Circumcision

[fls]

But it can't apply to whatever it is that I'm concerned about without you completely contradicting yourself. That's exactly my point. First you said "our best interest", then, when challenged, you changed it to "our children's best interests", then, when challenged again, you changed it essentially back to the collective 'our' best interests, but instead of concentrating on the issue in question you chose to try to appear smart by categorizing and listing all the different age groups that sprang to mind, and now it's back-fired on you.

I will admit that I suffer from a bit too much levity.

So, as things currently stand, you seem to be in favour of non-medical circumcision in respect of certain groups of people in the interests of all members of such groups, of which the child himself is but one (and a non-consenting one at that). Would you care to elaborate on what those 'best interests' are?

I realize that it can difficult to separate group vs. individual benefits (see any discussion on the unit of selection in evolution for examples). And it is beyond the scope of this discussion to do so. But my intent was to view it from an individual perspective - that I wasn't considering benefits to the group at the expense of the individual.

"Best interests" are things like "physical, mental, and social well-being" (from the WHO definition of health).

This is not intended to persuade, but just to explain my perspective. Since you disagree with even as simple a measure as naming, I wouldn't expect you to find any of these ideas acceptable.

I think you could try a little harder - seriously; this is a debating forum afterall, not a multiple-choice questionnaire. Please feel free to flesh out your responses beyond a single sentence, even a single word, in places, if you feel that in not doing so you might not convey the true meaning of your response. That would be immensely helpful all round.

That you are seriously suggesting that I don't do this already doesn't engender optimism.

That sounds rather defeatist for you, Linda, and you shouldn't be OK with it. All I'm looking for is straight answers to straight-forward questions. It's not hard if you just apply yourself and give them due thought before hitting the 'Submit Reply' button.

If you start with the realization that I do that already, it may allow you to see things differently.

So your answer applies to the practice of suicide bombing (amongst other practices), clearly.

Yes. It applies to all practices, rather than anything specific to suicide bombing. Which makes the qualification redundant.

Don't you mean 'weakens', and not 'strengthens'? I don't follow your reasoning otherwise.

I mean strengthens.

So, you think we should accept the 'status quo' that acts such as suicide bombing and genocide derive in society, because if we were to eliminate them then something equally appalling would 'simply' arise instead?

It's not that I simply want a society free of suicide bombings and genocide. It's that I want a society that is free of suicide bombings and genocide because it effectively deals with those things that would eventually lead to suicide bombings and genocide. I don't think that magically eliminating the end result leads to a society that can do that.

Regardless of how insanely flawed that reasoning sounds, it seems to me that we'd have nothing to lose and potentially much to gain by elimination. I reckon I'd take my chances with the elimination option, if I held the wand!

Okay.

But more to the point, as Ivor has already asked, what equally atrocious act do you think would fill the 'gap' that would be left gapingly open if circumcision was outlawed?

I don't know. You could look to a survey of the various body modifications around the world to make a guess, I suppose. I doubt you would find any of those any more acceptable than circumcision, but maybe you'd get lucky. Eliminating one particular option would do nothing to change the need which led to the practice in the first place.

I'm sorry you think that Linda, given that it's completely unfounded.

Evidence?

Linda

 

[fls]

"led to the decline"?

The decline ("change toward something smaller") in the rate of circumcision.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Ivor, at a traditional Jewish bris the infant is not strapped down.

I concur. The few I watched did not use artificial restraints, though at least one did have the infant restrained by an adult.

 

[fls]

Well, hopefully that issue of the Harvard Health Letter citated the original research which is what I'm looking for.

You already have the citations if you want them. The citations for the original research are in the AAP statement.

Pain is a subset of discomfort. There are other ways to experience discomfort. Being cold, for example.

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

The decline ("change toward something smaller") in the rate of circumcision.

Linda

Man, I so misread that.

I need sleep. Or less caffeine.

 

[Beth]

The rights of the parents seem to supersede the rights of the child in your preference. Not sure if I'll ever agree.

Probably not on these issues. There are, of course, areas where we do agree that the child's rights supersede the parents. However, I was explaining why parents don't need to justify their decision to circumcise. I feel that it's not the parent's obligation to justify any such decisions until society has established that it has sufficient justification for imposing a different decision on them. You may feel there are compelling arguments for such intervention but I disagree. Since you are the one advocating for societal change, the burden is on you to provide arguments that the rest of us consider compelling. So far I don't agree that the arguments presented here are sufficient to justify taking the decision-making power regarding such choices away from parents.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

It's not that I simply want a society free of suicide bombings and genocide. It's that I want a society that is free of suicide bombings and genocide because it effectively deals with those things that would eventually lead to suicide bombings and genocide. I don't think that magically eliminating the end result leads to a society that can do that.

<snip>

I don't know. You could look to a survey of the various body modifications around the world to make a guess, I suppose. I doubt you would find any of those any more acceptable than circumcision, but maybe you'd get lucky. Eliminating one particular option would do nothing to change the need which led to the practice in the first place.

<snip>

Linda

So it sounds like Linda wants a society without non-therapeutic infant circumcision, that has effectively dealt with the issues that lead to non-therapeutic infant circumcision, but she is unwilling to condone pretty much anything but chatting with people (except me, of course) that might lead to such a society becoming a reality.

And I really don't think that in the West parents would come up with another mutilation to replace circumcision, though I concede that tackling the reasons why parents have their children circumcised would be more productive than just banning it.

 

[Kaylee]

You already have the citations if you want them. The citations for the original research are in the AAP statement.

Pain is a subset of discomfort. There are other ways to experience discomfort. Being cold, for example.

Linda

Yes, you suggested that I read the AAP’s policy statement which has citations and I appreciate that. In fact you may recall that I had already thanked you.

What does that have to do with my wanting to understand where the author of another web site got his information to back up his assertions?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Probably not on these issues. There are, of course, areas where we do agree that the child's rights supersede the parents. However, I was explaining why parents don't need to justify their decision to circumcise. I feel that it's not the parent's obligation to justify any such decisions until society has established that it has sufficient justification for imposing a different decision on them. You may feel there are compelling arguments for such intervention but I disagree. Since you are the one advocating for societal change, the burden is on you to provide arguments that the rest of us consider compelling. So far I don't agree that the arguments presented here are sufficient to justify taking the decision-making power regarding such choices away from parents.

Have you witnessed a medical circumcision performed without pain relief?

 

[Southwind17]

I will admit that I suffer from a bit too much levity.

I'll try to make due allowance for that in future

"Best interests" are things like "physical, mental, and social well-being" (from the WHO definition of health).

Could you translate this into examples?

This is not intended to persuade, but just to explain my perspective.

I understand.

Since you disagree with even as simple a measure as naming, I wouldn't expect you to find any of these ideas acceptable.

Could you please direct readers to where I expressed a disagreement over naming.

That you are seriously suggesting that I don't do this already doesn't engender optimism.

I always try to remain optimistic.

I mean strengthens.

Could you please help me with this then. Maybe I'm just reading it incorrectly.

It's not that I simply want a society free of suicide bombings and genocide. It's that I want a society that is free of suicide bombings and genocide because it effectively deals with those things that would eventually lead to suicide bombings and genocide. I don't think that magically eliminating the end result leads to a society that can do that.

I'd much prefer to see paedophiles, rapists, etc. locked away and work on eliminating the root cause of their actions in parallel, rather than blithely accepting that the root cause cannot be fixed right now and allowing them to roam free. Wouldn't you?

I don't know. You could look to a survey of the various body modifications around the world to make a guess, I suppose. I doubt you would find any of those any more acceptable than circumcision, but maybe you'd get lucky. Eliminating one particular option would do nothing to change the need which led to the practice in the first place.

Why does it have to involve body modification? Does it not seem possible that something a little less permanent and disfiguring could suffice?

Evidence?

Re-read your posts

 

[Lonewulf]

Probably not on these issues. There are, of course, areas where we do agree that the child's rights supersede the parents. However, I was explaining why parents don't need to justify their decision to circumcise. I feel that it's not the parent's obligation to justify any such decisions until society has established that it has sufficient justification for imposing a different decision on them. You may feel there are compelling arguments for such intervention but I disagree. Since you are the one advocating for societal change, the burden is on you to provide arguments that the rest of us consider compelling. So far I don't agree that the arguments presented here are sufficient to justify taking the decision-making power regarding such choices away from parents.

When it comes to vaccination shots, I think that children should be able to actually, you know, live. Vaccination makes sure that they do. Even if it wouldn't hurt anyone else, not giving your child medical aid because "it won't hurt anyone else" is still a harmful thing to do to a child. You were the one that made it seem like vaccination could be overruled by the parents if illness wouldn't hurt anyone else. The child growing ill and dying, apparently, is no big deal. I find that truly disgusting. But that's not the actual debate here.

When it comes to circumcision, it's still a permanent body-altering process that the child cannot acquiesce to. As it is, there is no justification, medical or logical, for doing this to a child that falls outside of religious beliefs. As a child cannot claim faith, you would have to say that the child actually follows the religion that the child is being subjected to a permanent body-altering procedure for.

In short, there's no reason to justify it, it's a costly procedure, although not relatively ($200 may be "no big deal", but spread out enough, it still costs medical resources). Of course, this is the assumption that it's done under medical supervision. If it's not done under medical supervision, however, then although you weed out the medical resource cost (which is a societal cost I'd add), you have a child being subjected to potentially non-sterile and a more harmful environment and procedure, as it does not take place in a sterile medical facility.

I feel that it's the child's right to be able to grow old enough to decide for himself whether he wants a permanent body-altering procedure that is, yes, a surgical procedure, and thus carries a risk -- no matter how small -- of complications.

In short, my points, lined up in sequential order:

*No medical validity.
*No religious validity, as the child cannot have the faith of the parent.
*Takes up medical resources.
*Has no positive benefit whatsoever.
*Is a permanent, scarring procedure that can never be healed (Sure, you can regrow tissue through certain procedures, but you can't regrow the actual foreskin).
*The child, as an adult, may or may not agree with the procedure he underwent as a child.
*There is a risk, no matter how small, of complications.

In short, there is no logical justification for circumcision. None.

Your turn.

 

[Southwind17]

Pain is a subset of discomfort. There are other ways to experience discomfort. Being cold, for example.

Linda

Yes, none of which are pleasant and best avoided!

 

[Southwind17]

As a child cannot claim faith, you would have to say that the child actually follows the religion that the child is being subjected to a permanent body-altering procedure for.

I think this is an excellent point, but no doubt many people will counter it by claiming to 'know' what's in the best interests of their children, even, possibly especially, when it comes to religious beliefs. So long as they're convinced of such 'knowledge' you won't, unfortunately, change their minds, even, possibly especially, when it comes to religion!

 

[Lonewulf]

I think this is an excellent point, but no doubt many people will counter it by claiming to 'know' what's in the best interests of their children, even, possibly especially, when it comes to religious beliefs. So long as they're convinced of such 'knowledge' you won't, unfortunately, change their minds, even, possibly especially, when it comes to religion!

So I'd be shouting into the wind. Unfortunately, when it comes to talking anything about religion, that's what I end up doing anyways.

That does not make my position any less valid.

 

[Southwind17]

So I'd be shouting into the wind. Unfortunately, when it comes to talking anything about religion, that's what I end up doing anyways.

That does not make my position any less valid.

I concur entirely.

 

[fls]

Could you translate this into examples?

Really?

Nourishment. Protection from predators. Companionship. Sex. Education. Medical treatment.

Could you please direct readers to where I expressed a disagreement over naming.

Here.

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.

Could you please help me with this then. Maybe I'm just reading it incorrectly.

I think a society that has developed a means of dealing with paedophiles and rapists is stronger than a society that has not, even if neither society has paedophiles and rapists at the moment.

I'd much prefer to see paedophiles, rapists, etc. locked away and work on eliminating the root cause of their actions in parallel, rather than blithely accepting that the root cause cannot be fixed right now and allowing them to roam free. Wouldn't you?

Yes, but I haven't the foggiest idea why you are proceeding as though I suggested that.

Why does it have to involve body modification? Does it not seem possible that something a little less permanent and disfiguring could suffice?

I don't know. It's a common practice and it started out that way, so it seems a reasonable option.

Linda

 

[fls]

What does that have to do with my wanting to understand where the author of another web site got his information to back up his assertions?

Well, it's not like there's a lot of choice.

Regardless, I apologize for any interference with your search, as I have nothing to offer on this particular front (i.e. I don't have a copy of that newsletter).

Linda

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Does that seem likely to you?

I guess you either believe your own logic or you don't.

If you are now saying your logic doesn't work in relation to the forced suicide of small children can I ask why you seem to believe that it works with the forced genital mutilation of babies?

What are you doing to accomplish that?

Linda

Demonstrating at every opportunity what the euphemism 'circumcision' actually stands for. For some reason the truth often seems to annoy many of those who mutilate the genitals of defenceless children for their own satisfaction. Perhaps you could explain why that is?

 

[fls]

I guess you either believe your own logic or you don't.

If you are now saying your logic doesn't work in relation to the forced suicide of small children can I ask why you seem to believe that it works with the forced genital mutilation of babies?

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

Demonstrating at every opportunity what the euphemism 'circumcision' actually stands for. For some reason the truth often seems to annoy many of those who mutilate the genitals of defenceless children for their own satisfaction. I wonder why that is?

I have no idea as I don't know any of those people.

Is it working?

Linda

 

[Beth]

When it comes to vaccination shots, I think that children should be able to actually, you know, live. Vaccination makes sure that they do.

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

Even if it wouldn't hurt anyone else, not giving your child medical aid because "it won't hurt anyone else" is still a harmful thing to do to a child. You were the one that made it seem like vaccination could be overruled by the parents if illness wouldn't hurt anyone else. The child growing ill and dying, apparently, is no big deal. I find that truly disgusting. But that's not the actual debate here.

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.

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

When it comes to circumcision, it's still a permanent body-altering process that the child cannot acquiesce to. As it is, there is no justification, medical or logical, for doing this to a child that falls outside of religious beliefs.

I feel that it's the child's right to be able to grow old enough to decide for himself whether he wants a permanent body-altering procedure that is, yes, a surgical procedure, and thus carries a risk -- no matter how small -- of complications.

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.

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.

*No medical validity.
*No religious validity, as the child cannot have the faith of the parent.
*Takes up medical resources.
*Has no positive benefit whatsoever.
*Is a permanent, scarring procedure that can never be healed (Sure, you can regrow tissue through certain procedures, but you can't regrow the actual foreskin).
*The child, as an adult, may or may not agree with the procedure he underwent as a child.
*There is a risk, no matter how small, of complications.

In short, there is no logical justification for circumcision. None.

Your turn.

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.