Circumcision

[Southwind17]

I am "for" allowing that other people have opinions different from mine. And that, unless their opinions lead to actions that "cross the line", my dissent should be confined to voicing my opinion.



That's too bad, as he outlines very nicely when it does not matter what you think of him.

Linda

Gee Linda, I'm beginning to see Ivor's (I think it was Ivor) point earlier that you're very unclear in many of your answers. When you answered 'For' it was in response to my very simple question as to whether you're for or against male circumcision, not whether you're for or against allowing opinions different from your own. My question couldn't really have been more clear.

As for LossLeader's very nice outline, it might not matter what I think of him, just like it doesn't matter what I think of you or anybody else, for that matter. You know very well that that doesn't make his reasoning sound or his justifications valid.

 

[fls]

Gee Linda, I'm beginning to see Ivor's (I think it was Ivor) point earlier that you're very unclear in many of your answers. When you answered 'For' it was in response to my very simple question as to whether you're for or against male circumcision, not whether you're for or against allowing opinions different from your own. My question couldn't really have been more clear.

I think that's the problem. You aren't willing to allow that your question wasn't clear. How was I supposed to know what level you were thinking of? Was I supposed to assume you were asking whether I would circumcise my boys for any reason other than medical necessity? I tried that and you said no. So then I assumed you meant whether or not I'm "for" allowing that it is reasonable for other parents to take issues other than medical necessity into consideration. But now you're telling me that's not it, either. You claim you've asked a crystal clear question, but I still don't know how I'm supposed to answer. I truly wish this was easier.

As for LossLeader's very nice outline, it might not matter what I think of him, just like it doesn't matter what I think of you or anybody else, for that matter. You know very well that that doesn't make his reasoning sound or his justifications valid.

Exactly. The sound reasoning and valid justifications that he provided are independent of his opinions. This is an example of when it doesn't matter what you think of him. Just like when he goes to perform an action that is legal and you have no direct or indirect involvement in, is another example of when it doesn't matter what you think of him. If he goes to perform an action that you disagree with and you are directly or indirectly involved, then that is an example of when it does start to matter what you think of him.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Though LossLeader likes to make out the law is on his side, by default it is not. Non-theraputic infant circumcision is a glaring exception to the rule. No public official (currently) dares to focus on the inconsistencies (such as how a girl's genitals are protected from any modification, but males are not) for fear of offending Jews, Muslims and other parents who've had their boys circumcised.

No healthy child needs to be circumcised, just as no healthy child needs to be branded.

And let's not forget that it is not the parents who are performing the circumcision on the child. There is invariably a third party involved (e.g., a physician or a mohel). It is this individual who has to be able to demonstrate that their actions are in the best interest of the child.

At the very least Jews and Muslims should be required by law to employ effective pain relief.

 

[Southwind17]

I think that's the problem. You aren't willing to allow that your question wasn't clear. How was I supposed to know what level you were thinking of? Was I supposed to assume you were asking whether I would circumcise my boys for any reason other than medical necessity? ... You claim you've asked a crystal clear question, but I still don't know how I'm supposed to answer. I truly wish this was easier.

Let's see if we can see why you're not finding this easy Linda. Earlier you wrote:

Thank you for answering my question. It clarified what you were asking of me (emphasis added) so I can now answer your question.

For.

Linda

Forgive me for not realizing that you weren't sure what you were being asked, but I really don't know how your response could indicate, even hint, that you still harboured some doubt. The question that I asked by way of the clarification you sought was:

Are you for or against male cirumcision (medical justification aside)?

I really don't see how this question can be open to interpretation, and neither, seemingly, did you, given your response above.

The question was posed after you cryptically responded, to a previous question:

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.

which, to complete the trail, was your response to:

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?

So, to try to understand your position on this Linda allow me to re-phrase the question a third way:

In principle, do you agree or disagree with the practice of male circumcision on grounds other than when medically necessary? If that's still too hard, what about:

If you had the power today to eliminate the ritual practice of male circumcision without repercussion of any kind would you do so?

If you cannot answer a simple, unequivocal agree or disagree/yes or no to either of these questions would it be possible to explain exactly what is preventing you from doing so - please?

