Circumcision

[Lonewulf]

This statement is not true. Vaccination increases the chances of survival for most children, that's all.

It increases the chance of life significantly, yes.

Most unvaccinated children will manage to live even without being vaccinated. Some vaccinated children will contract the diseases they were vaccinated against and die anyway. What vaccination does is substantially decrease the probability of a child contracting certain diseases. A desirable thing IMO, but not sufficient to justify requiring it of all children when their parents object. It is sufficient justification for requiring vacccinations of easily communicable diseases of children who attend public school.

If you can demonstrate scientifically valid evidence that vaccinations do not give that significant a chance for further livelihood, I'd be intrigued to see it. Although we should probably get off this discussion unless you want to start a new topic on vaccinations instead of circumcisions.

No it's not the actual debate, but it certainly illustrates the differences in our opinion and different ways to view the situation. I didn't say the child growing ill and possibly dying was no big deal. That's your spin on my opinion and it isn't particularly accurate; it's an appeal to emotion. If you believe A, then you must also believe B and therefore, you are disgusting. I could come up with a similar argument against your position, but I don't find such rhetoric persuasive and I doubt you would either.

True enough.

I feel that the decrease in risk with vaccinations is insufficient justification for trampling on the rights of those who object when their decision is unlikely to impact anyone but their own children.

And here I disagree.

This is because I highly value the freedom of individuals in our society to live their lives and raise their children according to their own values, beliefs and traditions.

And I highly value the freedom of individuals in our society to live their lives and be raised in a healthy environment.

You agree with me, too, as you're willing to overlook parents' values, beliefs, and traditions when it involves abuse or direct harm to the child -- at least, I certainly hope you do.

You, apparently, don't feel that this freedom is important enough to justify letting people make what you consider 'wrong' choices and thus feel that the reduction in risk of harm from vaccinations and circumcisions does justify the actual harm being done by preventing those who would like to make different choices than you or I think best.

Yes.

1) I would love to see the "harm" I'm doing by not allowing parents to circumcise their children quantified.

2) I, apparently, feel that the freedom of the child is important, even more important than the freedom of the parent's ability to do to that child whatever they wish for whatever reason.

gather this is primarily because you don't agree with their religious beliefs and dismiss the harm they would suffer as inconsequential.

I would love to see the "harm" under discussion here, and it DOES NOT MATTER what I think of their religious beliefs. Even if I agreed with their religious beliefs, I still uphold the ideals of a free society, and part of that ideal involves people being allowed to worship what they choose, as long as they do not break the secular law of the country that they inhabit.

However, I respect the religious beliefs of the child, and do not assume that the child has the same religious beliefs as the parents. That is probably where we differ. A child does not have religious beliefs, and will not have religious beliefs until the child is of a certain age.

While not a surgical procedure, vaccinations are a permanent body-altering procedure.

If you can show that the benefits of vaccinations are little, and the detriments of vaccinations are many, then I would be against vaccinations. If vaccinations did barely anything, I couldn't really support forced vaccination in the first place.

My understanding is that they affect the immune system permanently. And there is certainly a risk, albeit a small one, of complications.

In which case, you do a risk-benefit analysis, as you do with every medical procedure.

By this line of argument, vaccinations would not be allowed.

Wrong. You missed the part in my argument where circumcisions do not have any benefit to the child. Vaccinations do. Therefore, your comparison falls.

It would also preclude braces and cosmetic surgery of all kinds.

Unless it cures an abnormal condition such as warts, then yes. I do not support making your child look like barbie doll and putting her under the knife because now's a good time to give her a "good figure" or somesuch.

I understand that isn't your intention to apply your argument so broadly. I'm merely pointing out why this line of argument isn't convincing to me.

Well, no wonder my argument isn't convincing. You pick at it while ignoring the whole picture. Any argument is unconvincing if you don't follow the lines of thought that lead up to it.

Parents do have the right to make such decisions for their child; circumcision is only one of many such choices.

Where is this right clearly defined, though? As far as I know, most rights I hear of involve a child's ability to expect a good education, good health, and a good living environment. I haven't heard of a clearly defined right for a parent to do to their children as they will, much less in a secular society.

