Are OT laws barbaric?

[Cabal]

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

This is the second time you've made this claim, and the second time without evidencing that claim.

Please, provide evidence for your claim, or retract it.

 

[oldbetang]

Of course we are.

No, we are not.

mutilation
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect


[/quote]

Does that negate the regret others feel? Does it negate the pain caused by genuine mutilation of botched circumcisions? Does it negate the infection and STD transmission from mohels sucking a child's wounded penis?

Ah, so it's not really mutilation afterall? It could be if it's botched but the procedure when done correctly is not mutilation at all?

 

[rockaction]

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

What? Explain what you mean by this

adjective


▸
helping to treat or cure illness
an abortion can never be therapeutic.

You're getting bogged down in semantics. "Therapeutic" abortions are abortions that are suggested by the mother's physician, and are reserved for instances where delivery could kill the mother. "Elective" abortions are the ones were the mother has decided for some reason that she wants an abortion.

I haven't found that many ethicists that disagree with therapeutic abortions. In the cases of life-threatening illnesses and you have to make a choice between the mother and the fetus, it is justified to pick the life of the mother over the fetus. In cases where both the mother and the fetus would die, it is clearly advantageous to save the mother.

A useful concept in understanding reproductive biology and embryology is this: the fetus is a foreign object in the mother's body that seizes control of the mother's vital functions. The mother's body has very little say in the matter. The fetus does not "play nice"...it wants nutrients to grow, regardless of whether that kills the mother or not.

 

[Merlin]

No you listen up. What are you talking about. You said diabetics didn't need to check their BS levels and didn't need their medication. You made a pretty absolute statement there using diabetics as an example. I'm just asking how this is possible Maybe even just a mechanism behind how this is possible?

Why are you now trying to avoid the issue?

the body can repair itself

 

[rockaction]

the body can repair itself

The pancreatic islets do not normally regenerate. That is the only tissue that can make insulin, so when it is gone (like in Type I diabetics), it is gone for good. Maybe someday we'll come up with a way to re-grow the tissue, but the human body cannot do it on its own. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

teaching someone to stop diabetesing is fairly easy

How, exactly?

 

[Merlin]

Can you teach people to stop having epilepsy?

yes

 

[AMarx]

yes

Could you let me in on the secret? I would greatly enjoy not taking medicine while at the same time experiencing no seizures.

 

[Cabal]

Who would have thought all you need to refute decades of intensive medical research is a bunch of one-liners?

 

[Merlin]

The pancreatic islets do not normally regenerate. That is the only tissue that can make insulin, so when it is gone (like in Type I diabetics), it is gone for good. Maybe someday we'll come up with a way to re-grow the tissue, but the human body cannot do it on its own. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

The pancreatic islets do not normally regenerate.

That is normally the only tissue that can make insulin

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Parents make all kinds of choices for their children. We choose to have them vaccinated.

Because if we don't, they die.

We choose what they eat.

Because if we don't, they starve.

We choose to instill our own values in them.

Because the alternation is to go feral.

We often expose them to realities that others may find disgusting ,abusive, and immoral. Like farm life for example. Things that will stay with them forever.

So?

Why would you deny parents the right to have a useless, even detrimental, piece of skin removed from their child?

Because it is the unnecessary mutilation of a child's genitals. The above examples are necessary: we cannot wait for the child to make his own choices because, by the time he is capable, he'll be dead. Vaccinations are at the prerogative of the parent because the infant can't even talk yet - it will save his life.
Circumcision, however, is very rarely life-threatening: if the child had to be circumcised before he could give consent, sure, go right ahead. But if the circumcision isn't necessary, we can wait till the child is capable of giving consent.

Would you object if I chopped off the end of their nose? Their middle toe? Their buttocks? Their ear lobes? What if I got them tattoos? Or laser-ed off their hair follicles?

No, we are not.

mutilation
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect

Ooo, I have a dictionary too!

• mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work"
• mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language"
• mutilated - maimed: having a part of the body crippled or disabled
• Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.
• an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

Mutilation is the gross disfigurement and alteration of the human body, without the consent of the person.

