More Lunacy In TCTUTKHBDTMDITSAF...

[Sean]

Ignorant.......Hmmmm lemme think no don't get the ignorant comment.....removing something from a body is surgery be it an appendix or a foreskin.

Well SMF, if you don't like the term "ignorant" to describe the unwillingness or inability to see the distinction between a major invasive procedure and a minor non-invasive one, how does the phrase "hyperbolic nonsense" strike you?

"removing something from a body is surgery"....

following that line of "reasoning" there's no distinction to be made between removing a mole and a heart transplant....

Are you talking about having a mole surgically removed Jim?

[Crackpot]

THere is a huge difference in the complexity and level of risk involved. When the Doc asks me if I ever had any prior surgeries they could give two shits that I've had multiple reconstructive surgeries on a finger even though I was put under general anesthesia for one of them. it just doesn't rate. wisdom teeth? Pshaw. Stitches on multiple occasions? Yawn.

Heck they hardly care about vasectomies. If you get your tubes tied though they damn sure want to know. Same for C sections and even appendix removals. Once you move from the external and the extremities to the chest and abdominal cavity it makes a hell of a difference. That's why when our breeding days are over it's going to be me siting on a bag of ice instead of my wife spending days in the hospital.

[Lord Jim]

Are you talking about having a mole surgically removed Jim?

There wouldn't be any thing else to call it if one embraces the:

"removing something from a body is surgery"

SMF Doctrine, Sean....


(In fact strictly speaking, I suppose that using that definition, an enema would qualify as "surgery"....)

Jim - Surgery is surgery period.

Whether its a removal of a mole or an organ transplant, they are both surgeries. Irrelevant of how invasive either is.

Right, hyperbolic nonsense it is then....

And while we're talking about hyperbolic nonsense, there's this bit:

Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation. Religious freaks are included in that statement!

Laying aside the fact that a very strong argument can be made based on the latest most comprehensive studies that circumcision always, (unless there's some specific medical reason it shouldn't be performed) has tangible medical benefits, I'd like to ask this:

If you believe that those who have their child circumcised are guilty of "child mutilation" then surely you must believe they are unfit to be parents and at a minimum should have their children taken away. (If not charged with a crime)

I would certainly feel that way if a parent did something that I considered to be "child mutilation"...I would consider that to be a grave and reprehensible crime....

I ask this question SMF, because it's quite clear from your posts that you have staked out for yourself the most extreme and absolutist position on this one can imagine; so I'm curious to know just what (if any) boundaries your extremist position recognizes.

[Sean]

I think the point being made was that they are surgical procedures. SMF did not comment on the severity, risk etc and neither did I. That was you and Jim CP.

In fact the relevant quote from SMF was this:

...removing something from a body is surgery be it an appendix or a foreskin.

A quote which is perfectly accurate.

Again it is yourself and Jim who are attempting to translate those words into something akin to, "Circumcision is exactly the same as appendectomy or heart transplant".
Argue the words you are presented with gentlemen...not some unstated and non-existent addendum you believe to be there.

Fair enough?

Mind you, I'm still chuckling at Jim describing circumcision as 'non-invasive'...


One other thing CP...

When the Doc asks me if I ever had any prior surgeries they could give two shits that I've had multiple reconstructive surgeries on a finger even though I was put under general anesthesia for one of them. it just doesn't rate.

I'm guessing here (and I'm sure that @W and SMF will back me up as our two professionals in the medical field) that a doctor will indeed give two shits about a prior surgery for which you were given a general anaesthetic...

[Rick]

I'm glad my mom decided to sever the umbilical cord.

Without waiting for my permission...

[Crackpot]

They use local (topical) anastetic SMF. Perhaps ypu should do some research before going off.

Not to mention comparing circumsision to abdominal surgery just shows plain ignorance.

Sorry CP my mistake i forgot they use Emla cream...thats ok tho because I am sure if i had the tip off my finger cut off i would only need Emla!


Ignorant.......Hmmmm lemme think no don't get the ignorant comment.....removing something from a body is surgery be it an appendix or a foreskin.

I dont see how that can be classed as ignorance. Your appendix is useless and one day you MAY get appendicitis in the same way you MAY get an infection under a foreskin. So some people choose to have their child circumcised because when hes 75 he MAY get an infection. Your sons nob should be no concern of yours at that age! The only difference I see is that the foreskin has a job....it protects the glands of the penis. Yet some people are willing to chose to remove it. So on that line of thinking while the child is getting a circumcision lets remove his appendix as well because he MAY get appendicitis when hes 75 too.

