German court bans circumcision of young boys

Right...forgot that part.

So someone who as an adult happens across a video of themselves as a two year old (say) being molested - basically, they can't claim that what the video shows happened to them qualifies as the most horrible thing ever done to them.
 
Isn't the first line of some oath I heard somewhere state "First, do no harm?" Why don't we err on the side of caution, and only do surgical procedures where there is a clear need (not a phantom need twenty years later).
 
Arcade22 said:
I'm sure you're in denial but that is unimportant since it does not change the fact that you were harmed. And don't try some semantic nonsense about circumcision not being harmful.
Click to expand...
Sure. And deep down in my heart, I know god is real, I'm just in denial because I want to live my own life. Or something.

Arcade22 said:
Harming children by giving them flu shots
Click to expand...
Huh?

Arcade22 said:
You forgot the tiny fact that circumcision is always harmful.
Click to expand...
So tiny, in fact, that it's a lie.
 
Wuglife said:
By the logic of "it is still just a bit of skin" making infant circumcision permissible, the revision and partial excision of a female infant's labia would also be permissible.

Are you willing to accept that?
Click to expand...
Probably not, I don't know anything at all about labia removal, and really don't care to educate myself about it (though if you have some pictures of what the women look like as adults I'd be willing to view those links, purely for research purposes).

I am educated about what it means to live for more than half a century as a circumcised man, and for me it's been no big deal.

Labia removal isn't the subject of this thread, and it seems to me that it's generally nonsensical to argue "if you're in favor of x, you must also be in favor of y" unless x is just another name for y. Since removal of the foreskin is not the same as removal of the labia, it's definitely nonsensical in this case.

Just because I favor orthodontics doesn't mean I favor foot binding.

Just because I don't oppose removing foreskins doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose removing eyelids.
 
zeggman said:
Probably not, I don't know anything at all about labia removal, and really don't care to educate myself about it (though if you have some pictures of what the women look like as adults I'd be willing to view those links, purely for research purposes).

I am educated about what it means to live for more than half a century as a circumcised man, and for me it's been no big deal. Labia removal isn't the subject of this thread, and it seems to me that it's generally nonsensical to argue "if you're in favor of x, you must also be in favor of y" unless x is just another name for y. Since removal of the foreskin is not the same as removal of the labia, it's definitely nonsensical in this case.

Just because I favor orthodontics doesn't mean I favor foot binding.

Just because I don't oppose removing foreskins doesn't mean I wouldn't oppose removing eyelids.
Click to expand...

Great. We're all well aware how much you love that particular appendage. If you would like to once again get back on topic, we're talking about unnecessary surgery performed on newborns for no reason other than social conditioning.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Great. We're all well aware how much you love that particular appendage. If you would like to once again get back on topic, we're talking about unnecessary surgery performed on newborns for no reason other than social conditioning.
Click to expand...
Upthread I assumed that social conditioning was the only reason. I've since learned that there may also be valid medical justifications.

I still regard the surgery as mostly "unnecessary," but I still think it's a question that should be decided by parents and doctors.

I take it that you would prefer it be decided by legislators?
 
zeggman said:
Upthread I assumed that social conditioning was the only reason. I've since learned that there may also be valid medical justifications.

I still regard the surgery as mostly "unnecessary," but I still think it's a question that should be decided by parents and doctors.

I take it that you would prefer it be decided by legislators?
Click to expand...

Luckily for me, I never said that.

If parents have a legitimate medical concern, I appreciate that. My problem is, most of the research I have seen is after the fact; doctors testifying to how great circumcision is, with no real control study. Circumcision done for religious or cultural reasons backed up by medical "research" after the fact worries me.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
My problem is, most of the research I have seen is after the fact; doctors testifying to how great circumcision is, with no real control study. Circumcision done for religious or cultural reasons backed up by medical "research" after the fact worries me.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "control study"?

The fact that one group has one set of attributes and a different group has another set means that control groups can be obtained from the population.

I don't see why these results should worry you any more than an after-the-fact comparison of people who feed their children vegetables vs people who feed their children happy meals and soft drinks "for religious and cultural reasons."

Either the results are valid, and can be confirmed by other researchers, or they are not, and will eventually be revealed as such.
 
zeggman said:
What do you mean by "control study"?

