Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn wrote: »

Although whether it is considered a medical procedure or not, while the person who performs the act should definitely be ashamed of themselves, the little girl should feel neither proud or ashamed for what was done to her.

I think we can all agree that is a medical procedure that someone should be ashamed, not proud of though. Except MrPudding, who doesn't feel it's a medical procedure, in the same way that abortion isn't.

Absolam wrote: »

Odd indeed... Since breast augmentations, rhinoplasty, circumcisions, these are all medical procedures, and yet a very small proportion of them are carried out for the health of the person they are carried out on. In fact, I'd venture to say that not a great proportion of abortions are actually carried out for the health of either of the people they're performed on either. Do you think? Maybe you should expand the scope of your definition.

I can't comment or make assumptions as to why one might get breadt augmentation or a nose job, as I have not spoken to everyone that has had such a procedure, but I do know two women that have had breast reduction surgery for health reasons. I have also read interview where other cosmetic surgery has been carried out for health reasons, possibly mental health reasons, but health reasons none the less. So whilst not all might be carried out for health reasons, some are.

In terms of abortion, my understanding is that in the UK and Ireland every abortion carried out is on medical grounds. You might not agree with those grounds and you might dispute the validity, but legally that is the position.

Could you point me to a single case of a young girl having her clitoris sliced off, or her vagina sown up which had a valid medical reason?

MrP

volchitsa

MrPudding wrote: »

I can't comment or make assumptions as to why one might get breadt augmentation or a nose job, as I have not spoken to everyone that has had such a procedure, but I do know two women that have had breast reduction surgery for health reasons. I have also read interview where other cosmetic surgery has been carried out for health reasons, possibly mental health reasons, but health reasons none the less. So whilst not all might be carried out for health reasons, some are.

In terms of abortion, my understanding is that in the UK and Ireland every abortion carried out is on medical grounds. You might not agree with those grounds and you might dispute the validity, but legally that is the position.

Could you point me to a single case of a young girl having her clitoris sliced off, or her vagina sown up which had a valid medical reason?

MrP

True. And presumably the conditions under which an intervention is carried out make a difference to how one defines it also.

What's the difference in a dentist removing a tooth, even for purely aesthetic reasons, and some mafia gang torturing someone by pulling their teeth out with pliers? One is a medical intervention, necessary or not, the other is mutilation.

In the west, I think only a psychopath would consider FGM to be the former.
(I don't think uneducated villagers from the countries where this is traditional are psychopaths, just to be clear. But anyone who has had a western education and still has such an absence of empathy and logic probably is.)

Pherekydes

People get rhinoplasty all the time (through choice), but if a person was held down and had the top of their nose sliced off you wouldn't call it a medical procedure or operation.

But Absolam would make a case that it was...

MrPudding wrote: »

I can't comment or make assumptions as to why one might get breadt augmentation or a nose job, as I have not spoken to everyone that has had such a procedure, but I do know two women that have had breast reduction surgery for health reasons. I have also read interview where other cosmetic surgery has been carried out for health reasons, possibly mental health reasons, but health reasons none the less. So whilst not all might be carried out for health reasons, some are.

oh now, I'm sure the vast majority of medical procedures are carried out for health reasons, but still, so long as you acknowledge that they're not only medical procedures if they're carried out for health reasons, I think we got there; there's no reasonable basis for saying fgm can't be a medical procedure simply because it's not (in most people's opinions) carried out for health reasons.

MrPudding wrote: »

In terms of abortion, my understanding is that in the UK and Ireland every abortion carried out is on medical grounds. You might not agree with those grounds and you might dispute the validity, but legally that is the position.

I'm not entirely convinced of that; an abortion that is permitted to be carried out because being pregnant poses a greater risk to health than not being pregnant is difficult to claim as being on medical grounds. Still, I'm sure we can agree that all the abortions performed in the UK and Ireland combined comprise a small proportion of all abortions performed overall, so we're not likely to be misled by them into thinking most abortion medical procedures are carried out for health reasons, eh?

MrPudding wrote: »

Could you point me to a single case of a young girl having her clitoris sliced off, or her vagina sown up which had a valid medical reason?

Why would I need to? Whether or not it's done for a valid reason doesn't change that it is (or at least, can be) a medical procedure.

Pherekydes wrote: »

People get rhinoplasty all the time (through choice), but if a person was held down and had the top of their nose sliced off you wouldn't call it a medical procedure or operation. But Absolam would make a case that it was...