As Sean has previously posted, we gave Pudd the choice. We made the decision not to have him circumcised because of how we feel. Our decision will not affect him for the rest of his life. Much the same as we chose not to have him christened/baptised we have given him a CHOICE. When he reaches an age he is able to make that decision for himself whether it be for religious or personal reasons I know we will stand by him 100%.


Please excuse my religious ignorance, but does it say in some religious script that you can get into the Pearly gates with a foreskin?

emphasis mine

[Sean]

Are you talking about having a mole surgically removed Jim?

There wouldn't be any thing else to call it if one embraces the:

"removing something from a body is surgery"

SMF Doctrine, Sean....


(In fact strictly speaking, I suppose that using that definition, an enema would qualify as "surgery"....)

Now Jim, I know that you are intelligent enough to realise what SMF was trying to get across there. This browbeating with semantics is beneath you...

Jim - Surgery is surgery period.

Whether its a removal of a mole or an organ transplant, they are both surgeries. Irrelevant of how invasive either is.

Right, hyperbolic nonsense it is then....

It's a fact Jim. Mole removal is a surgical procedure. Organ transplant is a surgical procedure. Do you disagree?
It seems to me that the hyperbole is coming form your end (see my last post).

And while we're talking about hyperbolic nonsense, there's this bit:

Anyone who circumcises their child (except for medical reasons,) is guilty of child mutilation. Religious freaks are included in that statement!

Laying aside the fact that a very strong argument can be made based on the latest most comprehensive studies that circumcision always, (unless there's some specific medical reason it shouldn't be performed) has tangible medical benefits, I'd like to ask this:

If you believe that those who have their child circumcised are guilty of "child mutilation" then surely you must believe they are unfit to be parents and at a minimum should have their children taken away. (If not charged with a crime)

I would certainly feel that way if a parent did something that I considered to be "child mutilation"...I would consider that to be a grave and reprehensible crime....

So do I understand correctly that in your eyes removing part of the human body which isn't designed to be removed does not constitute mutilation?

Really?

What if I described it as 'socially acceptable mutilation'?


I'm beginning to think that the foreskin might be more important than first thought. My theory is that it may contain the brain cells responsible for rational thought...

[Gob]

Circumcision in Australia

Today the vast majority of Australian boys are not circumcised, and grow up happily with the bodies that nature gave them. Although circumcision was common from the 1920s to the 1960s, medical authorities have discouraged the practice since the 1970s, and it is now pretty much a thing of the past. Most parents want their boys to be as happy and healthy as possible, and they know that leaving their penis to develop naturally is the best way to secure these outcomes. The most recent statement (October 2010) from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians states clearly that routine circumcision of infants is not warranted in Australia or New Zealand.

Despite this, a few die-hard enthusiasts for circumcision keep popping up in the media, full of alarmist claims about the terrible risks of retaining the foreskin. This propaganda is contrary to the advice issued by responsible medical bodies and the warnings of bioethics and human rights advocates and is intended to confuse and mislead parents, and scare them into demanding circumcision for their boys. Most doctors are opposed to medically unnecessary circumcision of minors and will not perform the operation without genuine medical need (a rare situation). The fanatics have given up trying to influence responsible medical and scientific bodies; instead, they aim to use the popular media to frighten parents into putting pressure on doctors to agree to their demands.

http://www.circinfo.org/

ach year in the United States more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications. This is the alarming conclusion of a study, published in the journal Thymos, which examined hospital discharge and mortality statistics in order to answer two questions: (1) How many baby boys dies as a result of circumcision in the neonatal period (within 28 days of birth)? (2) Why are so few of these deaths officially recorded as due to circumcision?

The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. This compares with 44 neonatal deaths from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, all of which losses have aroused deep concern among child health authorities and stimulated special programs to reduce mortality. (Remember those red noses?) Why, the study asks, has the even greater number of deaths from circumcision not aroused the same response?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that most circumcision-related deaths are not officially as recorded as due to circumcision at all, but to the immediate cause, most commonly stroke, bleeding, infection or reactions to anaesthesia. Medical statistics are thus at fault in that they do not give the true cause of death at all. Previous studies have given wildly varying estimates the death toll from circumcision. In 1949 paediatrician Douglas Gairdner found that sixteen British boys died each year, while more recent estimates range from a low of two boys per year to a high of as many as 230. Some textbooks and most circumcision promoters claim that there have never been any deaths from circumcision in a modern clinical context (whatever may happen in the insanitary conditions of the Third World). For his study Bollinger collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of the problem.

