cut-cocks-are-ugly
Your moral absolutism isn’t a good argument or justification. It’s not a good position to take and only makes you look like the fool you are.
Accidentally hit Ctrl+Enter and posted before I was done, so forgive the edit
All morality is relative. Especially where personal choice and bodily autonomy are concerned. You are not the ultimate arbitrator of right and wrong, no matter how many times you claim to be. And frankly, you sound like a toddler demanding that they’re right, instead of an adult with the capacity for reasoned discussion.
Like others have said, are you this uptight about abortion? Or breast reduction? Or what about medically-necessary circumcision? Or what about orchidectomy? Or what about gender-affirming surgeries for trans people? Would you outlaw all of those because they don’t fit into your narrow view of morality?
If someone of sound mind consented to have their arm amputated in a medically-safe environment, yes, I would allow that. There are obvious caveats there I suspect you’ll ignore, so let me make myself clear:
If an able-minded adult consents to surgery on their body, and that surgery is carried out in a safe, sanitary way, they have the right to do that.
This includes any surgery. Including choosing to get themselves circumcised. Or any number of other plastic surgeries. Look at how many people have botched facelifts that wind up making them look uglier than pre-surgery. And yet you’re not arguing that facial surgeries should be banned. Or people with chronic pain from an ankle injury who choose to have their lower leg amputated.
(That last one is actually a real example: look up Footless Jo on YouTube; she had a life-altering injury as a child and consented to have her leg amputated at the calf because of complications after repeated surgeries to treat & preserve her mobility. In your “moral” world view would she have been forced to live in pain forever because she allowed a surgeon to cut through her shin with a bonesaw?)
In your absurd example about the hacksaw and the fingers (which is an obvious fallacy in your argument, but let’s roll with it) I would attempt to stop them because
- that demonstrates a probable lack of mental capacity (either permanent or temporary)
- it is not being conducted in a safe, sterile environment
If that same procedure was being conducted by a medical professional, in a safe way, with informed consent, I’d allow it to proceed because frankly it’s none of my business; it’s between the patient and the doctor. And any attempt to get in between those two without good legal grounds is amoral.
You’re also completely ignoring that – in admittedly rare circumstances – circumcision can be a medically-indicated procedure. Would you force men who suffer from chronic pain/infections/etc… to keep their foreskins, even if they want to have them removed as a medically-recommended treatment option?
Note: I’m not advocating for circumcision here. I’m saying it’s not any of my business what a man chooses to do to his own penis. If he wants to keep his foreskin, great! If he wants to have his foreskin removed, also great! It’s his body, and he gets to decide what happens to it. As long as informed consent is obtained, and the procedure is carried out safely and professionally, it’s nobody’s business but his.
You don’t get to insert yourself and your juvenile moral absolutism into the private decision-making between a man and his physician.