The fact that one group has one set of attributes and a different group has another set means that control groups can be obtained from the population.

I don't see why these results should worry you any more than an after-the-fact comparison of people who feed their children vegetables vs people who feed their children happy meals and soft drinks "for religious and cultural reasons." Either the results are valid, and can be confirmed by other researchers, or they are not, and will eventually be revealed as such.
Click to expand...

Those things do worry me.

Can I ask you a sincere question? Would you advocate for me if I chose to put a big tattoo of Miley Cyrus on the back of my newborn daughter? I really like Miley, and she fulfills me spiritually. I should have the RIGHT!
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Can I ask you a sincere question? Would you advocate for me if I chose to put a big tattoo of Miley Cyrus on the back of my newborn daughter? I really like Miley, and she fulfills me spiritually. I should have the RIGHT!
Click to expand...
I think tattoos are stupid, earrings are stupid on men and sexy on women, tongue piercings are stupid, nose piercings are stupid, navel piercings on women are kind of sexy.

Having said that, I probably wouldn't object if you had your daughter tattooed somewhere inconspicuous. A big Miley Cyrus on her back would be objectionable because it's not inconspicuous, and the shape of your daughter's back would change so much as she grew that Miley's image would likely become more monstrous with every passing year.

<snip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zeggman said:
If you think every anti-circumcision activist will be happy with a law that merely requires some medical justification, when medical justification (the study I cited) is currently available to anyone who wants to circumcise their child for any reason, then it's a strawman.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that your definition of "strawman" is completely wrong here (look it up if you don't believe me), it would be completely impractical and outright harmful to introduce a law that banned any practice for which there was an actual medical need. I don't see anyone here saying "Circumcision should be completely illegal even if it's medically necessary," so stop pretending that someone is.

And with that, I think there's very little point in doing more than simply stating my position in full, then leaving the thread.

My position is simply this:
It should be the universal right of all people not to be subject to permanent surgical modification, including the removal of non-regenerating tissue or the severance of tissue that will not heal, without having given their informed consent. This right should only be over-ridden when all of the three following conditions are met:
(1) The person is unable to give or withold consent, whether due to age, incapacity or any other reason;
(2) A properly licensed medical professional has identified a medical need for the procedure to be carried out, and;
(3) The legal guardians of the person have given their consent to the procedure.

From that starting point, the banning of routine infant circumcision, male or female, may be simply reached as a conclusion from the current state of medical opinion.

And that, I think, is all I have to say.

Dave
 
zeggman said:
Sure. And deep down in my heart, I know god is real, I'm just in denial because I want to live my own life. Or something.
Click to expand...

Feel free to consider circumcision unharmful. Likewise, feel free to consider dismemberment and impalement unharmful if you wish. Thankfully reality does not change to please your personal preference. Just like Loki, Cthulhu or whatever deity you worship does not spring into existence just because of your beliefs.


Huh?


So tiny, in fact, that it's a lie.
Click to expand...

188094b2d52bc5d842.gif
 
Ryokan said:
So, how many millions would it be worth to never have had that amazing penis of yours?
Click to expand...
If you're recruiting organ donors, you can have it today for $10 million. I'll have my attorney draw up the papers.
 
zeggman said:
Probably not, I don't know anything at all about labia removal, and really don't care to educate myself about it
Click to expand...

In other words, you have a logical inconsistency in your argument, and you wish to remain willfully ignorant about this logical inconsistency.

I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret it. If I've misunderstood you, sorry.

Labia removal isn't the subject of this thread, and it seems to me that it's generally nonsensical to argue "if you're in favor of x, you must also be in favor of y" unless x is just another name for y.
Click to expand...

It's called giving a counter-example. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of logical consistency in ethics?

If you give a reason for something being ethically permissible or ethically impermissible as a premise, that reason HAS to apply to every other situation. Otherwise, your argument is not logically sound. You either change it so that it does apply to other situations, or you abandon it.

Presented as a syllogism, I think your argument would be something like this:

Premise 1: Circumcision is just removing a little skin.
Premise 2: Just removing a little skin is permissible.
Thesis: Therefore, circumcision is permissible.

For that argument to remain logically consistent, you would have to accept any instances of "removing a little skin", or else your argument is logically invalid.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/Handouts/phl4contradiction.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom