"You can observe the mutilation of the baby's sexual genitalia."

It isn't getting mutilated. A flap of skin is being removed.

"Much as watching a child being beaten to death might elicit an emotional response in addition to the documentation of a crime."

Of course we aren't dealing with a child being beaten to death are we? We are watching a medical procedure.

"Mutilation: The removal of the skin on the baby's penis is by definition mutilation."

Sure like jabbing three successive syringe sharps into a leg with enough time in between for the child to realise what is happening in advance for the second two is torture.

In reality neither are. In the first case it is the removal of the foreskin in case it proves useful and mutilation is a ridiculous description. In the second case it is just injecting something in the unlikely event that it proves useful and it is called immunisation.

It is ludicrous to describe legitimate preventative medicine as mutilation or torture. It would be like describing the caesarian as an assault occasioning grevious bodily harm.

"Unless you are for female circumcision..."

I am neutral on the circumcision of the clitoral hood (female circumcision) but I don't believe it provides any benefit and it is incredibly rare. If you mean female genital mutilation then it is irrelevant here. That is the equivalent of cutting off the penis not removing a flap of skin.

The pictures are real but the cherrypicking to achieve a misleading effect is palpable. I noted the shameless substitution of the black baby in the still pics. Many worthwhile things and operations are conducted on babies who don't have a say in it. For circumcision the lack of capacity factor is a plus for those who would otherwise develop phimosis and require circumcision later on. There must be some feeling of embarassment or indignity for such older boys or men that the babies don't have to worry about.

mjp, you are grossly abusing the equivocation fallacy. but i will respond despite your silly games.

1. How is this neuroanatomist "plainly wrong"? Do you deny there are nerve endings in the foreskin that is removed?

2. You are talking about a medical procedure which disfigures their genitalia visibly and permanently, depriving them off an intact organ. So your suggestion that this comes under the title of "all sorts of things" is disingenuous.

3. There is a serious flaw in your argument that you keep persisting with that is also disingenuous. Your idea that a needle injection to immunise against a life threatening disease is equivalent to cutting off the foreskin. There is no comparison to be made here. Sorry. An injection generally leaves no trace. It is immunising the child against life-threatening disease. There is no mutilation of an sexual organ. There is no removal of skin with specific functions and properties.

4. Something that elicits an emotional response doesn't necessarily invalidate the content. The video shows what is cut off and how, from the newborn baby's body and in what circumstances (non consent).

5. "A flap of skin" This flap of skin, which constitutes a huge part of the toal skin on the baby's penis, is part of their sexual anatomy. It's disfigurement. It has a function. It is not idle piece of skin under the child's heel that is an anomally, as your disregard implies. Look up the definition of mutilation.

6. Anyone can play these stupid games mjpb. Castration will prevent testicular cancer. Genocide will cure Judaism. You are playing word games. So what are the "uses" of circumcision and the removal of the foreskin that justify the mutilation of the penis?

>"It is ludicrous to describe legitimate preventative medicine as mutilation or torture."

Don't put words into my mouth. I did not use the term torture anywhere. How is circumcision "preventative" and how is it "medicine" (euphemism or equivocation?).

>"It would be like describing the caesarian as an assault occasioning grevious bodily harm."

That's not the definition of assault, nor grievous bodily harm. It is also consented medical operation that only leaves a scar. It does not permanently disfigure/mutilate a sexual organ, for example.

>"If you mean female genital mutilation then it is irrelevant here. That is the equivalent of cutting off the penis not removing a flap of skin."

I think i will finish responding here. Nowhere more apparent is your bias than this. Cutting of the penis prevents sex altogether. It prevents urination. It prevents impregnation and orgasm. It is also far more visible and psychologically damaging. FGM on the other hand: Does not prevent orgasm.
-Does not prevent sex.
-Does not prevent urination, nor complicate it.
-Is less visible.
-Does not prevent reproduction.
Removing the entire female vagina has the same effect as cutting off the penis, however. But that is not FGM. Your inability to distinguish these things from an objective viewpoint really explains the various problems in your posts i have identified so far, as well as your regular desire to equivocate.

