>> ^hpqp:

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?


It's not a simple ethical concept at all because it is not simply a modification to a person's body. From the Wiki Bioethics of Circumcision Page:

The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.

– American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement

Parents have a right to make decisions for their children that they believe will improve their children's future. They're not just doing it because they think it looks nice. Here are the issues that most parents consider:

1) They belong to a group where this is the norm and they want their child to fit in socially. By doing it while the child is still a baby they ensure that the child will have no recollection of the procedure. Furthermore, the child is obviously not sexually active yet. Delaying the procedure until age of consent (which I assume you define as sometime after puberty) guarantees that the person will have to abstain from sexual actions while healing takes place and that they'll have full memories of both the procedure and the subsequent recovery pain.

2) Circumcision will guarantee that the child does not ever have to deal with an infected foreskin. Although proper cleaning can help prevent such an infection in non-circumcised males, only circumcision guarantees (100%) the child will never have to deal with it. The medical research waffles a lot on the reduction of penile cancer and AIDS transmission rates, but the medical consensus is still that circumcision may help in both of these areas.

Given these two facts--and the lack of any conclusive evidence that the procedure is harmful--I see no reason to deny parent's the right to choose to have the practice done on their own child. If they think it will benefit their child, then they should feel free to do so.

Does that answer your question?

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?

I am asking, and this is my main point, which you need to address, can parents make any decisions related to cosmetics? Or is it limited to what you and I use as our subjective standards? For example, can a parent have the earlobe removed because it will make the baby more beautiful/handsome to the parent? It is, after all, reasonable to point out that both are harmless cosmetic adjustments. (And why note that a parent has a right to have one cosmetic surgery but be a hypocrite and say that the same parent does not have the right to have another.)

Can a parent have a harmless lip-reduction done on a child? Or how about removing the nipples on boys? I ask because some parents do have these surgeries done... and it seems you are fine with them...because they do not leave trauma.

Also, we can speculate a bit on the extent of damage, but damage to the body does rewire the brain. You blind a man, you just don't take his sight, his brain rewires to the physical trauma...

Some studies suggest that ripping an infant's dick skin off creates aggressive tendencies later in life. Do I "have an idea of" how far that damage or violence caused might be. No. But we all DO know that physical trauma does propagate violence.

And removing some of the earlobe is not like removing all of the foreskin. All the earlobe and all the foreskin. Just because you leave actual dick skin, that doesn't equate to the foreskin...

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).
I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.
My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.

@Lawdeedaw

Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).

I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.

As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.

My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.

I would say the parents are materialistic for doing something like piecing their child's ears, but hey, we are speaking about Americans...

However, I would not say piecing your baby's ear is equivalent to circumcision. An adequate comparison would be removing the earlobe from a baby's ear completely. After all, who needs the extra skin? And we both know Gundam, that is definitely illegal.

Secondly, you have no idea what nerves do to the brain when functioning to trauma--even when unremembered. If a baby is beaten until they are two-ish, remember nothing of the beatings and are otherwise healthy, don't you still think his/her brain will actually form based on its experiences? I do. You read to a child, his brain actually grows differently than when you would not. You chop off his dick's skin...

Lastly, you can pull out earrings. How the fuck is my scar ring supposed to be fixed? Or for that matter, what about those with really botched, fucked up shit?

>> ^SDGundamX:

Just to echo what I wrote on the Penn and Teller Sift regarding circumcision:
I feel it's a cosmetic choice. It's not a crime to pierce your kid's ears when they are born--and that's done without anesthetic. There are people who clearly have medical benefits from having it done (see nanrod's comment at the Penn and Teller video) and if it's done at a hospital anesthetic will often be used so that it's not nearly as traumatic as the pundits are making it out to be. Even if anesthetic ISN'T used, no child ever remembers the experience. If you belong to a culture that supports male circumcision and want your kid to fit into that group then by all means, have it done. It's not going to do any permanent damage to him. And if he really, really wishes you hadn't done it, it can be undone.
I agree with DerHasisttot, legislating this is just stupid. Even if it passes, it won't be seen as anything except an anti-Semitic attack and--unless some new compelling medical research appears that shows it is harmful to have the procedure done--will likely be overturned. Educate people about the truth--that for most people it's medically unnecessary and let them decide for themselves how they want to raise their kids.

