Abortion, Circumcision, and Hypocrisy

[Waiways]

Abortion, Circumcision, and Hypocrisy

Some time ago, a question occurred to me: If Anti-abortion (pro-life) supporters argued under the assumption that unborn children had certain rights, (in this case, the right to life) does it constitute hypocrisy if the same person has his or her child circumcised shortly after birth, when the child is incapable of consenting to said operation?

So the questions for debate are as follows:

Does circumcision violate the rights of an infant?

Should cosmetic surgery on infants (excluding reconstructive cosmetic surgery) be considered unethical?

Does it constitute hypocrisy to be both pro-life and have his or her child circumcised?

[Nickman]

Wow. Mind=blown by that double double entendre. If I didn't already know, it would be impossible to tell what side you are on, hahaha.

Maybe that's why I didn't get any replies... Glad you appreciated it though.

Your post was on topic with the OP, I just think you changed the focus. Everyone kind of stopped, lol.

On embryos, we would first have to define human and non-human.

I'm more interested in human embryos, but... I don't know why someone would want to terminate non-human embryos? I think you can get a hefty fine for destroying eagle eggs.

Let me rephrase for clarity. We need a good workable definition of the point in which an embryo becomes identifiable as a human being. Some point, in it's development, that we can agree on. If we cannot establish that, then the debate would be futile.

agreed, for now that point is when the babies break on through to the other side... If they manage to run the gauntlet up to that point they're money.

Ok so aborting 1 day prior is ok. What about the crucible?

Crucible? What's that?

http://www.defense.gov/specials/basic/

"trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat (expectorate)"

You got it. Semper Fi, do or die, kill'em all let god sort 'em out

[Nickman]

Wow. Mind=blown by that double double entendre. If I didn't already know, it would be impossible to tell what side you are on, hahaha.

Maybe that's why I didn't get any replies... Glad you appreciated it though.

Your post was on topic with the OP, I just think you changed the focus. Everyone kind of stopped, lol.

On embryos, we would first have to define human and non-human.

I'm more interested in human embryos, but... I don't know why someone would want to terminate non-human embryos? I think you can get a hefty fine for destroying eagle eggs.

Let me rephrase for clarity. We need a good workable definition of the point in which an embryo becomes identifiable as a human being. Some point, in it's development, that we can agree on. If we cannot establish that, then the debate would be futile.

agreed, for now that point is when the babies break on through to the other side... If they manage to run the gauntlet up to that point they're money.

Ok so aborting 1 day prior is ok. What about the crucible?

Crucible? What's that?

http://www.defense.gov/specials/basic/

"trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat (expectorate)"

You got it. Semper Fi, do or die, kill'em all let god sort 'em out

[AdHoc]

Maybe that's why I didn't get any replies... Glad you appreciated it though.

Your post was on topic with the OP, I just think you changed the focus. Everyone kind of stopped, lol.

On embryos, we would first have to define human and non-human.

I'm more interested in human embryos, but... I don't know why someone would want to terminate non-human embryos? I think you can get a hefty fine for destroying eagle eggs.

Let me rephrase for clarity. We need a good workable definition of the point in which an embryo becomes identifiable as a human being. Some point, in it's development, that we can agree on. If we cannot establish that, then the debate would be futile.

agreed, for now that point is when the babies break on through to the other side... If they manage to run the gauntlet up to that point they're money.

Ok so aborting 1 day prior is ok. What about the crucible?

Crucible? What's that?

http://www.defense.gov/specials/basic/

"trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat (expectorate)"

You got it. Semper Fi, do or die, kill'em all let god sort 'em out

The sons who are always faithful... but they don't bring the greatest joy

[bluethread]

This is hardly Brit Milah.

This thread isn't about Brit Milah, but circumcision. I think that death is a significant potential side effect that is worth pointing out.

Yes, but that has was not made clear previously. The thread appeared to be speaking of all circumcision. I do agree that the risk of death needs to be pointed out. However, there is a risk of death on any surgical procedure, especially where malpractice is involved. Now, we can put my inquiries to rest, if it is acknowledged that there is no evidence that Brit Milah has led to the problems stated in this thread and therefore, is not a significant health risk.

Personally, I believe in patient directed health care. The issue of whether the state should be able to override the presumed power of attorney of the parents is a two edged sword. If the state can ban a procedure, it can also require it.

You seem to be assuming that the rights of the child are not at issue. Shouldn't the state protect children from being subjected to unnecessary surgery and amputation at the hands of their parents?

So, do you believe that all pediatric piercings and cosmetic surgery for non medical reasons should be outlawed? Also, as I pointed out, it depends on the state. The Nazi's were very adept at "protecting" children from their parents.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Yes, but that has was not made clear previously. The thread appeared to be speaking of all circumcision. I do agree that the risk of death needs to be pointed out. However, there is a risk of death on any surgical procedure, especially where malpractice is involved. Now, we can put my inquiries to rest, if it is acknowledged that there is no evidence that Brit Milah has led to the problems stated in this thread and therefore, is not a significant health risk.

Brit Malah, like any surgical procedure, caries risk of death and injury. Like any surgical procedure, we should avoid it unless it is somehow necessary.

So, do you believe that all pediatric piercings and cosmetic surgery for non medical reasons should be outlawed? Also, as I pointed out, it depends on the state. The Nazi's were very adept at "protecting" children from their parents.

Cosmetic surgery without the informed consent of the person recieving the surgery is unethical and should be discouraged if not banned outright. Tattoos, piercing and circumcision can wait until the individual is old enough to make the decision about their body for themselves. Do you have an argument to the contrary?

I wear shoes. I hear that the Nazis were fond of wearing shoes. Does that also make me a Nazi?

[bluethread]

Yes, but that has was not made clear previously. The thread appeared to be speaking of all circumcision. I do agree that the risk of death needs to be pointed out. However, there is a risk of death on any surgical procedure, especially where malpractice is involved. Now, we can put my inquiries to rest, if it is acknowledged that there is no evidence that Brit Milah has led to the problems stated in this thread and therefore, is not a significant health risk.

Brit Malah, like any surgical procedure, caries risk of death and injury. Like any surgical procedure, we should avoid it unless it is somehow necessary.

What is "somehow necessary"? Necessary for what?

So, do you believe that all pediatric piercings and cosmetic surgery for non medical reasons should be outlawed? Also, as I pointed out, it depends on the state. The Nazi's were very adept at "protecting" children from their parents.

Cosmetic surgery without the informed consent of the person recieving the surgery is unethical and should be discouraged if not banned outright. Tattoos, piercing and circumcision can wait until the individual is old enough to make the decision about their body for themselves. Do you have an argument to the contrary?

Well, the argument of those who do infant ear piercing is that the health risks are deminished. That would be my argument. The health risks that have been presented on this thread are greatly increased in adult circumcision. Though theoretically brit milah carries health risks, I have seen no evidence of these occuring in a properly performed brit milah.

I wear shoes. I hear that the Nazis were fond of wearing shoes. Does that also make me a Nazi?

No, that means that wearing shoes does not keep you from being a Nazi. Therefore, the fact that you wear shoes and a child's parents wear sandles does not mean that you are better at deciding what is best for their children.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Brit Malah, like any surgical procedure, caries risk of death and injury. Like any surgical procedure, we should avoid it unless it is somehow necessary.

What is "somehow necessary"? Necessary for what?

Broadly speaking, necessary for the continued health of the individual as determined by medical professionals.

Cosmetic surgery without the informed consent of the person recieving the surgery is unethical and should be discouraged if not banned outright. Tattoos, piercing and circumcision can wait until the individual is old enough to make the decision about their body for themselves. Do you have an argument to the contrary?

Well, the argument of those who do infant ear piercing is that the health risks are deminished. That would be my argument. The health risks that have been presented on this thread are greatly increased in adult circumcision. Though theoretically brit milah carries health risks, I have seen no evidence of these occuring in a properly performed brit milah.

If adult circumcision is even more dangerous than infant circumcision, that is an argument against adult circumcision. It is not an argument in favour of infant circumcision - unless you would argue that any unnecessary surgery to an infant should be allowed so long as that surgery would be more dangerous when they were an adult?

It is meaningless to speak about "properly performed" circumcisions, because not all circumcisions are "properly performed." If you allow an unnecessary surgical procedure to be performed, you must also accept that there will be inevitably be complications in some of these surgeries leading to injury and even death. Let the individual decide for themselves whether they wish to undergo such a procedure.

I wear shoes. I hear that the Nazis were fond of wearing shoes. Does that also make me a Nazi?

No, that means that wearing shoes does not keep you from being a Nazi. Therefore, the fact that you wear shoes and a child's parents wear sandles does not mean that you are better at deciding what is best for their children.

You've lost me. Can you explain why you compared me to a Nazi in the first place? As far as I can see the only thing I am doing is advocating for the rights of an infant to not have parts of their body amputated without their consent. Was the Nazi analogy just a bit of overboard rhetorical flourish on your part, or did the Nazis also advocate for people's right to their own bodily integrity?

[wotsupdoc]

[Replying to post 5 by Goat]

A fetus is not yet intelligent, so it certainly doesn't have 'wants' at that point. It certainly is not a living, breathing being yet.

Bernard Nathenson, once one of the USA's biggest providers of abortion said in a TV interview "Every abortion kills a BABY."

Carol Everett, who owned three abortion clinics said she gave them up because she knew that every abortion kills a BABY.

Naomi ???? who is a model and pro-abortion said on TV that although she was pro-abortion, she knew that every abortion kills a BABY.

A few facts about babies in the womb....

1. 21 days: pumps own blood
2. 42 days: brain waves recorded
3. 7 weeks: sucks thumb
4. 8 weeks: all body systems present
5. 9 weeks: makes fist
6. 11 weeks: spontaneous breaching
7. 16 weeks: swims, kicks

Science has shown us quite clearly that babies do indeed feel pain. For example, surgeon Robert Shearin argues that unborn babies can experience pain at quite an early age: “As early as eight to ten weeks after conception, and definitely by thirteen-and-a-half weeks, the unborn experiences organic pain. . . . [At this point she] responds to pain at all levels of her nervous system in an integrated response which cannot be deemed a mere reflex. She can now experience pain.�

More recently a British review of the latest research has found that an unborn baby is definitely aware of pain by 24 weeks, and possibly aware as early as 20 weeks.

And professor of neurobiology and anatomy Maureen L. Condic recently presented scientific evidence concerning the ability of unborn children to experience pain at a U.S. House subcommittee. I offer here a few excerpts from her written testimony: “To experience pain, a noxious stimulus must be detected. The neural structures necessary to detect noxious stimuli are in place by 8-10 weeks of human development. There is universal agreement that pain is detected by the fetus in the first trimester. The debate concerns how pain is experienced; i.e., whether a fetus has the same pain experience a newborn or an adult would have. While every individual’s experience of pain is personal, a number of scientific observations address what brain structures are necessary for a mental or psychological experience of pain.

By the time that a baby has been in utero for one month, blood is pumping around the body. In the second month, facial features develop, including the growth of ears, eyes, arms, legs, toes, and fingers. At six weeks, the baby’s brain, spinal cord, and central nervous system are all pretty well formed — in outline at least. By the two-month mark, sensory organs begin to develop and bone replaces cartilage.

Three months in, arms, hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed, and the baby can grab with its fists as well as open and close its mouth. Teeth are on their way, as are reproductive organs. In month four, the baby is fully formed, and eyelids, eyebrows, eyelashes, nails, and hair develop. At this point, a baby can suck his thumb, yawn, hiccup, stretch, and make faces. At 18 weeks, the baby can move around, and experience REM sleep, including dreams. At 20 weeks, some studies show, it can recognize its mother’s voice.

Amazing how these "none living beings" experience so much.

[wotsupdoc]

[Replying to post 11 by Darias]

Sometimes the doctor has to jostle it slightly, slap it on the rear, if you will... then it becomes a person as you say... when the magical hand of the doctor imparts person-hood on the fetus via a gentle tap. You've got to be kidding me.

Yes they have got to be kidding you.

It si the same as those pro-abortionists who say it is not a baby until it is viable.

Question when is it viable? When it is born? At 20 weeks? At 5 minutes before birth? at 39 Weeks? When it is independent of its mother?

That fact is they don't know because all of the above have been presented as the time they are viable.

The funniest one of all is when it is independent of its mother i.e. when the umbilical cord is cut. Just think. When the cord is cut, the baby is independent.

Has anyone seen a 3 month old baby living independently of its mother? if the mother wasn't there or some other carer the baby would be dead because it is totally dependant on someone to look after them.

Inn fact most children are not independent of their parents until they are about 14 when they can work and earn money for themselves. So sorry 11 y.o. Jason, you are not a person because you are not independent of your mother.

[bluethread]

Brit Malah, like any surgical procedure, caries risk of death and injury. Like any surgical procedure, we should avoid it unless it is somehow necessary.

What is "somehow necessary"? Necessary for what?

Broadly speaking, necessary for the continued health of the individual as determined by medical professionals.

Sorry, I'm so late responding. The thread got lost in the shuffle.

Then you believe that all surgery that does not improve one's physical health should be avoided?

Cosmetic surgery without the informed consent of the person recieving the surgery is unethical and should be discouraged if not banned outright. Tattoos, piercing and circumcision can wait until the individual is old enough to make the decision about their body for themselves. Do you have an argument to the contrary?

Well, the argument of those who do infant ear piercing is that the health risks are deminished. That would be my argument. The health risks that have been presented on this thread are greatly increased in adult circumcision. Though theoretically brit milah carries health risks, I have seen no evidence of these occuring in a properly performed brit milah.

If adult circumcision is even more dangerous than infant circumcision, that is an argument against adult circumcision. It is not an argument in favour of infant circumcision - unless you would argue that any unnecessary surgery to an infant should be allowed so long as that surgery would be more dangerous when they were an adult?

No, it is an argument that supports the timing of the surgery, ie ear piercing of infants.

It is meaningless to speak about "properly performed" circumcisions, because not all circumcisions are "properly performed." If you allow an unnecessary surgical procedure to be performed, you must also accept that there will be inevitably be complications in some of these surgeries leading to injury and even death. Let the individual decide for themselves whether they wish to undergo such a procedure.

Parents accept those risks in all surgeries. Should a child with a growth that does not effect it's health be required to consent before that growth is removed, even though waiting for that consent would make the surgery more dangerous?

I wear shoes. I hear that the Nazis were fond of wearing shoes. Does that also make me a Nazi?

No, that means that wearing shoes does not keep you from being a Nazi. Therefore, the fact that you wear shoes and a child's parents wear sandles does not mean that you are better at deciding what is best for their children.

You've lost me. Can you explain why you compared me to a Nazi in the first place? As far as I can see the only thing I am doing is advocating for the rights of an infant to not have parts of their body amputated without their consent. Was the Nazi analogy just a bit of overboard rhetorical flourish on your part, or did the Nazis also advocate for people's right to their own bodily integrity?

I didn't. You did. (Post 45) I was just following your analogy.