Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[ddt]

I asked you to come up with example supporting your fallacious analysis. You came up with one. Who justified his position based on the Koran, only.

You just asked for a doctor "recommending FGM", you didn't specify based on what. You also asked in the singular, so one example suffices as an answer.

But I'm sure some more googling will reveal more doctors recommending FGM, exactly as I could find scores of (American) doctors recommending MGM out of tradition, not out of evidence-based medicine.

Not helping your case.

You also wanted studies, didn't you?
http://mondofown.blogspot.nl/2012/06/female-circumcision-health-benefits.html:

"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."

and:

Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes,
women who had undergone FGC had a significantly
decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to
those who had not.

So why don't you advocate FGM to counter the scourge of AIDS?

By the way, don't change what I posted in an alleged quote, are we understood?

I put "FTFY" below the quote and clearly identified what I changed. This is a common and accepted practice on this forum.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 0.

I take it that you have no evidence of this "advice and consent"? Apart from the fact that a baby cannot consent.

 

[The Big Dog]

I put "FTFY" below the quote and clearly identified what I changed. This is a common and accepted practice on this forum, so you can go **** yourself with your request.

Actually it is not. And your response is about what I'd figure it would be.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Darat]

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/11/defense-female-circumcision

...snip...

♠ Medical research has found that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery “have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced.”
♠ Reproductive health and medical complications linked to female genital surgery happen infrequently.
♠ Those who value female genital surgery view it as aesthetic enhancement, not mutilation.
♠ In almost all societies where female genital surgery is performed, male genital surgery also takes place. Broadly speaking, then, such societies “are not singling out females as targets of punishment, sexual deprivation, or humiliation.”
♠ The link between patriarchy and female genital surgery is unfounded. Almost no patriarchal societies adhere to the practice and, at the same time, the practice is not customary in the world’s most sexually restrictive societies.
♠ Women manage and control female genital surgery in Africa and the practice “should not be blamed on men or on patriarchy.” Ironically, the authors contend, groups that fight against female genital surgery weaken the power of women.
♠ An influential WHO study about the “deadly consequences” of female genital surgery is the subject of criticism that has not been adequately publicized. The reported evidence does not support sensational media claims about female genital surgery as a cause of perinatal and maternal mortality during birth.

...snip...

And

...snip....

♠ Legislation and regulations that criminalize female genital surgery for adult women are discriminatory, because they deny women’s autonomy “to choose what makes them happy with their own bodies.”

...snip...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I presume "FGM" is short for "female genital mutilation", then.

In which case I repeat the question: why is one okay, while the other is "mutilation"? What does clitoris foreskin have that its male counterpart doesn't? Again, I can find cherry-picked studies showing benefits of removing the clitoris foreskin, just as you can for the penis.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I put "FTFY" below the quote and clearly identified what I changed. This is a common and accepted practice on this forum, so you can go **** yourself with your request.

:

Actually it is not. And your response is about what I'd figure it would be.

Thanks for posting.

Actually it is. I know you live in your own reality, but now you're actually outright asserting blatant falsehoods. Stop it.

 

[The Big Dog]

I presume "FGM" is short for "female genital mutilation", then.

In which case I repeat the question: why is one okay, while the other is "mutilation"? What does clitoris foreskin have that its male counterpart doesn't? Again, I can find cherry-picked studies showing benefits of removing the clitoris foreskin, just as you can for the penis.

I have objected to the use of the word "mutilation" in this thread.

I simply cut and pasted ddt's comments, and having seen his subsequent conduct, I regret doing so.

Further, in a thread about male's circumcision, I think it is pretty clear that we are getting pretty far afield.

Case in point: Darat's post containing links advocating Female Circumcision, which contains a series of articles and THREE dissenting letters, none of which I have the time to read.

 

[spin0]

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/11/defense-female-circumcision

Often heard justifications for both FGM and MGM are indeed often very similar including supposed health benefits, claimed cleanliness, esthetics, tradition etc. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein has long been one of the leading authors and researchers on FGM, has worked against FGM in Africa for decades, and she has compiled an interesting comparison of those Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa.

 

[jdp]

I have objected to the use of the word "mutilation" in this thread.

I simply cut and pasted ddt's comments, and having seen his subsequent conduct, I regret doing so.

Further, in a thread about male's circumcision, I think it is pretty clear that we are getting pretty far afield.

Case in point: Darat's post containing links advocating Female Circumcision, which contains a series of articles and THREE dissenting letters, none of which I have the time to read.

It's not at all getting far afield if it's serving to advance the hypocrisy in the legal handling of MGM and FGM, one which the certain European countries are looking to correct.

 

[Darat]

Often heard justifications for both FGM and MGM are indeed often very similar including supposed health benefits, claimed cleanliness, esthetics, tradition etc. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein has long been one of the leading authors and researchers on FGM, has worked against FGM in Africa for decades, and she has compiled an interesting comparison of those Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa.

Thank you - I used to have that site bookmarked but couldn't find it when I was looking for it earlier today.

 

[The Big Dog]

Often heard justifications for both FGM and MGM are indeed often very similar including supposed health benefits, claimed cleanliness, esthetics, tradition etc. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein has long been one of the leading authors and researchers on FGM, has worked against FGM in Africa for decades, and she has compiled an interesting comparison of those Similarities in Attitudes and Misconceptions toward Infant Male Circumcision in North America and Ritual Female Genital Mutilation in Africa.

Wow, that "comparison" is one of the least scientific things I have ever seen.

 

[The Big Dog]

It's not at all getting far afield if it's serving to advance the hypocrisy in the legal handling of MGM and FGM, one which the certain European countries are looking to correct.

I disagree

Your logical fallacy is Tu Quoque

 

[luchog]

The studies showing that have been linked in this very thread, several times.

And refutations were linked not too many messages ago. Did you miss them?

 

[ddt]

I have objected to the use of the word "mutilation" in this thread.

And you can jump high and low, it still is and remains mutilation, and so we're continuing calling it that.

I simply cut and pasted ddt's comments, and having seen his subsequent conduct, I regret doing so.

Address the argument, not the arguer.

Further, in a thread about male's circumcision, I think it is pretty clear that we are getting pretty far afield.

Case in point: Darat's post containing links advocating Female Circumcision, which contains a series of articles and THREE dissenting letters, none of which I have the time to read.

Here is some more to read on the hypocrisy concerning MGM and FGM:
http://books.google.nl/books?id=t2vMxOzujlQC&lpg=PP1&hl=nl&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q&f=false
25 pages, with as conclusion:

In conclusion, it is not logically possible to oppose female circumcision and to support male circumcision, unless you want to convince us that your culture or religion is better than that of others, or that girls are entitled to protection but boys are not. The right to physical integrity is a principle. We must accept or reject genital cutting in totality. If we accept this principle, we must refrain from cutting of children's genitals regardless of their sex, their religion or their culture.

 

[rustypouch]

Wow, that "comparison" is one of the least scientific things I have ever seen.

So how much elective body modification is acceptable for parents to perform on their infant children? Why is some acceptable, and some not? Where's the line?

 

[luchog]

There's AIDs rates on wiki.
Don't know about the cancer ones.

So, per that list, numerous European countries with far lower rates of circumcision have AIDs instance rates 50% or less of the US rate. African countries with circumcision rates much lower than the US, and equivalent to Europe, have AIDs rates orders of magnitude higher than either. Predominantly Muslim countries with high rates of circumcision have much higher AIDS rates than countries with low rates of circumcision, and higher than the US. A very few countries with high rates of circumcision (eg. Israel) have lower AIDs rates. Canada, very similar to the US in circumcision rates, has half the AIDs rate. African nations tend to have very high levels of high-risk sexual activity, while western European countries tend to be much lower risk; and the US a risk level that varies widely by region and population.

So it looks like, if circumcision is a factor in AIDS infection, it's a statistically insignificant one in comparison to high-risk vs. low-risk sexual activity; and sex education.

 

[luchog]

These figures and you research commendable. But, it removes us from the major ethical question.

'Is it OK to cut off any part of a baby/child for some belief system?'

That is what needs to be answered - for me - the answer is simply no. To try and argue about culture/religion etc is simply bollocks and apologetic

But that is exactly what Spin0's post addresses. It effectively refutes the "medical necessity" chimera, ably demonstrating that the sole reason for the vast majority of circumcision is religious and cultural tradition.

Thus emphasizing the question of "When do the parents' beliefs outweigh the rights of the child?"

 

[The Big Dog]

So, per that list, numerous European countries with far lower rates of circumcision have AIDs instance rates 50% or less of the US rate. African countries with circumcision rates much lower than the US, and equivalent to Europe, have AIDs rates orders of magnitude higher than either. Predominantly Muslim countries with high rates of circumcision have much higher AIDS rates than countries with low rates of circumcision, and higher than the US. A very few countries with high rates of circumcision (eg. Israel) have lower AIDs rates. Canada, very similar to the US in circumcision rates, has half the AIDs rate. African nations tend to have very high levels of high-risk sexual activity, while western European countries tend to be much lower risk; and the US a risk level that varies widely by region and population.

So it looks like, if circumcision is a factor in AIDS infection, it's a statistically insignificant one in comparison to high-risk vs. low-risk sexual activity; and sex education.

rather than comparing countries (which is almost totally worthless) did you compare circumcised v. uncircumcised in the same nation/geographic area?

You should do that.

 

[Lithrael]

I disagree

Your logical fallacy is Tu Quoque

Erm, not everything pointing out hypocrisy is Tu Quoque, you know. Tu Quoque is about one party distracting from a question put to them by raising questions about the questioner's behaviour. Tu Quoque would be if you said you support a parent's choice to circumcise and I said 'but you haven't circumcised your sons,' etc.

 

[Matthew Best]

Thus emphasizing the question of "When do the parents' beliefs outweigh the rights of the child?"

The answer is simple. The parents' beliefs outweigh the rights of the child when we're talking about something I want to do to my children. The rights of the child outweigh the parents' beliefs when we're taking about something someone else wants to do to their children.

 

[GlennB]

The answer is simple. The parents' beliefs outweigh the rights of the child when we're talking about something I want to do to my children. The rights of the child outweigh the parents' beliefs when we're taking about something someone else wants to do to their children.

Agreed. I have a Xian cross branded on my forehead. Painless (as far as I can recall) and only remotely dangerous medically. It was important to my parents, though I'm a tad miffed that it's off-putting to other denominations