Originally Posted by CarrieBeary77
All of those people are involved in torture and rape of little boys. It happens ANYWAY. So the cosmetics companies benefit from the result. I don't agree with it. But I also understand that businesses do take advantage of opportunities. It's all part of business.
So I see both sides.
Do you see the legal side? There are several legal issues here.
Probably first and foremost is the rights of the owner of the body and those ownership rights. 20 or 25 years ago, there was a man who went to his doctor. The doctor drew some blood from this man and sent it away to a laboratory for testing. An immunity factor was found in his blood that was taken and sent to a pharmaceutical company who took that factor and replicated it many, many times and sold it as an immunization vaccination. The pharmaceutical company made untold million of dollars of profits from the product of this man’s blood. Some years later, another doctor told him of this. He had never heard of it and filed suit to participate in the profits. He won and the legal concept that every individual owns his/her body got a tremendous boost. Look at the parallels here. Just as that man’s blood was taken and used for profit, a man’s foreskin is taken and used for profit. Now, if a part of your body is used to produce a profit making product, you must be notified of the fact. This doesn’t happen to men who give up their foreskins for the profit of these corporations. Mary Kay has a large legal staff and being in the industry they are in, they know this and have decided to ignore this particular law. I imagine they think they will never get caught.
There is also the legal concept of ill gotten gains. This organ is taken and sold for profit and then products are made from the organ for profit. Since this was never clearly explained if explained at all, it constitutes ill gotten gains. Those gains should be sent back to the child.
There is also the legal concept of receiving stolen goods. These companies are taking the property of the child for profit and the profit from those products should be the property of the child because his rights of ownership have been violated as detailed above.
The medical profession is complicit in this theft of course and should also pay the price. This is something they started and even though they now know there is no medical justification for doing it, they continue and profit from it. Most of your argument has to do with the chronological order that it is happening. In other words, because this has already happened, then it is OK that this happens. That’s not a legitimate justification.
I think if you consider this very similar example with a slightly different chronological order, it will help you understand
Imagine that a cosmetic company and pharmaceutical company found a factor that exists only in newborn fingernails and this factor could be used in commercial cosmetic products that would make 60 year olds look 35 years old. The thing that got me thinking this way was that I saw the newborn pictures of a baby girl yesterday. She had some tiny mitts tied on her hands. Well, I had never seen this before and asked what they were all about. It was explained to me that newborn fingernails are very sharp and they can cut themselves with them. My thoughts were that it would be like having boxing gloves tied on my hands and not be able to get them off. That would be infuriating! But I digress . . . Baby fingernails are dangerous! Children’s fingernails are dangerous and adult fingernails are dangerous! Babies can cut themselves with them and children can get sick from dirt under their fingernails and lord knows, it’s difficult to clean properly under fingernails and it’s almost impossible to get kids to properly clean under fingernails. Those things are a health problem just waiting to happen. Fingernails can also be used as weapons for gawd sakes! I’ve seen it happen. The obvious answer is to just get rid of them at birth to save the world from this omnipotent danger.
Well, the pharmaceutical company and the cosmetic company recognize this danger and start airing public service announcements aimed at saving the world by advocating the removal of fingernails at birth. Of course, we know this is an altruistic campaign and that the billions of dollars they will make in profit from the processing of these fingernails into face cream is no motivation to them at all. Anyway, fingernails are not needed. Sure, they are nice to have to scratch an itch but scratching itchy insect bites with dirty fingernails can cause infections. A public health danger.
Of course, there are going to be some parents who resist so it is important to this campaign that the resistance be neutralized. One way to do it is to connect nailless fingers with the upper class. Something that the wealthy parents do that everyone should emulate. They should also make every attempt to connect it with religion. Cleanliness is next to godliness after all. It is also important that no one know just exactly who does and who doesn’t have fingernails so we will advocate that everyone wear gloves except when showering. That way, they can say that everyone has had their fingernails removed and everyone should follow suit. They will make it a obscene thing to show the fingers in public and make it shameful that poor people have not had their fingernails removed to insure that they always hide their fingers in public.
Now that we have everyone removing their baby’s fingernails, there is an adequate supply for face cream. The doctors are on board with this and recommend to all parents that they have their baby’s fingernails removed for the obvious health and safety reasons. Only an unconcerned and bad parent would even consider leaving the fingernails on. It’s almost child abuse!
Now, all of a sudden, we’re going to have all of these newborn fingernails piling up in medical waste cans and filling up landfills. Why not put them to good use? Why let them go to waste? It makes no sense when they can benefit someone.
Oh, and by the way, these fingernails can not be contaminated with anesthesia. Of course, we know from circumcision that babies can’t feel pain so no anesthesia is needed. It’s so quick! Just clamp on one forceps and a quick yank and it’s all done. Just wrap some Vaseline impregnated gauze around the tip of each finger and send them home. All of that screaming is just from them being strapped down and as we all know, some of them will sleep right through it. Others will giggle while it’s being done. All will be calm and peaceful when they are returned to mother.
You see CarrieBeary, little is changed from the chronological timeline of circumcision and little is different from circumcision. It’s fingernails instead of foreskins and it’s boys and girls instead of just boys. However the similarities are significant. It’s surgery for social reasons masquerading as medically beneficial surgery. It is permanently altering the body without considering the rights of the owner of the body. It’s surrounded by myth and superstition. In reality, there are no significant proven medical benefits. If the child never has fingernails, he/she will adapt and won’t really miss the fingernails. While there is loss, it wouldn’t be believed or considered significant. So, while the procedure would become normalized, it would be at the benefit of the pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies. Do you see the ethical correlations here? Do you see how both would be unethical?