We can quibble semantics if you like, but you're just dodging the issue. The

Ah, so it's not really mutilation afterall? It could be if it's botched but the procedure when done correctly is not mutilation at all?

No. Circumcision, when done on infants, or on people without their consent, is mutilation. I never said it wasn't, so please don't put words into my mouth. I was questioning you on why your lack of regret should matter.

 

[Cabal]

The pancreatic islets do not normally regenerate.

That is normally the only tissue that can make insulin

Still not seeing any evidence.

Presumably you have no wish to be taken seriously, then?

 

[oldbetang]

Because if we don't, they die.

Not true. Everybody dies. That said, my grandparents were never vaccinated and both of them lived to ripe old age. Today, young girls are routinely injected with PPV vaccine. Why?

Because if we don't, they starve.

Not true. The point was not about the right to withhold all food from the child. It was about the right to choose what types of food the child eats.

Because the alternation is to go feral.

Wrong again. The alternative would be to have the State and its cheerleaders indoctrinate and instill its own values in our children.

So?

So, we make choices that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Having them circumcised as infants is just another one of those choices.

Because it is the unnecessary mutilation of a child's genitals. The above examples are necessary: we cannot wait for the child to make his own choices because, by the time he is capable, he'll be dead. Vaccinations are at the prerogative of the parent because the infant can't even talk yet - it will save his life.
Circumcision, however, is very rarely life-threatening: if the child had to be circumcised before he could give consent, sure, go right ahead. But if the circumcision isn't necessary, we can wait till the child is capable of giving consent.

It's not mutilation . And just like vaccinations , it is the prerogative of the parent. We chose not to vaccinate our youngest for the PPV. It's a decision that she may hold against us later, but nevertheless it was our decision to make. If we had boys, I would insist on them being circumcised before they left the hospital. Better to have it done as an infant than as an adult when its more painful, more costly, and probably more risky.

Would you object if I chopped off the end of their nose? Their middle toe? Their buttocks? Their ear lobes? What if I got them tattoos? Or laser-ed off their hair follicles?

Uhh...what? What medical benefit would there be for any of those?

Ooo, I have a dictionary too!

• mutilate - destroy or injure severely; "The madman mutilates art work"
• mutilate - mangle: alter so as to make unrecognizable; "The tourists murdered the French language"
• mutilated - maimed: having a part of the body crippled or disabled
• Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death.
• an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part

Mutilation is the gross disfigurement and alteration of the human body, without the consent of the person.

Well, good for you. However, none of those describe male circumcision.

We can quibble semantics if you like, but you're just dodging the issue.

How so?

No. Circumcision, when done on infants, or on people without their consent, is mutilation.

Is not.

I never said it wasn't, so please don't put words into my mouth. I was questioning you on why your lack of regret should matter.

What did you mean by "genuine mutilation" then?

 

[Merlin]

Still not seeing any evidence.

Presumably you have no wish to be taken seriously, then?

by you

 

[Belk]

by you

By anyone with sense enough to know that if faith healing worked modern medicine would have never needed to be developed in the first place.

 

[rockaction]

The pancreatic islets do not normally regenerate.

That is normally the only tissue that can make insulin

Yeah, it has actually NEVER happened. There is a lot of research out there with scientists working out regeneration in vitro, which is really exciting, but it's no act of God - it's an act of man.

As the technology stands right now, if you were on a Type I diabetes management team, you'd be killing lots of people by telling them to stop taking insulin.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not true. Everybody dies. That said, my grandparents were never vaccinated and both of them lived to ripe old age. Today, young girls are routinely injected with PPV vaccine. Why?

Because not everyone is as lucky as your grandparents. You wouldn't be here today it you didn't have lucky grandparents. We have virtually wiped out diseases that crippled, maimed, and killed millions - do you see people stricken with the weak limbs that polio leaves them?

HPV induces cervical cancer, and we have a vaccine against it. Thousands of women every year can be effectively immunised from cervical cancer - your grandmother may have had a lucky break, but thousands of women are not so lucky.

We cannot wait for the child to give consent - it must be done as early as possible.
Thus, the parents are given the choice: to vaccinate, or not to vaccinate.

Not true. The point was not about the right to withhold all food from the child. It was about the right to choose what types of food the child eats.

