Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you linking the guardian?

Bottom line is, you don't care about the thousands of late term abortions. They are disposable children in your world.

I do care. You on the other hand appear to have fallen for a pack of lies.

One more time, if abortions were made illegal the number of late term abortions, the ones that you object to, would probably go up. They would not go down.

Why would that happen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aye, adults usually know better than to have it done.
The only reason infants get it is they've no choice.

That may not be the case. The only study on adult circumcisions showed positive results, where every article on circumcision of infants listed negative results.

People have done weirder things to their bodies for poorer reasons. If it makes an adult happy, I am all for it. Kids don't have a choice. I think that they need to be given one.

 

[dybmh]

The only reason infants get it is they've no choice.

Not true

 

[dybmh]

It doesn't matter. If is important to you, you can get it done later on.

Gratefully it's not up to you.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not true

What's the other reason?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true

Really?

 

[dybmh]

What's the other reason?

to participate in a cultural and religious practice

 

[QuestioningMind]

to participate in a cultural and religious practice

The infant isn't choosing to participate... the choice is being made for them.

 

[Koldo]

Gratefully it's not up to you.

But it is, at least on part. I am definitely going to vote in anyone willing to ban circumcision on children.

 

[KWED]

Why not create humans perfected? God already has that in the realm of angels. Instead God created imperfect beings and gave them the opportunity to improve.

I'm not saying that we should have been "created perfect" (although I don't see why not). Just seems a bit odd though, having to have parts of your body surgically removed in order to "improve". One would think "improvement" was a spiritual struggle.
And if angels are perfect, how come Lucifer, Azazel, and the other fallen angels?

I'd like to know how many Jewish men regret their circumcision. Do you have any ideas for how to measure that? Or do you think that it can't be measured do to the reasons you mentioned?

I think any data would be affected by the reasons mentioned, but it would be interesting to see what it looks like anyway. A lot will depend on social culture and religiosity. I can't see many observant Jewish men regretting it, but it may well be different amongst the secular or apostatised. And even then it would probably be very different in the US (where circumcision is still the social norm) and the UK (where it is unheard of outside of some religious groups).

 

[KWED]

Suing one's own parents?
One could at best win what would be inheritance anyway.

A wholly Pyrrhic victory, one would imagine. What would have been a 1 million inheritance turns into a 50 grand award after legal costs.

 

[KWED]

I did read it. It would take a lawyer to interpret what it actually means.

Not really. Nowhere in the bill is the crime of homicide or manslaughter removed. It is to prevent the malicious prosecution of women who have a stillbirth or whose baby dies soon after birth through pregnancy related complications.
Of course jousting by your track record, you will simply ignore this and continue to insist that California allows women to kill their children for 28 days after birth.

 

[KWED]

Stabbing a baby in the head as it comes into the birth canal is no different than doing it 7 days after birth.

Are you high?

 

[KWED]

Lots of babies are aborted after 21 weeks...

I notice you are still doing the vague handwaving rather than producing any evidence.
Also interesting that you have moved the goalposts from "many abortions just before birth" to "lots after 21 weeks".
I gave you hard data that shows 96% of abortions taking place before 12 weeks. Terminations after 24 weeks are illegal unless by medical necessity.

It is perfectly clear that the best way to avoid later-term abortions is to have easily-accessible, well-advertised, free contraception and abortion services. If your concern really is with the welfare of viable foetuses, you would support such programmes, not oppose them. However, your concern isn't really with the foetus or the lives of unwanted children left to the tender mercies of the care system, it is purely ideological and selfish.

babies that young have survived birth.

The chances of a premature baby surviving before 24 weeks without intensive medical care is zero. Even with such care the chances of survival are still incredibly small.

But here's an idea. Any woman who wants an abortion must carry it til 24 weeks. It is then induced and delivered. The baby is then adopted by you (or other pro-lifers) and you also cover the costs of the months or even years of medical care.
Seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

[KWED]

Lol, because actually saying what really happens in partial birth abortion is too honest?

Well, that's like saying that when you have a major operation the surgeon "hacks your body open". It's just a transparent appeal to emotion. Dilation and extraction is not something that doctors do for s***s and giggles. It serves a purpose in addressing a clinical problem.
It's ironic that the procedure was developed as a means of avoiding in-utero dismemberment. So which is the lesser of the two evils for you, because late-term abortions are always going to happen through medical necessity.

BTW, these represent only 0.2% of all abortions - so much for your "lots of abortions...".

 

[KWED]

Or will you just continue to babble instead of actually answering anything?

 

[KWED]

So you are admitting that I am correct and many legally aborted babies could survive. Interesting.

The evidence I presented to you shows that only 0.1% of abortions are after 24 weeks, and they were all due to medical necessity.
1.4% were carried out after 20 weeks. The chances of survival under 24 weeks are remote, and any treatment given to pre-22 week births is considered "experimental" and the chances of survival almost zero. And this is with the best medical intervention available. Without such facilities (ie. most of the world) the viable age is considerably higher.
So, your claim "many aborted babies could survive" is patently false.

 

[KWED]

How do you think they are killed?

In dilation and extraction abortions, the foetus' heart is stopped before the procedure starts. So you are wrong again. It is not killed by being "stabbed in the head".

As I have mentioned before, if all you have is dishonest apples to emotion, you know your position is untenable.

 

[KWED]

Percentages don't equal a small amount of late term abortions. They are a smoke screen.
Over 100,000 human beings are killed in second and third trimester abortions each year — nearly 274 babies each day and at least 11 every hour.

Even if you banned elective abortion, those would still happen because they are through medical necessity.
Or are you one of those weirdos who insists that even foetuses with severe abnormalities should be carried to term and delivered, only to die painfully soon after. Or that killing the mother is better than aborting a foetus that will die as well.

As I said, your objections seem to be ideological and selfish rather than through a genuine concern for the foetus.

 

[KWED]

unlike had been claimed that women prefer a circumcised penis,

Again, you are misrepresenting my point. I referred to a study on women's responses to questions about sexual gratification from intercourse. Your study dealt mostly with preference, which is influenced greatly by culture and expectation. The study I referred to showed women gained more sexual gratification though intercourse with an intact rather than circumcised penis.

and that is across many different cultures and countries. It was not limited to the US.

It was mostly the US and Africa. In the US there is an obvious cultural bias. A similar study done in the UK would show a clear preference for intact penises as circumcision is a cultural oddity and considered somewhat bizarre. I read an article in the BMJ criticising the African studies because of the strong influence of religious groups promoting dubious or false benefits of circumcision.

But even if all women preferred circumcised penises, that is no justification or validation.
What if all men preferred women with no labia majora?