Circumcision

[Morrigan]

How is your argument differ from this one: If you live in a generally christian community, it's sensible and expected that you teach him christianity. Otherwise, your child will have trouble communicating, will have trouble learning in school, will have trouble in just about everything.

How does it differ? Let's see: my statement is true, yours isn't. Whew, that was easy.

This just in: either Loss Leader thinks non-christian children will have trouble communicating with their peers and learning in (American) school, or he thinks native unilinguist Swahili-speaking (but christian) children will do just fine in American schools. My mind is blown away by such insight!

See, what I just said above is true. Christian children have an easier time in our society than non-christian children. They get along better in school and they can listen to the radio in the month of December.

First, no, it's definitely not true. Canada is technically a christian nation that still talks about God in its constitution, but atheists and agnostics and buddhists and plenty of non-christians have it just fine.
In the USA, it might be a bit different, since despite having a secular constitution you have all the Jesus freaks. On the other hand, I'll wager there is not a single shred of evidence that atheists do better in school .
Second, you'll say that christians do have an easier time in the Bible Belt and other fundy nests. Okay, that might be true... now why in the seven hells is this a good thing?
Third, I'm pretty sure a Jewish or atheist English speaker will have a much easier time integrating into American society (any of them) than an unilingual Romanian christian. Claiming otherwise is just an exercise in absurdity.

The real difference is that you've made a value judgment about the worth of English and you've made a value judgment about the worth of religion. But there is no empirical reason to believe in the value judgment's you've made. I understand why you don't like having this pointed out.

Because it's complete bollocks. Knowing the language is far, far more essential than following your parent's religion. Unless the society in question is made up of a bunch of fanatical, discrimating asshats.
Yeah, I guess a non-Arabic speaking but devout Muslim woman would probably have a easier time in Saudi Arabia than an Arabic-speaking atheists. Maybe. Hurray for them.

 

[Southwind17]

Better chop their penis off too. Then they wont need glasses.

Yes, that might also eliminate the sudden and unexpected donning of beer goggles after five pints down the pub on a Saturday night?!

 

[Southwind17]

What you actually said was 'Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in our best interest.' I showed clearly an example where is was clearly untrue and as yet all you can do is ask me questions instead of clarifying your own claims. It is not up to me or anyone else to qualify your claim, it is up to you. If you can't be bothered to differentiate why on earth should anyone assume that you do differentiate? It is your logic not mine.

Actually, EJ, you've only quoted what Linda initially wrote. If you read back you will see that I, too, challenged it, whereupon she arbitrarily changed it to satisfy my argument, but in doing so she then contradicted herself. I, therefore, challenged the contradiction, so she tried to be clever with words but in doing so ended up back where she started. I see now she's trying to do the same with you:

You have persuaded me to change my mind. Here goes.

The practices that strengthen groups would also be evaluated by other considerations, such as a weighing of the benefit/harm to the individual.

I think this is the third time she's changed this statement. Me thinks she's making her 'story' up as she goes along, and doesn't really understand her own reasoning.

You were stunned when, after posting an argument on a discussion board, someone took the time to provide a specific example where it was clearly inadequate? Really? To date you have still failed to address either the example or your own logic. It really does seem that you do not wish your arguments to be taken seriously.

You know, I'm coming to the same conclusion. She doesn't agree with circumcising children, since she has not had her own circumcised, and has attempted to persuade her next-door neighbor not to have his adopted child circumcised.

I can only therefore imagine she is in this thread for the 'sport', which probably includes annoying me and seeing others get worked up at her cryptic and nonsensical responses.

I suggest not responding to her. DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!

You know what Linda, I really am compelled to agree with EJ and Ivor. Earlier, I thought it was just me, not being quite attuned to your 'style' of debate, and feeling that you were being deliberately elusive to force me to make a solid argument. But now, I do think that you're just here for the 'sport', and that your 'style' borders on trolling. The sad thing is, I honestly don't think you realize it!

Don't get me wrong, you have made a few valid, clear points at times, but I could go back over this thread and generally rip your 'reasoning' and logic, or lack of it, apart, not to mention point to numerous instances of cryptography supplanted deliberately to confuse. but that would be futile, because you'd simply respond with some equally cryptically disguised nonsense or smarmy reposte. It's really not disimilar to asking a child a question only to be met with the repeated and irritating 'because' response.

 

[Darat]

This has and does happen, and it shows the problem with making FGM illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3564203.stm

That is why (IMO) this appears to be an idea worth trying:

...snip...

Hadn't read that first report - interesting isn't that the reasons given for circumcision doesn't seem to change no matter where or which sex it is being performed on?

"My grandma was, like, 'Shut up, you know me - what are you screaming for, it's for your own good at the end of the day"

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hadn't read that first report - interesting isn't that the reasons given for circumcision doesn't seem to change no matter where or which sex it is being performed on?

"My grandma was, like, 'Shut up, you know me - what are you screaming for, it's for your own good at the end of the day"

I think it hints at the hi-tech. reasons western parents use for non-therapeutic infant male circumcision are produced after the decision has already been made. If Grandma had a PhD she would probably phrase her argument such that she sounded like Linda

This is what I just don't get: You've just had a baby boy and been told it is perfectly healthy. Great news! Why then, would you elect to have a painful, distressing and unnecessary surgical procedure performed on him, for a slightly reduced risk of a highly treatable condition?

BTW, I can respond to Linda because she has me on ignore!

Whether or not a child protests is not relevant.

Is it just me, or does this sound like something a member of the Borg collective would say?

A child also protests at having an IV started for life-saving antibiotics.

I've bolded the important words in that sentence.

And the lack of a protest from the child would not make an egregious act acceptable.

So because it is possible to hurt children without making them scream, that makes screaming a totally useless clue as to whether or not an act is acceptable?

Whether they are expected to protest simply guides what measures you take to make the procedure more comfortable.

And there was me thinking clinical need might be the first thing to consider.

 

[Kaylee]

... interesting isn't that the reasons given for circumcision doesn't seem to change no matter where or which sex it is being performed on?

Well not exactly the same, but enough similarities that it was part of the reason why I took a fresh look at the issue.

 

[fls]

Actually, EJ, you've only quoted what Linda initially wrote. If you read back you will see that I, too, challenged it, whereupon she arbitrarily changed it to satisfy my argument, but in doing so she then contradicted herself. I, therefore, challenged the contradiction, so she tried to be clever with words but in doing so ended up back where she started. I see now she's trying to do the same with you:

I think this is the third time she's changed this statement. Me thinks she's making her 'story' up as she goes along, and doesn't really understand her own reasoning.

I am making an attempt to explain and clarify by expanding on what I said. If I see that you do not understand, wouldn't it make sense to try wording it in a different way? Or when your question wasn't clear and I answered it differently than you wanted, shouldn't I, once I have a better understanding of what you're looking for, make another attempt to answer your question? If you see an apparent contradiction, should I not show you how it looks like a contradiction from one perspective, but that a larger view resolves that contradiction?

You know what Linda, I really am compelled to agree with EJ and Ivor. Earlier, I thought it was just me, not being quite attuned to your 'style' of debate, and feeling that you were being deliberately elusive to force me to make a solid argument. But now, I do think that you're just here for the 'sport', and that your 'style' borders on trolling. The sad thing is, I honestly don't think you realize it!

In all honesty, I would like you to make a solid argument. It hasn't been clear to me what you think you are doing that counteracts what I have had to say.

Don't get me wrong, you have made a few valid, clear points at times, but I could go back over this thread and generally rip your 'reasoning' and logic, or lack of it, apart,

Then why haven't you done so? Isn't that the point?

not to mention point to numerous instances of cryptography supplanted deliberately to confuse. but that would be futile, because you'd simply respond with some equally cryptically disguised nonsense or smarmy reposte. It's really not disimilar to asking a child a question only to be met with the repeated and irritating 'because' response.

If you don't understand something, then tell me. I don't have detailed knowledge of your capabilities. I don't deliberately plant anything in order to confuse - that would defeat the purpose. I don't deny that I make smarmy or cryptic remarks as an aside, but not when the discussion is reasonable.

If you choose to focus this discussion, not on the issues, but on whether or not I can satisfy your demands, you will always win. Every time I give a simple answer you will be able to extrapolate it beyond what I meant into a contradiction. Every time I expand my answer in order to remove the contradiction, then I am making it up as I go along. Every time you don't understand what I'm saying, I'm being deliberately cryptic. Every time I expand on my answer so that you can understand it, I'm arbitrarily changing my argument in order to weasel out of trouble.