I think we're getting a lot of variations here... Volchitsa wants us to think in terms of interventions, you seem to want us to think in terms of voluntary participation, MrPudding seems to be running with stuff he finds agreeable.

Personally, I don't have an agenda that I need it to fit, so can I suggest a medical procedure is a series of actions undertaken by a medical practitioner in order to achieve a particular result, usually if not always involving a surgical component. Is there a medical procedure anyone feels is not covered by that?

Absolam wrote: »

Personally, I don't have an agenda that I need it to fit, so can I suggest a medical procedure is a series of actions undertaken by a medical practitioner in order to achieve a particular result, usually if not always involving a surgical component. Is there a medical procedure anyone feels is not covered by that?

How does FGM then fall under the term "medical procedure" then, unless you are being very loose with the term "medical practitioner" to include the local lady with the razor blade?

aloyisious

I'd wonder if there is a medical person here who would carry out an FGM procedure, whether one chooses to see it as a medical procedure or some other class of procedure, given that FGM is an act illegal under Irish Law.

I'd wonder if any girl of an age usually liable to an FGM procedure would be considered a fit person to give legal authority here for an FGM procedure to be carried out on her clitoris.

robdonn wrote: »

How does FGM then fall under the term "medical procedure" then, unless you are being very loose with the term "medical practitioner" to include the local lady with the razor blade?

Because FGM isn't only carried out by local ladies with razor blades? It's carried out in hospitals in Egypt (by medical practitioners), by midwives in Indonesia, by US health care providers... and that's just a real fast google. FGM has it's equivalents of back street abortionists, certainly. But that's not all there is to it.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd wonder if there is a medical person here who would carry out an FGM procedure, whether one chooses to see it as a medical procedure or some other class of procedure, given that FGM is an act illegal under Irish Law. I'd wonder if any girl of an age usually liable to an FGM procedure would be considered a fit person to give legal authority here for an FGM procedure to be carried out on her clitoris.

I wouldn't wonder too hard; replace FGM with abortion and you'll come to the same answer; there are always people willing to break the law for money. Maybe not a huge number, but I bet there are some. Nor do I think, given the circumstances, that legal consent from the person undergoing the procedure is likely to be an issue for them. As for being fit to give legal authority; no one can give legal authority for an illegal act to be performed on them. Because it's an illegal act.

Absolam wrote: »

Because FGM isn't only carried out by local ladies with razor blades? It's carried out in hospitals in Egypt (by medical practitioners), by midwives in Indonesia, by US health care providers... and that's just a real fast google. FGM has it's equivalents of back street abortionists, certainly. But that's not all there is to it.

So is it a medical procedure simply because some medical practitioners do it, or is it only a medical procedure when a medical practitioner actually does it? Just trying to clarify.

robdonn wrote: »

So is it a medical procedure simply because some medical practitioners do it, or is it only a medical procedure when a medical practitioner actually does it? Just trying to clarify.

Well, personally I'd be a lot less inclined to call it a medical procedure if it were carried out by some lady with a razor blade, just like I wouldn't call Pherekydes friend holding someone down and slicing the top of their nose off a rhinoplasty.
Perhaps if it were intended to be done in a somewhat purposeful and/or organised fashion I might go as far as attempted quasi-medical procedure?
In short I think it combines elements of both; if it is never performed by medical practitioners it's unlikely to be a medical procedure, but a medical procedure performed by someone who is not a medical practitioner is not likely to actually be a medical procedure. To my mind anyways; would you disagree?

I probably ought to point out that if we ever did get to a point where we all categorically agreed that fgm cannot conceivably be called a medical procedure (not gonna happen, obviously), it's not going to obviate the point that just because something can be called a medical procedure it's not necessarily neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. FGM is obviously one that brings out the 'must be seen to oppose' reactions, but the other examples I gave serve the point just as well, they just don't encourage the same bandwagon jumping. People are often quite proud of their new boobs, noses, baby Jews, inability to make more baby Jews etc etc, and other people often feel these are things they should be ashamed of.

Sorry, I will get back to the rest of your post in a moment (in summary, I agree with your first paragraph) but I have to ask about the text in bold here!

Absolam wrote: »

People are often quite proud of their new boobs, noses, baby Jews, inability to make more baby Jews etc etc, and other people often feel these are things they should be ashamed of.

