Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:20:19 PM
I-IS-BORED, I believe LordJim was making the comparison between routine circumcision (modifying an infants body for a non medical reason without consent) and giving an infant other modifications (i.e. lip piercings, eyebrow piercings, tattoos, etc) which is also modifying the infants body for non medical reasons without consent.
Monday, March 12, 2012 2:15:47 PM
That's the stupidest and most inaccurate poo i`ve read all day. LOL. Do you live in a box?
Unfortunately for you, that poo is an accurate summary of the situation. Yes, it`s stupid. Very stupid. Spectacularly stupid. It`s also true and extremely well documented. You only need to go back 100-150 years, so there`s plenty of records.
Monday, March 12, 2012 1:19:04 PM
How is it not obvious that it is ethically wrong to carry out non-medical surgery on people who have not given informed consent?
If a couple of dedicated body-modders decided to have their infant modified so that it matched their chosen life-style would that be ok? And if the infant died because of the procedure how much understanding would be given to the community which refused to cooperate with the law?
Oh, it's religious? Sorry, must remember to respect that.