

That sounds like a reason to do it after puberty?

Reasons to do it in infancy include not remembering it, getting it done before the brain does all it's neural mapping, and not getting stitches pulled by erections.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

It sounds like you are still comically uninformed or ill-informed on too many facts to make an informed decision about this even for yourself, let alone a defenseless child.

Which is basically the only reason this continues to be a common practice at all.

Stunning ignorance and celebrated falsehoods.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[3point14]

Could someone please present me the legal standard that allows for MGM and not FGM.

Is there one?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Could someone please present me the legal standard that allows for MGM and not FGM.

Is there one?

Because Jesus?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[GlennB]

Could someone please present me the legal standard that allows for MGM and not FGM.

Is there one?

18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation is part of the answer. The other part is buried in irrational beliefs.

The bit I find especially interesting is:

(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
In other words, "This is what we do in our tribe" is no justification for the procedure. It strikes me as very strange double standards that circumcision is allowed on boys for no better reason than "custom or ritual".

 

[3point14]

18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation

The bit I find especially interesting is:

(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.
In other words, "This is what we do in our tribe" is no justification for the procedure. It strikes me as very strange double standards that circumcision is allowed on boys for no better reason than "custom or ritual".

Thank you.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Rule of so.



I did. The removal of a piece of skin is still not comparable to a leg.


Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

It's very comparable to several types of FGM though - indeed more drastic than some of them. Is your view of FGM the same as your view on MGM and if not, why not?