What? Have I missed something in the thread that puts this in context?

aloyisious

If the mention of baby jews is a reference to the religious ritual of circumcision, it seem's the procedure carried on baby jews is also carried out on muslim babies and on christians as well. Not that (IMO) one's religion and subsequent liability to circumcision on religious belief grounds should carry any weight in the debate on legalization of abortion here, but maybe Absolom think's differently?

robdonn wrote: »

Sorry, I will get back to the rest of your post in a moment (in summary, I agree with your first paragraph) but I have to ask about the text in bold here! What? Have I missed something in the thread that puts this in context?

Circumcision of (male) infants is most commonly associated with Judaism, as opposed to circumcision of female infants (more commonly associated with Islam). I was interested in why posters decided to pile on one but not the other since they were both mentioned together (I figured it was a long shot that anyone would get on their high horse to denounce allowing women to be proud of deciding how big their breasts should be), and wondered if it was the religious aspect rather than the mutilation aspect that got the pc ears pricking.

Absolam wrote: »

Circumcision of (male) infants is most commonly associated with Judaism, as opposed to circumcision of female infants (more commonly associated with Islam). I was interested in why posters decided to pile on one but not the other since they were both mentioned together (I figured it was a long shot that anyone would get on their high horse to denounce allowing women to be proud of deciding how big their breasts should be), and wondered if it was the religious aspect rather than the mutilation aspect that got the pc ears pricking.

Ah, OK. I see FGM as more of a cultural thing than a religious thing (nothing about it in the Qur'an, as far as I know). MGM is definitely more closely related to religion (primarily Judaism and Islam), although Christians seem to do it as part of a cultural norm rather than strict adherence to the faith.

While I completely disagree with MGM, FGM is worse. Both involve cutting off parts of the genitals in an attempt to reduce sexual stimulation, but it is done a lot more severely to girls. There are many levels of FGM, from just* cutting off the clitoris to also removing the labia and sewing up the vagina so there is only a hole small enough to pass urine with the intent of her future husband showing off his manliness by ripping her open on their wedding night. So, for me at least, I despise anyone who performs it on a child no matter what their religious or cultural background.

* "Just" being used relatively here.

So whilst both are medical procedures some people might be proud of having had performed on their child, they're also medical procedures other people might feel they ought to be ashamed of having had performed on their child?

Absolam wrote: »

So whilst both are medical procedures some people might be proud of having had performed on their child, they're also medical procedures other people might feel they ought to be ashamed of having had performed on their child?

But the question isn't whether the parent is proud or ashamed, but whether the actual recipient of the medical procedure is proud or ashamed.

robdonn wrote: »

But the question isn't whether the parent is proud or ashamed, but whether the actual recipient of the medical procedure is proud or ashamed.

Nope, the statement was "It's a medical procedure. It's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of." Whether the parent of the recipient, or the recipient (or anyone else) is the one who does, or it is felt by others ought to, feel proud or ashamed of what has been done, it's evident that medical procedures are things the people are both proud and ashamed of, and that others feel they should be. Even in the case of fgm there are women who rightly or wrongly feel ashamed that they have not had the procedure performed on them, and that they have.

Absolam wrote: »

oh now, I'm sure the vast majority of medical procedures are carried out for health reasons, but still, so long as you acknowledge that they're not only medical procedures if they're carried out for health reasons, I think we got there; there's no reasonable basis for saying fgm can't be a medical procedure simply because it's not (in most people's opinions) carried out for health reasons.

No, I don't think we have got there... I don't believe it can or should be called a medical procedure unless it is for medical or health reasons. I would allow that FGM is a procedure, I think that is pretty clear, but as it is not carried out for health or medical reasons I would not call it a medical procedure, and that would be irrespective of whether it was carried out by some old women in a village with a piece of tin or a medical practitioner (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word). For it to be a medical procedure I believe there needs to be a health or medical reason for the procedure. As there are no health benefits or girls or women in FGM, it cannot be a medical procedure.

Now, given this, it would then follow that some breast augmentations, some rhinoplasties and some male circumcision (which I also object to in infants and young boys unless there is a medical reason) would also be procedures, rather than medical procedures. And I am perfectly happy with that.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not entirely convinced of that; an abortion that is permitted to be carried out because being pregnant poses a greater risk to health than not being pregnant is difficult to claim as being on medical grounds.