Just to echo what I wrote on the Penn and Teller Sift regarding circumcision:

I feel it's a cosmetic choice. It's not a crime to pierce your kid's ears when they are born--and that's done without anesthetic. There are people who clearly have medical benefits from having it done (see nanrod's comment at the Penn and Teller video) and if it's done at a hospital anesthetic will often be used so that it's not nearly as traumatic as the pundits are making it out to be. Even if anesthetic ISN'T used, no child ever remembers the experience. If you belong to a culture that supports male circumcision and want your kid to fit into that group then by all means, have it done. It's not going to do any permanent damage to him. And if he really, really wishes you hadn't done it, it can be undone.

I agree with DerHasisttot, legislating this is just stupid. Even if it passes, it won't be seen as anything except an anti-Semitic attack and--unless some new compelling medical research appears that shows it is harmful to have the procedure done--will likely be overturned. Educate people about the truth--that for most people it's medically unnecessary and let them decide for themselves how they want to raise their kids.

@hpqp : I'm curious if you saw nanrod's post and what your reply to that might be?

My wife and I look at male circumcision as a purely cosmetic decision. We see no harm in it. Some people pierce their daughter's ears at birth but no one freaks out and calls that mutilation (but give San Francisco more time, I'm sure they will). The children don't ever remember it (in fact when performed in the hospital anesthesia is used so there's no reason for them to remember it), it can be beneficial for some people (see nanrod's comment above), and if you belong to a cultural group where that is the "norm" and it's important to you for your kids to fit in then go for it.

On the other hand, female "circumcision" is mutilation pure and simple. It is done with the intent of preventing the girl from experiencing orgasms. It's a barbaric ritual that misogynistic cultures employ to control women, thinly veiled under the guise of preventing female "promiscuity." I'm all on board for denouncing and stopping that practice wherever it is found because it causes real harm--both physical and psychologocial--to the individuals who have to suffer through it.

Can't say I disagree with anything you say!

I was talking shorthand. Nuance gets lost in shorthand.



>> ^NetRunner:

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.
To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.
When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.
As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.
As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

@bareboards2, I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on this natural vs. artificial thing. Everyone does something unnatural to enhance their appearance from "the way we evolved". Some of it is just personal hygiene like showering, washing your hair, brushing your teeth, using deodorant, etc. Some of it is clearly about improving your appearance to others, like getting your hair cut, shaving, combing or styling your hair, what have you.

To some degree, you need to do this stuff, just to signal to the world that you care about your appearance. If you're looking to attract a romantic interest, then you need to do more than what the expected norm is.

When it comes to these sorts of extra cosmetic efforts, it's not so much about whether they actually make the woman look better according to some objective standard of beauty, it's about the knowledge that they put the effort into make themselves look the best they could. Obviously the goal is to actually succeed in making yourself look better, but it's really the thought that counts.

As for removal of body hair, I think the conceptions of the ideal has actually changed for both genders. Compare Tom Selleck in his heyday to more modern male heartthrobs. These days they are universally clean shaven with waxed chests. I'd be willing to bet that change happened around the same time Playboy started making all their models shave their pubic hair.

As for these women who turn themselves into some grotesque barbie, I don't get the sense that they're doing it to try to satisfy some unreasonable man in their life. I think most of the time, they're doing it to try to feel better about themselves (and often driving away the men in their lives in the process). I agree that's probably a symptom of a problem with our culture generally, but I don't think it's the availability of images of impossibly perfect looking women that's causing it. I think it's got to do with all the subtle and not so subtle ways our culture tends to tie a woman's appearance to her worth as a person.

a couple of things:

1) you inject botox for wrinkles.....youre fucking 8, what fucking wrinkles do you even have?

2) the mother's botox supplier? Ya i bet youd rather not say, stupid bitch.

3) waxing your legs, cuz hair is "unlady like"....be that as it may, you are fucking 8, FUCKING 8!!! YOU ARE NOT GODDAMN ROBIN WILLIAMS!!!

4) pageant world is tough so lets put toxins in your daughters face (nevermind the fact youre not even a fucking doctor, worthless piece of shit) for nothing more than (stupid) cosmetic reasons? you know what else is tough? fucking life. jesus titty fucking christ.

im very sensitive when it comes to taking children away from their parents.....but please, for the love of god, take this child away from this dumbass cow, now!

