Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rat]

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.

Unless I've missed something, I feel that I should point out that when someone asks "Do you have evidence of x?", while it sounds like a yes/no question, it's not really looking for a yes/no answer.

 

[jdp]

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.

No, I didn't miss your question, we can get to it in due course. I am more interested in seeing the evidence you have that the top pediatric associations of these European countries have been cooped by "intactivists", it seems very conspiratorial. On the other hand I see nothing controversial about the claim that policy recommendations by organizations such as the KNMG are objectively reached based on available evidence. In the case of the KNMG their job is:

Our main objectives are to improve the quality of medical care and healthcare in general, and to improve public health. This is achieved by proactively responding to developments in health care and society, by developing guidelines and policies, by lobbying, and by providing services to our members. Another important task of the KNMG is the regulation of vocational training and registration of specialists.

So in this case they are the top medical association in the Netherlands, representing some 40,000 - 50,000 physicians, surgeons, ect. whose job in part is to evaluate evidence and develop guidance and guidelines. None of this is controversial or in dispute. I see no reason to believe the other groups aren't similar. So why would I have to demonstrate that they are unable to reach objective conclusions on a given policy statement? Do you find their conclusions suspect for all their work or only the work that is related to circumcision?

You'll have to forgive me but I think it's on you to demonstrate that an organization whose job it is to evaluate medical data and create policy hasn't done so objectively.

 

[The Big Dog]

Unless I've missed something, I feel that I should point out that when someone asks "Do you have evidence of x?", while it sounds like a yes/no question, it's not really looking for a yes/no answer.

That is why I explained that it was his claim and he should establish that it was based on objective medical evidence. Value added!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That is why I explained that it was his claim and he should establish that it was based on objective medical evidence. Value added!

Actually, you shifted the burden of proof onto yourself when you made specific claims about who was biased and why. If you had maintained neutral skepticism about the organisations' objectivity, then you wouldn't have a burden of proof.

 

[The Big Dog]

Actually, you shifted the burden of proof onto yourself when you made specific claims about who was biased and why. If you had maintained neutral skepticism about the organisations' objectivity, then you wouldn't have a burden of proof.

Actually, the claim included the assertion that it was objective.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, the claim included the assertion that it was objective.

I am having trouble buying this "claim" you could be talking about, especially since this entire thread was started in reference to the European medical associations. Others and I have been posting their positions throughout the thread. You now appear to be trying to backpedal from substantiating your own claims. Indeed, you say you already posted your reasons, which logically must have taken place before the post you are making a fuss about! So you you are back with the burden of proof again!

All that aside, I agreed that there was a claim made in the post you quoted, but my position was that your counter-claim was a positive assertion that also required a burden of proof.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am having trouble buying this "claim" you could be talking about, especially since this entire thread was started in reference to the European medical associations. Others and I have been posting their positions throughout the thread. You now appear to be trying to backpedal from substantiating your own claims. Indeed, you say you already posted your reasons, which logically must have taken place before the post you are making a fuss about! So you you are back with the burden of proof again!

All that aside, I agreed that there was a claim made in the post you quoted, but my position was that your counter-claim was a positive assertion that also required a burden of proof.

well actually it was a question that included unproven assumptions.

 

[Tolls]

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.

Oh no, I knew full well what you were getting at. That those signs were an indication that anti-abortion legislation would simply result in people finding other ways.

I was pointing out that that is an absurd simplification, and in fact does not bear anything other than a passing similarity to the situation with circumcision.

It is not I that needed clarification, I was attempting to point out to you the (rather large) problems with your point.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

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.

So to repeat the question you keep ducking. If your doctor recommended against circumcision, would you go with his / her advice?

If not, why not?

I really don't understand why you don't want to answer this. Your stated position is, I believe, that you feel this is something that should be decided with your doctor. Fair enough, so....?

 

[catsmate]

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".

But that such mutilations done to animals attract more outrage.

I have already acknowledged that people are going to persist in using a word that as you have already acknowledged has negative connotations.

Rather like the procedure itself?

Since we seem to be at an impasse regarding terminology, how about we call it "male genital cutting" in line with the term "female genital cutting" which I believe came about to appease the proponents of FGM who complained that calling it "mutilation" wrong and stuff.

No. I'll be sticking with mutilation thanks; it's accurate and non-euphemistic.

 

[The Big Dog]

So to repeat the question you keep ducking. If your doctor recommended against circumcision, would you go with his / her advice?

If not, why not?

I really don't understand why you don't want to answer this. Your stated position is, I believe, that you feel this is something that should be decided with your doctor. Fair enough, so....?

I keep ducking? Did it occur to you that I have been forced to use certain features of this site because of rather rampant incivility in this thread?

The problem is that this is a complete hypothetical, but all things being even, I believe it more likely than not that we would take his advice to heart and not had the procedure.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I keep ducking? Did it occur to you that I have been forced to use certain features of this site because of rather rampant incivility in this thread?

The problem is that this is a complete hypothetical, but all things being even, I believe it more likely than not that we would take his advice to heart and not had the procedure.

I would assume you mean the 'ignore' function but then you wouldn't have seen me repeat the question.... Also, I am not aware that I have been rude in any of my previous phrasings of the question, but if I have then I apologise. If you have the time (no problem if not) and can point out where I have been rude then I can take that on board in future interactions - intent is often lost in the written word.

That aside, thank you for the answer, which clarifies that it is the AAP and consequent GP advice that informs your opinion and that helps in understanding it.

I guess the question for us now is, why is the AAPs position out of step with equivalent European institutions when they presumably have the same data to work with...?

 

[Wildy]

I guess the question for us now is, why is the AAPs position out of step with equivalent European institutions when they presumably have the same data to work with...?

Haven't you been reading the thread? It's because the European institutions have been infiltrated by fundamentalist intactivists hell bent on destroying the noble institution that is circumcision.

 

[The Big Dog]

That aside, thank you for the answer, which clarifies that it is the AAP and consequent GP advice that informs your opinion and that helps in understanding it.

I guess the question for us now is, why is the AAPs position out of step with equivalent European institutions when they presumably have the same data to work with...?

GP?

I think the question you meant to ask is why is the European institutions position out of step with equivalent American and UN institutions when they presumably have the same data to work with...?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if there was a paper called Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wouldn't it be hilarious if there was a paper called Out of step: fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision.

And wouldn't it be hilarious if someone said that was hilarious while ignoring the specific response that says "In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being. Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical, scientific and wider communities."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/08/16/medethics-2013-101614.abstract

well no, it would not be "hilarious" at all.

 

[rustypouch]

And wouldn't it be hilarious if someone said that was hilarious while ignoring the specific response that says "In reality, the scientific evidence indicates that male circumcision, especially when performed in the newborn period, is an ethically and medically sound low-risk preventive health procedure conferring a lifetime of benefits to health and well-being. Policies in support of parent-approved elective newborn circumcision should be embraced by the medical, scientific and wider communities."

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2013/08/16/medethics-2013-101614.abstract

well no, it would not be "hilarious" at all.

No, it wouldn't. Wanting to mutilate babies isn't funny.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, it wouldn't. Wanting to mutilate babies isn't funny.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

 

[Safe-Keeper]

GP?

I think the question you meant to ask is why is the European institutions position out of step with equivalent American and UN institutions when they presumably have the same data to work with...?

Rephrase the question however you want, so long as you give a good answer. If you don't, it will be considered another dodge.

 

[rustypouch]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

So what?

People who want to hurt babies provoke an emotional response.

It doesn't mean that circumcision isn't a form of mutilation.