Baby dies after home circumcision

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Zee

why is this such a wrong thing if it may help in later life?

From my perspective, becuase a. the benefits are debatable, b, they don't have a choice, c. if there are benefits there is no reason why the procedure can't be postponed until they can make an informed choice.

[Jimmy-J]

Originally Posted by Zee

why is this such a wrong thing if it may help in later life?

Well, if someone does get an infection due to not being circumcised, I'm sure a dose of antibiotics will fix it. Medicine has come on leaps and bounds in the past couple of thousand years.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Zee

why is this such a wrong thing if it may help in later life?

later in life they can make their own decisions - im fully intact and fully functional just the way our species evolved to be , and might i add never had any problems with being just the way i popped out into the world .

[Dude111]

Originally Posted by Osem

God only knows what was in the parents' heads as their child was mutilated!

This sort of thing is barbaric!

Yes... They say SOME PPL DONT DESERVE CHILDREN... I think these idiots qualify for that!!!!


Poor baby

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

... i add never had any problems with being just the way i popped out into the world .

You never had vaccinations? Your wisdom teeth, tonsils or appendix removed?

I won't ask if you never shave or cut your hair and walk around the house in the nude. Your answer might give me a nightmare.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

You never had vaccinations? Your wisdom teeth, tonsils or appendix removed?

I won't ask if you never shave or cut your hair and walk around the house in the nude. Your answer might give me a nightmare.

i was referring to my man tackle being intact not my teeth ,i still have tonsils and appendix

[Zee]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i was referring to my man tackle being intact not my teeth ,i still have tonsils and appendix

but you was saying the way we evolved to be, which is why he asked that question.

So do you make a big fuss when other parts of peoples bodies are removed?

Originally Posted by Zee

but you was saying the way we evolved to be, which is why he asked that question.

So do you make a big fuss when other parts of peoples bodies are removed?

Way to take a comment out of context Zee

we remove tonsils and other body parts when they cease to function and cause illness ,the same with foreskins they are medical reasons not religious

"If thine eye offend thee , pluck the bugger out"

Originally Posted by martyh

Way to take a comment out of context Zee

we remove tonsils and other body parts when they cease to function and cause illness ,the same with foreskins they are medical reasons not religious

"If thine eye offend thee , pluck the bugger out"

The implication of your post Marty is that for [medical] read [essential] while for [religious] read [hobby] .... Or pastime, or some other optional activity that when push comes to shove simply isn't that vital.

That's how you choose to order your life - fine. However that's not how a religious person sees it. If they take their faith seriously, then it doesn't sit on a shelf until [insert holy day here] and then have no implications beyond the hour you spend listening to the rabbi, vicar or imam or whoever.

To the religious, God is real, as in objectively real, not just a nice idea or "real to me", and that means his commandments are important. You will never seek to persuade a religious person by saying, "well, this is important because it's medical, but that's just religion".

[Gary L]

If it's religion. why didn't God do it already?

If it's medical, then God messed up.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

The implication of your post Marty is that for [medical] read [essential] while for [religious] read [hobby] .... Or pastime, or some other optional activity that when push comes to shove simply isn't that vital.

That's how you choose to order your life - fine. However that's not how a religious person sees it. If they take their faith seriously, then it doesn't sit on a shelf until [insert holy day here] and then have no implications beyond the hour you spend listening to the rabbi, vicar or imam or whoever.

To the religious, God is real, as in objectively real, not just a nice idea or "real to me", and that means his commandments are important. You will never seek to persuade a religious person by saying, "well, this is important because it's medical, but that's just religion".

Martyh is simply countering the argument (which has been pre-empted a million times in this thread) that if you object to the foreskin being removed without someone's consent, then you should also object to an appendix being removed, which is bolleaux, as there are compelling medical reasons for removing an appendix, and not for removing a foreskin.

I suppose you could then argue that religious reasons can be just as compelling, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide what happens to their children. At that point I would point out that it gets a bit hairy when parents deny their children medical intervention, or when people's religion decides what medical intervention can be legally carried out to save the life of a woman who's about to die in child-birth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Zee

but you was saying the way we evolved to be, which is why he asked that question.

So do you make a big fuss when other parts of peoples bodies are removed?

we are talking about mutilating an innocent baby -not yanking the tooth of a wizened old git like me ,and once a person is old enough to make their own decisions they can cut off what they want .

[thenry]

willy nilly.

Originally Posted by Chris

The implication of your post Marty is that for [medical] read [essential] while for [religious] read [hobby] .... Or pastime, or some other optional activity that when push comes to shove simply isn't that vital.

That's how you choose to order your life - fine. However that's not how a religious person sees it. If they take their faith seriously, then it doesn't sit on a shelf until [insert holy day here] and then have no implications beyond the hour you spend listening to the rabbi, vicar or imam or whoever.

To the religious, God is real, as in objectively real, not just a nice idea or "real to me", and that means his commandments are important. You will never seek to persuade a religious person by saying, "well, this is important because it's medical, but that's just religion".

I couldn't care less if people get circumcised if that's how they express their religious beliefs so be it ,i just feel that infant circumcision should be more tightly regulated ,not for any reason other than we can do it safer and better .We aren't living in the desert anymore we have knowledge and skills that are in themselves god like compared to 3000 yrs ago and i choose to believe that was Gods intention,to give us the ability to develop and progress beyond a primitive society , so lets use this knowledge to the best of our ability and if that means dragging some religious traditions kicking and screaming into the 21st century so be it

Originally Posted by danielf

Martyh is simply countering the argument (which has been pre-empted a million times in this thread) that if you object to the foreskin being removed without someone's consent, then you should also object to an appendix being removed, which is bolleaux, as there are compelling medical reasons for removing an appendix, and not for removing a foreskin.

I suppose you could then argue that religious reasons can be just as compelling, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide what happens to their children. At that point I would point out that it gets a bit hairy when parents deny their children medical intervention, or when people's religion decides what medical intervention can be legally carried out to save the life of a woman who's about to die in child-birth.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

I am arguing that to a religious person, religious reasons *are* just as compelling and parents *do* have the right to decide what happens to their children. And in so doing, I am also pointing out that that, pretty much, is what amounts to the status quo in this country, because it has been found over many generations to work pretty well.

Regarding the hairiness of medical intervention issues, there is a useful study here:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/7/715.full

It focuses on JWs and whether they have the right to deny a blood transfusion on behalf of their children. (They don't). Where a person with religious conviction finds that the law of the land does not support that conviction, then as a I said earlier, they either reinterpret their convictions, take them underground, or emigrate. All of these have occurred at one time or another in history. In the case of Christianity, persecution is what helped to drive its spread out of Roman Palestine in the first place.

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 19:31 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

I couldn't care less if people get circumcised if that's how they express their religious beliefs so be it ,i just feel that infant circumcision should be more tightly regulated ,not for any reason other than we can do it safer and better .We aren't living in the desert anymore we have knowledge and skills that are in themselves god like compared to 3000 yrs ago and i choose to believe that was Gods intention,to give us the ability to develop and progress beyond a primitive society , so lets use this knowledge to the best of our ability and if that means dragging some religious traditions kicking and screaming into the 21st century so be it

Perhaps we could get Parliament to create a regulator. They could call it Ofsnip.

I must admit, I'm surprised at how little there is in the way of accreditation required in order to be able to carry out a circumcision.