Support NeoGAF

[Hades Hotgun]

Doing it without medical indication and without consent of the child is mutilation and should be illegal. It's not comparable to female genital mutilation though, because its effect on the person is less drastic. Do I get the nutcase award now?

No, of course not. Circumcision without the consent of the child IS wrong, but you aren't like this guy, blaming circumcision on the satanist illuminati jewish conspiracy. Also, you are not putting personal views of these matters on an unrelated public video game wiki.

That's what makes him a nutcase.

I don't see a conspiracy, just a matter of political power and a different valuation of the rights of the children and the religious rights of the parents and I certainly doubt that Silent Hill has to do with this. But the poster I quoted said, one has to be nutjob to think it is mutilation. That the person we are talking about here is insane, is clear.

I don't think you folks are crazy, but you are factually wrong on this issue. There is no such thing as "consent of the child" as children are not competent to offer consent for any medical procedure and the decision to conduct such procedures are at the sole discretion of the legal parent or guardian.

When I am providing care to a child, they do not get to decide anything about it. If children were able and responsible to offer legal consent then they could not be given any medical treatment whatsoever until they were able to make that decision for themselves.

Circumcision, like any prophylactic procedure, should be done with concern for the risk versus benefit as they relate to the best interest of the patient. While the potential benefit is small enough not to warrant any compulsory requirements, the risk is small enough that a parent should have full rights to make such a determination.

The idea that children should decide if they will have circumcision because perhaps as an adult they will be against such things is no different in terms of medical ethics, from the idea that they should decide whether or not to be vaccinated because they may be against such practices as an adult. Their potential feelings on the issue in the future are not relevant to their best interests as determined by their parents and physicians.

 

[old manatee]

Yo he made 40000 edits what did you guys ever do.

 

[Whompa02]

Yo he made 40000 edits what did you guys ever do.

I got circumcised

 

[MilkBeard]

Yo he made 40000 edits what did you guys ever do.

I offered a piece of myself as a sacrifice to the world.

 

[Taruranto]

I'm kinda conflicted. I love reading Wikias, but this is hilarious.

I'm curious what they may conjure for Rule of Rose, considering every main character but Gregory are female (there are other male characters, though very few, but no main characters).

Rule of Rose is basically "female Lord of the Flies", it should be fun.

 

[Gun Animal]

I don't think you folks are crazy, but you are factually wrong on this issue. There is no such thing as "consent of the child" as children are not competent to offer consent for any medical procedure and the decision to conduct such procedures are at the sole discretion of the legal parent or guardian.

When I am providing care to a child, they do not get to decide anything about it. If children were able and responsible to offer legal consent then they could not be given any medical treatment whatsoever until they were able to make that decision for themselves.

Circumcision, like any prophylactic procedure, should be done with concern for the risk versus benefit as they relate to the best interest of the patient. While the potential benefit is small enough not to warrant any compulsory requirements, the risk is small enough that a parent should have full rights to make such a determination.

The idea that children should decide if they will have circumcision because perhaps as an adult they will be against such things is no different in terms of medical ethics, from the idea that they should decide whether or not to be vaccinated because they may be against such practices as an adult. Their potential feelings on the issue in the future are not relevant to their best interests as determined by their parents and physicians.

Are you really comparing an aesthetic procedure with no medical benefits (except in the odd case of phimosis) to life saving vaccinations? Holy hell.

 

[Chemi_ro]

Saw this on twitter, clearly evidence supporting his case.

my edit is spreading lol. I made a dumb poster too.