If you want to convince me otherwise, you need to carve out why circumcision deserves to be treated differently from other optional medical treatments a parent may decide to force a child to undergo.

Name the medical treatments, and I'll tell you whether I agree with them or not. Include a risk-benefit analysis.

I don't write off every single possible surgery out of hand without investigating the potential harm or benefit to children.

I disagree with the second and fourth statements on your list, but that's really pretty inconsequial to my argument.

WRONG! Unless you acknowledge that a child cannot follow the faith of their parent without consent, then you will continue to think that the parent has some sort of "right" to choose the faith that their child has, which I oppose in every single possible way.

I find it funny when people talk of "freedom of religion", but they really mean, "Freedom of religion for everyone except I have power over, then no freedom at all".

My opinion is that parents don't have to justify their decision to anyone other than themselves and their children.

And I disagree.

Instead you need to justify why it would be sufficiently beneficial to our society to take that decision-making power away from the parents and rest it, instead, in the government.

I more of want the decision to be made by the medical society, of whom we rely on for medical treatments to be clean, pure, and beneficial. We trust our doctors because doctors have a code of conduct, specific guidelines that they should follow. If they do not follow these guidelines, then their license is revoked and they are charged with medical malpractice.

I would think that the infants have every right to expect these doctors to look after their best interests, just as we expect the medical profession to know what our best interests are.

If you want to convince me that circumcision is a-okay because the parents have every right to decide for their child, then you would have to explain why required medical aid given to children are any different. I'll add that, quite frankly,if you do not give your child medical aid if the child is sick; society has decided that this is a bad thing. Society already tells parents what to do and what not to do for important things.

I do not live in a free society if your personal beliefs are decided before you're even born.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

While not a surgical procedure, vaccinations are a permanent body-altering procedure. My understanding is that they affect the immune system permanently. And there is certainly a risk, albeit a small one, of complications. By this line of argument, vaccinations would not be allowed. It would also preclude braces and cosmetic surgery of all kinds.

Medical procedures should only be forced on children when there is an imminent medical need and they do not have the cognitive abilities to make a rational decision for themselves. Imminent medical need would include such things as deformity (including crooked teeth – though I doubt a parent could force a child to wear a brace if they did not want to) and illness. Standard vaccinations are such a low risk that to deny a child the potentially huge benefit from them is irrational. They also modify the body in a way that is imperceptible to the human senses.

In the UK it is illegal to tattoo a person under the age of 18, whether the parents want to do it or not. Do you think this is a slippery slope leading to an authoritarian regime?

I understand that isn't your intention to apply your argument so broadly. I'm merely pointing out why this line of argument isn't convincing to me. Parents do have the right to make such decisions for their child; circumcision is only one of many such choices. If you want to convince me otherwise, you need to carve out why circumcision deserves to be treated differently from other optional medical treatments a parent may decide to force a child to undergo.

I’m curious. How many optional medical treatments that permanently modify their child’s body are there for parents to choose from?

I disagree with the second and fourth statements on your list, but that's really pretty inconsequial to my argument. My opinion is that parents don't have to justify their decision to anyone other than themselves and their children. Instead you need to justify why it would be sufficiently beneficial to our society to take that decision-making power away from the parents and rest it, instead, in the government.

Because when left to their own devices, 99% of men do not choose to have their foreskin removed. It is almost always forced on them by their parents. The other examples you gave of straightening teeth and vaccinations are totally different in this respect. Many adults choose to have there teeth straightened or otherwise improved. Many adults choose to be vaccinated to protect themselves from diseases.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Why do you think one has something to do with the other?

Why do you think they don't when they are connected through your own argument?

From your responses it is clear that you are not advancing arguments as an honest attempt to debate. You are unwilling to support your own logic so I guess we can disregard it.

Interestingly, in the early days of the Turing test programmers attempted to portray human intelligence by getting the programme to answer a question by rephrasing the question - in very much the way you are doing. It didn't display real intelligence then, any more than it does now.

Is it working?

Linda

See above.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Interestingly, in the early days of the Turing test programmers attempted to portray human intelligence by getting the programme to answer a question by rephrasing the question - in very much the way you are doing. It didn't display real intelligence then, any more than it does now.

<snip>

Clearly they had all been exposed to too much psychotherapy after being circumcised as infants.