Luckily, how convinced you are of something bears little relevance to the correctness, or otherwise, of that thing. Here is a short excerpt from the abortion act:

Section 1(1)
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

These are the grounds under which an abortion is legal. if a woman has an abortion in a properly run facility the abortion she will receive, as per the above, will be a medical procedure, as it will be carried out on one of the above grounds, all of which are medical or health reasons.

Absolam wrote: »

Still, I'm sure we can agree that all the abortions performed in the UK and Ireland combined comprise a small proportion of all abortions performed overall, so we're not likely to be misled by them into thinking most abortion medical procedures are carried out for health reasons, eh?

I don't know the reasons for all abortion in the world, but I am happy to concede that there are likely to be some which are carried out for non-medical or non-health reasons, and I am perfectly happy for those to be called procedures, rather than medical procedures.

Absolam wrote: »

Why would I need to? Whether or not it's done for a valid reason doesn't change that it is (or at least, can be) a medical procedure.

Well, it kind of does. And I have a couple of reasons for that. First, I believe the reason for the act, in this context, does colour the quality of the act. If something is done for a medical or health reason, a legitimate reason, then it is right and proper to call it a medical procedure. I believe this is important, and it brings me to my second point, calling something a "medical" procedure gives it an air of legitimacy, in my view. When something is described as a medical procedure it can stop people looking too closely at what is actually going on, what it means, and in FGM this is a bad thing. If a woman wants to get breast augmentation surgery for non-medical reasons, or a man wants a nose job for vanity reasons, that does not need external justification and how legitimate you or I think that procedure is is quite irrelevant. They are adults and they can make those decisions for themselves. FGM is different, it is hugely damaging and has no medical benefits for the girls it is carried out on. It needs to be stamped out and we need to show it is unacceptable. And I think part of that is when we talk about it we don't use terms that imply some kind of legitimacy, like medical. it is not a medical procedure, it is a barbaric procedure.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

...
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

It may say 'risk to life' but in practice it's treated as risk to health, which all pregnancies will fall under

And I think part of that is when we talk about it we don't use terms that imply some kind of legitimacy, like medical. it is not a medical procedure

...

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

It may say 'risk to life' but in practice it's treated as risk to health, which all pregnancies will fall under

...

And? Just because you, as someone that will never have to carry a child, does not think a risk to health is a valid reason for having control of one's body does absolutely nothing to reduce the legitimacy of the term or procedure.

MrP

Would a termination carried out in Ireland for the same reasons be a 'medical procedure'?

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

Would a termination carried out in Ireland for the same reasons be a 'medical procedure'?

Was it carried out for a medical or health reason?

MrP

because being pregnant poses a greater risk to health than not being pregnant

...

MrPudding wrote: »

No, I don't think we have got there... I don't believe it can or should be called a medical procedure unless it is for medical or health reasons. I would allow that FGM is a procedure, I think that is pretty clear, but as it is not carried out for health or medical reasons I would not call it a medical procedure, and that would be irrespective of whether it was carried out by some old women in a village with a piece of tin or a medical practitioner (and I use that term in the loosest possible sense of the word). For it to be a medical procedure I believe there needs to be a health or medical reason for the procedure. As there areno health benefits or girls or women in FGM, it cannot be a medical procedure.

I guess we'll just have to disagree then; previously you acknowledged that medical procedures are carried out for reasons other than health, and I can't really agree that those medical procedures are carried out for medical reasons. Since there are evidently medical procedures that aren't carried out for either medical or health reasons your reasoning simply isn't compelling; and I suspect your reasoning isn't based on an objective assessment of what's occuring, but a desire to fit everything into your own prejudices, hence your introduction of 'procedures' as an alternative further along....

MrPudding wrote: »

Now, given this, it would then follow that some breast augmentations, some rhinoplasties and some male circumcision (which I also object to in infants and young boys unless there is a medical reason) would also be procedures, rather than medical procedures. And I am perfectly happy with that.

Whereas since your reason for excluding the word 'medical' is purely your opinion on why people want them performed and nothing to do with the procedure itself, which seems spurious to say the least, I would still call them medical procedures... so we're still disagreeing there.

MrPudding wrote: »

Luckily, how convinced you are of something bears little relevance to the correctness, or otherwise, of that thing. Here is a short excerpt from the abortion act: Section 1(1)
(b) that the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
These are the grounds under which an abortion is legal. if a woman has an abortion in a properly run facility the abortion she will receive, as per the above, will be a medical procedure, as it will be carried out on one of the above grounds, all of which are medical or health reasons.