>> ^nock:

Actually, it blocks nerve transmissions temporarily. As far as I know it does not permanently destroy neurons. Extensive use can lead to muscle atrophy as the muscles will not be utilized enough to maintain their bulk. It is approved for use with certain conditions causing muscle contractures and for cosmetic purposes. The mother should not be administering this medication as too much (I think the maximum allowed dose is 100 units) or improper (think arterial) injections can cause death from phrenic nerve paralysis.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
For anyone who doesn't know how Botox works, it's a neurotoxin. That means it damages and eventually destroys neurons, effectively shutting off the muscles that they control.
Don't like the way your nose wrinkles when you smile? Turn off the muscles that trigger it.
Generally a pretty stupid thing to be using for something as trivial as wrinkles but shockingly stupid to be using on a kid who isn't old enough to understand the repercussions.



Neurotoxins, by definition, cause nerve damage. A single proper dose of Botox will not destroy neurons but repeated use over time can.

Botox is serious shit. The LD50 on the medical strain is 1ng. For comparison, black mamba venom is 250-320ng.

Actually, it blocks nerve transmissions temporarily. As far as I know it does not permanently destroy neurons. Extensive use can lead to muscle atrophy as the muscles will not be utilized enough to maintain their bulk. It is approved for use with certain conditions causing muscle contractures and for cosmetic purposes. The mother should not be administering this medication as too much (I think the maximum allowed dose is 100 units) or improper (think arterial) injections can cause death from phrenic nerve paralysis.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

For anyone who doesn't know how Botox works, it's a neurotoxin. That means it damages and eventually destroys neurons, effectively shutting off the muscles that they control.
Don't like the way your nose wrinkles when you smile? Turn off the muscles that trigger it.
Generally a pretty stupid thing to be using for something as trivial as wrinkles but shockingly stupid to be using on a kid who isn't old enough to understand the repercussions.

It's only acceptable if helps Ep 3 come out sooner. Or an FPS with a portal gun.>> ^campionidelmondo:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Buying useless DLC: WTF? I wouldn't give them ten cents for a fucking hat that does nothing. I paid enough for the game as it is and it was too short. There's no way I'm paying for crap that doesn't even do anything.

At first I was irritated by the DLC store, too. Think of it this way: There are people who love to spend money on hats and other purely cosmetic gimmicks. The money from these sales goes to Valve, who might use it to fund their next game.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Buying useless DLC: WTF? I wouldn't give them ten cents for a fucking hat that does nothing. I paid enough for the game as it is and it was too short. There's no way I'm paying for crap that doesn't even do anything.


At first I was irritated by the DLC store, too. Think of it this way: There are people who love to spend money on hats and other purely cosmetic gimmicks. The money from these sales goes to Valve, who might use it to fund their next game.

In regards to Crosswords wondering if there's more than one way to solve the puzzles in Portal 2, I'd say yes, but not to the same degree as the first game in my experience (played the single-player 3 times now). Many test chambers require one specific solution with not much room for creative puzzle solving, well, besides the trial and error process of figuring a puzzle out; it seems that the introduction of all these new mechanics (the three kinds of gel, hard-light walkways, forward/backward tractor beams, faith plates, etc.) cumulatively make for much more specific solutions with less room for player delineation from the designer's intended sequence of events to complete them. So, the instances of forging your own path are there, just not as abundant as in the original. The puzzles themselves are varied enough to make repeat playthroughs still enjoyable, imo. The fantastic sense of atmosphere and thoughtful level/sound design, writing, and story also help.

I haven't played the co-op yet, so no clue on that front.

About the DLC stuff, it seems likely Valve will soon release more level packs, hopefully free. It would make no sense to spend dev resources making paid hats/gestures/doo-hickies if all there is to enjoy them in is the out-of-the-box coop campaign. It would be a smart move to counterbalance paid, non-vital cosmetic stuff with more meaty-but-free maps to ensure a vital and thriving community, a less disgruntled one at that. Valve is usually good about making the essential stuff free, and the paid optional stuff at least theoretically attainable through other means (if TF2 is any indication, also Portal 2 hats/gestures are able to be Found by playing/achievements a la TF2, not sure to what capacity though).

Some advanced chambers of the single-player stuff and a Challenge mode would be nice too. But I digress, we'll see which direction Valve takes it soon enough! Just an already happy customer thinking out loud about how Valve could make it even betterer than it already is.