No, I'm not mixing opinion with facts. I separated my opinion from fact. Are you saying you have proof of any of those items I asked you for? Quit trying to skate around the questions.
Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK.
Did the baby consent to have his foreskin removed? No? Oh, alright.
Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn.
Right there is the PROOF, not opinion, that it shouldn't be done to a child.
Dressing in pink or blue or shorts or dresses doesn't remove a body part that can't be put back on. A child isn't going to DIE from the color of clothing it's wearing or from a haircut, but there's a risk of death or permanent injury from circumcision.
What can't you get about that? I'm not saying people CAN'T do it, I'm just saying, let them pay for it, and let the individual decide if he wants HIS foreskin removed.
This procedure can be done at any age, it's not like it HAS to be done as an infant. There's no harm done in letting them choose for themselves at a point when they can consent or are aware of the procedure, however there IS harm done in doing this without their knowledge or consent as it cannot be undone.
"So your baby also didn't consent to be named, born, dressed, have it's hair cut, or anything else that happens to it at that age"
@wig I'd go one step farther. Your baby didn't choose to be male or female, nor did it choose to live in the state or country you live in, or choose what kinds of diapers/powder/cleaning clothes you use on it.
"Can you reattach a foreskin" Yes you can. It is called foreskin reconstruction surgery, and although tends to not be "as sensitive" as the first, serves other medical purposes.
"Did the baby consent to have his foreskin removed?" True, but see above comments. I am circumsized, and I wouldn't have it any other way. And when I have kids, they will be too.
"Is it a medically necessary procedure?" Yes, in cases such as Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans, congenital abnormalities, obstructive urinary tract anomalies, neurogenic bladder, spina bifida, or urinary
tract infections.
Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. I don't have a problem with medically necessary procedures. What I'm talking about here is 'routine' circumcisions.
There's no way to restore a foreskin 100%. A man shouldn't even have to worry about this since he should just have the choice in the first place. It's one thing if he decides he wants it off, then changes his mind and wants it back, it's a totally different thing if someone else chose to remove it for him and now he's having to take measures just to be back to what never should have been touched.
"Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK."
You just said you could, although not 100%. But the FACT remains it CAN be done. So please, make up your mind which way you want to roll. Or learn not to speak in absolutes.
"Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn."
"Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. "
I mean...flip-flop?
And stop marking people down because they don't agree with you.
I'm not flip-flopping, the discussion was about 'routine' circumcision, anyone besides YOU apparently would know that would exclude medically necessary procedures.
There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised. It's not something a man should even have to deal with. 'Someone cut a body part of mine off when I was a baby so now I have to spend thousands of dollars and endure all this pain to try to regain something that should have just been intact until I could decide for myself'-yeah, that makes sense.
Mark people down? Um, no. I'm assuming you mean thumbs down, and I didn't thumbs anyone down.
It wasn't until in your previous comment did the word "routine" even come up. None of your other comments, or anything the OP said had the word routine in it.
Your actual quote was as I've posted it many times "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn." You never specify routine, or for medical reasons. By leaving it broad, you also encompass the circumsicions for medical reasons, stating that they are not in fact, medically necessary.
First you say they aren't, and then you say they can be. If that isn't flip-flopping I don't know what is.
The problem here is language.
"Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. I don't have a problem with medically necessary procedures"
VS. "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn."
AND
"There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised."
Is it normal that I am against child mutilation?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
No, I'm not mixing opinion with facts. I separated my opinion from fact. Are you saying you have proof of any of those items I asked you for? Quit trying to skate around the questions.
Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK.
Did the baby consent to have his foreskin removed? No? Oh, alright.
Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn.
Right there is the PROOF, not opinion, that it shouldn't be done to a child.
--
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
-1
-1
So your baby also didn't consent to be named, born, dressed, have it's hair cut, or anything else that happens to it at that age.
And "necessary" = bullshit anyway.
Tons of the stuff we put kids through aren't really "necessary"
it's not necessary to dress girls in pink, boys in blue, cut their hair, put pretty things on them... but people still do it.
The problem is you're trying to get society to banish something that's based in religion.
