medically Unnecessary Sexual Genital Mutilation killed Joshua Haskins in 2010 · 7:02pm Jun 16th, 2019
This started off as a commentresponse:
>>5075461
> "I don't think so. Cards on the table; I think any informed, sober adult should be able to hack off bits of themselves as they choose, but doing it to a child who has no say in the matter is evil."
¡Ah!
The thing is that the religions tell parents that they and their children will go to heaven if they, the parents sexually mutilate the genitals of their children. The tell the parents that if they the the parents do not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, they, the parents and children, will burn in hell.
Greedy doctors tell parents that if they do not sexually mutilate the genitals of their children, their children will masturbate, leading to blindness insanity, hairy palms, et cetera. They use the medical euphemism "circumcision".
Conned parents can be won over. Unfortunately, some parents are the enemy:
In 2010, Joshua Haskins was born. His ignorant parents believed that Christians are suppose to sexually mutilate the genitals of their babies —— ¡it seem to me that the only true Scotsman does not eat porridge with sugar and the only true christians are the WestboroBaptists! Well now, one does not need to read the bible to be a christian. The trouble is that he had a severe heartdefect. He had about a ~50%/50% chance of living to adulthood and required any surgeries, They could not sexually mutilate Joshua because they could not find a physician willing to take on the liability of almost certainly killing him.
Jill Haskins went onto the Internet and complained that she could not sexually mutilate her son as all good christians should. Intactivists gave to them these 8 facts:
- The sexual genital mutilation would almost certainly kill him.
- Christians are supposed to have intact genitals —— ¡not sexually mutilated genitals!
- Sexual genital mutilation is medically unnecessary.
- Sexual genital mutilation is a violation of human rights.
- Sexual genital mutilation inflicts unnecessary pain.
- Sexual genital mutilation inflicts unnecessary suffering.
- Sexual genital mutilation reduces sexual function.
- Sexual genital mutilation reduces sexual function.
Their reactions was that they made up their minds; so now, do not wish to be bothered with the facts.
According to the mother Jill Haskins, they found an unnamed Doctrix stupid and greedy to sexually mutilate the genitals of Joshua Haskins. Everyone pointed the Haskins to the list, especially the 1st item. They did not listen. Because Jill Haskins live blogged, we know that this happened (she deleted the blog afterward):
The Doctrix sexually mutilated the genitals of Joshua Haskins. Joshua Haskins somehow managed to survive the sexual genital mutilation. Then, he started to hœmorrhage through his sexually mutilated penis —— ⸘who could have predicted that an infant of bloodthinners for a heartdefect could possibly hœmorrhage‽ The medical staff poured blood in through an IV while trying to stop the hœmorrhage throgh his sexually mutilated penis. Then he died. The mom concluded that despite managing to not die for over an hundred days since birth, having been sexually mutilated hours before death, and hœmorrhaging through his sexually mutilated penis at the time of death, that sexual genital mutilation had nothing to do with his death.
Afterwards, Intactvists planned to protest the hospital allowing the sexual genital mutilation. The Haskins lied to the media and claimed that Intactivists plan to protest the funeral of Joshua Haskins The West Boro Baptists probably inspired that lie (whatever else one says about the West Boro Baptists, they at least bother to read their bibles)).
Intactivists encouraged the Haskins to sue the doctrix and the hospital, not because those sacks of shit deserve any money, but as away of making sexual genital mutilation unprofitable. Attorneys for the Rights of the Child volunteered to do the lawsuit pro bono. They figured about a 99% of winning (the doctrix had to be very stupid or greedy, or both to sexually mutilate an infant with a deformed heart on bloodthinners). The Haskins refused to sue, even though they had a 99% chance of getting tens of millions of dollars and a 1% of losing nothing. We cannot know what goes on in their heads, but, during the lawsuit, they would have the fact that their own stubbornness killed their son. They did however try to sue the intactivists:
The Haskis dropped their lawsuit quietly. Their lawyers probably pointed out these facts:
- one cannot sue "the Intactivists".
- The intactivists wanted to help with their good advice which would have saved Joshua Haskins that day (he still had only about a ~50%/50%-chance of lining to adulthood).
- It is not a crime to point out that the actions of the parents lead to the death of the son.
- It is not a crime to point out that the parents could have with a 99% certainty and no risk of losing money tens of millions of dollars.
- The Intactivists never intended to protest the funeral of Joshua.
In other words, the Haskins have no case against the intactivists.
I feel great sympathy for most parents who sexually mutilate the genitals of their parents because religions and physicians con them into believing that it is necessary, but fuck parents like the Haskins.
I shall put this response on my blog and the forum for Intactivism & Genital Integrity.
The word is circumcision.
You can call it the other thing, but you need to explain to people what you are referring to first.
5267372
I just refuse to use euphemisms:
Fee-seeking doctors have a nice medical term. Fee-seeking is an important point:
I had a dentist recommend pulling my wisdomteeth. ¿Did I really need teeth pulled? or ¿did the dentist just want the fee? This is actually 1 of the big reasons for single-payer where Doctors only get a fixed salary:
If Doctors get a fixed salary, they will not schedule procedure just for the fee, thus both improving healthcare and containing costs, ¡all in 1 fell swoop!
I shall edit the post to mention that Doctors use the medical euphemism "circumcision".
5267736
That's not what a euphemism means.
A euphemism is when you use a mild phrase to avoid using the more common term.
What you're using - sexual genital mutilation - is like a euphemism but in reverse. A cacophemism, to mangle its Greek roots a bit. You're intensifying it.
Your continuous and arrogant misuse of good language is a big part of why you have an audience of very few people.
5267846
I prefer to call it what it is :
Medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of unconsenting minors. It says what it is.
5267876
Yet a key part of communication is explaining concepts to your audience. Your inability to do that is so self-deluded it's comical.
5267877
It gets across what needs communicating. Let us break it down:
Medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of unconsenting minors:
It gets across these 3 keyconcepts in a short nounphrase. Sure, the medical euphemism "circumcision" is shorter, but it euphemistically hides the 3 keyconcepts.