Circumcision

[ponderingturtle]

Ponderingturtle is pro-circumcision?

Linda

Apparently anyone who does not recognize is truth about how horrible circumcision is, is a pro circumcision fundie. So now the AMA is a fundie organization, as it does not tell everyone that they shouldn't have their children circumcised.

 

[kellyb]

No. That does serve to fill those requirements.

Linda

What about when the mothers think it's "cleaner" and "healthier" and that guys like it?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What about when the mothers think it's "cleaner" and "healthier" and that guys like it?

Careful Kelly. You're this close to Linda ignoring you

 

[kellyb]

If you can find good ones for it with regard to females that would be of interest.

This talks about both male and female circumcision:


http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=129356005&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_36/ai_99699493

The masturbation taboo and the rise of routine male circumcision: A review of the historiography - Review Essay
Journal of Social History, Spring, 2003 by Robert Darby

In a recent historical survey, Dunsmuir and Gordon cite prevention or cure of impotence, phimosis, sterility, priapism, masturbation, venereal disease, epilepsy, bed-wetting, night terrors, "precocious sexual unrest" and homosexuality as among the contradictory benefits urged by Victorian and Edwardian physicians in Britain and the USA, without offering any firm suggestions of their own as to the relative weight of these factors

it has been widely accepted by medical historians since the 1950s that discouraging masturbation was a major reason why doctors, educationists and childcare experts sought to introduce widespread circumcision of both boys and girls in the nineteenth century, a campaign which was successful in the former case, unsuccessful in the latter--an outcome which still colours popular concepts about what constitutes genital mutilation.

 

[Lonewulf]

Apparently anyone who does not recognize is truth about how horrible circumcision is, is a pro circumcision fundie. So now the AMA is a fundie organization, as it does not tell everyone that they shouldn't have their children circumcised.

Aw, don't like being told that you're a fundie, or that you're part of a "camp"?

If you don't like it, don't sling it.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm sorry, but 'because someone told me to, but I can't explain why.' is not a good enough reason.

At what point did I say that I can't explain why?

Here, for the first time in this thread but maybe the tenth time overall, is the reason I am circumcising my children.

1. I am a Jew.
2. It is my duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
3. My son is a Jew.
4. It is my son's duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
5. Jews circumcise their children.
6. Not circumcising children would have an unknown effect on the Jewish people.
7. Circumcision is otherwise of generally neutral long-term harm or benefit.
8. The world is better off with Jews in it.

That's my explanation. I don't think you can find a flaw in the logic without attacking the truth of one of the premises.

 

[3point14]

At what point did I say that I can't explain why?

Here, for the first time in this thread but maybe the tenth time overall, is the reason I am circumcising my children.

1. I am a Jew.
2. It is my duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
3. My son is a Jew.
4. It is my son's duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
5. Jews circumcise their children.
6. Not circumcising children would have an unknown effect on the Jewish people.
7. Circumcision is otherwise of generally neutral long-term harm or benefit.
8. The world is better off with Jews in it.

That's my explanation. I don't think you can find a flaw in the logic without attacking the truth of one of the premises.

It's point 6 I have trouble with. You're inflicting pain on your own child in order to avoid an 'unknown effect on the Jewish people' Can you be no more specific than this about point 6?

I admire the courage of your convictions, but I don't think the Jewish faith would collapse if suddenly all young Jewish men were not circumcised. (Those I know that are part of the Jewish faith don't even let atheism get in the way of the continuation of their faith.) If it would, then we're in to the realms of the metaphysical, and that's not a good place to stand for a debate around here.

 

[Lonewulf]

o/` Tradition! o/`

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Interesting, then it would seem that some forms of female circumcision might well be justifiable.

The problem is that there are many different effects that are lumped together in these groups.

I would find a protective benefit for the removal of the clitoris strange with regards to HIV as it is not very near where the seminal discharge would be and seems an unlikely entry route for that reason.

Yes, just as some male circumcisions are justifiable. That is all I want; that male circumcisions are performed for reasonable benefits, not for 1 in a 100 chances of avoiding treatment with antibiotics for a UTI, which is the only benefit worth considering in the West.

 

[Loss Leader]

I admire the courage of your convictions, but I don't think the Jewish faith would collapse if suddenly all young Jewish men were not circumcised.

I am pleased to see that you are attacking the truth of my premise rather than the logic of my conclusion.

As to that, I consider #6 to be objectively and inarguably true beyond question or doubt.

Since you have no evidence of the effect that doing away with circumcision would have on my people, your thoughts about what might or might not happen are of zero interest to me.

 

[fls]

Clitoridectomy can mean excision of all or part of the prepuce or clitoris.
It's excision of the prepuce that is most common, and excision of the clitoris is relatively rare in comparison.

Are you saying removal of the female prepuce is worse than removal of the male?

I am saying that I consider it a stretch to interpret what is written as being confined to the prepuce.

Clitoridectomy is a specific medical term. I realize that you make a big deal out of that one sentence which is worded in such a way that it does not specifically include or exclude the clitoris. But other references to the commonly practiced procedures specifically include the clitoris.

I have been specific about what I find objectionable. I'd be happy to discover that there is less to object to than it looks like there is. I'm just reluctant to choose an interpretation based on my wishful thinking.

Linda

 

[kellyb]

It is not against it, wich is funnily enough the exact stance that those being accused of being fundies here have. Its refusal to recognised the TRUTH that there is no benefit and many problems with male circumcision marks it clearly in the pro circ fundie crowd.

I think you're thinking of the AAP and not the AMA?
If so, they say they don't recommend it for medical reasons, but leave open a loophole for personal and cultural reasons.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, just as some male circumcisions are justifiable. That is all I want; that male circumcisions are performed for reasonable benefits, not for 1 in a 100 chances of avoiding treatment with antibiotics for a UTI, which is the only benefit worth considering in the West.

And as long as people understand that roughly cost benefit analysis of circumcision seems to be pretty much a wash,(unless I can see some real better information) I am also pleased.

It is not something that has such a strong right or wrong answer to get a many medical organizations to come out one way or the other.

So you think that AIDS is not a problem in the west now?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think you're thinking of the AAP and not the AMA?
If so, they say they don't recommend it for medical reasons, but leave open a loophole for personal and cultural reasons.

But they also do not recomend against it for medical reasons.

 

[3point14]

I am pleased to see that you are attacking the truth of my premise rather than the logic of my conclusion.

As to that, I consider #6 to be objectively and inarguably true beyond question or doubt.

Since you have no evidence of the effect that doing away with circumcision would have on my people, your thoughts about what might or might not happen are of zero interest to me.

What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it is simply a question of faith?

I can respect that without understanding it.

The trouble I have then is how far does the 'trump card' of 'faith' allow one to go in the treatment of one's offspring?

Can you suggest a decent method of answering this question?

 

[Lonewulf]

I am pleased to see that you are attacking the truth of my premise rather than the logic of my conclusion.

As to that, I consider #6 to be objectively and inarguably true beyond question or doubt.

Since you have no evidence of the effect that doing away with circumcision would have on my people, your thoughts about what might or might not happen are of zero interest to me.

Wow. Just... wow.

Do you have any evidence that circumcision would hurt your people? Otherwise, not only do I say that your thoughts are of zero interest to me, but I still consider it child abuse.

 

[Lonewulf]

But they also do not recomend against it for medical reasons.

Neither do I. I recommend against it for ethical and moral reasons, not medical.

 

[kellyb]

I am saying that I consider it a stretch to interpret what is written as being confined to the prepuce.

Clitoridectomy is a specific medical term. I realize that you make a big deal out of that one sentence which is worded in such a way that it does not specifically include or exclude the clitoris. But other references to the commonly practiced procedures specifically include the clitoris.

I have been specific about what I find objectionable. I'd be happy to discover that there is less to object to than it looks like there is. I'm just reluctant to choose an interpretation based on my wishful thinking.

Linda

So when they say this:

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

What they really mean is "Excision of the clitoris most common. Excision of only the prepuce alone is not as frequent"?

 

[Darat]

I am saying that I consider it a stretch to interpret what is written as being confined to the prepuce.

Clitoridectomy is a specific medical term. I realize that you make a big deal out of that one sentence which is worded in such a way that it does not specifically include or exclude the clitoris. But other references to the commonly practiced procedures specifically include the clitoris.

I have been specific about what I find objectionable. I'd be happy to discover that there is less to object to than it looks like there is. I'm just reluctant to choose an interpretation based on my wishful thinking.

Linda

If we go with the idea that it removes all of the clitoris given the fact that the procedure doesn't have any significant affect on sexual activity and so on why does it matter if all or some it is removed? It's just after all a piece of tissue that has a high density of nerve endings (like the male foreskin).

 

[kellyb]

But they also do not recomend against it for medical reasons.

The strong implication is that the "cultural" reasons can trump a medical lack of justification.
If it was simply medically advisable, they'd say that.

ETA:
Here:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision.

"Medically, there's no solid justification for this. But if you belong to some religion or ethnic group that requires it, then fine."