|
|
|
|
|
| | circumcision Page 16 of 16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16) | Wow, for those who follow this thread .... interesting to see that when sh1t hits the fan there is always the delete button.... very disappointing very very!!!!
Anyway, fresh off the news this morning I'll paste it and see what the thoughts are...
Australian doctors are considering introducing a controversial form of genital mutilation carried out on baby girls.
The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) says the practice of "ritual nicks" could meet the cultural needs of some women and potentially save some people from drastic surgery.
The practice is said to be common among some African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities but has been known to leave some young girls scarred for life when not carried out in proper clinical facilities.
RANZCOG said the issue would be discussed at a women's health meeting in June, Sydney's Daily Telegraph reports.
Once again, I don't agree with circumcision, but, when it comes to cultural/religion/tradition... I suppose it will be done regardless then perhaps, it's best to do it safely rathether than by some illegal butcher ????? | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 4:48:26 PM | I read that this morning,
Australian doctors may soon perform genital mutilations on baby girls in a bid to curb a dangerous rise in backyard surgeries, according to a report.
So would that be saying they would still consider doing boys if it went underground also? Yes the delete buttons seems to work only for some, when discussing the truth. | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 5:08:24 PM |
Australian doctors are considering introducing a controversial form of genital mutilation carried out on baby girls.
The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) says the practice of "ritual nicks" could meet the cultural needs of some women and potentially save some people from drastic surgery.
The practice is said to be common among some African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities but has been known to leave some young girls scarred for life when not carried out in proper clinical facilities.
That's pretty funny ^^^, though it seems a bit backward?
Cutting children contravenes the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a binding agreement that both Australia and New Zealand have signed.
It also represents the beginning of a slippery slope (no pun intended) on two levels. Because if parents are allowed to instruct doctors to cut their daughters as well, it means there are two instances where doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation.
And at present, there's only one instance of that foolishness.
The other potential problem is that once/if cutting girls is allowed in principle, then parents have a strong case for arguing that they have a right to decide what kind of cutting that should be.
Some may demand that religious or cultural obligations can only be met by complete removal of the clitoral hood for instance? And doctors can't argue that the clitoral hood is actually essential for anything can they... | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 7:27:15 PM | The real shame is that there's a belief that any part of the body is not essential especially considering that, the people who believe it also believe that God created us and, feel that they should change that in order to also change any plesure that derives from having those bits. ( I'm sure I could have used better grammer but I can't see a way of fixing it right now) If we weren't ment to feel pleasure or pain or be able to feel and touch.. we wouldn't be able to .. just like we're unable to do so many things that other species do.
Just how far something like that would go is to be seen but the thought is there and now it brings the thread to an even kill.... what's good for one is good for the other and vice versa...
Will people ever stop doing anything that is NOT legal (didn't stop people from performing abortions when they weren't legal) will banning circumcision totally stop anyone? | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 378 | |
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 8:21:25 PM | How sad to see the exposed truth now hidden. :(
Australian doctors are considering introducing a controversial form of genital mutilation carried out on baby girls.
The Royal Australian New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) says the practice of "ritual nicks" could meet the cultural needs of some women and potentially save some people from drastic surgery.
The practice is said to be common among some African, Asian and Middle Eastern communities but has been known to leave some young girls scarred for life when not carried out in proper clinical facilities.
I can understand the medical profession's reasoning ... to lessen harm. But how awful that it takes requiring doctors to mutilate babies to stop parents from performing a DIY mutilation. Beats me why parents are so intent on painfully modifying their children's bodies. How much horrible stuff can be 'forgiven' with cries of 'but it's our culture!' (and I am including Australian culture in that, with Australians defending doing it to boys.)
It's the parents attitudes that need to be cut off.
And seeing as I couldn't help myself but to comment on the above, no self-discipline me tch tch  , I might as well also now respond to this:
You seem extremely interested in "labeling it" as child abuse. I don't think it deserves that label but even if you successfully label it that way, what exactly will you have achieved????
Intentionally hurting a kid on a parental whim when there is no compelling gain for the kid, is child abuse. Circumcision is intentional, relates to parental preference, and provides no compelling gain for the child. So when posters keep comparing it to accidental harm, or to medical procedures done for the child's ultimate gain, well... both fall short of that same definition. Taking a softly softly approach to labeling (so as not to offend the parents who have done this to their kids) doesn't change that fact. Those we might more readily acknowledge as child abusers (those who are out and out violent towards kids) often express a point of view that it was their right to do so to their own offspring ( I made 'em so they are my property and I can kick them in the head if I want to)... and that sense of entitlement is the same one that makes parents think they have a 'right' to tell a doctor to slice bits of their baby (it's my son, so it's my choice to tell a doctor to slice a piece off him with no anaesthetic and make him howl his eyes out and go into a state of shock as a result of the physical trauma it entails). That sense of entitlement needs a good shake.
In fact, it's the current 'labeling' society uses that is moreso there to 'achieve' something...in that it's there to sanitise the reality of the cruelty that had, inexplicably, become a cultural norm. To try to represent it as being anything less than what it is, and to portray those who call a spade a spade as being somehow melodramatic  , seems to be merely an attempt to sweep it under the rug so that some members of society (friends and family we might wish to defend cos we like them) can live with their own conscience. Even if the truth is significantly less wholesome, and we don't like how it tastes, that doesn't make it untrue. You can't get the truth deleted in the real world.
*clicks heels together three times and wishes for home*
 | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 8:36:00 PM |
You can't get the truth deleted in the real world.
That's what denial is for | |
|
Naamah
| | Joined: 6/13/2009
Msg: 380 | |
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 8:39:50 PM | | ^^^ So it would seem. :) | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/27/2010 10:11:16 PM | Seems we are going to be denied the presence of Naamah
Hope the real world appreciates her
| |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 12:32:46 AM |
Seems we are going to be denied the presence of Naamah
Hope the real world appreciates her I know your hope for her is fulfilled, if not over-subscribed... But I'm sure we'll see her again, perhaps somewhere over the rainbow?
*clicks heels together three times and wishes for home*
And with that... she vanished!
I guess this mustn't be Kansas then, but rather... um... the other place?
(lyingcheat looks around, creakily) Ah yes, I see a few familiar characters. WW of the west just over there... though I haven't seen scarecrow for a few days.
But that's OK, I hate sharing the limelight anyway.
Will people ever stop doing anything that is NOT legal (didn't stop people from performing abortions when they weren't legal) will banning circumcision totally stop anyone?
Possibly not, but that's no reason not to ban it.
Likewise, if something is prohibited the fact that a minority persist in doing it is not sufficient reason, on it's own, to lift the prohibition.
Otherwise murder would be legal, and so would littering.
Which is why, apart from the obvious reasons, I think allowing genital cutting of girls, as well, is insane.
I don't care if they use anaesthetic on the baby girls. I don't care if they ensure sterile conditions. I don't care if it's only a little slash, or knick, or tiny bit that's cut off.
Those things are all irrelevant to my mind.
I don't care if they do a randomised study and find that 65% of the men in Rakai, Uganda report an increase in sexual pleasure after their female partners clitoral hood is removed.
Even though that would give me the right to say THE MAJORITY OF MEN LIKE IT over and over.
I don't particularly care that removing every baby girls clitoral hood will save 0.003 women per 100,000 the trouble of putting cream on it 40 years later. Nor am I concerned that 0.000002 women per 100,000 will end up having their clitoral hood removed anyway because they didn't wash properly and lived in embarrassment for years before doing something after which 59% of 44 midget South American women report they can still do it and they feel a lot better, plus 2 of them climaxed for the first time ever, which means there must be NO ADVERSE EFFECTS.
But here's a tough question, what if it turns out that removing all the baby girls clitoral hoods results in a 0.3% decrease in neonatal urinary tract infections? I guess we'd have to seriously consider that hoodectomy HAS PROVEN BENEFITS and just keep slashing away at the tiny genitals? | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 2:09:53 AM |
Wow, for those who follow this thread .... interesting to see that when sh1t hits the fan there is always the delete button.... very disappointing very very!!!!
You can't get the truth deleted in the real world.
Where did my post go?? How was it deleted? Who clicked the delete button, and when someone does, what happens? Does a moderator review it or does it go to a vote...???
To be honest I don’t mind that particular post being deleted, I’m just curious about why it was.
it means there are two instances where doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation.
And at present, there's only one instance of that foolishness.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. There is ZERO instances of that. No doctor is obligated to perform elective surgery which they aren’t comfortable performing.
I don't care if they do a randomised study and find that 65% of the men in Rakai, Uganda report an increase in sexual pleasure after their female partners clitoral hood is removed.
don't particularly care that removing every baby girls clitoral hood will save 0.003 women per 100,000 the trouble of putting cream on it 40 years later. Nor am I concerned that 0.000002 women per 100,000 will end up having their clitoral hood removed anyway because they didn't wash properly and lived in embarrassment for years before doing something after which 59% of 44 midget South American women report they can still do it and they feel a lot better, plus 2 of them climaxed for the first time ever, which means there must be NO ADVERSE EFFECTS.
That’s just it though LC, you don’t care about the facts. You’ve made up your mind and that’s it. Yet you accuse ME of being narrow minded (even though I effectively agree with you, only i’m also happy to consider the other side of the debate!)
I think what you’re saying above is that you don’t care if the procedure does a whole shit load of good things, saves lives, and doesn’t actually do any measurable harm. Why the hell not?? Presumably because you’ve already made up your mind that the procedure is CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. Maybe your right, maybe it is – but your still EXTREEMLY narrow minded. I don’t know why you refuse to consider the facts
But here's a tough question, what if it turns out that removing all the baby girls clitoral hoods results in a 0.3% decrease in neonatal urinary tract infections? I guess we'd have to seriously consider that hoodectomy HAS PROVEN BENEFITS and just keep slashing away at the tiny genitals?
Like everything else in life, LC, the benefits have to be weighed up against the disadvantages (and other issues). | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 4:47:37 AM |
Because if parents are allowed to instruct doctors to cut their daughters as well, it means there are two instances where doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation. And at present, there's only one instance of that foolishness.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.There is ZERO instances of that. No doctor is obligated to perform elective surgery which they aren’t comfortable performing.
If there are ZERO instances of doctors being given, and taking, the advice of non-medical people how do you explain the fact that some babies mysteriously get circumcised?
Do tell...
That’s just it though LC, you don’t care about the facts. You’ve made up your mind and that’s it.
On the contrary. I'm presenting the facts and saying they amount to nothing.
Whereas you present nothing, and keep saying it's a FACT.
I think what you’re saying above is that you don’t care if the procedure does a whole shit load of good things, saves lives, and doesn’t actually do any measurable harm.
That you think that's ^^^ what I'm saying is a key admission, because it provides a useful benchmark for anyone reading who might still have thought you had anything worthwhile to say.
That's the trouble with pursuing a losing argument right to the end Ahron. If you lack the skill, or perhaps the honour, to extract yourself while it's still possible, you can end up shredding your own credibility. Which you just, comprehensively, did.
I note too that you don't actually address the issues, as I am doing, or respond to even direct questions. Instead you reach for the CAPS LOCK key and hysterically malign the breadth of my perception.
Speaking of perception... I'd be interested in yours regarding the mystery of how some boys end up getting circumcised when there are, according to you, ZERO instances of doctors taking the advice of parents with regard to the necessity of performing surgery on a healthy newborn baby?
One wonders who is requiring the surgery to take place if it isn't the non-medical, non-surgically trained, parents. | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 5:48:43 AM |
Because if parents are allowed to instruct doctors to cut their daughters as well, it means there are two instances where doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation.
And at present, there's only one instance of that foolishness. You don’t know what you’re talking about.There is ZERO instances of that. No doctor is obligated to perform elective surgery which they aren’t comfortable performing. If there are ZERO instances of doctors being given, and taking, the advice of non-medical people how do you explain the fact that some babies mysteriously get circumcised? Do tell...
What a stupid question. This just displays your extreme narrow-mindedness. The obvious answer is that not all doctors are anti-circumcision. Some are neutral enough to respect the opinion of parents and some are pro-circumcision. This is STILL a topic which gets discussion in LEADING medical journals – the case is not closed yet, ESPECIALLY among the medical community.
The fact remains, no doctor has to perform a procedure which they don’t think should be performed, and the fact remains that when you implied the opposite YOU WERE WRONG. | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 8:37:29 AM |
Because if parents are allowed to instruct doctors to cut their daughters as well, it means there are two instances where doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation. And at present, there's only one instance of that foolishness. You don’t know what you’re talking about.There is ZERO instances of that. No doctor is obligated to perform elective surgery which they aren’t comfortable performing. If there are ZERO instances of doctors being given, and taking, the advice of non-medical people how do you explain the fact that some babies mysteriously get circumcised? Do tell... What a stupid question. This just displays your extreme narrow-mindedness. The obvious answer is that not all doctors are anti-circumcision. Some are neutral enough to respect the opinion of parents and some are pro-circumcision. This is STILL a topic which gets discussion in LEADING medical journals – the case is not closed yet, ESPECIALLY among the medical community.
The fact remains, no doctor has to perform a procedure which they don’t think should be performed, and the fact remains that when you implied the opposite YOU WERE WRONG.
Geez Ahron, "The obvious answer is blah blah blah..."?
It may be an obvious answer, but not to any question I've asked recently.
I didn't say, or imply, anything about doctors being coerced to do anything at all.
What's happening here is just you giving another demonstration of total incomprehension.
Re-read the actual statement I made which you pathetically, though characteristically, misunderstood, then re-read the actual question I asked in response to your strange come back.
Well... I thought the comeback was strange. But it seems rational in comparison to what you're saying now.
To make it clear for you, your responses - both of them - have almost no relation to either my statement or question. Truly, check it out. hahahaa Get someone to explain it to you if you can't see it.
By the way, how come you don't try to actually refute anything I'm saying, or have said? Why is that? Just more fiddling with your CAPS LOCK key and a bit of a redherring detour into something about topics in LEADING medical journals.
ZERO logic, ZERO deductive reasoning, ZeRo eFFeCt! hahAhAHa Are you still pretending you have a science background? | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 6:16:58 PM |
Intentionally hurting a kid on a parental whim
thousands of years of religious cultural heritage can hardly be called a whim.
the human "race" has however adapted through technology at a much accelerated rate since the industrial revolution and more widely accessible education......its a shame that religious ritual cant do the same thing.
so thats where those red sparkly shoes went........ | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 6:17:32 PM | In response to msg 388 above:
NO really I don’t see it. Maybe you can explain it to me? To me your statement very obviously says that at the moment, there is one instance in which “doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation.” This isn’t true. Doctors never have to perform surgery which they don’t think should be performed, and legalising a new surgical procedure will not change this fact. | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/28/2010 8:42:08 PM | This thread is turning into a comedy.
Or should I say, more of one.
Fourth subject, i have been away and sab, imaginary emails indeed?? Since you ahorn and bechippy and pauleboy have emailed me. I have meet someone and have no bothered with the angry, confrontal and silly people that post on here. In one of those fantom emails Bella receives, I was telling her about this friend I have BJB I was in an indirect and sarcastic way saying that I did email you regardless of the previous posters saying that you have fantom friends/emailers and so on. I didn't think you'd take it as meaning I was agreeing with it all.
You seem surprised sabscales that bjb completely misunderstood you? Which is surprising in itself, since incomprehension is the only theme that unifies the word salads she calls posts.
The part in her recent effort that does surprise me though is the way she casually outs the people she's been corresponding with privately.
Besides wondering if they are all enjoying the experience of being outed as much as you, I was amused by the way she has done it, publicly broadcasting the information on the forum, in the context of maligning someone for not communicating "face to face", which presumably means privately? hahahaa Say one thing and do another? There's a name for that...
Meanwhile referring scathingly to "angry, confrontal and silly people that post on here" as a preface to suggesting someone should be ashamed for hiding their profile (when her own profile is hidden) and someone else should jump off a cliff.
Angry? check
Confrontational? check
Silly? check
She ticks all the boxes.
But speaking of misinterpretation and mind-boggling incomprehension...
You don’t know what you’re talking about. There is ZERO instances of that. No doctor is obligated to perform elective surgery which they aren’t comfortable performing. What a stupid question. This just displays your extreme narrow-mindedness. In response to msg 388 above:
NO really I don’t see it. Maybe you can explain it to me? To me your statement very obviously says that at the moment, there is one instance in which “doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation.” This isn’t true. Doctors never have to perform surgery which they don’t think should be performed, and legalising a new surgical procedure will not change this fact.
How bizarre. I haven't said anything about individual doctors being compelled, coerced, or obliged to perform any surgery, yet you've spent three posts SHOUTING how wrong I am for saying it. hahahaa
Imagine this Ahron - there's surgeon who just luurrrves doing circumcisions. He can do all kinds of general pediatric surgery, but he can hardly wait to get his gloved hands on those tiny genitals. No one has to force him, there's no compulsion, he isn't wrestling with his conscience. Am I making it clear enough for you?
This guy is an enthusiast.
OK, got that? Try and hold that thought.
Now imagine a non-medical expert non-surgically trained parent, holding a six day old baby, comes up to him and says "I'd like you to remove my baby's appendix."
Answer? No.
So the parent says, "OK, how about a little cosmetic surgery on the kids face to make him look a bit more like me?"
Answer? No.
But then the parent has an idea! "How about you lop some skin off his d1ck then?"
Answer? "Sure, how much?"
Still following Ahron? Probably not... but try re-reading the actual statement I made, that you've even quoted a few times. Here it is -
Because if parents are allowed to instruct doctors to cut their daughters as well, it means there are two instances where doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation.
And at present, there's only one instance of that foolishness.
See? No mention of any individual, particular, doctor being compelled against his will to hack off bits of children who haven't consented to the procedure? Simply a general reference to "doctors", ie; 'the medical profession'.
As I said, perfectly clearly, "If there are ZERO instances of doctors being given, and taking, the advice of non-medical people (as you insisted over and over), how do you explain the fact that some babies mysteriously get circumcised?"
It's because they are being instructed to do it by lay people isn't it, or, in other words... There is already an instance where "doctors are given, and must take, the advice of non medical experts in performing a surgical operation."
I recall saying that we could keep doing this until the end of time, but ideally reality would dawn on you sometime before then. But frankly Ahron, at the rate you take up information, a few days seems like an eternity.
Breaking down simple concepts so you can grasp them is indicative of the vacancy at the heart of your argument. Your ideology is based on confusion and misunderstanding, therefore you struggle with the blatantly obvious. | |
|
| circumcision
Posted: 5/30/2010 9:26:21 AM | CLOSED
Ran its course and more
 | |
|
|
|
|
Page
16
of
16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
|
|
Home
login 