Hi Vanilla,

”The media has deceived you here.”

That doesn’t surprise me!

”…. I (don’t) think anyone else is suggesting it's child abuse, including the police — the potential charge is one of child pornography.”

I’ve noticed that since I posted. I was responding to a post in here which seemed to suggest that.

The legally contentious thing I believe is whether or not there is a sexual context. As he depicts the sexual transition from childhood to adulthood there appears to be a clear sexual context in one sense. However a former Judge opined that it is and a barrister opined that it is not so the only way to find out is if it goes to court.

”The other issue is consent... As I understand it, the letter of the law allows for parents to consent on behalf of their children...”

I’ve heard that it is not like a medical procedure or something where parents can consent but noone is strong on it so I’m guessing that also isn’t clear cut.

Steel,

1. “How ...this neuroanatomist "plainly wrong"? Do you deny there are nerve endings in the foreskin that is removed?”

Of course the relevant flap of skin has nerve endings. But he takes it much farther than that. He leads up to clearly suggesting that circumcision is like chopping off part of the sexual part of the penis and uncircumcised men are missing out heavily. This is objectively false.

”2. You are talking about...”

No the organ is fine and intact. It just has the flap of skin removed from it. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but the difference in appearance is naturally replicated either wholly or to some extent for many men. Further, for what it is worth surveys of women have found many that prefer the clean cut look. Thus to say it is disfigured just doesn’t slice it. (No pun intended)

”3. There is a serious flaw ...”

The obvious comparison is that they are both common forms of preventative medicine and inflicted on non-consenting children so they are strongly analogous.

The difference is that the syringe ultimately leaves no trace whilst circumcision normally would as there is removal of skin.

”4. Something that elicits ..”

We know what is cut off and how and we know that babies can’t consent to preventative medicine. Nothing is gained but the emotional issue of watching the gore. Hence the inference I made.

”5. "A flap of skin" ...”

Well if he lives in a tropical country the only function seems to be to put him at risk of discomfort or life threatening illness. Removing that function I don’t believe can be considered mutilation.

”6. … Castration will prevent testicular cancer. Genocide will cure Judaism. You are playing word games. So what are the "uses" of circumcision and the removal of the foreskin that justify the mutilation of the penis?”

No you can’t do a comparison with castration. Isn’t that called a categorical error? You are the one playing word games with words like “mutilation” and falsely trying to represent a flap of skin as being analogous to the testicles.

”… How is circumcision "preventative" and how is it "medicine" (euphemism or equivocation?).””

It is preventative because it can prevent things. It is medicine because it is a medical procedure and the things prevented are medical conditions.

”That's not the definition of assault, nor grievous bodily harm...”

The key thing is that it is a medical operation for a legitimate purpose. If you cut open a woman’s stomach for the heck of it it would definitely be an assault. Again disfigurement and mutilation are not an issue.

>"… female genital mutilation … is the equivalent of cutting off the penis not removing a flap of skin."

”I think i will finish responding here.”

Fine. This branch is a little out of place in this thread.

“Nowhere more apparent is your bias than this...”

In spite of your four point list the clitoris has a lot in common with the penis. It isn’t a penis and you can draw distinctions but that would be the equivalent removal

mjpb,
1. Objectively false huh? Care to research this subject,rather than talking out of your ass? I can guarantee the neuroanatomist is accurate. Your layman opinion certainly is NOT objective...that thought gave me a chuckle that you cannwrite it so easily and without shame.

2. Now you insist the organ is "fine and intact"..look up the definition of mutilation and permanent disfigurement and more pictures of the result. THIS is an objective fact by common definitions of the english language.

And women prefer the "clean cut" look eh? Is that a defence is it? Many men (and women) who practice the severest female genital mutilation prefer the look too-you are suggesting that makes it 'right'. I for example, might prefer class 3 female circumcision for my daughters. You can't have it both ways.

3. More word games and euphemisms. This is like saying pricking someone with a needle is the same as shooting them with a gun. Both are forms of assault and both commonly inflict pain and bleeding.

Ok that's all i can stomach :)