 

[fls]

Why do you think they don't when they are connected through your own argument?

Make the connection for me.

From your responses it is clear that you are not advancing arguments as an honest attempt to debate. You are unwilling to support your own logic so I guess we can disregard it.

I'm perfectly willing to make an honest attempt to debate. The connection is so obvious to you that you are willing to insult me for not seeing it. It should be easy-peasy for you to explain it to me, then.

See above.

Umm....since the above would have absolutely no effect on somehow criminalizing circumcision, or on preventing anyone from being circumcised (since my children are not), I'd have to say that your tactics are pretty useless. Have you considered trying something else? I wouldn't want you to waste your time.

Linda

 

[fls]

You missed the part in my argument where circumcisions do not have any benefit to the child. Vaccinations do. Therefore, your comparison falls.

Circumcision has several medical benefits to the child. A summary of the benefits can be found here.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Circumcision has several medical benefits to the child. A summary of the benefits can be found here.

Linda

...of which the only one worth arguing about for infants is UTI.

The proportion of male infants who have symptomatic UTI during the first year of life is somewhat difficult to estimate because the rate varies among studies. A study at an urban emergency department found that 2.5% of febrile male infants <60 days of age had UTI.71 Data from Europe, based on a largely uncircumcised population, report UTI rates of 1.2% for infant boys.73 The number is similar to the rates of 0.7% to 1.4% reported for uncircumcised males in the United States and Canada.72,74 In comparison, UTI rates for circumcised male infants in the United States and Canada are reported to be 0.12% to 0.19%.72,74 Although these cross-cultural data do not provide information on specific individual risk factors, the similarity of European and American UTI rates for uncircumcised male infants support an association between circumcision status and UTI. Using these rates and the increased risks suggested from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants.

Sounds great. Let's circumcise 1000 infants so 5 can avoid a highly treatable condition and 10-20 can have complications due to the surgery.

 

[Lonewulf]

Circumcision has several medical benefits to the child. A summary of the benefits can be found here.

Linda

Although the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million.

That's a lot of money. $150 to $270 million to give a non consensual surgical operation on people within the United States. Intriguing.

Anyways, I'm reading through it, but perhaps you could point out the persuasive bits where these "several medical benefits" are found?


ETA: Found something interesting.

The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.32 Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.33,34 Most of the complications that do occur are minor.35 The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.35 It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.33 There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.35 Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.32,35

That's... a lot of potential complications. Some sound rather nasty, though I'm no expert.

But okay. Only .2% to .6% are complications. Small number, right?

1.2 million * .2 = 240,000 babies, *.6 = 720,000 babies. ANNUALLY.

Okay, so only .1% is estimated to be causes of bleeding. That's 120,000 babies that need blood transfusions thanks to the process. Another 120,000 get minor infections that still sound irritating and nasty, but nothing to be seriously concerned about.

Not sure how many "isolated incidents" there are. But if they make up even 0.05% experiencing moderate to severe complications, that's 60,000. .025% is 30,000. I'm not sure what the real figures are.

But regardless, that's a lot of overall complications (even if most are minor) annually. I'm sure it's considered acceptable, but with monetary cost and complication chance combined, added to a nonconsensual surgery that is considered to be unnecessary enough to not be required surgery by the AAP... I'm not entirely sure it's worth it.

Oh, one more bit of information:

Should circumcision become necessary after the newborn period because problems have developed, general anesthesia is often used and requires a more formal surgical procedure necessitating hemostasis and suturing of skin edges. Although the procedural complications are generally the same as those of newborn circumcision, there is the added risk attendant to general anesthesia if it is used. Additionally, there is morbidity in the form of time lost from school or work to be considered.

So, using anesthesia gives a higher chance of complications? Does this involve the anesthesia that is given to newborns as standard medical practice?

There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.40 Several methods to provide analgesia for circumcision have been evaluated.

Wonder if Loss Leader gave his newborn analgesia. Then again, that's not part of the Jewish ceremony, so it's probably a sin or something.

 

[fls]

That's a lot of money. $150 to $270 million to give a non consensual surgical operation on people within the United States. Intriguing.

Yeah, I think way better uses could be found for that kind of money. If you made parents pay for it, I bet they'd think twice.

