Izawwlgood wrote:Re: Cleft Palates; I urge you to consider, given the frequency of it occurring (1 in 700 births have some form of cleft lip/palate), the number of PEOPLE (that is, adults!) world wide who are living with cleft lips or palates. Do you mean to tell me that ALL of those people, worldwide, have corrected their harelip? Surely you can't be suggesting that everyone in the world who was born with it, has had it corrected? It is, simply, a fairly common malformation that in it's less severe forms, does not seem to pose a quality of life detriment, minus of course, the social impediment. Given that everyone seems to be in agreement that it is perfectly acceptable to fix a cleft palate in an infant, it seems to me that people are comfortable making cosmetic (or even mostly cosmetic) alterations to an infant without it's consent, more so if that change is aimed at, what the parents feel anyway, is going to be a positive change in the child's life.
Now, this is where I want the dots to be connected: if the parents feel it will provide a positive change, and the change itself has no negative medical affect, shouldn't we defer to the parents to decide what is defined as 'positive change'?
and you're mixing terms. a "hairlip" or cleft lip can come without having a cleft palate. a cleft palate is when the inside of your mouth isn't formed correctly, this ALWAYS poses immediate medical issues, not just social stigma issues of having a weird looking lip. a cleft palate, even MILDLY cleft palate can cause serious medical issues and medical detriments, like speech impediments, sinus issues, issues swallowing, etc.... a mildly cleft lip that isn't comorbid with a cleft palate rarely causes the same amount of medical issues as a cleft palate, but typically comes with more issues than "a funky looking lip", such as speech impediments and issues swallowing or containing saliva.
so again, there is no form of cleft palate that i have EVER heard of that only causes purely cosmetic issues. if you can point me to such a case i'll take it under consideration.
MOST cleft lips are associated with cleft palates, so the repair is going to be done while repairing the malformation of the palate.
MOST of the instances of cleft lips that DON'T also involve a cleft palate (rarer still) are also associated with actual medical issues that are not cosmetic in nature (such as saliva containment, speech issues, etc..)
so, what you end up with is a handful (ridiculously rare) quantity of PURELY cosmetic cleft lips, that pose no actual impediment. it's my position that these should be left alone until the child reaches such an age where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they should do something about the condition.
it's not about the result of the change, it's about the imposition of a decision on someone who cannot consent when there is no pressing need to make the decision.
DSenette wrote:there simply isn't a medical purpose for the procedure. people who still claim that there is such are simply not correct.
Yes, we've been saying this for ages; there is no net medical effect of circumcision. I'm glad you're on board with this. But because the procedure isn't performed for the medical reasons, that must mean it has value to communities/societies/groups/parents.
that something has a value doesn't mean that it should have a value. you keep saying "people like to have this thing done so it should be done because people like to have it done", and that's stupid
The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:if there's no medical reason to perform a medical procedure, then why do it to someone without their consent?
Because it's reasonable to believe that the person's quality of life will be positively impacted by said procedure (and keep in mind, there's a difference between "I don't give my consent", and "I'm incapable of giving consent to anything
" - the difference between "NO!" and "<No answer>" is subtle, but very
right, and in states where someone is incapable of giving consent to anything, and will not reasonably be able to do so for the extended future, one should err on the side of preserving their right to give or retract consent
The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:because someone's ability to discern the difference between two non-interchangeable states is unreliable. how do you know you wouldn't prefer to have been uncircumcised? you've never not been circumcised so you can't make that decision. an uncircumcised person can, in fact, simulate being circumcised so they can make a somewhat educated decision on the subject. circumcision is a change from the default state to a non-default state and it's irreversible, so once you've changed states you cannot adequately evaluate how you would feel about the default state.
I'm sorry, why are we talking about default and non-default states in biology? Also, what about aposthia
--a rare condition where you're born without a foreskin? Is that a 'non-default state'? Or is it magically default because any condition you're born with is magically default? You're playing with word-games, here. What concerns me is how people feel about their bodies and the decisions made about them. Everything else is irrelevant.
yes, a rare condition where your biology is not in line with what is accepted as generally normal (hence the use of the word, rare, or defect, or condition) is totally not the default state for human anatomy.
humans, by default have certain parts, they don't all look the same, they don't have to all look the same, but as a general rule there is a default part list and a generalized default or expected state for all of them. if there wasn't, then there would be no such thing as an anatomical defect. i have no idea why that's such a contentious statement or position.
the vast majority of people born with penises are born with foreskins on those penises, that constitutes a default, or expected state.
The Great Hippo wrote:Also, how can uncircumcised people simulate all the related cultural and biological changes that circumcision entails?
i didn't claim they could simulate the cultural changes, though if they just told everyone that they were circumcised, but then never showed their penis to anyone i'm pretty sure they'd get the standard "meh" as opposed to the "really? that's weird" that quite frequently accompanies the opposite revelation.
as for physicality, you can simply retract the foreskin and get a reasonable approximation of not having a foreskin. exactly the same? no, but it's a reasonable enough approximation to be able to make an educated assumption about the difference between the two states. much more approximate than a circumcised person simulating having a foreskin
The Great Hippo wrote:
DSenette wrote:now, you can take the first hand accounts of people who have had circumcisions done as adults for evidence of regret about the procedure itself because they've actually experienced both states. a lot more of this group experience regret about the actual procedure than those that are circumcised at birth. which should give some information about how those that were circumcised at birth MIGHT feel if they had been given the chance to make the decision themselves.
your ability to accept something that can't be changed and has effects associated with you that you have no way of actually personally evaluating isn't a good metric at all.
Except, outside of mind control, personal evaluation is the only
metric that matters (to me, at least). How people 'might' feel under imaginary circumstances doesn't concern me; how people do
feel under real
I don't understand why you're concerned with what an imaginary segment of the population might say when we have plenty of real people saying real things that are really applicable.
because your suggested metric is how many people are experiencing or at least voicing regret for something. when you're using a base group that can't really adequately express regret instead of a group that can then the metric seems a bit wonky.
if you were asking someone what the different experiences between having something, and not having something, you wouldn't ask someone who's always had it, or someone who's never had it. you'd ask someone who started out having it and ended up not, or someone who started not and ended up having.
so you can't actually take the number of people who regret having circumcisions as children and compare that experience directly to the number of people who don't. the only valuable metric as far as regret of the ACTUAL procedure (not the loss of autonomy, just the procedure) are those who had the procedure done as consenting parties after a period of having a foreskin.
this isn't to illustrate how you or anyone else should feel about anything one way or the other. it's about what metrics can be used for gaging this stuff. the argument that reads "well, millions of males have been circumcised over the years, if it was such a bad thing they'd be complaining about it. since they're not, it can't be that big of a deal" doesn't give any valuable information.
the fact that a non-insignificant quantity of people who have been circumcised as adults/late teens express regret and/or discomfort from the procedure DOES give valuable information because this is the only group who can adequatly relate the differences between the two states enough to get viable data