• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Circumcision

Darat said:
By the way it's much easier to be direct about these matters - you could have just said "Do you mean me?" and if you did I would say "Yes from your posts I have formed that opinion about your position regarding FGM v MGM".

If you say you don't hold such a position then of course I have to believe you but would suggest that you try to be clearer and more direct in how you answer questions posed to you.
Click to expand...

I have stated, in two threads that you have participated in, I am not in favour of male circumcision. I have purposely repeated this message throughout these threads in case it was forgotten or missed. I also sincerely try to answer questions as accurately as possible (given that I am unable to be black and white on an issue).

It was just as easy for you to answer "you" to my question as it would have been to your question.

In all sincerity, I really thought that my answer to your last question about FGM was direct. If you can specify what was not clear about it, I can try again (I was going to say elaborate, but that is maybe the wrong approach in this situation :)).

Linda
 
fls, I just want to thank you for your participation. You're probably the single most level-headed person on these threads, and if anyone stood a chance of making me rethink my positions on male infant circumcision, it would be you.

And, just for the record, regarding FGM, if one of the techniques were identical in procedure, pain relief, and resulting function as modern in-hospital male infant circumcision, I'd be all for it. The fact is, the vast majority aren't. But I've also stated that I'm against circumcision with improper pain relief using outdated techniques in unsterile, backwaters locations like health tents in the jungles and such.

As for Loss Leader's situation, that's none of my business - which is one of the biggest problems with the anti-circ crowd - sticking their noses into other people's business.
 
Z said:
As for Loss Leader's situation, that's none of my business - which is one of the biggest problems with the anti-circ crowd - sticking their noses into other people's business.
Click to expand...

Is it always wrong to stick your nose into how other people treat their children? If not, why not? If so, then why?
 
9 pages in 3 days? Didn't we already have an overly long flamewar, I mean, thread, on circumcision already? Most forums eventually lock such fruitless discussions.
 
Z, How is this statement:

Z said:
<snip>

But I've also stated that I'm against circumcision with improper pain relief using outdated techniques in unsterile, backwaters locations like health tents in the jungles and such.
Click to expand...

Compatible with this one:

As for Loss Leader's situation, that's none of my business - which is one of the biggest problems with the anti-circ crowd - sticking their noses into other people's business.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
Lonewulf said:
Is it always wrong to stick your nose into how other people treat their children? If not, why not? If so, then why?
Click to expand...

It is wrong to stick your nose into how other people treat their children, unless such treatment includes physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse, as defined by the prevalent culture. Since circumcision is not considered a form of abuse, the anti-circ crime is guilty of sticking their noses into other people's business, where it doesn't belong.
 
Z said:
It is wrong to stick your nose into how other people treat their children, unless such treatment includes physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse, as defined by the prevalent culture. Since circumcision is not considered a form of abuse, the anti-circ crime is guilty of sticking their noses into other people's business, where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...

:confused: You seem to be saying that in a culture in which (for example) infibulation is not considered abusive by the members of that culture no one external to that culture or of a minority view within that culture should "stick their nose in"?
 
Z said:
It is wrong to stick your nose into how other people treat their children, unless such treatment includes physical, mental, emotional, or sexual abuse.
Click to expand...
Ah! Glad we're getting somewhere. I agree. But...

...as defined by the prevalent culture.
Click to expand...
Herein, I disagree.

Since circumcision is not considered a form of abuse, the anti-circ crime is guilty of sticking their noses into other people's business, where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...
I once more reference times where immoral things were sanctioned and legal and considered to be socially acceptable, that we find unacceptable today.

Thus, I admit no guilt of anything.
 
Z...you were doing good for a minute there forming a logically consistent position. I find that view you expressed at the beginning of the thread absolutely disgusting, but at least it's not hypocritical!

You're slipping now, though.
 
Kaylee said:
In this hypothetical situation? For the ammunition to protect myself against the incredibly intense pressure to carry on the tradition.

If the assertions in the links to my post #98 are correct than I would think circumcision is not only merely not medically indicated or necessary, but that it should be strongly discouraged.
Click to expand...

fls said:
Ah, then you would do well to use biased sources, if it's not likely that those opposing you will know different.
Click to expand...

Not my style, sorry. While I occasionally tease people I do my best not to ******* them. :)

fls said:
That's the point of selecting only that information that can be presented in such a way as to support your point, instead of a representative offering. It looks like you're on the right track.
Click to expand...

I think that is a harsh and unjustified reaction. I had stated in an earlier post that if I was faced with a decision on whether or not to have my hypothetical son circumcised, I would feel compelled to do furthur research based on the information that has been discussed in this thread.

It seems to me that the main difference of opinion among the people posting in this thread so far is how painful the procedure is to the baby and whether it has long term adverse affects.

If I understand the other side correctly, some feel that a male circumsicion performed on an 8 day or younger baby is of no more consequence than of a teenager getting their ears pierced. However, I've read several articles (with footnotes) that points to evidence including raised plasma cortisol levels and heart beats showing that this is simply not so -- that the baby feels a great deal of pain. That in fact, at such a young age they feel more pain than an adult would undergoing the same procedure. There was at least one study that claimed that undergoing so much pain at an early stage in life leaves a permanent change in the nervous system that results in circumcised boys feeling more pain than uncircumcised boys do from the same pain stimulus years later. The example studied was when both groups of boys were receiving vacinations.

Either the scientists that performed these studies have a history of doing repeatable work or they don't. Either the conclusions have been verified or they have not.

How could one possibly be opposed to looking for more information to finding this out?

If anyone has found studies that claim that babies nervous systems are too immature to feel the pain, or that the pain is very minimal please feel free to provide the links. I don't believe that there has been any links to studies showing these conclusions in this thread. At this point I don't know if any studies showing these conclusions exist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Loss Leader, I see you've been away for a while. You probably couldn't be bothered to trawl over what you've missed looking for relevance, so I'll help you. See posts #251, #255 and #263. Care to comment?
 
fls said:
I have stated, in two threads that you have participated in, I am not in favour of male circumcision. I have purposely repeated this message throughout these threads in case it was forgotten or missed. I also sincerely try to answer questions as accurately as possible (given that I am unable to be black and white on an issue).
Click to expand...

'... as accurately as possible...':

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?
Click to expand...

fls said:
I didn't have my boys circumcised, if that's what you mean. But, it turns out that "medically necessary" can mean pretty much what you want it to, in this circumstance.

Linda
Click to expand...

A simple 'Correct', followed by your qualification, would have seemed more accurate to me!
 
Z said:
fls, I just want to thank you for your participation. You're probably the single most level-headed person on these threads, and if anyone stood a chance of making me rethink my positions on male infant circumcision, it would be you.

And, just for the record, regarding FGM, if one of the techniques were identical in procedure, pain relief, and resulting function as modern in-hospital male infant circumcision, I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

How would you rate those chances, Z?!
 
Z said:
fls, I just want to thank you for your participation. You're probably the single most level-headed person on these threads, and if anyone stood a chance of making me rethink my positions on male infant circumcision, it would be you.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I've actually been wondering for quite a while now whether level-headed discussion is ever persuasive.

And, just for the record, regarding FGM, if one of the techniques were identical in procedure, pain relief, and resulting function as modern in-hospital male infant circumcision, I'd be all for it. The fact is, the vast majority aren't. But I've also stated that I'm against circumcision with improper pain relief using outdated techniques in unsterile, backwaters locations like health tents in the jungles and such.

As for Loss Leader's situation, that's none of my business - which is one of the biggest problems with the anti-circ crowd - sticking their noses into other people's business.
Click to expand...

But in all fairness, that's the point under discussion - is this one of those times we should stick our noses into other people's business?

Linda
 
fls said:
Thanks! I've actually been wondering for quite a while now whether level-headed discussion is ever persuasive.



But in all fairness, that's the point under discussion - is this one of those times we should stick our noses into other people's business?

Linda
Click to expand...

Z was just appealing to your vanity. He's feeling a bit lonely in this thread.

But come on Linda, tell us what "level-headed discussion" is exactly?

Does it involve ignoring people? That seems rather emotional, spiteful and childish to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom