Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Professor Yaffle]

I suspect that 16.5 is not denying the existence of the position paper, but that he disagrees that the conclusion they came to was "objective".

 

[The Big Dog]

I suspect that 16.5 is not denying the existence of the position paper, but that he disagrees that the conclusion they came to was "objective".

That is an extremely astute observation.

 

[jdp]

I suspect that 16.5 is not denying the existence of the position paper, but that he disagrees that the conclusion they came to was "objective".

That is an extremely astute observation.

That may be, and as we see that seems to be the case, but agreement or disagreement with those particular conclusions is not really what this thread is about. The fact is that relevant medical association and child welfare organizations made a determination that routine male circumcision is prejudicial to a (male) child's health. And having come to those conclusions, the question would be, is it proper for the legislature to act on those recommendations?

I must admit that 16.5's answer to the first question is surprising considering that the first post indicates that the answer is, yes. The 2010 position statement from the KNGM and the legal fight in Germany last year provides further support to that conclusion. However, answering 'no' to the second question is even more surprising as it suggests to me that even if we agreed that the answer to 1 was 'yes', there should be no follow up by legislation. This is a path which has clearly been followed before with other issues (which we won't bring up right now for fear of thread drift) so I am left to wonder if this is a case of special pleading?

Why shouldn't a legislature prohibit a practice which the relevant authorities have determined to be prejudicial to a (male) child's health?

 

[The Big Dog]

Why shouldn't a legislature prohibit a practice which the relevant authorities have determined to be prejudicial to a (male) child's health?

Putting aside your assumption that the studies were objective, it would appear that the appropriate place to weigh the costs/benefits would be in the families' doctors office.

Plus on would hope that at some point a legislature is going to realize that prohibitions just don't work. Lets not fool ourselves, if the family wants to get it, they are going to get it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Plus on would hope that at some point a legislature is going to realize that prohibitions just don't work. Lets not fool ourselves, if the family wants to get it, they are going to get it.

By this logic there should be no laws at all, given that people still do illegal things.

 

[ddt]

Because we do have evidence that what we call something can alter the perceptions of it. It is hardly rocket science.

So to a completely relevant analogy: for many years the genital mutilation of women was called "female circumcision" - because the vast majority of such procedures are similar to a male circumcision (i.e. removing a small amount of tissue). Campaigners against this non-consensual injury started to call it what it was i.e. female genital mutilation and that helped people understand why it was a bad thing. These days many countries have adopted legislation that makes female "circumcision" illegal regardless of any parent or Dr's view of it - countries such as the USA.

And to add to that: a doctor who proposes as alternative to FGC a "ritual nick", which makes a small wound that heals and does not remove any tissue, is vehemently verbally attacked and it's deemed unacceptable, but somehow cutting off the whole foreskin of a boy is perfectly acceptable.

 

[ddt]

Sigh.

ahem: "By the way, this thread is not about FGM, of course, particularly as the medical, physical, and (presumably) religious considerations differ wildly. You might want to take that up with darat, he posted pro-FGM article(s) earlier."

No they don't. Comparisons of MGM (ahem, circumcision) with FGM or with tonsillectomy are perfectly germane to a discussion about MGM. See the book chapter I posted a link to before. It only goes to show the moral bankruptcy of the position of those proponents who duck questions about what else they find acceptable.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

And to add to that: a doctor who proposes as alternative to FGC a "ritual nick", which makes a small wound that heals and does not remove any tissue, is vehemently verbally attacked and it's deemed unacceptable, but somehow cutting off the whole foreskin of a boy is perfectly acceptable.

FGM, sorry, female circumsicion is probably coming back at some point, when a legislature realizes that prohibitions just don't work. Lets not fool ourselves, if the family wants to get it, they are going to get it.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Putting aside your assumption that the studies were objective, it would appear that the appropriate place to weigh the costs/benefits would be in the families' doctors office.

Plus on would hope that at some point a legislature is going to realize that prohibitions just don't work. Lets not fool ourselves, if the family wants to get it, they are going to get it.

Perhaps some parents who previously would have simply deferred to the customs of the other might rethink their position if it were prohibited.

 

[jdp]

Putting aside your assumption that the studies were objective, it would appear that the appropriate place to weigh the costs/benefits would be in the families' doctors office.

Plus on would hope that at some point a legislature is going to realize that prohibitions just don't work. Lets not fool ourselves, if the family wants to get it, they are going to get it.

1. Is there any reason to believe that the conclusions of the members of the pediatric societies and child welfare organizations in those countries aren't objective conclusions based on the available information?

2. Is the second part of your first point one that is universally held for any social/religious quasi medical procedure? Or is circumcision¹ a special case.

3. On your second point, is this also special pleading?

¹ male only.

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Is there any reason to believe that the conclusions of the members of the pediatric societies and child welfare organizations in those countries aren't objective conclusions based on the available information?

2. Is the second part of your first point one that is universally held for any social/religious quasi medical procedure? Or is circumcision¹ a special case.

3. On your second point, is this also special pleading?

¹ male only.

1. Yes
2. Lol wut
3. No

 

[jdp]

1. Yes
2. Lol wut
3. No

1. Do you have any evidence to support the notion that there are reasons to believe that the conclusions of the members of the pediatric societies and child welfare organizations in those countries aren't objective conclusions?

2. This is to ask do you believe any religious or social right, which might also be a medical procedure, should be between a parent and their doctor, priest, mohel, imam, shaman, witch doctor, whatever. Basically I am wondering if you believe what you say only for circumcision and no other ritual.

3. Why?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

1. Yes

And those reasons would be... ?

 

[ddt]

No they don't. Comparisons of MGM (ahem, circumcision) with FGM or with tonsillectomy are perfectly germane to a discussion about MGM. See the book chapter I posted a link to before. It only goes to show the moral bankruptcy of the position of those proponents who duck questions about what else they find acceptable.

(emphasis added) And we immediately get a textbook example:

2. Is the second part of your first point one that is universally held for any social/religious quasi medical procedure? Or is circumcision¹ a special case.

¹ male only.

2. Lol wut

 

[Wildy]

Or how about "circumcision"?

And yet this thread clearly shows a problem with using that word.

Plus on would hope that at some point a legislature is going to realize that prohibitions just don't work. Lets not fool ourselves, if the family wants to get it, they are going to get it.

So you're saying that the prohibitions on FGM (or any other prohibition) are useless and don't work? Or are you looking at other examples of prohibition in the US, like alcohol prohibition or the "war on drugs" and extrapolating from that?

 

[The Big Dog]

1. Do you have any evidence to support the notion that there are reasons to believe that the conclusions of the members of the pediatric societies and child welfare organizations in those countries aren't objective conclusions?

2. This is to ask do you believe any religious or social right, which might also be a medical procedure, should be between a parent and their doctor, priest, mohel, imam, shaman, witch doctor, whatever. Basically I am wondering if you believe what you say only for circumcision and no other ritual.

3. Why?

Welcome to the 16.5 thread where it is all questions to 16.5 all the time! (well except for the white lines of impotent rage)! YAY!

1. yes.
2. off topic, and I am unwilling to speculate as to what shaman's and witch doctors and the others you intend me to really pay attention too (are you getting the sense that I believe that your questions are not being asked in good faith? Get that sense!)
3. why what?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

1. yes.

Go on...

 

[ddt]

No they don't. Comparisons of MGM (ahem, circumcision) with FGM or with tonsillectomy are perfectly germane to a discussion about MGM. See the book chapter I posted a link to before. It only goes to show the moral bankruptcy of the position of those proponents who duck questions about what else they find acceptable.

2. Is the second part of your first point one that is universally held for any social/religious quasi medical procedure? Or is circumcision¹ a special case.

¹ male only.

2. off topic, and I am unwilling to speculate as to what shaman's and witch doctors and the others you intend me to really pay attention too (are you getting the sense that I believe that your questions are not being asked in good faith? Get that sense!)

Second evasion noted.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Welcome to the 16.5 thread where it is all questions to 16.5 all the time! (well except for the white lines of impotent rage)! YAY!

If you're not willing to discuss things, then perhaps posting on a message board is not the best use of your time.

If you feel that you're being unfairly singled out, perhaps you can PM one or more of the people who have agreed with you in this thread and ask them to come back for back-up? Questions can only be asked of people who are actually posting in the thread, after all.

 

[jdp]

Welcome to the 16.5 thread where it is all questions to 16.5 all the time! (well except for the white lines of impotent rage)! YAY!

Well you should expect that as you're the one who is making the claims without elaboration or evidence, shouldn't you?

1. yes.
2. off topic, and I am unwilling to speculate as to what shaman's and witch doctors and the others you intend me to really pay attention too (are you getting the sense that I believe that your questions are not being asked in good faith? Get that sense!)
3. why what?

1. As others have already asked, why don't you share why you believe that there are reasons to believe that the conclusions of the members of the pediatric societies and child welfare organizations in those countries haven't arrived at objective conclusions on this matter.

2. Is not off topic for the thread and I am confused why you think I am not asking these questions in good faith but I think addressing the first question is more important at this point.

3. The question should be clear in the context of the thread but as with 2, I think it's important to flesh out claim 1 first.

So as Tsukasa Buddha asked, please go on, don't leave us hanging I want to understand why you believe the conclusions of the members of the pediatric societies and child welfare organizations in these nordic countries are untrustworthy.