Well, you see, the substitute decision maker (generally, the parent) can make decisions that are in the child’s best interests. In this case, the decision maker can elect to have the child circumcised or not.
-
-
1/ Amputating a boy’s foreskin without a physical, clinical condition for which foreskin amputation is the most appropriate treatment violates the specific, longstanding policy of the AAP’s Committee on Bioethics...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Wow. It’s like there is no specific policy paper on circumcision from the AAP.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's correct. Their last circumcision policy paper expired, so currently they do not have one in effect.
#i22 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @IntactByDefault @tim4hire and
@AmerAcadPeds 2012 circ policy statement contradicts - and suggests pediatricians may violate - the earlier position taken by its#bioethics committee. There's simply no good reason why the rule for amputating foreskin should be different from the rule for other amputations#i21 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @IntactByDefault and
“[W]hen parents decide on circumcision, the health issues are only one small piece of the puzzle.” The benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision. However, to outright prohibit it would be an unjustifiable infringement of freedom of conscience and religion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tim4hire @IntactByDefault and
Freedom of religion is an individual right. Like the right to bodily integrity. Freedom of religion is not a license to mutilate another person's body. If it were, those who deem the infliction of FGM on another to be a religious obligation could claim a right to do so.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It is not an absolute right. It is subject to demonstrably justifiable limits. In Canada, each case is examined on its merits and on its own facts. It is not correct to link male circumcision to FGM for that reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
#i2 Yes, freedom of religion is limited in that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. That's why no one thinks Leviticus gives a religious right to stone blasphemers. As for the link between MGM & FGM, please consider this: http://quillette.com/2017/08/15/female-genital-mutilation-health-benefits-problem-medicalizing-morality/ …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Excellent. I am sure the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada will reverse years of jurisprudence because of your use of all caps in your tweet.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The case discussed in the article I included is pending in federal court in Michigan (not Canada).
Why don't you read the article & then tell us which of the failed pro-circ arguments you keep running away from is the one you plan to take up next? #i2
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.