[Sean]

Sorry Jim, I meant to comment on this too..

If you believe that those who have their child circumcised are guilty of "child mutilation" then surely you must believe they are unfit to be parents and at a minimum should have their children taken away. (If not charged with a crime)

Leading the witness yout honour!
Once agin Jim, that is beneath you. Quite a low debating tactic to expand somebody's words with into something they never said with not just an assumption but a surety.

[Lord Jim]

Mind you, I'm still chuckling at Jim describing circumcision as 'non-invasive'...

Well Sean, In my case, my penis is on the outside of my body....I believe this is generally where it's located on most males....

Perhaps not in your case....

CP beat me to the punch in pointing out that it was SMF who first initiated these analogies...

Leading the witness yout honour!
Once agin Jim, that is beneath you. Quite a low debating tactic to expand somebody's words with into something they never said with not just an assumption but a surety.

So you don't believe that someone who is "guilty of child mutilation" is unfit to be a parent?

Your contentions about "low debating tactics to expand the meanings of your words" is in fact the low debating tactic afoot here...

The problem here isn't the meanings of your words being "expanded"; the problem is that you are attempting to avoid having to address the logical implications of your words by making that phony charge....

I don't really blame you for trying to do this; given the fact that the logical implications of your words in this discussion...and to a greater extent SMF's...illustrate so clearly the hyperbolic extremist nature of your position.

It leaves you in the rather awkward and silly position of having to somehow try to argue that you don't think that people are who "guilty of child mutilation" should have their children taken away...

Of course, there's another way to get out of this box that your rhetoric has put you in, (besides trying to disingenuously claim that the logical implications of your words are instead some sort of unfair "expansion" of their meaning)

You could simply re-tract the nonsensical hyperbolic assertions that put you in this fix....

[oldr_n_wsr]

That's why when our breeding days are over it's going to be me siting on a bag of ice instead of my wife spending days in the hospital.

Been there, done that, and I recommend sitting on a bag of frozen peas or frozen corn kernels.

ETA
Make sure they are broken up before using them.

[Crackpot]

To be Fair Jim, Sean didn't make those claims.

[Lord Jim]

That is very true, CP....

His statements in this discussion were (while I disagreed with them) not completely off the wall....

Until of course he decided to take ownership of SMF's statements, and rose to defend them....

And they say chivalry is dead....

[Sean]

Mind you, I'm still chuckling at Jim describing circumcision as 'non-invasive'...

Well Sean, In my case, my penis is on the outside of my body....I believe this is generally where it's located on most males....

Perhaps not in your case....

Look it up Jim. I can't do everything for you...

CP beat me to the punch in pointing out that it was SMF who first initiated these analogies...

Once again Jim, SMF pointed out that they are both surgical procedures. She did not compare the severity/risk/whatever of various procedures.

Leading the witness yout honour!
Once agin Jim, that is beneath you. Quite a low debating tactic to expand somebody's words with into something they never said with not just an assumption but a surety.

So you don't believe that someone who is "guilty of child mutilation" is unfit to be a parent?

I did not in fact express an opinion either way.

Your contentions about "low debating tactics to expand the meanings of your words" is in fact the low debating tactic afoot here...

Ah! The old switcheroo...

The problem here isn't the meanings of your words being "expanded"; the problem is that you are attempting to avoid having to address the logical implications of your words by making that phony charge....

Not at all. I am a great fan of logic. Use it with me and you'll get it back in spades! Go on, try it...

It leaves you in the rather awkward and silly position of having to somehow try to argue that you don't think that people are who "guilty of child mutilation" should have their children taken away...

While you've got that dictionary handy maybe you could look up 'mutilate' too...

Of course, there's another way to get out of this box that your rhetoric has put you in, (besides trying to disingenuously claim that the logical implications of your words are instead some sort of unfair "expansion" of their meaning)

You could simply re-tract the nonsensical hyperbolic assertions that put you in this fix....

One man's 'fix' of course being another man's 'stance'...

