[Pants-of-dog]

Would you think it was okay for the Maori to tattoo newborn babies?

Do they?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

No but would you accept it if they did?

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do they have a tradition of facial tattoos? What does it mean to get one?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

It doesn't matter, would you support tattooing the face of a newborn baby if it were done for religious purposes or should that decision be left until the baby is old enough to make the choice for itself?

[Seeker8]

TORONTO — An Ontario doctor has been cautioned after a 22-day-old baby bled to death from a circumcision gone horribly wrong, underscoring the heated debate over a simple yet contentious procedure.

Another physician involved in the case was urged by a medical governing body to be “mindful” of the operation’s dangers.


Handout
But Ryan Heydari’s parents say the regulators who handled their complaints have shed little light on what led to Ryan’s death – or how to prevent similar tragedies in future.

They say they did not even want the newborn circumcised — a view in line with longstanding recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Society — but were persuaded to do so by a family physician.

“We are so shocked that we will not have an answer to bring us some peace for our broken hearts, to prevent other cruel deaths like Ryan’s and to ensure that doctors take proper care of their patients,” mother Homa Ahmadi told the National Post.

In fact, the case only became public because the couple appealed the original Ontario College of Physician and Surgeons rulings, which were rendered in secret.

An appeal tribunal upheld this month a decision by the College to caution the on-call pediatrician who saw Ryan in the emergency department hours after his circumcision, his diaper stained red with blood.

http://nationalpost.com/health/ontario- ... ircumcised

Such sick people on this thread promoting this shit.

I was speaking to family today and was told my great aunt in who lives in Canada wasn't even asked if she wanted her sons mutilated, they just done it without asking! That was in the 50's though.

[Pants-of-dog]

It doesn't matter, would you support tattooing the face of a newborn baby if it were done for religious purposes or should that decision be left until the baby is old enough to make the choice for itself?

Why do Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant babies get circumcised?

[AFAIK]

@PoD- It's a rhetorical question. Just answer it.

I have presented the evidence.

You presented evidence that the procedure benefits sexually active adults but didn't explain why it should be performed on new born babies. This is the third time I've raised this point and have yet to receive an answer.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Why do Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant babies get circumcised?

Would you support tattooing the face of a newborn baby if it were done for religious purposes or should that decision be left until the baby is old enough to make it for itself?

[noemon]

Virtually all medical experts favor circumcision over not. And even those who do not are fine with it being done as elective surgery.

Doctors in both the UK and Greece advised us that circumcision is not favourable and should not be conducted on our children unless for therapeutic purposes and where there aren't any, that it should not be conducted at all.

The British Medical Association:

In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral.
The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks (see section 4.4). It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents.


......

Doctors should ensure that any parents seeking circumcision for their son in the belief that it confers health benefits are fully informed of the lack of consensus amongst the profession over such benefits, and how great any potential benefits and harms are. The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Would you support tattooing the face of a newborn baby if it were done for religious purposes or should that decision be left until the baby is old enough to make it for itself?

Since this is an imaginary case that has nothing to do with reality, I see no need to answer it.

Now, if you do not know why Jews, Muslims, and Protestants do it, you may not have the required information to participate in this debate.

[Nonsense]

That some people consider circumcision to be MGM is the truly ridiculous thing. Your "Orwellian" statement is pretty melodramatic.

The thinking that you express is like government's that say that,there are people who do not like state surveillance over all of our electronic activities,but that such surveillance is good for the state when everyone is under state surveillance.


"There are medical benefits to it, and you simply don't like that the medical community does not hold your own personal views on it".


Just don't let your 'personal' views interfere with that of 'Big-Brother',after all the 'Orwellian' comparison might appear as 'pretty melodramatic' duh!!

Does it not occur to you that virtually every person in the 'medical establishment' , 'religion' or 'politics' has a direct or indirect financial or power play interest in male-female infantile mutilation also euphemistically known as 'circumcision'?

[Paddy14]

I'm not really sure what FGM is, but it sounds disgusting to me. I don't have a strong opinion on circumcision, but cos it is done done when guys are tiny babies, we can't argue which is better. But I agree with those who say it should not be done without the boy's consent - so it should only be done when they are fully grown up.

The argument that it is dangerous for men to have a body part which has evolved over maybe millions of years doesn't make much sense to me. It seems a mainly primitive Middle Eastern and North American culture thing. The vast majority of mankind has a foreskin and seems to have no health problems with that, and I read that it has an important function in sex.

Those of us who are intact and as nature intended, can have no idea what those of us who have been cut experience, so maybe we should just accept what others choose for themselves - which is why circumcision must only be done to those who want it, and are old enough to make that decision.

[Drlee]

I think I have said enough about this subject. I have expressed my opinion and backed it with a boxcar load of facts. If someone does not want to circumcise their son the so be it. I think it is the wrong decision but it is not an important one.

I am tired of people google searching and posting snippets (no pun intended).

My opinion is that people who call this surgical procedure "mutilation" are idiots and that nothing further need be said about this stupidity on their part. They can just own it. The hyperbole surrounding this subject speaks for itself. [Zag Edit: Rule 2]

I am done. [Zag Edit: Rule 2]

[AFAIK]

Thanks for ignoring my question, DrLee!

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Since this is an imaginary case that has nothing to do with reality, I see no need to answer it.

It has everything to do with the topic we are discussing. You said you have no problem with religious freedoms or branding such as Maori tattooing, but would you still support the Maoris right for religious tattoos if they were applied to new born babies as it is with circumcision?

@Drlee Yes Drlee I think you have said more than enough on the topic as your last few posts seem to have devolved into a series of insults and childish outbursts. I would like to throw words like idiotic or stupid back at you but that would be unfair.

You are a victim in denial and to be honest I don't blame you for being in denial. It's hard to admit that you are a victim at the hands of medical professions and your society but your defence of circumcision shows a willingness to forsake others to the same form of injustice and for this my sympathy wanes.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since you refuse to answer my questions that are actually real and topical, there is no reason to discuss this with you any more.

[Drlee]

One more post to help our memory challenged friend AFAIK.



On page 5 of this thread, in a direct answer to your question, which for some reason you repeat several times after that I made the following post:

There is absolutely no need to circumcise babies without anesthetic. Why would you prefer that? Further. By the time a man makes the decision, it is a much bigger deal and he may already be infected and have passed these infections along

Got that now?

[noemon]

Since you refuse to answer my questions that are actually real and topical, there is no reason to discuss this with you any more.

So you responded to his question with a question, refused to answer his question and then cried victim because he is not following your off-topic religious question which is irrelevant. Your silence is an answer already however.

Got that now?

You are saying that people should have circumcision as babies because the operation is more painful/complicated for adults and that circumcision will allegedly prevent the spread of STD's for when they become sexually active, right?

The US has about 3/4 of its adults circumcised while Europe has next to 0 circumcised males and yet the spread of STD's is massive in the US compared to Europe, all other things considered being equal(cultural and sexual norms), how do you account for this discrepancy?



More info...

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Since you refuse to answer my questions that are actually real and topical, there is no reason to discuss this with you any more.

Okay, claiming that the repercussions between FGM and MGM have equally bad outcomes would do a disservice to FGM and I don't know why Jews Muslims and Protestants perform circumcision, so now will you answer my question?

You also said you support religious freedom and branding but isn't FGM often carried out as part of religious ceremony?

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay, claiming that the repercussions between FGM and MGM have equally bad outcomes would do a disservice to FGM and I don't know why Jews Muslims and Protestants perform circumcision, so now will you answer my question?

I already have answered your question. I said I support the rights for communities to do these things as long as there are no significant drawbacks. Since there are no drawbacks to tattoos, the answer is obvious.

Try and do some research as to why Jews, Muslims, and Protestants do this.

You also said you support religious freedom and branding but isn't FGM often carried out as part of religious ceremony?

Are there significant health drawbacks associated with FGM? Yes! So it should be clear that I do not support it.

Is FGM part of a religious ceremony?