|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 22, 2017 2:17:29 GMT
...religious? Feds expand female genital mutilation probe to three major US cities"Currently, police believe six people conspired to cut prepubescent girls as part of a religious act that Shia Muslims from India's Dawoodi Bohra region practice. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, Mich., is a central figure in the federal probe. Nagarwala is alleged to have mutilated 100 girls' genitalia at a medical clinic in Livonia, Mich, Detroit News reported. He is currently in jail and will ask to be released on bond during a court hearing next week. Nagarwala's lawyer has argued the doctor removed mucous membrane from the girls' genitalia, calling it a benign religious procedure compared to mutilation." Genital Mutilation Federal Probe ExpandsIt's not mutilation of its only "mucous membrane"
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 22, 2017 2:48:10 GMT
...religious? Feds expand female genital mutilation probe to three major US cities"Currently, police believe six people conspired to cut prepubescent girls as part of a religious act that Shia Muslims from India's Dawoodi Bohra region practice. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, Mich., is a central figure in the federal probe. Nagarwala is alleged to have mutilated 100 girls' genitalia at a medical clinic in Livonia, Mich, Detroit News reported. He is currently in jail and will ask to be released on bond during a court hearing next week. Nagarwala's lawyer has argued the doctor removed mucous membrane from the girls' genitalia, calling it a benign religious procedure compared to mutilation." Genital Mutilation Federal Probe ExpandsIt's not mutilation of its only "mucous membrane" Male infant circumcision is worldwide scientific concensus, enthusiastically endorsed by the WHO, CDC, NIH, AMA, etc... In case you ever doubted science was a religion.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 22, 2017 9:35:58 GMT
Little boy bled to death in Canada last year after his family doctor talked his parents into getting him circumcised.
I was cut, I did not cut my two sons. That's progress.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 22, 2017 9:38:06 GMT
...religious? Feds expand female genital mutilation probe to three major US cities"Currently, police believe six people conspired to cut prepubescent girls as part of a religious act that Shia Muslims from India's Dawoodi Bohra region practice. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, Mich., is a central figure in the federal probe. Nagarwala is alleged to have mutilated 100 girls' genitalia at a medical clinic in Livonia, Mich, Detroit News reported. He is currently in jail and will ask to be released on bond during a court hearing next week. Nagarwala's lawyer has argued the doctor removed mucous membrane from the girls' genitalia, calling it a benign religious procedure compared to mutilation." Genital Mutilation Federal Probe ExpandsIt's not mutilation of its only "mucous membrane" Male infant circumcision is worldwide scientific concensus, enthusiastically endorsed by the WHO, CDC, NIH, AMA, etc... In case you ever doubted science was a religion. It used to be an accepted fact that cigarettes were not bad for you. You want to make a decision when you're older to have part of your body cut off, that's fine. Making that choice for someone else, a baby, is morally reprehensible in this day and age. It's not the dark ages anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jul 22, 2017 12:39:52 GMT
...religious? Feds expand female genital mutilation probe to three major US cities"Currently, police believe six people conspired to cut prepubescent girls as part of a religious act that Shia Muslims from India's Dawoodi Bohra region practice. Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, Mich., is a central figure in the federal probe. Nagarwala is alleged to have mutilated 100 girls' genitalia at a medical clinic in Livonia, Mich, Detroit News reported. He is currently in jail and will ask to be released on bond during a court hearing next week. Nagarwala's lawyer has argued the doctor removed mucous membrane from the girls' genitalia, calling it a benign religious procedure compared to mutilation." Genital Mutilation Federal Probe ExpandsIt's not mutilation of its only "mucous membrane" Male infant circumcision is worldwide scientific concensus, enthusiastically endorsed by the WHO, CDC, NIH, AMA, etc... In case you ever doubted science was a religion. Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has strongly condemned non-therapeutic circumcision of kids and NHS of UK has not been keen on non-therapeutic circumcision. Backward country America is not the end of the world. Male infant circumcision is far more widespread than FGM and it is just as vile and degenerate. As repulsive as FGM is, so is MGM. Why is what happens to females considered more relevant than what happens to males? One of the reasons why the hideous practise of circumcision on male babies is not condemned as much as it should be is that two religious groups find it very important issue and in America particularly it seems that some lobby is working to spread propaganda that circumcision on male infants has much more pros than cons . It is one issue on which more needs to be done to protect millions of children from this blatant child abuse.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 22, 2017 15:37:14 GMT
Male infant circumcision is worldwide scientific concensus, enthusiastically endorsed by the WHO, CDC, NIH, AMA, etc... In case you ever doubted science was a religion. A) Science is NOT religion (nor does it have any similarities with religion as a concept). B) Male infant circumcision is NOT "enthusiastically endorsed" by worldwide concensus (as evidenced by the fact that no western, developed nations practice it as a routine procedure for the majority of males in any country outside the United States). The fact of the matter is, the ONLY pediatrics society in the world that endorses it (by doesn't recommend it) is the AMERICAN academy of pediatrics. It is rejected by pretty much everyone else. And pediatricians are more of an authority on what is best for infants than general health agencies. C) The rationale for why the CDC and WHO endorses it is based on flawed data (that has been exposed as flawed data for the better part of a decade now). D) The facts that you have presented do not address the actual point that I was making.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 22, 2017 15:40:14 GMT
Male infant circumcision is far more widespread than FGM and it is just as vile and degenerate. As repulsive as FGM is, so is MGM. Why is what happens to females considered more relevant than what happens to males? Because male circumcision is protected as a religious rite that is popular in the western world (where Jews have lots of power), and FGM is not protected as a religious rite, and is not popular in the majority religions in the western world. The Jews control the west, Muslims are hated in the west. Muslim practices are demonized, while Jewish practices have been incorporated into mainstream America in the guise of "medicine".
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 23, 2017 13:03:16 GMT
Because male circumcision is protected as a religious rite that is popular in the western world (where Jews have lots of power), and FGM is not protected as a religious rite, and is not popular in the majority religions in the western world. The Jews control the west, Muslims are hated in the west. Muslim practices are demonized, while Jewish practices have been incorporated into mainstream America in the guise of "medicine". Religion is a scourge on society, but lets not forget the dollars that the US medical establishment is raking in over the procedure. This affects all walks of life. Capitalism is an established way of life that is embraced by America; that'll never change. I blame the cycle of baby cutting on ignorance. It's the parents fault for authorizing an unnecessary surgical procedure that is religious in nature, or that they usually don't know much about. It's also their fault for making such decisions for selfish reasons such as wanting their child to look like the father. Either way, it's parental ignorance that perpetuates this nonsense. You can't blame doctors for profiting off of the gullibility of their customers. Male circumcision is literally the ONLY surgical procedure that can be authorized by someone other than the patient, in the absence of a medical indication, and for either religious or cultural reasons. Cutting any other body part (other than the penis) for those reasons would be illegal, unethical, and immoral.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 23, 2017 13:33:40 GMT
We do not treat children as autonomous beings capable of granting or withholding consent. We rather treat them as persons who can legitimately be forced to do things that they do not want to do, and forcibly withheld from doing other things that they want to do. We often treat kids more or less as property. And for the most part we allow parents to decide what is best for them.
But we're very inconsistent with this and we allow society to overrule some parental decisions but not others. We're very inconsistent about that, and it's really just a matter of effectively arbitrary social tides. If the tide is strong enough, it becomes a norm, but there are competing social tides, especially as cultures mix, and this is one area of that.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 23, 2017 14:05:19 GMT
We do not treat children as autonomous beings capable of granting or withholding consent. We rather treat them as persons who can legitimately be forced to do things that they do not want to do, and forcibly withheld from doing other things that they want to do. We often treat kids more or less as property. And for the most part we allow parents to decide what is best for them. But we're very inconsistent with this and we allow society to overrule some parental decisions but not others. We're very inconsistent about that, and it's really just a matter of effectively arbitrary social tides. If the tide is strong enough, it becomes a norm, but there are competing social tides, especially as cultures mix, and this is one area of that. This is largely true, which makes it rather sad. Because morality and ethics should not sway with the tide. Something is either moral and ethical, or it is not. And what is/is not moral and/or ethical should be based on whether or not something causes "harm" to other people. Generally, society (at least western society) has always advanced towards a state of morality. Things that were once considered moral or ethical in the past (slavery, jim crow laws, etc) are not considered moral or ethical today. It isn't that they were ever moral or ethical to begin with, but rather that more that society as a whole was less moral and ethical due to ignorance. The smarter we become, the more ethical and moral we become (generally speaking). We don't use chemical weapons or dumb bombs in war anymore, because that is immoral. We use surgical strikes, and non-lingering weapons because we've grown in morality. On a more related note perhaps, spanking children used to be nearly universally accepted. Today, because child psychologists believe that it is the least effective form of discipline, many people now consider it child abuse. The same thing needs to happen with respect to genital mutilation of children. That is certainly the direction that Britain, Canada, and Australia have gone when it comes to baby cutting. The US has largely fallen behind the rest of the developed world on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 23, 2017 14:11:39 GMT
We do not treat children as autonomous beings capable of granting or withholding consent . . . And what is/is not moral and/or ethical should be based on whether or not something causes "harm" to other people . . . I find the "harm" criterion to be way too vague. Someone could make it much more specific, but in typical discussions, it's just left completely vague. Further, what counts as harm is subjective. We could define it per some objective criteria of, say, damaging cells or something, but that would just underscore that many harms are done for future benefit (per subjective opinion of course). For example, exercising/working out damages cells, and that's part of the point of it--when your body rebuilds it rebuilds stronger, with more muscle, etc. And of course "psychological harms" are going to be vague no matter what we do. I don't at all agree with your "ethical progress" view. Ethics is noncognitive. There are no truth values for ethical statements.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 23, 2017 18:34:33 GMT
And what is/is not moral and/or ethical should be based on whether or not something causes "harm" to other people . . . I find the "harm" criterion to be way too vague. Someone could make it much more specific, but in typical discussions, it's just left completely vague. Here are a couple of reasonable definitions I found... HARM: 1) Anything that impairs or adversely affects the safety of patients in clinical care, drug therapy, research investigations, or public health. Harms include adverse drug reactions, side effects of treatments, and other undesirable consequences of health care products and services.Medical Dictionary (harm)2) any unintended physical injury resulting from or contributed to by medical care (including the absence of indicated medical treatment), that requires or prolongs hospitalization, and/or results in permanent disability or deathMassachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (harm)Further, what counts as harm is subjective. We could define it per some objective criteria of, say, damaging cells or something, but that would just underscore that many harms are done for future benefit (per subjective opinion of course). For example, exercising/working out damages cells, and that's part of the point of it--when your body rebuilds it rebuilds stronger, with more muscle, etc. And of course "psychological harms" are going to be vague no matter what we do. I think when the term is defined as adversely affecting safety, causing undesirable consequences, or results in results in physical injury in absence of indicated medical treatment, it becomes much more objective in nature as those are very specific criteria. Exercise is intentionally done (at the will of the person exercising), with the understanding that it ultimately causes desirable effects. If a person was FORCED to exercise by someone else, to the point of physical injury that adversely affects their health or safety, then that would be harm. We can agree to disagree on that point. But I think historical evidence supports and legitimizes my view. And while it is debatable whether or not ethics as a whole is subjective, I (like everyone else) is always arguing based on my subjective view of it. For example, I don't believe in victimless crimes. If there is no victim, it should not be a crime. On the other hand, any intentional and unnecessary action that is calculated to, or effective in causing harm to someone else (other than in the interest of public safety, self-defense, or the victim's own well being) is unethical. And I think it'd be very difficult for someone to make a case to the contrary. But you're welcome to try.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 23, 2017 18:37:01 GMT
I find the "harm" criterion to be way too vague. Someone could make it much more specific, but in typical discussions, it's just left completely vague. Here are a couple of reasonable definitions I found... HARM: 1) Anything that impairs or adversely affects the safety of patients in clinical care, drug therapy, research investigations, or public health. Harms include adverse drug reactions, side effects of treatments, and other undesirable consequences of health care products and services.Medical Dictionary (harm)2) any unintended physical injury resulting from or contributed to by medical care (including the absence of indicated medical treatment), that requires or prolongs hospitalization, and/or results in permanent disability or deathMassachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (harm)Further, what counts as harm is subjective. We could define it per some objective criteria of, say, damaging cells or something, but that would just underscore that many harms are done for future benefit (per subjective opinion of course). For example, exercising/working out damages cells, and that's part of the point of it--when your body rebuilds it rebuilds stronger, with more muscle, etc. And of course "psychological harms" are going to be vague no matter what we do. I think when the term is defined as adversely affecting safety, causing undesirable consequences, or results in results in physical injury in absence of indicated medical treatment, it becomes much more objective in nature as those are very specific criteria. Exercise is intentionally done (at the will of the person exercising), with the understanding that it ultimately causes desirable effects. If a person was FORCED to exercise by someone else, to the point of physical injury that adversely affects their health or safety, then that would be harm. We can agree to disagree on that point. But I think historical evidence supports and legitimizes my view. And while it is debatable whether or not ethics as a whole is subjective, I (like everyone else) is always arguing based on my subjective view of it. For example, I don't believe in victimless crimes. If there is no victim, it should not be a crime. On the other hand, any intentional and unnecessary action that is calculated to, or effective in causing harm to someone else (other than in the interest of public safety, self-defense, or the victim's own well being) is unethical. And I think it'd be very difficult for someone to make a case to the contrary. But you're welcome to try. I want to make sure we focus on this one thing first, so I'm only going to ask this to start: how would desires be objective or unambiguous for general purposes?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 23, 2017 19:11:58 GMT
I want to make sure we focus on this one thing first, so I'm only going to ask this to start: how would desires be objective or unambiguous for general purposes? I'm not sure I understand your question. Desire is of course subjective, but how exactly is "desire" relevant to this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 23, 2017 19:17:56 GMT
I want to make sure we focus on this one thing first, so I'm only going to ask this to start: how would desires be objective or unambiguous for general purposes? I'm not sure I understand your question. Desire is of course subjective, but how exactly is "desire" relevant to this discussion? The definition you gave was a list of "undesirable consequences"
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 23, 2017 23:35:11 GMT
I'm not sure I understand your question. Desire is of course subjective, but how exactly is "desire" relevant to this discussion? The definition you gave was a list of "undesirable consequences" No it wasn't; read it again! The definition (one who of them) I gave included some undesirable consequences, but was not limited to those examples.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Jul 24, 2017 0:30:16 GMT
Male infant circumcision is worldwide scientific concensus, enthusiastically endorsed by the WHO, CDC, NIH, AMA, etc... In case you ever doubted science was a religion. Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has strongly condemned non-therapeutic circumcision of kids and NHS of UK has not been keen on non-therapeutic circumcision. Backward country America is not the end of the world. This is the kind of liberal politics that perpetuates the practice. Circumcision is not something you can blame on rank and file Americans, middle Americans, people you wouldn't hesitate to call "anti-science". Circumcision is the fault of scientific authorities, worldwide, the "pro-science" people, and it's pure cognative dissonance to be so reluctant to put the blame where it belongs. Your worldview can't accommodate corruption in the highest echelons of power? Liberals are in some kind of class warfare against regular people. Scientists lie.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 1:41:53 GMT
This is the kind of liberal politics that perpetuates the practice. Circumcision is not something you can blame on rank and file Americans, middle Americans, people you wouldn't hesitate to call "anti-science". Circumcision is the fault of scientific authorities, worldwide, the "pro-science" people, and it's pure cognative dissonance to be so reluctant to put the blame where it belongs. Your worldview can't accommodate corruption in the highest echelons of power? Liberals are in some kind of class warfare against regular people. Scientists lie. Dude, you don't know what the help you're talking about! Your analysis is flawed in oh-so-many ways. The more liberal societies on the planet have all but rejected circumcision as a viable form of "medicine". It is generally practiced only among the most conservative societies (Muslim, Jewish, and the United States). Religion is what popularized it in the first place, and the only reason it is "protected" as a parental right. Any suggestion that circumcision is harmful immediately draws attention from the Jewish community as "antisemitism". Furthermore, if you listen to the rational and opinions of rank and file, middle Americans, you'll find that this is the demographic that tends to support circumcision for completely unscientific reasons. "It looks better", "the boy should look like his father", "uncircumcised penises are dirty", etc. These (along with religion and tradition) are the common arguments from CONSERVATIVE Americans, not liberals!
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jul 24, 2017 10:38:12 GMT
The definition you gave was a list of "undesirable consequences" No it wasn't; read it again! The definition (one who of them) I gave included some undesirable consequences, but was not limited to those examples. It lists items in a series and says " or other undesirable consequences" And after all, if someone desired any of those states/conditions, how would it make sense, mapping to any of the uusual connotations of "harm," to say that they're harms?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 24, 2017 11:04:13 GMT
No it wasn't; read it again! The definition (one who of them) I gave included some undesirable consequences, but was not limited to those examples. It lists items in a series and says " or other undesirable consequences" Correct! In this case, the phrase is being used as a vague catch-all after specifics were given. If it was including the listed items as "undesirable consequences" it would have said "AND other undesirable consequences", not "or". Your question is not logical. Why would anyone desire something that impairs or adversely affects them? Such an assumption makes no sense!
|
|