Anyways, I'm reading through it, but perhaps you could point out the persuasive bits where these "several medical benefits" are found?

Under these headings:

Penile problems
Circumcision status and UTI in infant males
Circumcision status and cancer of the penis
Circumcision status and STD including HIV

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

Cancer:

he annual age-adjusted incidence of penile cancer is 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 males in the United States.91 In countries where the overwhelming majority of men are uncircumcised, the rate of penile cancer varies from 0.82 per 100 000 in Denmark92 to 2.9 to 6.8 per 100 000 in Brazil93 and 2.0 to 10.5 per 100 000 in India.94

The literature on the relationship between circumcision status and risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) is difficult to evaluate.

This study also used self-report to determine circumcision status. Self-report may not be an accurate method of determining circumcision status.

The relationship among hygiene, phimosis, and penile cancer is uncertain, although many hypothesize that good hygiene prevents phimosis and penile cancer.

Well, I'm convinced! Snipped foreskins for everyone!

On the bit on STDs:

Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to STD in general is complex and conflicting.13107-110 Studies suggest that circumcised males may be less at risk for syphilis than are uncircumcised males.107,111 In addition, there is a substantial body of evidence that links noncircumcision in men with risk for HIV infection.19112-114 Genital ulcers related to STD may increase susceptibility to HIV in both circumcised and uncircumcised men, but uncircumcised status is independently associated with the risk for HIV infection in several studies.115-117 There does appear to be a plausible biologic explanation for this association in that the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues. However, behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors in the acquisition of HIV infection than circumcision status.

Also convincing!

Tell me, would this risk of infection matter if you, say, used a condom?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Lonewulf,

check your math!

0.2% gives:

1.2million * 0.002 = 2400

BTW, the AAP complication rate is one of the lowest I've seen. Most papers estimate it at about 1-2%.

The Bradford hospital unit I mentioned earlier had a reported complication rate of ~35% at one point. I think the definition of "complication" is highly subjective.

 

[Beth]

It increases the chance of life significantly, yes.

If you can demonstrate scientifically valid evidence that vaccinations do not give that significant a chance for further livelihood, I'd be intrigued to see it. Although we should probably get off this discussion unless you want to start a new topic on vaccinations instead of circumcisions.

Okay with me if you want to start a new thread, but I'm not saying the decrease in risk of deadly diseases due to vaccination is insignificant. I'm saying that I don't consider the value of that decrease in risk to be worth the cost of terms of loss of automony and freedom when responsible adult citizens are not allowed to make such choices for themselves and their children. That is a value judgement. You've made it clear you disagree with that evaluation. That's okay, we're allowed to disagree on such value judgements. But if you want to effect change in our society, you'll have to come up with arguments that will convince folks like me that the benefit from the proposed change is worth the cost. That means you have to consider how other people value the harm and the benefit of the change you are proposing.

You agree with me, too, as you're willing to overlook parents' values, beliefs, and traditions when it involves abuse or direct harm to the child -- at least, I certainly hope you do.

Yes, when the harm is severe enough, the cost of intervention is justified. That does not, however, imply that any harm at all justifies societal intervention. It does not, but must always be weighed against the cost of intervention. That such things as 'harm' 'cost' and 'benefit' are malleable terms and different people weigh both costs and benefits differently means that there are no 'bright lines' as was discussed earlier in this thread.

WRONG! Unless you acknowledge that a child cannot follow the faith of their parent without consent, then you will continue to think that the parent has some sort of "right" to choose the faith that their child has, which I oppose in every single possible way.

We disagree pretty strongly on this point as well. I don't acknowledge that they cannot follow the faith of their parent without consent any more than I acknowledge that they cannot follow the nationality of their parent without consent. I think a child is born Jewish, Christian or Muslim the same way they are born Israeli, Canadian, or Iraqi. Until the child is an adult and able to choose a differently, they can presumed to be the same faith as their parents just as they can be presumed to have the same nationality and culture as their parents.

If you want to convince me that circumcision is a-okay

I'm not trying to convince you of that.

because the parents have every right to decide for their child, then you would have to explain why required medical aid given to children are any different. I'll add that, quite frankly,if you do not give your child medical aid if the child is sick; society has decided that this is a bad thing. Society already tells parents what to do and what not to do for important things.

