• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Call for higher circumcision rate

The purpose of surgery is to repair body parts or amputate body parts which become diseased and threaten the life of the patients. Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate body parts for cultural or religious reasons?

Where under any medical code of ethics are doctors permitted to amputate normal body parts of children in order that they resemble their parents or their peers?

When children have extra fingers or toes, polydactyly or polydactylism. The extra digits would rarely cause any harm to the person. The most that it would generally do is cause problems learning to use it since the parents generally wouldn't know how either. Most extra digits however are not functioning digits, but merely a small bone on the side of the finger, toe, hand or foot with no joints. Most are removed so that the child is not considered a freak, not because it is diseased or threatens the life of the patient, nor to even repair a body part since the other digits, in most cases, will function just as well with it as without it.


My cousin had this on both hands when he was born. They were both removed before he was born.

Now, I realize this is rare and considered a disorder, but if its not actually causing a problem for the child, why shouldn't it be his/her decision to remove the extra digit(s)?

I believe in either this case or the with circumcision, it is the parents choice. As far as having female circumcisions (of any kind), if there was research to show that it could help avoid future problems and did not harm the girl (beyond the little bit of pain), then that too should be left up to her parents. Most female circumcisions though are seen as more harmful and traumatic (since most of the ones people hear about are not performed on baby girls but rather toddlers and older girls, and are not normally done by a professional doctor). This would probably scare most parents into opting not to circumcise their daughter even if there were/are benefits.

Removing the foreskin is no more mutilation than piercing ears of an infant. Some piercings are temporary, but many are permanent. I have known plenty of girls who had their ears pierced as babies and they didn't have to wear earrings for their holes to stay open. (I always wished I was like this, because mine grew up twice within about 4 or 5 years.) My mom's and sisters' have both had theirs stay open since they were done more than 10 years ago, and they rarely wear earrings.q
 
BBC NEWS | Health | Call for higher circumcision rate

Circumcision should be routinely considered as a way to reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections, argue US experts.

The difference in risk is not nearly significant enough to justify going at it without a condom, so how is it high enough to justify cutting a slice of skin off an infant's penis without the benefit of anesthesia?


TED,
Happy he didn't mutilate his kid's genitals, thanks.
 
When children have extra fingers or toes, polydactyly or polydactylism. The extra digits would rarely cause any harm to the person. The most that it would generally do is cause problems learning to use it since the parents generally wouldn't know how either. Most extra digits however are not functioning digits, but merely a small bone on the side of the finger, toe, hand or foot with no joints. Most are removed so that the child is not considered a freak, not because it is diseased or threatens the life of the patient, nor to even repair a body part since the other digits, in most cases, will function just as well with it as without it.


My cousin had this on both hands when he was born. They were both removed before he was born.

Now, I realize this is rare and considered a disorder, but if its not actually causing a problem for the child, why shouldn't it be his/her decision to remove the extra digit(s)?

I believe in either this case or the with circumcision, it is the parents choice. As far as having female circumcisions (of any kind), if there was research to show that it could help avoid future problems and did not harm the girl (beyond the little bit of pain), then that too should be left up to her parents. Most female circumcisions though are seen as more harmful and traumatic (since most of the ones people hear about are not performed on baby girls but rather toddlers and older girls, and are not normally done by a professional doctor). This would probably scare most parents into opting not to circumcise their daughter even if there were/are benefits.

Removing the foreskin is no more mutilation than piercing ears of an infant. Some piercings are temporary, but many are permanent. I have known plenty of girls who had their ears pierced as babies and they didn't have to wear earrings for their holes to stay open. (I always wished I was like this, because mine grew up twice within about 4 or 5 years.) My mom's and sisters' have both had theirs stay open since they were done more than 10 years ago, and they rarely wear earrings.q

All males on my dad's side of the family were born with an extra digit. It's pretty creepy... it looks like a brown cherry with a fingernail. All had them removed when they were born, though. I was lucky enough to get a lot of my mom's genes.
 
Back
Top Bottom