If you want to make this an ad hominen argument, that the issue is not about the substance of my argument but about whether or not I can convey the substance of my argument to your satisfaction, I one hundred percent concede. You have absolutely and without qualification won this argument. It is not necessary for you to provide any more 'evidence' in support of your point, nor to bring it up in any future discussions, as it will be automatically assumed. I can even put it in my signature, if necessary.

Whether or not you now wish to back up your claim that you can rip my reasoning and logic apart is up to you.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Don't get me wrong, you have made a few valid, clear points at times, but I could go back over this thread and generally rip your 'reasoning' and logic, or lack of it, apart,

<snip>

Then why haven't you done so? Isn't that the point?

<snip>

Because you [have to] put anyone who does that on ignore?

 

[Southwind17]

All parents raise their children with the tools and concepts the parents think the children will need to function optimally as adults. This includes teaching them a language, teaching them about private property and indoctrinating them into the parents' religion.

indoctrinate: to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. (Dictionary.com)

And if the parents are not religious?

"Hi, here are our rules. You don't have to be a part of our group; it's entirely voluntary and we don't care if you join or not. But if you want to be part of our group, you have to follow the rules."

'don't have to be'?, 'entirely voluntary'?, 'Don't care if you join'? Do you allow children?!

 

[Lonewulf]

Nonono, he means voluntary for the parents. The child doesn't matter.

 

[Southwind17]

Nonono, he means voluntary for the parents. The child doesn't matter.

He doesn't say that. He says 'entirely voluntary'; no qualification!

 

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, but infants aren't people. They're on the order of pets, toys, or furniture.

 

[Morrigan]

Gah, I just noticed a typo earlier, I meant to say, "I'll wager there is not a single shred of evidence that atheists do worse in school [than christians]". Of course, the opposite is also true.

In related news, it's also perfectly fine to cut young girls. After all, it's part of the culture in some tribes of Nigeria, and it's thus in a Nigerian girl's best interest to be cut. Hell, she might never find a husband otherwise, the poor thing.

 

[Gurdur]

I love the smell of non sequitur strawmen burning in the morning. It makes me feel like we're going to win this war.

 

[fls]

In related news, it's also perfectly fine to cut young girls. After all, it's part of the culture in some tribes of Nigeria, and it's thus in a Nigerian girl's best interest to be cut. Hell, she might never find a husband otherwise, the poor thing.

So given that there are behaviours that we think are not in the best interests of the child that are in common use, let's assume that while parents have a broad range of belief and opinion, they will respond to reason. What sort of information would you provide to prove to the parents that they are mistaken - in particular, for male circumcision and for FGC? For example, if I wanted to prove that laws ensuring that children are properly restrained are better than leaving it up to the parents, I would provide crash-test research showing the benefits of restraint, surveys showing that the use of proper restraints increases considerably after laws are passed, and a reduction in the amount of serious injury (all other things being equal) after child-restraint laws are enacted.

Linda

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Whether or not a child protests is not relevant. A child also protests at having an IV started for life-saving antibiotics. And the lack of a protest from the child would not make an egregious act acceptable. Whether they are expected to protest simply guides what measures you take to make the procedure more comfortable. The qualification can be dropped.

I am afraid it cannot. This statement clearly shows contempt for the actual effect on the child and the fundamental discrimination at the heart of this matter.

If you continued to mutilate the genitals of an adult in the face of protests by the adult you would be charged with assault and be sent to prison. The same applies to a child when the mutilation is for non-medical reasons as you are not doing it for the child's benefit but for your own gratification.

None of the circumstances that have been discussed involve "one's own satisfaction". That qualification can be dropped as well.

I'm afraid this is also incorrect. I have been very clearly talking about non-medical genital mutilation of defenceless infants. That, by definition, is being done for nothing more than the personal gratification of the parents and those who carry out the procedure and anyone who aides and abets the process of mutilation. It is not being done at the wish or for the benefit of the child. It is being done at the wish of and for the personal gratification of the abuser.

The test for this is whether or not it could be considered in the child's best interest taking into account physical, social and mental well-being.

and no one but the child has the right to make that decision. Not you, not me, no one but the child.

The people who refuse to wait until the child is able to make that decision are therefore mutilating its genitals for their own gratification which, as the child has no say in the matter, is what you are describing. In other words, the genital mutilation is done to provide personal gratification to the parents, practitioners of the mutilation and all those who aide and abet the mutilation. It has nothing to do with the child's wishes whatsoever. If it did you would wait until the child was old enough to make up its own mind at say the same age it is able to fight and die for its country, not at a few weeks old.

Those who are charged with ensuring the best interests of the child - usually the parents - until the child is competent to consent.

No one has the right to mutilate their children for their own personal gratification. Doing so is child abuse.

No, but that situation would be rare.

By definition, anyone who mutilates the genitals of children are in favour of genital mutilation. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

This doesn't address the problem that an infant can't decide anything.

So what exactly is the problem waiting until it can? Sounds a bit like the rush to remove the WMD in Iraq to me.

Why the rush to mutilate its genitals for non-medical reasons? It seems that your so-called problem is that some people are unable to restrain themselves from mutilating a child's genitals until it grows up. By definition, that is only a problem for the mutilators.

That infants have caregivers is not usually (ever?) considered abusive.

That care givers cannot wait until a child grows up to be able to decide for itself whether to mutilate its own genitals and have to do it for their own personal satisfaction is abuse by definition as they have abused the infant in their care for non-medical personal gratification reasons.

Vilest? Is it possible to consider that killing a child is a viler act?

None of what I've said here hasn't already been said many times.

Linda

Let me help a bit with your quote '... of the vilest kind.' Mutilating a defenceless infant for your own personal gratification is definitely an act of the vilest kind. Killing it is also an act of the vilest kind. So is child abuse generally.

Has the number of times you state something got anything at all to do with their accuracy? I really don't think so.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

I I don't deliberately plant anything in order to confuse - that would defeat the purpose.

Linda

What you have been doing, deliberately in my opinion, is, by repeatedly refusing to qualify your own logic or arguments, effectively demanding that people somehow read your mind.

If you do not qualify your own logic or arguments why should anyone else do that for you. It is after all your own logic and your own arguments not ours.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

So given that there are behaviours that we think are not in the best interests of the child that are in common use, let's assume that while parents have a broad range of belief and opinion, they will respond to reason. What sort of information would you provide to prove to the parents that they are mistaken - in particular, for male circumcision and for FGC? For example, if I wanted to prove that laws ensuring that children are properly restrained are better than leaving it up to the parents, I would provide crash-test research showing the benefits of restraint, surveys showing that the use of proper restraints increases considerably after laws are passed, and a reduction in the amount of serious injury (all other things being equal) after child-restraint laws are enacted.

Linda

Circumcision is an invasive and painful procedure.

There are less invasive alternatives to circumcision for most of the benefits it provides, such as steroid creams, condoms, antibiotics, washing, etc. It's called progress.

As for infant UTI:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1651-2227.1998.tb01502.x?journalCode=apa

A retrospective population-based study was performed to describe the incidence rate of first time symptomatic urinary tract infection in children under 6 y of age. A total number of 299 children was identified during the 20-month study period in a population of 20 000 girls and 21 000 boys. The cumulative incidence rate during the first 6y of life was 6.6% for girls and 1.8% for boys. The annual incidence rate in girls of urinary tract infection/1000 at risk was between 9 and 14 for each of the six 1-y age intervals. In girls, the proportion of febrile urinary tract infection was high during the infant year, while girls older than 2 y most often had non-febrile infection. For infant boys, the incidence rate and the proportion of febrile urinary tract infection were comparable to that of girls, while after the first year of life urinary infection of any kind was rare, with an incidence rate of 1–2/1000 at risk.

So if parents aren't worried enough to take special precautions for their female children, why do they feel the need to take such drastic action to protect their male ones?

 

[fls]

I am afraid it cannot. This statement clearly shows contempt for the actual effect on the child and the fundamental discrimination at the heart of this matter.

If you continued to mutilate the genitals of an adult in the face of protests by the adult you would be charged with assault and be sent to prison.

My statement stands. If I knocked out an adult so that he could no longer protest before I mutilated his genitals, I would still be charged with assault and sent to prison. If an adult suffers a head injury in a car accident and in his confusion protests the life-saving CAT scan, I won't be charged with assault if I restrain him so that the scan can be performed.

The same applies to a child when the mutilation is for non-medical reasons as you are not doing it for the child's benefit but for your own gratification.

The determination as to whether or not the act is beneficial comes later. At this point, all we are deciding is whether by itself an infant's protest tells you whether or not the act is beneficial. I'd hate to see someone claim that an egregious act is okay, just because you knocked the infant out first.

I'm afraid this is also incorrect. I have been very clearly talking about non-medical genital mutilation of defenceless infants. That, by definition, is being done for nothing more than the personal gratification of the parents and those who carry out the procedure and anyone who aides and abets the process of mutilation. It is not being done at the wish or for the benefit of the child. It is being done at the wish of and for the personal gratification of the abuser.

How does a parent obtain any gratification from this act?

and no one but the child has the right to make that decision. Not you, not me, no one but the child.

The people who refuse to wait until the child is able to make that decision are therefore mutilating its genitals for their own gratification which, as the child has no say in the matter, is what you are describing. In other words, the genital mutilation is done to provide personal gratification to the parents, practitioners of the mutilation and all those who aide and abet the mutilation. It has nothing to do with the child's wishes whatsoever. If it did you would wait until the child was old enough to make up its own mind at say the same age it is able to fight and die for its country, not at a few weeks old.

We choose a million things for our child before they are able to choose on their own - what language they speak, what food they eat, what beliefs are considered impotant, where they live, what kind of education they receive, what toys they play with, what TV shows they watch, what they wear, and on and on and on. We do these things because out of necessity they happen before the child is ready to choose for himself. And by the time the child is able to choose these things for himself, he has been irrevocably influenced by those choices we already made for him - physically and mentally. Many of the benefits that parents see from circumcision for their child, out of necessity, happen before the child is ready to choose it for himself.

No one has the right to mutilate their children for their own personal gratification. Doing so is child abuse.

I agree. I see no indication that anyone does this. Please support your claim if you think otherwise.

By definition, anyone who mutilates the genitals of children are in favour of genital mutilation. Otherwise they wouldn't do it.

That all roads lead to Rome does not mean that all roads start in the same spot. I'm not in favour of injecting poison into my child, but I am in favour of attempting to cure my child's cancer. That a murderer and I will both inject poison (or allow chemotherapy to be injected in my case) into my child does not mean that anyone would consider me a murderer.

So what exactly is the problem waiting until it can? Sounds a bit like the rush to remove the WMD in Iraq to me.

Why the rush to mutilate its genitals for non-medical reasons? It seems that your so-called problem is that some people are unable to restrain themselves from mutilating a child's genitals until it grows up. By definition, that is only a problem for the mutilators.

Answered above.

That care givers cannot wait until a child grows up to be able to decide for itself whether to mutilate its own genitals and have to do it for their own personal satisfaction is abuse by definition as they have abused the infant in their care for non-medical personal gratification reasons.

That argument depends upon you demonstrating that the benefits aren't lost by waiting and that care-givers receive personal gratification.

Let me help a bit with your quote '... of the vilest kind.' Mutilating a defenceless infant for your own personal gratification is definitely an act of the vilest kind. Killing it is also an act of the vilest kind. So is child abuse generally.

Can any qualification whatsoever be made? Given the recent insights provided by epigenetics, would you agree that eating Big Macs during pregnancy is abuse of the vilest kind (the harm is arguably equivalent* to circumcision and is definitely based on personal gratification)?

Has the number of times you state something got anything at all to do with their accuracy? I really don't think so.

It has to do with your complaints that I have made no effort to support my arguments.

Linda

*In all fairness, I must add that it's probably unreasonable to suggest that the harm isn't actually much greater than that from circumcision. Fortunately, I think you will be disinclined to call me on it.

 

[fls]

What you have been doing, deliberately in my opinion, is, by repeatedly refusing to qualify your own logic or arguments, effectively demanding that people somehow read your mind.

If you do not qualify your own logic or arguments why should anyone else do that for you. It is after all your own logic and your own arguments not ours.

Your argument would be correct, had I actually done any of that. However, my many, many posts in this thread and in the previous thread, where I explain my logic and arguments in detail proves that you are wrong. And every single point that I am making in my responses to you, I have already made many, many times. I have not refused anything, although I have occasionally been temporarily dumfounded at the lengths you (and others) will go to to avoid comprehending what I have said. I think I have learned my lesson on that point, though.

Linda