You know those aren't the grounds under which an abortion is legal, right? That's UK law you're quoting there, which doesn't apply here.... but I will point out that a legal ground (such as (c)) doesn't make it medical; it makes it legal. the fact that the resulting legal abortion is carried out, as you say, in a properly run facility would certainly go some way towards making it a medical procedure though, per my own definition.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't know the reasons for all abortion in the world, but I am happy to concede that there are likely to be some which are carried out for non-medical or non-health reasons, and I am perfectly happy for those to be called procedures, rather than medical procedures.

Sure. For the record though, I'm still happy for them to be called medical procedures; I can't say that the reason someone wants a medical procedure to be carried out by a medical professional in a medical environment is sufficient to turn the procedure into a non-medical one. Sorry

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, it kind of does. And I have a couple of reasons for that. First, I believe the reason for the act, in this context, does colour the quality of the act. If something is done for a medical or health reason, a legitimate reason, then it is right and proper to call it a medical procedure. I believe this is important, and it brings me to my second point, calling something a "medical" procedure gives it an air of legitimacy, in my view.

So... from what you're saying, an abortion carried out for reasons other than 'health' or 'medical' reasons is in your view not legitimate? Interesting... Still, whether you think the reasoning colours the act (which is pretty nebulous), and whether you think the reasoning is legitimate, it doesn't change the act itself. Whether a medical person carries it out; that changes the act. Whether it is carried it out in a medical environment; that changes the act. Why it's carried out... not so much. Well, probably not at all.

MrPudding wrote: »

When something is described as a medical procedure it can stop people looking too closely at what is actually going on, what it means, and in FGM this is a bad thing. If a woman wants to get breast augmentation surgery for non-medical reasons, or a man wants a nose job for vanity reasons, that does not need external justification and how legitimate you or I think that procedure is is quite irrelevant. They are adults and they can make those decisions for themselves. FGM is different, it is hugely damaging and has no medical benefits for the girls it is carried out on. It needs to be stamped out and we need to show it is unacceptable. And I think part of that is when we talk about it we don't use terms that imply some kind of legitimacy, like medical. it is not a medical procedure, it is a barbaric procedure.

So in short, your only reason to remove the 'medical' from 'medical procedure' is so that medical procedures you feel require external justification (not breast augmentation and rhinoplasty because you don't think vanity requires justification) aren't legitimised by the word 'medical'? You don't really think that a definition for what a medical procedure is should really depend on whether or not we want people to not look closely at what is being done, or that anyone else would think it, do you? Really?
It sounds more like you're going to extravagant lengths to redefine what medical practitioners do in order to fit your own prejudices to be honest. Frankly, if a doctor performs a surgical operation on a person in a hospital using techniques and tools they have learned to use in training to be a doctor with the intent of achieving a particular outcome, whether that's bigger breasts, a clitoral circumcision, or the subtraction of an appendix there's no real difference in terms of what they are; they're all medical procedures. I don't need to rename them according to whether I feel they're necessary for health, justifiable externally, or barbaric. I can figure all of that out and still understand they're medical procedures. Unjustifiable, barbaric medical procedures, maybe... but still medical procedures. And I have to say, given how long has passed between oscarBravos post and you arriving at your peculiar redefinitions, I'd be more than a little sceptical if he claimed he had that particular distinction in mind when he posted...

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you define a procedure carried out by a person not trained or qualified as a medical practitioner on another person's anatomy a medical procedure, merely because it involved the alteration or removal of part of that person's anatomy, or would you define it merely as being a procedure?

I'd define a procedure as any series of steps followed in a regular definite order to achieve an objective. Is there anything you'd quibble with in such a definition?

And I'm out. See you on another tangent.

oscarBravo

Absolam wrote: »

Nope, the statement was "It's a medical procedure. It's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of."

It was my statement, and I thought it was clear that it was a question of whether or not the person undergoing the procedure should be proud or ashamed of it.

I'm pretty sure the consultant who carried out my trabeculectomy was very proud of it; he did a superb job. But that wasn't my point, any more than the question of whether a parent should be proud of having their child mutilated was my point.

But you managed to find a tiny chink in my point into which to drive a wedge of irrelevancy in order to drag the discussion onto a pointless tangent, so I guess that's something for you to be proud of.