Remember when I used the word 'browbeat' before?
Did you ever work for the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad Jim?

In all seriousness Jim & CP, would you be kind to answer these questions for me:

Do you think that circumcision can be correctly described as a surgical procedure?
Do you think that unnecessarily cutting off part of somebody else's body constitutes mutilation?

The truth is that I have no intention of falling out with either of you over what amounts to nothing more than a difference of opinion so I would really like to be able to decide whether or not to continue with this.

I apologise if that comes across as condescending... it's really not meant to.

Ta.

[Gob]

Having an unecessary surgical proceedure performed on your child in the name of religion? You are a bad parent, but not necessarily a unfit one.

The Australian and New Zealand Association of Paediatric Surgeons (ANZAPS), the Australasian Urological Society and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) do not recommend that boys be circumcised routinely. However, if you want your son circumcised, it should be done under a general anaesthetic by doctors with the appropriate skills. Thus it is recommended that you wait until he is at least six to 12 months old because the operation and anaesthetic are safer then. If you want more information you should discuss the risks and benefits of circumcision with your doctor.


http://www.chw.edu.au/parents/factsheets/circumj.htm

Should someone elect to have their child's earlobes surgically removed due to a belief in Wicca, would you circumcision supporters that?

[Sean]

That is very true, CP....

His statements in this discussion were (while I disagreed with them) not completely off the wall....

Until of course he decided to take ownership of SMF's statements, and rose to defend them....

And they say chivalry is dead....

Unfair Jim. You are assuming that I am defending SMF because of who she is.

Is there any point in discussing this with you anymore if that's how you see it.

[Crackpot]

Do you think that circumcision can be correctly described as a surgical procedure?

yes But it is in no way equivalent to an appendectomy as SMF eluded

Do you think that unnecessarily cutting off part of somebody else's body constitutes mutilation?

Nope. you know there are (rare) cases when a surgeon will amputate a perfectly good limb at the patients request?

To be sure it is a form of body modification and is not something to be taken lightly. but mutilation?

MUTILATE

transitive verb
1
: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
— mu·ti·la·tion noun

Doesn't fit the definition. (unless you can describe the essential function of the foreskin)

[Lord Jim]

Is there any point in discussing this with you anymore

Certainly not if the combination of sophistry and lounge room comedian schtick you've engaged in up to now to keep from addressing the logical implications of the hyperbolic nonsensical rhetoric you're defending , is the best you can do. In that case you're quite right; further discussion is pointless.

You are assuming that I am defending SMF because of who she is.

Actually, I was hopeful that was the case....

It was better than thinking that you genuinely didn't see how silly her analogies and characterizations about this are....

I'm sorry if that came across as condescending....

[Lord Jim]

Well done CP. (ETA: it would probably be well advised that if before someone recommends a dictionary to others that they should consult it themselves)

Now perhaps at long last Sean could answer the question of whether or not he believes that people who are "guilty of child mutilation" (no "expansion" there...verbatim quote) should be permitted to keep their children. (Since he's now made clear that he's defending these statements because he agrees with them.)

[Sean]

Thanks for the answers CP.

Do you think that circumcision can be correctly described as a surgical procedure?

yes But it is in no way equivalent to an appendectomy as SMF eluded

No she didn't! All she said was that they were both surgery. The rest was from you and Jim. If I am mistaken and have missed where she said more than that please point me to the relevant post(s).

Without the irrelevant qualifier you answer appears to be 'yes'. Good, we agree.

Do you think that unnecessarily cutting off part of somebody else's body constitutes mutilation?

Nope. you know there are (rare) cases when a surgeon will amputate a perfectly good limb at the patients request?

To be sure it is a form of body modification and is not something to be taken lightly. but mutilation?

MUTILATE

transitive verb
1
: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple
— mu·ti·la·tion noun

Doesn't fit the definition. (unless you can describe the essential function of the foreskin)

Depends on your dictionary really...

mu·ti·late
   [myoot-l-eyt]
–verb (used with object), -lat·ed, -lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

I think you'll agree that circumcision fits that definition rather well.
Unless of course you don't think that using a scalpel to excise part of a person's body constitutes injury...

you know there are (rare) cases when a surgeon will amputate a perfectly good limb at the patients request?

Really? Wow. Im not disputing this (as I assume you wouldn't type it without having sound knowledge) but it seems to fly in the face of accepted medical ethics...