Remember ... no matter what "reasons" you come up with - someone CAN always target something YOU value too.
That's the risk you take when you decide your own personal values should be enforced on everyone else, regardless of what they want.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
1
1
-
Gelmurag
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
-3
-3
Dressing in pink or blue or shorts or dresses doesn't remove a body part that can't be put back on. A child isn't going to DIE from the color of clothing it's wearing or from a haircut, but there's a risk of death or permanent injury from circumcision.
What can't you get about that? I'm not saying people CAN'T do it, I'm just saying, let them pay for it, and let the individual decide if he wants HIS foreskin removed.
This procedure can be done at any age, it's not like it HAS to be done as an infant. There's no harm done in letting them choose for themselves at a point when they can consent or are aware of the procedure, however there IS harm done in doing this without their knowledge or consent as it cannot be undone.
--
Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
-
Wüstenfuchs
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
children don't normally die from this either.
although drama queens might.
thing is, when deciding if benefits outweigh risks, that's purely opinion.
you might try backing it up with "facts" but in the end it's opinion that decides this.
Just threatening to put me in a dress, my dad caused me more psychological harm than my circumcision...
"So your baby also didn't consent to be named, born, dressed, have it's hair cut, or anything else that happens to it at that age"
@wig I'd go one step farther. Your baby didn't choose to be male or female, nor did it choose to live in the state or country you live in, or choose what kinds of diapers/powder/cleaning clothes you use on it.
"Can you reattach a foreskin" Yes you can. It is called foreskin reconstruction surgery, and although tends to not be "as sensitive" as the first, serves other medical purposes.
"Did the baby consent to have his foreskin removed?" True, but see above comments. I am circumsized, and I wouldn't have it any other way. And when I have kids, they will be too.
"Is it a medically necessary procedure?" Yes, in cases such as Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans, congenital abnormalities, obstructive urinary tract anomalies, neurogenic bladder, spina bifida, or urinary
tract infections.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
1
1
Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. I don't have a problem with medically necessary procedures. What I'm talking about here is 'routine' circumcisions.
There's no way to restore a foreskin 100%. A man shouldn't even have to worry about this since he should just have the choice in the first place. It's one thing if he decides he wants it off, then changes his mind and wants it back, it's a totally different thing if someone else chose to remove it for him and now he's having to take measures just to be back to what never should have been touched.
--
Gelmurag
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
-2
-2
Now you are renigging on your original arguments.
"Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK."
You just said you could, although not 100%. But the FACT remains it CAN be done. So please, make up your mind which way you want to roll. Or learn not to speak in absolutes.
"Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn."
"Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. "
I mean...flip-flop?
And stop marking people down because they don't agree with you.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
I'm not flip-flopping, the discussion was about 'routine' circumcision, anyone besides YOU apparently would know that would exclude medically necessary procedures.
There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised. It's not something a man should even have to deal with. 'Someone cut a body part of mine off when I was a baby so now I have to spend thousands of dollars and endure all this pain to try to regain something that should have just been intact until I could decide for myself'-yeah, that makes sense.
Mark people down? Um, no. I'm assuming you mean thumbs down, and I didn't thumbs anyone down.
--
shade_ilmaendu
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
4
4
-
Gelmurag
11 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
See More Comments =>
He's just grasping at straws because he can't argue against any of the points you've made.
It wasn't until in your previous comment did the word "routine" even come up. None of your other comments, or anything the OP said had the word routine in it.
Your actual quote was as I've posted it many times "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn." You never specify routine, or for medical reasons. By leaving it broad, you also encompass the circumsicions for medical reasons, stating that they are not in fact, medically necessary.
First you say they aren't, and then you say they can be. If that isn't flip-flopping I don't know what is.
The problem here is language.
"Yes, it CAN be medically necessary, but most of the time it isn't. I don't have a problem with medically necessary procedures"
VS. "Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn."
AND
"There ISN'T any way to fully restore a foreskin to pre-cut state. There's ways to mimic it or to TRY to restore it, but nothing comparing to never being circumcised."
VS. "Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK."