Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[The Big Dog]

Go on...

YYYYYYYEEESSSSSSSSSSSS......

In fact, I have answered this question in this thread. I said that the pediatric associations were improperly swayed by non-medical considerations that were urged by quasi-political advocates and fanatical intactavists in their countries.

That go on-ed enough?

Now it is time for 16.5 to ask a question! YAY! I made reference to the fact that the prohibition were unworkable, and that people who wanted the circumcision would get them. Along those lines, pro-abortion activists have used a wire coat hanger as a symbol of their opposition to anti-abortion legislation. Can anyone in the thread explain why they do that, and what significance that has to our present discussion?

L'Chaim!

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Oh well, if you meant it seriously and all! Gee. Well, that is what we call a compound question. So, in a friendly and lively way lets break it up. Is it OK if we start with... "witch doctor"? Cool! What is a witch doctor? Where do they live? What religion are they? What "religious or social right, which might also be a medical procedure" do they practice? Because i don't have the first *********** clue!

And the 1,000,000 Kroner Question: What is the name of FSM does that have to do with my expressed position that the decision whether to have a circumcision (in line with the AAP's recommendation and conclusive findings that the benefits outweigh the costs) should be made between the family and their own medical professional?

Or does a "witch doctor" have such a statement of position from the AAP?

Or is this series of hypothetical questions a wee attempt to guide the discussion away from my actual position by asking frivolous questions that have nothing to do with the actual discussion?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Along those lines, pro-abortion activists have used a wire coat hanger as a symbol of their opposition to anti-abortion legislation. Can anyone in the thread explain why they do that, and what significance that has to our present discussion?

Wouldn't that be off-topic?

 

[Tolls]

Along those lines, pro-abortion activists have used a wire coat hanger as a symbol of their opposition to anti-abortion legislation. Can anyone in the thread explain why they do that, and what significance that has to our present discussion?

L'Chaim!

If you can't see the difference between women wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and someone wanting to circumsise their offspring, then you really haven't grasped the other side's position at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

If you can't see the difference between women wanting to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and someone wanting to circumsise their offspring, then you really haven't grasped the other side's position at all.

Incorrect.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

<edited- inappropriate content>

 

[rustypouch]

Someone here is obviously not interested in a serious discussion. LOOK AT HIS AVATAR. He's going to keep baiting the hook as long as everyone keeps biting. Just ignore him.

Be careful. You can get warned by the mods for saying such things.

 

[Tolls]

Incorrect.

Well, that's a helpfully descriptive rebuttal.

 

[The Big Dog]

answer the questions and I will be as helpful and descriptive as possible.

Or just tell me I don't get it again, and thereby completely miss the point.

 

[Tolls]

OK, they did it because they were often in a situation where giving birth was considered to be a really bad idea. Since the times and places these backstreet abortions happened coincided with rather backwards attitudes to the idea of unmarried mothers, this exacerbated the idea that an abortion at all costs was preferable.

Now...how does that tie into circumcision? Or are you implying that people will be so desperate to conform with the society around them that they will have backstreet circumcisions?

Or can you now see that it is not even a slightly compatible example?

 

[The Big Dog]

OK, they did it because they were often in a situation where giving birth was considered to be a really bad idea. Since the times and places these backstreet abortions happened coincided with rather backwards attitudes to the idea of unmarried mothers, this exacerbated the idea that an abortion at all costs was preferable.

Now...how does that tie into circumcision? Or are you implying that people will be so desperate to conform with the society around them that they will have backstreet circumcisions?

Or can you now see that it is not even a slightly compatible example?

well you certainly gave half the questions the old college try, but have appeared to have missed the actual point of both the symbol and how it relates to the situation at hand. (Conform to society?)

The answer is: banning the procedure will inevitable drive families who desire the procedure to alternative and potentially unsafe facilities to obtain the procedure, a point that women recently made to good effect by adopting the hanger as their symbol.

That is actually a point that has been made several times in this thread, so I thought it would be an easy one.

 

[Tolls]

well you certainly gave half the questions the old college try, but have appeared to have missed the actual point of both the symbol and how it relates to the situation at hand. (Conform to society?)

The answer is: banning the procedure will inevitable drive families who desire the procedure to alternative and potentially unsafe facilities to obtain the procedure, a point that women recently made to good effect by adopting the hanger as their symbol.

That is actually a point that has been made several times in this thread, so I thought it would be an easy one.

Except that completely misses the point of what happened during the periods (in the UK, as that's the social history I know) when abortion was illegal, of what backstreet abortions represented, as far as options for those caught up in that situation.

