Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[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.

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

No further comment.

Thanks for posting.

 

[kellyb]

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.

To communicate more effectively with cultures who traditionally do it to women, "they" changed the term to "female genital cutting". You can't offend someone and then immediately expect to persuade them.

We should really, honestly, no joke stick with "circumcision", I think. If we want it to stop, that is.

 

[The Big Dog]

To communicate more effectively with cultures who traditionally do it to women, "they" changed the term to "female genital cutting". You can't offend someone and then immediately expect to persuade them.

We should really, honestly, no joke stick with "circumcision", I think.

The above quote is an extremely astute comment.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

To communicate more effectively with cultures who traditionally do it to women, "they" changed the term to "female genital cutting". You can't offend someone and then immediately expect to persuade them.

We should really, honestly, no joke stick with "circumcision", I think. If we want it to stop, that is.

I know this, and agree. I was commenting on 16.5's use of "circumsicion" for boys and "FGM" for procedures of similar severity done on girls.

The above quote is an extremely astute comment.

Oh. So no more to "FGM" from you in this thread, then?

 

[Baylor]

The causal mechanism of circumcision preventing (or "reducing the risk") of Urinary Track Infections needs to be explained. Fischerian statistics don't count as science. All too many "scientists" know how to use abuse them in order to get their names published in an academic journal.

 

[jdp]

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.

So that being the case and being that the AAP finds Metzitzah B'Peh prejudicial to a child's health, would you support banning the practice? If not, why not?

 

[jdp]

To communicate more effectively with cultures who traditionally do it to women, "they" changed the term to "female genital cutting". You can't offend someone and then immediately expect to persuade them.

We should really, honestly, no joke stick with "circumcision", I think. If we want it to stop, that is.

How about male genital cutting? I use that term frequently, it is less confrontational.

 

[kellyb]

How about male genital cutting? I use that term frequently, it is less confrontational.

Honestly, skeptics in general (myself included) need to understand that to be persuasive, we have to stop intentionally offending people.

Offending people is fun, but it's the absolute worst way to get someone to consider your argument and really look at your evidence.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

No further comment.

Thanks for posting.

Why are you unwilling to explain your reasoning for your opinions? Why have you instead answered a different question to the one you were asked and then refused to be drawn further?

I'm assuming that you do have reasoning for your opinions. It's evidently not as I understand it, as you say that it isn't. But, for reasons best known to yourself, rather than clarify and help me to understand, you've decided to dodge and dance around the issue and are pulling out every trick in the book to avoid answering simple questions put to you. Why is that?

 

[The Big Dog]

So that being the case and being that the AAP finds Metzitzah B'Peh prejudicial to a child's health, would you support banning the practice? If not, why not?

Is this the lob a bunch of questions at 16.5 thread?

Banning it? Based on what little I know about it? No. Why? Based on what little I know about it (again, i didn't bring it up in the first place) it is my understanding that neither AAP nor the NY Department of health has recommended banning it, and there appears to be a medical debate about it that I have no intention whatsoever in getting into any further at all.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Is this the lob a bunch of questions at 16.5 thread?

Banning it? Based on what little I know about it? No. Why? Based on what little I know about it (again, i didn't bring it up in the first place) it is my understanding that neither AAP nor the NY Department of health has recommended banning it, and there appears to be a medical debate about it that I have no intention whatsoever in getting into any further at all.

But if the relevant medical bodies in the area did recommend banning it, would you find it reasonable for them to do so?

 

[The Big Dog]

But if the relevant medical bodies in the area did recommend banning it, would you find it reasonable for them to do so?

Yay! Ask 16.5 loads of hypothetical questions night continues!

Yeah, I'd be TOTALLY down with that!

ZOMG! You caught me in a hypothetical inconsistency and therefore circumcision is illegal, and we all have to eat Swedish Meatballs for Thanksgiving.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Yay! Ask 16.5 loads of hypothetical questions night continues!

Yeah, I'd be TOTALLY down with that!

ZOMG! You caught me in a hypothetical inconsistency and therefore circumcision is illegal, and we all have to eat Swedish Meatballs for Thanksgiving.

Er, it isn't a hypothetical, since the local medical associations in the countries in question all concluded against circumcision and recommended the banning of it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Er, it isn't a hypothetical, since the local medical associations in the countries in question all concluded against circumcision and recommended the banning of it.

Well considering that we were not talking about that, nor are they the relevant medical authorities in the area....

Oh wait, were you trying to use an obscure practice that is at issue in New York to trick me into conceding something....

Very clever!

 

[rustypouch]

Well considering that we were not talking about that, nor are they the relevant medical authorities in the area....

Oh wait, were you trying to use an obscure practice that is at issue in New York to trick me into conceding something....

Very clever!

What is your limit on how many elective medical procedures can be performed on an infant? How far can parents go to alter their children to fit their esthetics?

 

[jdp]

Yay! Ask 16.5 loads of hypothetical questions night continues!

Yeah, I'd be TOTALLY down with that!

ZOMG! You caught me in a hypothetical inconsistency and therefore circumcision is illegal, and we all have to eat Swedish Meatballs for Thanksgiving.

Well considering that we were not talking about that, nor are they the relevant medical authorities in the area....

Oh wait, were you trying to use an obscure practice that is at issue in New York to trick me into conceding something....

Very clever!

But that is the topic of the thread and a question that you've continue to dodge with the skill of a politician. Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision. Why? Because their relevant medical authorities believe that it is prejudicial to children's health. I can't see any problem with that and I am shocked that anyone would. But perhaps this demonstrates that you're not one of them.

 

[jdp]

Honestly, skeptics in general (myself included) need to understand that to be persuasive, we have to stop intentionally offending people.

Offending people is fun, but it's the absolute worst way to get someone to consider your argument and really look at your evidence.

Kellyb, I am not trying to offend anyone, I am just trying to get a straight answer on a simple question. I just don't see why that is too much to ask. At least in this case I don't see what persuasion is required. If you have the medical authorities in the country declaring a practice inappropriate, prejudicial, to the health of a child and then a legislator acting on it, I don't see on what rational grounds that could be opposed. The legislators aren't acting on their own and without data and guidance. To call that tyrannical is ridiculous.

 

[Loss Leader]

What is your limit on how many elective medical procedures can be performed on an infant? How far can parents go to alter their children to fit their esthetics?

Why do you need to know? Are you planning on performing some number of procedures just under that limit on your own child?

Honestly, I don't understand the demand by some people that exack black and white boundaries need to be drawn. Most boundaries, in the physical and the legal world) break down into slow gradations at the finest level. When is a horse a zebra? How much difference in driving ability is there between someone with a BAC of .79 and that of .8?

All we really need to know is whether infant circumcision is within the bounds of an acceptable decision for a parent to make. It is. It's far inbounds. It's close to the middle of the court. No nordic country is ever going to ban circumcision. The United States is never, ever going to ban circumcision. Your personal opinions will never change this.

The topic is just silly.

 

[jdp]

All we really need to know is whether infant circumcision is within the bounds of an acceptable decision for a parent to make. It is. It's far inbounds. It's close to the middle of the court. No nordic country is ever going to ban circumcision. The United States is never, ever going to ban circumcision. Your personal opinions will never change this.

The topic is just silly.

I disagree. Just the fact that this is being discussed in Nordic Countries, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany with increasing frequency tells me not only that it will happen but that it might happen sooner than I thought. Does that mean within the next 10 years? Probably not, but it will happen.

 

[Wildy]

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

16.5 would:

Folks lets define terms.

Authoritarian governments pass laws to ban things, and interfere with the Family relationship, and the right to seek medical advice regarding such decisions.