German court bans circumcision of young boys

[zeggman]

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.

I might as well say that your opposition to "removing a little skin" would preclude approval for taking skin from one location and putting it in another to help a burn victim recover, or removing excess skin which remains after someone has gone from morbidly obese to trim and fit, or even a standard facelift.

Since I'm already on record as opposing eyelid removal, I obviously don't think the fact that I'm not opposed to circumcision means I endorse indiscriminate skin lopping.

But since "logical consistency" is important to you, I think we can amend my "ethical justification" to read "it's just removing a little foreskin" and that will solve all the problems that you seem to be having.

 

[zeggman]

That's irrelevant to, as I said, never having had it.

In that case, $213.

 

[ddt]

I might as well say that your opposition to "removing a little skin" would preclude approval for taking skin from one location and putting it in another to help a burn victim recover, or removing excess skin which remains after someone has gone from morbidly obese to trim and fit, or even a standard facelift.

Since I'm already on record as opposing eyelid removal, I obviously don't think the fact that I'm not opposed to circumcision means I endorse indiscriminate skin lopping.

But since "logical consistency" is important to you, I think we can amend my "ethical justification" to read "it's just removing a little foreskin" and that will solve all the problems that you seem to be having.

So what's the special pleading for being in favour of removing this particular piece of skin, and not others? Say, why not the clitoral hood, which is the homologous piece of skin in the female anatomy?

 

[Wuglife]

I might as well say that your opposition to "removing a little skin" would preclude approval for taking skin from one location and putting it in another to help a burn victim recover, or removing excess skin which remains after someone has gone from morbidly obese to trim and fit, or even a standard facelift.

I never made the claim that "removing a little skin" is permissible nor impermissible. You made the claim that it is permissible, and I provided a counter-example, and then you danced around it and now you are obfuscating the issue and arguing against a statement I never made (that removing skin is impermissible).

I'm through with arguing with you. You clearly do not understand logical consistency and there is no point to continuing this "debate" any further.

 

[zeggman]

I'm through with arguing with you.

Concession accepted.

 

[Ryokan]

In that case, $213.

So, losing function in your amazing penis, never getting to experience any of its wonders beyond relieving your bladder, is now valued at $213. So why were you talking about millions?

 

[zeggman]

So what's the special pleading for being in favour of removing this particular piece of skin, and not others? Say, why not the clitoral hood, which is the homologous piece of skin in the female anatomy?

Let me read what millions of women who've had their clitoral hoods removed over several centuries have said about their subsequent quality of life, and I'll have equivalent information with which I can make an informed decision.

I know, from personal experience and the experience of others with whom I've had contact, that life without a foreskin generally imposes no hardship whatsoever. If women who have had their clitoral hoods removed have had a homologous experience, I probably wouldn't oppose that either.

In general, though, I'd be wary of translating a policy which applies to one gender in toto to the opposite gender. I know lots of women who have had hysterectomies too, but I know no men who have had "homologous" surgeries.

 

[zeggman]

So, losing function in your amazing penis, never getting to experience any of its wonders beyond relieving your bladder, is now valued at $213. So why were you talking about millions?

Are you kidding me? For the chance to be the first guy to step into a parallel universe (or an alternate timeline -- you didn't specify the mechanism), I'd probably be willing to pay YOU. I just said $213 so I didn't appear too eager.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the life I've led, but your proposal sounds like a real adventure.

 

[Ryokan]

Are you kidding me? For the chance to be the first guy to step into a parallel universe (or an alternate timeline -- you didn't specify the mechanism), I'd probably be willing to pay YOU. I just said $213 so I didn't appear too eager.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy with the life I've led, but your proposal sounds like a real adventure.

Ok, you're not interested in reasonable discussion.

 

[ddt]

Let me read what millions of women who've had their clitoral hoods removed over several centuries have said about their subsequent quality of life, and I'll have equivalent information with which I can make an informed decision.

The vast majority of the highlighted cases of FGM involve the more serious types, so you're trying here to put up a strawman.

I know, from personal experience and the experience of others with whom I've had contact, that life without a foreskin generally imposes no hardship whatsoever. If women who have had their clitoral hoods removed have had a homologous experience, I probably wouldn't oppose that either.

Must I understand you actually have a talking group where you discuss how awesome it is to be circumcised?

 

[zeggman]

The vast majority of the highlighted cases of FGM involve the more serious types, so you're trying here to put up a strawman.

Somebody is.

I've already said I regard clitoridectomy as the equivalent of removing the penis, not the foreskin. The people who are keen to draw a parallel here are on your side of the argument, not mine.

I would definitely be opposed to clitoridectomy, just as I am opposed to amputating a man's penis. I don't have enough information to know what effects would accompany the removal of a clitoral hood, so I don't have a position.

I'm sorry if my refusal to compare apples and oranges is making it difficult for you to claim your "gotcha" moment, but I thought the topic here was circumcision.

 

[ddt]

Somebody is.

I've already said I regard clitoridectomy as the equivalent of removing the penis, not the foreskin. The people who are keen to draw a parallel here are on your side of the argument, not mine.

I said removal of the clitoral hood, not the whole clitoris. So quit with the straw, yes?

 

[zeggman]

I said removal of the clitoral hood, not the whole clitoris. So quit with the straw, yes?

And that's the hypothetical I addressed, yes?

 

[ddt]

And that's the hypothetical I addressed, yes?

Nothing hypothetical about it, removal of the clitoral hood is classified as FGM type Ia. It happens, but it's rare.

But it's clear that you're not here for an honest discussion, only to extoll the virtues of your own awesome junk.

 

[zeggman]

Nothing hypothetical about it, removal of the clitoral hood is classified as FGM type Ia. It happens, but it's rare.

So what effect do the women say it has on their quality of life?

 

[Rolfe]

I might as well say that your opposition to "removing a little skin" would preclude approval for taking skin from one location and putting it in another to help a burn victim recover, or removing excess skin which remains after someone has gone from morbidly obese to trim and fit, or even a standard facelift.

Since I'm already on record as opposing eyelid removal, I obviously don't think the fact that I'm not opposed to circumcision means I endorse indiscriminate skin lopping.

But since "logical consistency" is important to you, I think we can amend my "ethical justification" to read "it's just removing a little foreskin" and that will solve all the problems that you seem to be having.

What's with this constant dredging up of completely irrelevant parallels relating to things which would never be done to newborn babies for no immediate therapeutic need.

Nobody is suggesting that adult men can't have all the body modifications they fancy. What is being disputed is whether parents have the right to impose cosmetic body modifications on their newborn babies.

Rolfe.

 

[jdp]

I might as well say that your opposition to "removing a little skin" would preclude approval for taking skin from one location and putting it in another to help a burn victim recover, or removing excess skin which remains after someone has gone from morbidly obese to trim and fit, or even a standard facelift.

Since I'm already on record as opposing eyelid removal, I obviously don't think the fact that I'm not opposed to circumcision means I endorse indiscriminate skin lopping.

But since "logical consistency" is important to you, I think we can amend my "ethical justification" to read "it's just removing a little foreskin" and that will solve all the problems that you seem to be having.

Are you again trying to compare non-consensual, non-theraputic procedures to ones that are either therapeutic, consensual, or both? Hasn't the fallacy of that comparison already been explained?

 

[zeggman]

What's with this constant dredging up of completely irrelevant parallels relating to things which would never be done to newborn babies for no immediate therapeutic need.

I'm responding to the completely irrelevant parallels which are being dredged in my direction (labias, in the post you're quoting).

Nobody is suggesting that adult men can't have all the body modifications they fancy. What is being disputed is whether parents have the right to impose cosmetic body modifications on their newborn babies.

Obviously they do: repairing a harelip is a cosmetic body modification.

Since it's a surgery, and no surgery is free of risk, I'm sure there are probably tales of unfortunate complications which resulted from those too.

I would agree that there is more justification for repairing harelips than there is for circumcision, but neither surgery is, strictly speaking, necessary. In both cases (indeed, in all cases) I think the pros and cons should be weighed by the parents and physicians when deciding whether or not to authorize it.

 

[jdp]

I'm responding to the completely irrelevant parallels which are being dredged in my direction (labias, in the post you're quoting).


Obviously they do: repairing a harelip is a cosmetic body modification.

A harelip though is a birth defect, the foreskin is not. In fact, as we've discussed being born without a foreskin is a birth defect. So the appropriate comparison might be having a child, and purposefully splitting his lip. I say 'his' purposely because it would be boys only, would that be appropriate?

 

[zeggman]

A harelip though is a birth defect, the foreskin is not. In fact, as we've discussed being born without a foreskin is a birth defect. So the appropriate comparison might be having a child, and purposefully splitting his lip. I say 'his' purposely because it would be boys only, would that be appropriate?

There you go again, dredging up completely irrelevant parallels.