The child has to eat. The parents provide the food. Thus, the parents decide what the child eats. If the parent is so abysmal at feeding their own child, the State has a right to intervene - as indeed they do.

The point is that the parents can choose what the child eats, because the child cannot provide for himself. If the parents choose poorly, the State intervenes. Either way, the child must be provided for, until such time that he can provide for himself.

Wrong again. The alternative would be to have the State and its cheerleaders indoctrinate and instill its own values in our children.

Either way, values are instilled. To not instil values at all leads to feral children. Thus, values must be instilled - we cannot wait for the child to give consent, or for the child to pick up values on his own, because by that point the child is socially repressed for life.

Thus, it must be done from the get go - which lies before the time the child can make an informed decision as to what he is exposed to.

So, we make choices that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Having them circumcised as infants is just another one of those choices.

We should make choices for them only if there is no other choice, or if the alternative is catastrophic.
Some choices, we cannot wait for the child to give consent - by that time, it's too late. Vaccines need to be administered as early as possible, food needs to be given, and culture is an inevitable exposure.

However. Not all things need to be rushed. Some things can wait till the child gives consent. Tattoos, piercings, and any other cosmetic bodily modification are the sole prerogative of the individual to whom they are applied - and this includes circumcision.

That's the point. Parents are given the right to decide the things that need to be decided here and now - but they are not given the right to decide things that can wait.

If the child wants a circumcision, go right ahead and take a knife to his penis.

It's not mutilation . And just like vaccinations , it is the prerogative of the parent. We chose not to vaccinate our youngest for the PPV. It's a decision that she may hold against us later, but nevertheless it was our decision to make. If we had boys, I would insist on them being circumcised before they left the hospital. Better to have it done as an infant than as an adult when its more painful, more costly, and probably more risky.

Assuming they want it done at all. The choice is there's to make. It's an unnecessary procedure that still causes deaths to this day.

Uhh...what? What medical benefit would there be for any of those?

Medical benefit? Silly rabbit, you don't need a medical reason to chop parts of your kid's body off - just say it's religion!

Well, good for you. However, none of those describe male circumcision.

"Destroy or injure severely"? Check - the foreskin is destroyed, the penis severely injured. It heals, of course, but, well, that hardly justifies anything.
"Alter so as to make unrecognizable"? Check.
"Having a part of the body crippled or disabled"? Check - I'm sure I don't need to cite the testimony of people whose penises have been

How so?

Instead of throwing dictionaries around, address my main point: as a procedure that is neither required nor, for most uncircumcised men, desired, so it is not the parent's right to decide. Vaccinations are necessary, and must be done as soon as possible - thus, in lieu of the child's ability to make decisions, the choice falls to the parent. Circumcision, being an unnecessary procedure done almost always for religious or cultural reasons,

Is not.

Is too

What did you mean by "genuine mutilation" then?

Non-consensual circumcision is the surgical alteration of a person's appearance and genitals. It has little to no medical benefit, and may lead to disfigurement, desensitisation, poor penile hygine, the transmission of STDs, and even death.
Apart from the rare cases where it's medically necessary, it's only ever done for cultural and/or religious reasons.

Thus, it is mutilation: the unnecessary alteration of a person's genitals.

Do you consider female circumcision to be the prerogative of the parent? Why or why not?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Oldbetang, to summarise my post:

Parents only have the right to decide on their child's behalf when it is medically expedient to do so. Vaccinations and necessary circumcisions are examples of such.

Parents do not have the right to decide for children to have unnecessary procedures. Tattoos, piercings, the surgical removal of the middle toe, and unnecessary circumcisions are all are unnecessary procedures. As it is unnecessary, we can wait for the child to be able to give consent - at such time, he may not even want a circumcision.

 

[tulc]

The pancreatic islets do not normally regenerate.

That is normally the only tissue that can make insulin

Could you supply examples when some other organ replaced the organ that normally did it?
tulc(would like to see when that happened)

 

[Cabal]

by you

No, by anyone with an ounce of common sense and critical thinking ability.

For the n-th time - provide evidence, or retract your claims. You have zero credibility here, start trying to resolve that.