Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[deadrose]

Just to throw my two cents in here, when my oldest son was born in the mid-80s, the official position at our nice Jewish hospital was "If you're not doing it for religious reasons, we don't recommend circumcision". Nearly 30 years later, both he and his brother are happy, healthy and clean, as well as intact.

I gave my sons the choice. Either of them can be circumcised at any time if they so choose. Why shouldn't other men have that same choice?

 

[Rat]

I find the idea of a Jewish hospital decidedly odd.

 

[jdp]

I find the idea of a Jewish hospital decidedly odd.

It isn't so odd in the US where, at least early on, at least some hospitals were funded by religious orders or charities.

 

[Rat]

It isn't so odd in the US where, at least early on, at least some hospitals were funded by religious orders or charities.

Oh, I know. It's purely because I'm a product of 1970s UK, so the idea of any religious hospital seems odd to me, but I believe that plenty in this country have similar origins. Just long before my time.

 

[catsmate]

catsmate's argument appears to be that men with circumcision have "mutilated genitals."

Exactly.

Has anyone missed that "argument"?

I doubt it, I've stated my view previously. Several times in fact.

I'd say that it reaches the level of a schoolyard taunt, but i don't even think it merits that.

No, just a statement of fact. It's a reality that some are uncomfortable with, causing them to lash out, but a reality nonetheless.

Thanks for sharing your "arguments" with us catsmate.

You're welcome, I will continue to point out the evasions, misconceptions and lies perpetrated by the circumcision advocates.

Oh, I know. It's purely because I'm a product of 1970s UK, so the idea of any religious hospital seems odd to me, but I believe that plenty in this country have similar origins. Just long before my time.

Moderately common in Ireland, though the claims to "Catholic Ethos" are dying out.

 

[ddt]

It isn't so odd in the US where, at least early on, at least some hospitals were funded by religious orders or charities.

Ditto in the Netherlands: the country is still full of Deaconesses' hospitals (protestant) or St. this-or-that or Our Holy Mother hospitals (obviously catholic), though local mergers have decreased this number.

 

[Darat]

catsmate's argument appears to be that men with circumcision have "mutilated genitals."

...snip...

That's not an argument that's a statement of fact.* A circumcised penis will have scars from the surgery (and depending on the amount of skin unnecessarily removed these can be very extensive) and be lacking functional tissue. Such non-medically required injury is usually referred to as a mutilation.

Obviously in a culture where genital mutilation is the norm the mutilated genitals will look "normal" and even "more pleasing" and the non-mutilated genitals will look "wrong".

Personally outside a discussion about the topic I would never intentionally bring up the idea that an individual's penis has been mutilated, any more than I would bring up someone's terrible and visible burn-injury in a casual conversation with them.


ETA: From Wikipedia: "Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death."

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'd like to add that when I refer to mutilation, I am not referring to the condition or appearance of the body part in question, but rather to what was done to it and why. If I had to get my finger amputated because of injury, I wouldn't refer to it as mutilation, but if someone chopped my finger off in the absence of medical need, I would refer to that as mutilation. Likewise, I don't consider that tubbablubba (since he has volunteered the information) was mutilated, but I do consider babies who have undergone routine circumcision to have been mutilated.

Also, I don't consider good intentions to be an important factor here. I'm sure that most parents that circumcise their daughters do it with the best of intentions for her, but we don't shy away from calling it mutilation, even when talking about the milder forms that are akin to male circumcision. Likewise I think that the parents who routinely have their infant boys circumcised do it with the best of intentions, but that doesn't stop it being mutilation. The only reason mutilation is used with reference to FGM (milder forms) but not so often with male circumcision is that FGM is not socially acceptable in the West, whereas male circumcision (unfortunately) still is. To me, there is no real difference between the practices.

 

[The Big Dog]

Personally outside a discussion about the topic I would never intentionally bring up the idea that an individual's penis has been mutilated, any more than I would bring up someone's terrible and visible burn-injury in a casual conversation with them.

Then you should not bring it up INSIDE the discussion either.

Frankly, I automatically discount a person's "arguments" anytime someone intentionally refers to circumcised men as "mutilated" because it is unnecessarily provocative, emotional and intentionally offensive. If you can't make your argument without it, it probably is not worth making at all.

This has been explained by people on your side in this discussion, but it clearly has not been taken into consideration. And that is, of course, your choice.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Frankly, I automatically discount a person's "arguments" anytime someone intentionally refers to circumcised men as "mutilated" because it is unnecessarily provocative, emotional and intentionally offensive. If you can't make your argument without it, it probably is not worth making at all.

How much weight do you give the arguments of people who compare those they disagree with to Nazis?

 

[Darat]

Then you should not bring it up INSIDE the discussion either.

I have not commented on any individual Member's member in this discussion.....

Frankly, I automatically discount a person's "arguments" anytime someone intentionally refers to circumcised men as "mutilated" because it is unnecessarily provocative, emotional and intentionally offensive. If you can't make your argument without it, it probably is not worth making at all.

...snip...

An argument is won on logic and facts and an unnecessary injury of a child regardless of sex is correctly labelled as a mutilation. Many proponents of genital mutilation such as yourself want to use "neutral" language to try and avoid the facts of what they are actually supporting.

Thankfully the argument seems to have been won in regards to female genital mutilation, hopefully it won't be much longer until it is won regarding male genital mutilation.

 

[The Big Dog]

How much weight do you give the arguments of people who compare those they disagree with to Nazis?

The argument was quite a bit more sophisticated than that, was it not Squeegee? In particular it arose during the bizarre thread drift where intactavists concluded it would be a good idea to compare human beings to animals, and there were charges of "hypocracy." That Nazi reference was employed to rebut that baseless accusation.

Of course, if one considers the circumcision issue in a broader historical context, it is impossible to discuss circumcision in Europe without discussing the Nazis. "Boys' Jewishness manifested itself physically through CIRCUMCISION, and it was not uncommon for the German police to demand that boys pull down their pants and expose their "race."" Considering that the Jews of Europe continued this religious practice throughout the Nazi period, one can certainly understand how they would look askance at Europes efforts now to "ban" the practice in guise of helping them.

 

[The Big Dog]

An argument is won on logic and facts and an unnecessary injury of a child regardless of sex is correctly labelled as a mutilation.

Logic?

Begging the Question

It is ironic that you would not use that term in reference to a man who voluntarily underwent the procedure.

I see that you intend to persist is using loaded terms, and by all means that is certainly your right. You can certainly understand why someone would not take your arguments seriously, however. Perhaps an analogy would be helpful, this is like discussing race relations with someone who repeatedly uses the "n-word" in the discussion. I hope that is helpful.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh give us a break, it's spelled "hypocrisy".

The parallels between cosmetic mutilations of animals such as ear cropping and tail docking, and circumcision, are blatantly obvious. Pointless procedures carried out because of tradition, and then justified post-facto by spurious claims of "medical benefits".

I remember as a young vet being presented with puppies to dock, and found myself utterly revolted. I didn't do it, one of my colleagues volunteered instead. I hadn't thought that much about it before, but when presented with a perfectly normal infant body part to cut off for no good reason, I found I couldn't do it.

About a year later that veterinary practice decided to stop doing the procedure altogether, because nobody could justify it. Despite the spurious claims of all the tail injuries that were supposedly being prevented. About ten years later the procedure was made illegal.

I wish more young doctors would similarly think, what the hell am I doing here?

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Logic?

Begging the Question

A link does not make it so, please show the logic that leads you to state my argument is fallacious because it is "begging the question".

It is ironic that you would not use that term in reference to a man who voluntarily underwent the procedure.

I don't think you know what irony means if that is an example of your definition in action.

I see that you intend to persist is using loaded terms, and by all means that is certainly your right. You can certainly understand why someone would not take your arguments seriously, however.

Nope because as I said an argument fails on logic and facts - not whether it uses a word someone doesn't like.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful, this is like discussing race relations with someone who repeatedly uses the "n-word" in the discussion. I hope that is helpful.

And perhaps it is not a helpful or indeed even valid analogy.

I do understand that using a word such as "mutilate" can provoke cognitive dissonance in people like you who support the mutilation of a child's genitals, and that is exactly why I use it in the context I do i.e. the context of this discussion.

In other discussions because of the cognitive dissonance such a word can cause for the likes of those who support the mutilation of a child's genitals I may not use it as it can form a barrier to communication.

It's horses for courses.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I can certainly understand why proponents of circumcision object to the term mutilation. The word does have negative connotations. By its very definition it applies to all sorts of things that the modern western world generally believes to be wrong to do to another person. That circumcision falls into the definition of mutilation *should* give people pause for thought and make them wonder why they want to make an exception to the general principle. Using the word reminds them of that and sparks some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance, so I understand why they want to avoid using it and instead delude themselves that circumcision is something else entirely. But they can't avoid the fact that routine circumcision is by definition, mutilation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh give us a break, it's spelled "hypocrisy".

I am quite aware of how it is spelled. I was quoting from an earlier discussion.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The argument was quite a bit more sophisticated than that, was it not Squeegee?

Nope. Not either of the times you did it. Or, indeed, this third time that you're doing it by insinuation.

But feel free to tell yourself that it was, if it makes you feel better.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't think you know what irony means if that is an example of your definition in action.

I am quite aware of the many uses of the term ironic, and it is quite ironic that you use the word mutilated to refer to men who were circumcised at birth, but would not use that same word to refer to it to men who voluntarily underwent the procedure. I suppose hypocritical might be a better word, perhaps?

You are begging the question because you are providing your own definition of the word mutilation, and then concluding that it is mutilation.

The fact that you would not use that word to refer to adults should be a telling indication of the flaws in your logic.

But I see that you intend to PERSIST in this labeling? You'll forgive me if I take that into account in considering whatever other "arguments" you may wish to muster.

 

[Darat]

I am quite aware of the many uses of the term ironic, and it is quite ironic that you use the word mutilated to refer to men who were circumcised at birth, but would not use that same word to refer to it to men who voluntarily underwent the procedure. I suppose hypocritical might be a better word, perhaps?

You are ascribing a position to me that I have not stated nor argued - in other words a strawman. I have no need to argue nor comment on something I have not argued for or agin.

You are begging the question because you are providing your own definition of the word mutilation, and then concluding that it is mutilation.

I am not supplying my own definition of "mutilation" - it is the definition that is common between English speaking folk. Check the many dictionaries if you think I am using a non-standard definition, I even quoted a good source of definitions (in the way English is used) in one of my posts above.

The fact that you would not use that word to refer to adults should be a telling indication of the flaws in your logic.

See comment above.

But I see that you intend to PERSIST in this labeling? You'll forgive me if I take that into account in considering whatever other "arguments" you may wish to muster.

That you use your emotions to decide whether an argument is sound or not rather than logic and/or facts is not something I can do anything about.