Which is why I suggested it wasn't really a suitable example.

Women did not go to backstreet abortionists (or gin, hot baths, coat hangers) on a whim, as the dangers were well known, but the alternative (having the child) was viewed as worse. That's where the "conform to society" comes in. The abortion was being done to avoid the whole "child out of wedlock" stigma.

Now, of course, I don't doubt some fundamentalist types would continue with the practice of circumcision should it ever be banned, in the same way some fundamentalist types still manage to sneak their daughters out to get them "sorted". That doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

 

[The Big Dog]

Except that completely misses the point of what happened during the periods (in the UK, as that's the social history I know) when abortion was illegal, of what backstreet abortions represented, as far as options for those caught up in that situation.

that is very interesting, but not at all what I was talking about.

I was talking about the use of the coat symbol as in connection with attempts to pass anti-abortion legislation in the US in the last few years.

Think what a gainful and fulfilling conversation we could have had had you simply asked for clarification, rather than suggesting that i didn't know what i was talking about.

 

[Wildy]

Now, of course, I don't doubt some fundamentalist types would continue with the practice of circumcision should it ever be banned, in the same way some fundamentalist types still manage to sneak their daughters out to get them "sorted". That doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

In fact in the case of FGM many countries laws state that it's illegal to take your daughters out of the country in order to undergo the procedure.

But since prohibition doesn't work, I wonder whether they should just remove those laws?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The answer is: banning the procedure will inevitable drive families who desire the procedure to alternative and potentially unsafe facilities to obtain the procedure, a point that women recently made to good effect by adopting the hanger as their symbol.

That is actually a point that has been made several times in this thread, so I thought it would be an easy one.

Speaking of points that have been made repeatedly in this thread, what about the posters who have pointed out to you, numerous times, that the exact same can be said for female circumsicion, such as the removal of the clitoral hood?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

YYYYYYYEEESSSSSSSSSSSS......

In fact, I have answered this question in this thread. I said that the pediatric associations were improperly swayed by non-medical considerations that were urged by quasi-political advocates and fanatical intactavists in their countries.

That go on-ed enough?

Not quite. Now you need to answer: Why? That is, how do you justify that statement?

Now it is time for 16.5 to ask a question! YAY! I made reference to the fact that the prohibition were unworkable, and that people who wanted the circumcision would get them. Along those lines, pro-abortion activists have used a wire coat hanger as a symbol of their opposition to anti-abortion legislation. Can anyone in the thread explain why they do that, and what significance that has to our present discussion?

L'Chaim!

Because they are being offensive and turning off any people they might have persuaded?

 

[The Big Dog]

Not quite. Now you need to answer: Why? That is, how do you justify that statement?

I don't NEED to do anything, and in light of the "answer" you provided to the questions I posed, I will simply wish you a good day.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Okay, then I say the AAP were biased by the Jews and Free Masons. I don't NEED to explain anything!

 

[jdp]

YYYYYYYEEESSSSSSSSSSSS.....

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

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.

...

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.

In fact, I have answered this question in this thread. I said that the pediatric associations were improperly swayed by non-medical considerations that were urged by quasi-political advocates and fanatical intactavists in their countries.
That go on-ed enough?

Now it is time for 16.5 to ask a question! YAY! I made reference to the fact that the prohibition were unworkable, and that people who wanted the circumcision would get them. Along those lines, pro-abortion activists have used a wire coat hanger as a symbol of their opposition to anti-abortion legislation. Can anyone in the thread explain why they do that, and what significance that has to our present discussion?

L'Chaim!

Do you have any evidence for this claim? As has been mentioned one could just as easily assert that the AAP's conclusions were swayed non-medical considerations including, but not limited to, the fact that it's an embedded cultural practice, there are concerns over offending or alienating religious groups, and litigation concerns against AAP and ACOG members if there was a whole sale condemnation of the procedure. Quite honestly, I see no reason to believe the AAP's claims over their European counter parts.

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you have any evidence for this claim? As has been mentioned one could just as easily assert that the AAP's conclusions were swayed non-medical considerations including, but not limited to, the fact that it's an embedded cultural practice, there are concerns over offending or alienating religious groups, and litigation concerns against AAP and ACOG members if there was a whole sale condemnation of the procedure. Quite honestly, I see no reason to believe the AAP's claims over their European counter parts.

didja just miss my question?

Let me answer yours (again) Yes I do. By the way, you are shifting the burden of proof. You claimed it was objective. Your claim your burden.