Circumcision

[Oroborus]

Does the other one have comparisons to genocide too? lol

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

lol what I've been trying to articulate in my bumbling fashion is that I do not agree that all people that've been circumcised necessairly feel one way or another about it. I for example do not feel that I've undergone a barbaric or cruel treatment, and really feel none the worse for wear. Nor am I a zealot steadfastly defending it. And no I'm not saying that that justifies the proceedure, just hoping some people would stop painting it black and white.

Who has been painting the issue black and white? No one has called for all circumcision to be stopped.

The ridiculous position people who support or do not object to ritual circumcision find themselves in, is having to allow similar levels of pain and disfigurement to be inflicted on children in the name of their parent's "culture" or religion. Or be a hypocrite.

 

[Lonewulf]

lol what I've been trying to articulate in my bumbling fashion is that I do not agree that all people that've been circumcised necessairly feel one way or another about it.

Oh, I understand, and I think like everyone that's circumcised will feel one way or another about it.

However, the question is, do they get to choose how to feel only after the actual act has happened? That's the main point of contention, as far as I'm concerned.

I for example do not feel that I've undergone a barbaric or cruel treatment, and really feel none the worse for wear.

True, but aren't you at the least bit curious how much of your sexual stimulation you're missing out on?

Nor am I a zealot steadfastly defending it. And no I'm not saying that that justifies the proceedure, just hoping some people would stop painting it black and white.

Well, I admit, I act rather hot-headed in this thread. However, to be honest, the reason why people like Loss Leader rub me wrong is because of the reasons why they do it, and the arguments for it. Not to mention the rather dismissively way he says, "yup", when he says that he not only can, but wants to, choose his child's religion before his child is even old enough to choose, and is willing to make a permanent surgical decision for his child on that front.

This is an affront to all of my ideals. My ideals of freedom, personal liberty, choice, all go out the window if I support such a thing for such a reason. I agree with Richard Dawkins when it comes to talk of deciding that a child is a "Jewish child", or a "Muslim child", or a "Christian child". They're not even old enough to know how to say "dada", yet they're treated as equivalent in religious beliefs as their parent? Then there seems to be the illogical equivocation that because Loss Leader believes in the Jewish faith, his son must believe (which Loss has pointed out in the past). That's just... weird. It takes a very strange look at life to see that as logical or rational.

I'm not really obsessive over this overall issue. Honestly, there are many other things that I'm far more concerned about. I would think that slavery in Africa would be a bit more important than circumcision in America.

 

[Southwind17]

Correct.

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. But any other one word answer would be just as meaningless because it would tell you nothing about my opinion on this matter. The answer is "no" or "yes" depending upon what question you are really asking. I've guessed at what that question may really be, but you've not yet clarified that for me.

How would you answer the question "are you for or against piercing infants' ears?"

Linda

Actually, I'm totally against piercing infants' ears where the child is at an age where it doesn't understand what's happening. I believe all parents who do so are doing it purely for their own self-indulgence. Clearly, there's no benefit to the infant! As such, I see little difference between this practice and infant circumcision.

 

[Kaylee]

I realize that. The citations you provided were to articles that were one-sided, and your descriptive summary was also one-sided (I think because you were summarizing not from the original research but from reading articles that summarized the original research in a one-sided manner). But now I see that you did not realize this when you presented the information or else you wouldn't have provided it, right?



I misunderstood. I was under the impression that you had already decided you wouldn't have your son circumcised unless it was medically (as in physically) necessary. And since whether or not it is medically necessary isn't really controversial (in places like the US), it wasn't that you needed to find this out for yourself, but that you needed to find information to counteract what others would say - which could be called cherry picking, but could also be called directed criticism.



Cool.



I think you may just be unaware of what consensus there is on this issue? Instead of researching the pros and cons yourself, I would suggest just reading the AAP position paper. It outlines all the information available and how they arrived at their conclusion that circumcision is not medicially necessary. It has links to all the information they used. I think after reading that you would be more comfortable with your decision to not circumcise your son (if you want to wait until you actually have a son so it won't be wasted effort, that's okay ). But if you still think you need more information, as least it's a good starting point.



LossLeader already mentioned that they do use measures that have been shown to reduce the pain and stress - the natural positioning in a comfortable environment and that the procedure is much shorter. I don't if there are other measures as well. I think it would be better if they also used the EMLA cream (I don't know whether or not that is the case), but we can't say that we know it is harmful without.

Linda

Uh no.

Per http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/cherry+pick.html

If people cherry pick, they choose things that support their position, while ignoring things that contradict it.

In addition, the phrase also has the connotation that the person cherry picking couldn’t care less as to what the actual facts are.

Because someone disagrees with you or has arrived at different conclusions after examining the information available to them, doesn’t automatically make them a cherry picker.

From what I could see in the thread and the links I've read so far, it seems to me, IMHO, that the “anti-circ camp” has made the better argument.

Of course if they are relying on fudged studies made by scientists with unreliable reputations then that would make their assertions invalid. When I’m researching new information (new for me anyway) scientists are not guilty of sloppy and/or improper research methods until proven guilty. However, I have learned the hard way to also not judge them innocent until proven innocent.

I am tentatively in favor of the anti-circ camp – if it becomes a priority to me I will take whatever time off is necessary to research the matter in a research library before coming to a final decision.

In the meantime, thanks for the link to the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement.

 

[Kaylee]

Actually, I'm totally against piercing infants' ears where the child is at an age where it doesn't understand what's happening. I believe all parents who do so are doing it purely for their own self-indulgence. Clearly, there's no benefit to the infant! As such, I see little difference between this practice and infant circumcision.

Oh there is a very large difference! For one thing, while extremely rare, there have been accidents or problems encountered during the circumcision which has resulted in partial or complete permanent impairment of the penis. This has happened during circumcisions performed by both physicians in a hospital as well as by mohels in a private home.

A problem of this magnitude simply couldn't happen from piercing a pair of ears, not even a pair of infant's ears.

 

[Kaylee]

-- deleted --

 

[Southwind17]

Oh there is a very large difference!

Not for me, sorry. They're both unnecessary disfigurement that the child might regret later in life. Admittedly, it's unlikely, especially in the case of pierced ears, as the downside is essentially only mild scarring of the ear lobes, but I'm firmly of the view that it's not a parent's right to decide whether such procedures may be performed on an un-consenting child purely on traditional, religious or aesthetic grounds. Plain and simple; black and white.

I also believe that every person, on reaching adulthood (or otherwise a cetain age), should, as a matter of course, opt to choose the name(s) under which they wish to live the rest of their adult life. Clearly, every child needs to have a name, but I fail to see why that child, in adulthood, should be forced to retain a name that's been 'foisted' on it by its parent(s). Yes, I know it can be changed by deed poll, but I think the choice should be routine. Plain and simple; black and white.

In essence, I don't believe that any child should be burdened (if I may use that word) in adulthood with ANYTHING that it might, when duly informed, disagree with, that wasn't absolutely necessary from the now adult's point of view.

 

[Lonewulf]

Southwind; how about surgical removement of warts from a child? I'm asking out of curiosity, as that's a rather aesthetic-based treatment...

 

[fls]

Sorry Linda, I'm confused. Are you for or against male cirumcision (medical justification aside)?

Thank you for answering my question. It clarified what you were asking of me so I can now answer your question.

For.

Linda

 

[fls]

Uh no.

Per http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/cherry+pick.html


In addition, the phrase also has the connotation that the person cherry picking couldn’t care less as to what the actual facts are.

I agree. But do you still really think I was suggesting that, given that you made it clear that you do care, and that I specifically stated that I wasn't suggesting otherwise? I assure you, I understand this point and I'm not trying to imply something different from what I say.

Because someone disagrees with you or has arrived at different conclusions after examining the information available to them, doesn’t automatically make them a cherry picker.

Of course not.

From what I could see in the thread and the links I've read so far, it seems to me, IMHO, that the “anti-circ camp” has made the better argument.

I think it would be hard to have a different impression. It seems to me that generally, arguments that move towards the extreme leave a much stronger impression than those that are closer to a neutral position. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure that level-headed arguments are ever really persuasive, based on my observations.

Of course if they are relying on fudged studies made by scientists with unreliable reputations then that would make their assertions invalid. When I’m researching new information (new for me anyway) scientists are not guilty of sloppy and/or improper research methods until proven guilty. However, I have learned the hard way to also not judge them innocent until proven innocent.

I am tentatively in favor of the anti-circ camp – if it becomes a priority to me I will take whatever time off is necessary to research the matter in a research library before coming to a final decision.

In the meantime, thanks for the link to the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement.

This has piqued my curiosity (related to what I was talking about above). Why don't you find the AAP statement sufficiently persuasive?

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind; how about surgical removement of warts from a child? I'm asking out of curiosity, as that's a rather aesthetic-based treatment...

My operative words are:

unnecessary disfigurement that the child might regret later in life

I don't regard wart removal as disfigurement. On the contrary. I'd be extremely surprised if any child, in adulthood, would regret such action on the part of its parent(s).

 

[Southwind17]

Thank you for answering my question. It clarified what you were asking of me so I can now answer your question.

For.

Linda

Thanks Linda; that seems unequivocal, but I remain confused. Earlier in this thread you wrote:

I have stated, in two threads that you have participated in, I am not in favour of male circumcision. I have purposely repeated this message throughout these threads in case it was forgotten or missed. I also sincerely try to answer questions as accurately as possible (given that I am unable to be black and white on an issue).

Have you changed your mind since that post, or do you think I'm missing some subtlety in your choice of words?

 

[fls]

Thanks Linda; that seems unequivocal, but I remain confused. Earlier in this thread you wrote:

Have you changed your mind since that post, or do you think I'm missing some subtlety in your choice of words?

I think it demonstrates that rejecting my detailed explanations in favour of one-word answers is less accurate.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Despite the aspersions being made about people who oppose non-medical infant circumcision, I have actually read the ethical and medical arguments from both sides of the debate. By far and away the most consistent arguments are those that advocate circumcising only for medical reasons. Those that allow circumcision of an infant for anything other than these require exceptions to normal interaction between adults and children. Linda refers people who do not accept these exceptions as biased.

The question is then if these exceptions are based on reality, rather than irrational fears or other emotions. I believe that Jewish fears of what will happen to their children if they fail to have them circumcised are irrational. What defines a Jewish male: how they behave to others, or the amount of skin on their penis? To me it is as irrational as thinking beautiful people are nice, ugly people are nasty.

A Jewish circumcision has no meaning for the child at all, other than pain. It is the adults who are fulfilling their desires and quenching their fears. Effectively, the child is just an object used for the treatment of the psychological inadequacies of his parents.

And finally:

What use is an ethical system if it is not based on the reasonable consequences of action or inaction?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

My operative words are:



I don't regard wart removal as disfigurement. On the contrary. I'd be extremely surprised if any child, in adulthood, would regret such action on the part of its parent(s).

Exactly. Humans do not normally have warts on them. I.e. Warts are a deformity. Therefore removing a wart is moving towards a healthy state, with virtually no negative consequences.

 

[Southwind17]

I think it demonstrates that rejecting my detailed explanations in favour of one-word answers is less accurate.

Linda

I don't recall rejecting your detailed explanations, and I apologize if I gave that impression, it certainly wasn't intentional. Regardless, though, how does one reconcile:

I am not in favour of male circumcision

with:

[I am] for [male circumcision]

?

 

[fls]

Southwind,

I think LossLeader's posts starting on page 10 explain it better than I could.

It's the difference between what choices I would make for my own children, what choices I think others should make for their children, and what choices I think should be interfered with and to what degree. I can be "for" something at one of those levels and "against" it at a different level.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind,

I think LossLeader's posts starting on page 10 explain it better than I could.

It's the difference between what choices I would make for my own children, what choices I think others should make for their children, and what choices I think should be interfered with and to what degree. I can be "for" something at one of those levels and "against" it at a different level.

Linda

So, when you unequivocally responded "For" at post #410, what 'level(s)' were you tacitly caveating that with? I wrote "medical justification aside". I can only assume, therefore, that you are 'for' male circumcision in all other circumstances!

Please excuse my not wishing to pay much attention to LossLeader's justification (if his reasoning qualifies as such). My post #408 should clearly demonstrate my aversion to such an un-civilised, selfish attitude.

 

[fls]

So, when you unequivocally responded "For" at post #410, what 'level(s)' were you tacitly caveating that with? I wrote "medical justification aside". I can only assume, therefore, that you are 'for' male circumcision in all other circumstances!

I am "for" allowing that other people have opinions different from mine. And that, unless their opinions lead to actions that "cross the line", my dissent should be confined to voicing my opinion.

Please excuse my not wishing to pay much attention to LossLeader's justification (if his reasoning qualifies as such). My post #408 should clearly demonstrate my aversion to such an un-civilised, selfish attitude.

That's too bad, as he outlines very nicely when it does not matter what you think of him.

Linda