Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

That you want to stop Jews practising a traditional genital mutilation because it is not done as you believe it should be does not mean it is not relevant in this thread.

Indeed such events are often the catalyst for people to call for changes to their laws to extend the existing prohibitions on genital mutilation of female children to include male children.

I neither said I wanted to ban traditional circumcision, nor did I wish to imply in anyway that it was not relevant to the thread. I want to clearly apologize if I gave that impression.

I just wanted to make absolutely clear that we were not talking about the actual circumcision, but rather that we are talking about the SUBSEQUENT oral suction, which is of course not a medically necessary nor medically recommended part of the procedure, at least according to the AAP, as I discussed. I think it is helpful that you posted that link so we could understand the context.

/You'll also have to forgive me for not adopting your repeated references to "genital mutilation." As I have said previously, I believe that is inaccurate, insensitive to men who have undergone the procedure, and a loaded and therefore fallacious phrase. I certainly understand if you feel it necessary to continue using the phrase though.

 

[The Big Dog]

What means, methods and resources do you believe you're lacking so that you are unable to educate your son about the importance of washing and condom use?

Thanks for your question, but this thread is not about me.

I was referring to society as a whole.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Thanks for your question, but this thread is not about me.

Your posts have been about your reasoning. Is there any particular reason you're unwilling to elaborate on that now?

I was referring to society as a whole.

So you only support circumcision for the reasons you've given (UTI prevention etc.) in cases where parents, guardians and other educators lack the resources to teach their children to wash and use a condom?

 

[The Big Dog]

So you only support circumcision for the reasons you've given (UTI prevention etc.) in cases where parents, guardians and other educators lack the resources to teach their children to wash and use a condom?

I think we have covered this before in this thread, but in any event, I think that we have discussed that "the argument of 'SO'" typically results in a straw man.

But in the sense of lively and friendly discussion, No.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Wildy]

So then would you support legislative prohibition of Metzitzah B'Peh?

But wouldn't that be authoritarian?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I just wanted to make absolutely clear that we were not talking about the actual circumcision, but rather that we are talking about the SUBSEQUENT oral suction, which is of course not a medically necessary nor medically recommended part of the procedure, ...snip...

You are trying to split hairs - the sucking of the wound is part and parcel of that particular form of genital mutilation. In a medically required circumcision you would not claim that the sutures needed afterwards were not part and parcel of the circumcision.

Regarding the use of the term circumcision v. genital mutilation. I am trying to use them in a consistent manner, so a medically required procedure that requires the removal of some or all of the foreskin skin I will call a circumcision.

A non-medically required non-consensual removal of all or some of the foreskin I will use the label genital mutilation.

An analogy is the use of "amputation" for a medically required removal of a limb (or part of) rather than labelling that as say a mutilation.

 

[The Big Dog]

You are trying to split hairs - the sucking of the wound is part and parcel of that particular form of genital mutilation. In a medically required circumcision you would not claim that the sutures needed afterwards were not part and parcel of the circumcision.

I am most certainly not trying to split hairs, I simply wanted to provide the additional context as the result of your providing a link.

/as I said, I understand if you feel the need to use "genital mutilation," but perhaps feel that men who have undergone the procedure and are actually reading this thread might not appreciate nor understand the subtleties of your thinking.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But in the sense of lively and friendly discussion, No.

Your stated reasoning for endorsing neonatal circumcision was that it prevented UTIs, etc. Your stated reasoning for disagreeing that education about hygiene and condom use was a better solution was that there may be a lack of resources in order to educate children on these subjects. Now you say that you endorse neonatal circumcision even in cases where there is not such a lack of resources.

Either your stated reasoning for why you endorse neonatal circumcision is incomplete or faulty, or your stated reasoning for why you disagree with the efficacy of education about hygiene and condom use is incomplete or faulty. Can you please explain the apparent contradiction and explain how your position is actually consistent?

 

[The Big Dog]

Your stated reasoning for endorsing neonatal circumcision was that it prevented UTIs, etc. Your stated reasoning for disagreeing that education about hygiene and condom use was a better solution was that there may be a lack of resources in order to educate children on these subjects. Now you say that you endorse neonatal circumcision even in cases where there is not such a lack of resources.

Either your stated reasoning for why you endorse neonatal circumcision is incomplete or faulty, or your stated reasoning for why you disagree with the efficacy of education about hygiene and condom use is incomplete or faulty. Can you please explain the apparent contradiction and explain how your position is actually consistent?

False dichotomy. It may be that there is another option, namely that YOUR understanding of MY position is flawed.

Thanks.

 

[rustypouch]

But wouldn't that be authoritarian?

Yes, as well as anti-Semitic.

 

[jdp]

But wouldn't that be authoritarian?

At this point I don't believe so, is there anyone here that does?

False dichotomy. It may be that there is another option, namely that YOUR understanding of MY position is flawed.

Thanks.

So why don't you restate your position so that we can understand it in the context of this thread. That is to say:

If the relavent medical organizations such as the KNGM comes to the objective conclusion that a procedure is more harmful than not in the routine case and that a policy of deterance with the eventual goal of prohibition is important for society, why should the legislature not work to implement that policy?

This dove tails nicely with the Metzitzah B'Peh issue which even the AAP finds is prejudicial to a child's health. Should the US legistlature in that case work to discourage and eliminate the practice?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

False dichotomy. It may be that there is another option, namely that YOUR understanding of MY position is flawed.

Thanks.

Then can you please explain the apparent contradiction and explain how your position is actually consistent?

Thanks.

 

[jdp]

You are trying to split hairs - the sucking of the wound is part and parcel of that particular form of genital mutilation. In a medically required circumcision you would not claim that the sutures needed afterwards were not part and parcel of the circumcision.

Regarding the use of the term circumcision v. genital mutilation. I am trying to use them in a consistent manner, so a medically required procedure that requires the removal of some or all of the foreskin skin I will call a circumcision.

A non-medically required non-consensual removal of all or some of the foreskin I will use the label genital mutilation.

An analogy is the use of "amputation" for a medically required removal of a limb (or part of) rather than labelling that as say a mutilation.

Just a side note, not that it's particularly relevant, infant circumcisions don't typically (so far as I am aware) require sutures. This is because of the techniques used, most crush the foreskin with such force as to seal the blood vessels and the plastibell ties them off until the foreskin become necrotic and falls off. The latter takes many days to complete.

Adults are typically done free hand so sutures are required. Interestingly, they are testing an adult method much like the plastibell in Africa, I am sure it's a dream.

ETA: It's the need for sutures that probably leads to the claim that adults experience more complications since bleeding is more likely, leaving aside the fact that an adult is more likley to complain about a bad experience or poorer outcome.

 

[The Big Dog]

Then can you please explain the apparent contradiction and explain how your position is actually consistent?

Thanks.

Sure,

YOUR understanding of MY position is flawed.

 

[Darat]

Just a side note, not that it's particularly relevant, infant circumcisions don't typically (so far as I am aware) require sutures. ...snip...

You are correct but I was talking about medically required procedures so they are very unlikely to be performed on infants since most of the reasons why a child may need to be circumcised will only be apparent well beyond the neonatal age.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Sure,

YOUR understanding of MY position is flawed.

Can you please clarify your position in relation to circumcision, the transmission of UTIs etc., and education about hygiene and condom use?

 

[The Big Dog]

Can you please clarify your position in relation to circumcision, the transmission of UTIs etc., and education about hygiene and condom use?

My position is consistent with the recommendations of the AAP.

I stated my position quite clearly with respect to your position. I called it naive.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

My position is consistent with the recommendations of the AAP.

I stated my position quite clearly with respect to your position. I called it naive.

Can you please clarify your position in relation to circumcision, the transmission of UTIs etc., and education about hygiene and condom use?

 

[The Norseman]

I think we have covered this before in this thread, but in any event, I think that we have discussed that "the argument of 'SO'" typically results in a straw man.

You haven't shown that what was said in this case is in fact a strawman argument though; chalk up another logic fail for ya.

I am most certainly not trying to split hairs, I simply wanted to provide the additional context as the result of your providing a link.

/as I said, I understand if you feel the need to use "genital mutilation," but perhaps feel that men who have undergone the procedure and are actually reading this thread might not appreciate nor understand the subtleties of your thinking.

We're not talking about the men who voluntarily have this procedure done, but you provided an excellent red herring nonetheless.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

/as I said, I understand if you feel the need to use "genital mutilation," but perhaps feel that men who have undergone the procedure and are actually reading this thread might not appreciate nor understand the subtleties of your thinking.

Okay. I understand if you feel the need to use "genital mutilation," but perhaps feel that women who have undergone the procedures (such as removal of the clitoral hood) and are actually reading this thread might not appreciate nor understand the subtleties of your thinking.