Yes, society does indeed. And in our society, in every case society has to provide justification for why it is more important to tell parents what to do in those cases than to allow parents to do as they choose.

I do not live in a free society if your personal beliefs are decided before you're even born.

Your personal beliefs can never be decided for you by anyone else. However, they can be presumed by others and it is up to you to make your true beliefs known if they differ. Until an infant grows enough to gain that ability, the most reasonable course of action by the rest of society is to presume the child holds beliefs in accordance with their parent's.

 

[fls]

Tell me, would this risk of infection matter if you, say, used a condom?

Relative, yes. But the absolute risk reduction may be below your threshold for "matter".

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf,

check your math!

0.2% gives:

1.2million * 0.002 = 2400

D'oh!

Well, there goes my entire estimation.

BTW, the AAP complication rate is one of the lowest I've seen. Most papers estimate it at about 1-2%.

THAT would put it in the range I quoted, then. =D

The Bradford hospital unit I mentioned earlier had a reported complication rate of ~35% at one point. I think the definition of "complication" is highly subjective.

True enough.

 

[Lonewulf]

Okay with me if you want to start a new thread, but I'm not saying the decrease in risk of deadly diseases due to vaccination is insignificant. I'm saying that I don't consider the value of that decrease in risk to be worth the cost of terms of loss of automony and freedom when responsible adult citizens are not allowed to make such choices for themselves and their children. That is a value judgement. You've made it clear you disagree with that evaluation. That's okay, we're allowed to disagree on such value judgement. But if you want to effect change in our society, you'll have to come up with arguments that will convince folks like me that the benefit from the proposed change is worth the cost.

Unfortunately, you're asking me to do the impossible.

I doubt I could convince slave owners that slavery was wrong in the 1700's, and that was slavery. Circumcision isn't quite as black and white.

It's not always possible to convince everyone of anything. If you really feel that putting your child in great risk is better than protecting the rights of the child by limiting the parent's choices, then I'm not sure what I can say to you. Please, oh please think of the children? Is that convincing?

Yes, when the harm is severe enough, the cost of intervention is justified. That does not, however, imply that any harm at all justifies societal intervention. It does not, but must always be weighed against the cost of intervention. That such things as 'harm' 'cost' and 'benefit' are malleable terms and different people weigh both costs and benefits differently means that there are no 'bright lines' as was discussed earlier in this thread.

Indeed.

We disagree pretty strongly on this point as well. I don't acknowledge that they cannot follow the faith of their parent without consent any more than I acknowledge that they cannot follow the nationality of their parent without consent. I think a child is born Jewish, Christian or Muslim the same way they are born Israeli, Canadian, or Iraqi.

And I, like Dawkins, consider that a very very dangerous and just plain wrong belief. There is no logical sense to it at all.

Do you have evidence that religion is genetic? If so, can we isolate this "religion gene"? Is it dominant or recessive? Does it effect hair color?

Until the child is an adult and able to choose a differently, they can presumed to be the same faith as their parents just as they can be presumed to have the same nationality and culture as their parents.

So they're assumed to believe in Jesus Christ and God and salvation and the saints etc. until they're old enough to actually believe in Jesus Christ?

Wow. Next you'll tell me that good rulers can be decided by bloodline, so that's why kingdoms were inherited.

Yes, society does indeed. And in our society, in every case society has to provide justification for why it is more important to tell parents what to do in those cases than to allow parents to do as they choose.

Very well. Then they will justify it.

Your personal beliefs can never be decided for you by anyone else. However, they can be presumed by others and it is up to you to make your true beliefs known if they differ.

Which a child cannot proclaim. The default should be "none".

Until an infant grows enough to gain that ability, the most reasonable course of action by the rest of society is to presume the child holds beliefs in accordance with their parent's.

"The most reasonable" being "one of the more illogical"?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Make the connection for me.

Plus ca change. You make an argument, then, when the logic is challenged you run away from it. It is unclear to me why, when you won't take your own argument seriously, anyone else should either?

I'm perfectly willing to make an honest attempt to debate. The connection is so obvious to you that you are willing to insult me for not seeing it. It should be easy-peasy for you to explain it to me, then.

What insult? If the facts are insulting perhaps you need to look at your own behaviour? I have already painfully explained it to you with a specific example. From your reaction, that seems to have been a bad thing to do.

Umm....since the above would have absolutely no effect on somehow criminalizing circumcision, or on preventing anyone from being circumcised (since my children are not), I'd have to say that your tactics are pretty useless. Have you considered trying something else? I wouldn't want you to waste your time.

Linda

Really? I believe that getting people to use the right language is fundamental in changing thinking. Why, letting everyone know that 'Extraordinary Rendition' is actually 'Illegal kidnapping for torture' has affected the world's view of Bush as a torturer and I do believe the Congress is now after his secret memos But you're probably right, the truth is often pretty useless.

Your words do however contradict your actions. If you really didn't want to waste my time why make an argument on this site then, when I take the time to post a specific example of where it fails,refuse to address it unless you simply weren't wanting to make an honest attempt to debate?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Clearly they had all been exposed to too much psychotherapy after being circumcised as infants.

You know, I do believe you're right.

 

[fls]

ETA: Found something interesting.

That's... a lot of potential complications. Some sound rather nasty, though I'm no expert.

Oh, if you thought "penile necrosis" sounded bad, you were right.

But okay. Only .2% to .6% are complications. Small number, right?

1.2 million * .2 = 240,000 babies, *.6 = 720,000 babies. ANNUALLY.

Ummm....that's 2400 and 7200.

Okay, so only .1% is estimated to be causes of bleeding. That's 120,000 babies that need blood transfusions thanks to the process. Another 120,000 get minor infections that still sound irritating and nasty, but nothing to be seriously concerned about.

Ummm...that's 1200 that have bleeding, and transfusion after bleeding is "rare", so it's probably less than a hundred that need transfusion.

Not sure how many "isolated incidents" there are. But if they make up even 0.05% experiencing moderate to severe complications, that's 60,000. .025% is 30,000. I'm not sure what the real figures are.

I think you know what I'm going to say here.

But regardless, that's a lot of overall complications (even if most are minor) annually. I'm sure it's considered acceptable, but with monetary cost and complication chance combined, added to a nonconsensual surgery that is considered to be unnecessary enough to not be required surgery by the AAP... I'm not entirely sure it's worth it.

I think that's the gist of it.

Oh, one more bit of information:

So, using anesthesia gives a higher chance of complications? Does this involve the anesthesia that is given to newborns as standard medical practice?

No, they are specifically referring to general anaesthesia, which is no longer used for infant circumcision.

Wonder if Loss Leader gave his newborn analgesia. Then again, that's not part of the Jewish ceremony, so it's probably a sin or something.

As I mentioned earlier, LossLeader described some of the methods that are used in the Jewish ceremony that have been found to reduce the response.

Linda

 

[fls]

Plus ca change. You make an argument, then, when the logic is challenged you run away from it. It is unclear to me why, when you won't take your own argument seriously, anyone else should either?

What insult? If the facts are insulting perhaps you need to look at your own behaviour? I have already painfully explained it to you with a specific example. From your reaction, that seems to have been a bad thing to do.

I said people derive benefit from working in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are beneficial.

This is what you said:

"That would mean that when a religious cult gets its members including children to drink cyanide, as has actually happened, you would find that because they acted in a group ethos it was in everyones best interest?"

So you are telling me that it is impossible for you to imagine any way in which I might qualify my above statement depending upon the level of harm? That a light slap on the butt cannot be distinguished from beating the head in with a 2x4 when it comes to parental discipline?

Really? I believe that getting people to use the right language is fundamental in changing thinking. Why, letting everyone know that 'Extraordinary Rendition' is actually 'Illegal kidnapping for torture' has affected the world's view of Bush as a torturer and I do believe the Congress is now after his secret memos But you're probably right, the truth is often pretty useless.

I agree language can be important. Sometimes calling a pat on the back sexual harrassment backfires, though.

Your words do however contradict your actions. If you really didn't want to waste my time why make an argument on this site then, when I take the time to post a specific example of where it fails,refuse to address it unless you simply weren't wanting to make an honest attempt to debate?

I was, perhaps, a little stunned.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

Call me crazy, but I find it hard to believe that circumcision alone will make or break any kind of group cohesion.