 

[fls]

Let's see if we can see why you're not finding this easy Linda. Earlier you wrote:

Forgive me for not realizing that you weren't sure what you were being asked, but I really don't know how your response could indicate, even hint, that you still harboured some doubt.

That's okay. I don't mind asking for clarification if I don't understand something.

The question that I asked by way of the clarification you sought was:

I really don't see how this question can be open to interpretation, and neither, seemingly, did you, given your response above.

The question was posed after you cryptically responded, to a previous question:

Why do you consider that answer cryptic?

which, to complete the trail, was your response to:

Well, you missed a few posts in there where I asked for clarification and you didn't respond or answer the question, but that's okay.

So, to try to understand your position on this Linda allow me to re-phrase the question a third way:

In principle, do you agree or disagree with the practice of male circumcision on grounds other than when medically necessary?

Agree. It is reasonable to take religious, cultural and ethnic traditions into account when considering the best interests of the child.

If that's still too hard, what about:

If you had the power today to eliminate the ritual practice of male circumcision without repercussion of any kind would you do so?

No. But in all fairness I probably wouldn't answer yes no matter what practice was chosen for elimination.

If you cannot answer a simple, unequivocal agree or disagree/yes or no to either of these questions would it be possible to explain exactly what is preventing you from doing so - please?

Nothing prevents me from doing so. I have done so over and over again. The answers I gave above I have given before. The problem is that when I do so you come back and tell me "that isn't what I was asking" or that you can't reconcile my answers.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

Great, that's cleared that up, thanks Linda. Now, back to the main point:

Agree. It is reasonable to take religious, cultural and ethnic traditions into account when considering the best interests of the child.

So on what basis do you consider circumcision to be in the best interests of a child on the grounds of religion, culture and/or ethnicity?

No. But in all fairness I probably wouldn't answer yes no matter what practice was chosen for elimination.

Not even for suicide bombing, genocide/ethnic cleansing, for example?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Agree. It is reasonable to take religious, cultural and ethnic traditions into account when considering the best interests of the child.

Only if they are based on reality. What consequences will an infant not being circumcised in the West have?

Thinking she is being tolerant, Linda is actually supporting irrational intolerance. I.e. The state of a man's penis matters at a social level.

No. But in all fairness I probably wouldn't answer yes no matter what practice was chosen for elimination.

<snip>

Linda

That is a ridiculous answer. Is Linda honestly saying that there are no ritual practices that she would wish to eliminate?

Hasn't she already said she will try to sway people to her opinion on non-theraputic male circumcision? Isn't that trying to eliminate the practice?

 

[fls]

So on what basis do you consider circumcision to be in the best interests of a child on the grounds of religion, culture and/or ethnicity?

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.

Not even for suicide bombing, genocide/ethnic cleansing, for example?

Nope.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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.

They aren't performed to strengthen groups. They are to create sub-groups.

Nope.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

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.

You seem to have shifted from the child's best interests to 'our' best interests. I assume that by 'we' and 'our' you mean humankind as a whole? What's it to be Linda, the child's best interests or our best interests (whatever 'our' means)?

So you regret the collapse of the Nazi movement after the second world war then?

Not even for suicide bombing, genocide/ethnic cleansing, for example?

Nope.

Linda

So you consider the World is better off with suicide bombers?

 

[fls]

You seem to have shifted from the child's best interests to 'our' best interests. I assume that by 'we' and 'our' you mean humankind as a whole? What's it to be Linda, the child's best interests or our best interests (whatever 'our' means)?

I will rephrase it.

"Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in our children's best interests.

Our = humankind.

So you regret the collapse of the Nazi movement after the second world war then?

You've lost me on this one.

I believe that the proper form is to invoke Z's Law rather than Godwin's Law in a circumcision thread.

So you consider the World is better off with suicide bombers?

I don't know. I am pretty sure that the World is better off if we work towards eliminating suicide bombers, though.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I will rephrase it.

"Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in our children's best interests.

Our = humankind.

And just think how much we could achieve if humankind did not divide itself into sub-groups based on petty and trivial differences.

I don't know. I am pretty sure that the World is better off if we work towards eliminating suicide bombers, though.

Linda

I'm pretty sure that the World is better off if we work towards eliminating irrational practices that hurt others.

 

[Southwind17]

I will rephrase it.

"Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in our children's best interests.

Our = humankind.

That's an interesting clarification. Why isolate 'children's' best interests? What about other age groups?

You've lost me on this one.

Well, didn't the Nazis invoke certain 'practices' to strengthen their particular 'group'?

I don't know. I am pretty sure that the World is better off if we work towards eliminating suicide bombers, though.

So first is was a clear 'nope', now it's 'don't know'. Do you think further consideration might lead you to lean one way or the other? What does 'work towards eliminating' achieve, if the end in itself is not necessarily considered desirable?

 

[fls]

That's an interesting clarification. Why isolate 'children's' best interests? What about other age groups?

I will rephrase it.

"Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in humans of all age's (including, but not limited to, children, infants, neonates, teenagers, tweens, young adults, adults, middle-aged humans, seniors, the elderly, viable fetuses, octagenarians, septuagenerians, toddlers, pre-schoolers, school-aged children, nonagenerians, and centarians) best interests."

Well, didn't the Nazis invoke certain 'practices' to strengthen their particular 'group'?

Yes, but their practices clearly failed other tests of whether or not something is reasonable or desirable.

So first is was a clear 'nope', now it's 'don't know'.

My "nope" was in answer to a different question than my "I don't know" was in answer to, hence the discrepancy.

Do you think further consideration might lead you to lean one way or the other?

Probably. I change my mind upon further consideration all the time. At this point in time, it may be that I've watched too much Star Trek and butterfly-effect-type movies.

What does 'work towards eliminating' achieve, if the end in itself is not necessarily considered desirable?

It ensures a process, not just an end. And I think a process by which to acheive desirable outcomes is more valuable than a desirable outcome by itself.

Linda

 

[Beth]

I don't usually participate in the circumcision threads as I have no penis. However, I just wanted to chime in with some support for Linda. I completely understand what she is saying and her position is consistent. I feel much the same.

For my own son, we felt there was no compelling reason to circumcise him, so we didn't. However, I support the right of other parents to choose to circumcise their infant son for whatever reasons they feel are sufficient. Whether that decision is based on the medical benefits, religious beliefs, family traditions, etc. doesn't matter. They don't have to justify their decision to anyone but themselves and their chidlren.

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't usually participate in the circumcision threads as I have no penis. However, I just wanted to chime in with some support for Linda. I completely understand what she is saying and her position is consistent. I feel much the same.

For my own son, we felt there was no compelling reason to circumcise him, so we didn't. However, I support the right of other parents to choose to circumcise their infant son for whatever reasons they feel are sufficient. Whether that decision is based on the medical benefits, religious beliefs, family traditions, etc. doesn't matter. They don't have to justify their decision to anyone but themselves and their chidlren.

Why don't they have to justify their decision, though? They have to justify any reasons for education, health care (I.E., required vaccinations, etc.) if they wish to exempt their child from such procedures. Why is circumcision so different? It requires the work of a doctor, taking up their time and resources. Either that, or it occurs under non-medical procedures, which is a different game altogether; I'd say that allowing surgical procedures done on a baby outside of a doctor's expertise should be controversial, to say the least.

Then there comes the whole "choosing a religion" for a child that does not follow that religious belief. I don't see how that's justifiable, I really don't. A child cannot choose to be Jewish, and thus can't choose to have a Jewish ceremonial practice done on his body; and circumcision is permanent, which will affect him for the rest of his life.

I don't see why no justification is necessary.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Probably. I change my mind upon further consideration all the time. At this point in time, it may be that I've watched too much Star Trek and butterfly-effect-type movies.

The film Deja Vu has history being more robust to external interference

It ensures a process, not just an end. And I think a process by which to acheive desirable outcomes is more valuable than a desirable outcome by itself.

Linda

Who doesn't think mutual agreement gets better results than brute force?

 

[Southwind17]

I will rephrase it.

And you accuse me of lacking clarity. This is your third attempt!

"Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in humans of all age's (including, but not limited to, children, infants, neonates, teenagers, tweens, young adults, adults, middle-aged humans, seniors, the elderly, viable fetuses, octagenarians, septuagenerians, toddlers, pre-schoolers, school-aged children, nonagenerians, and centarians) best interests."

Gee Linda, I think you're starting to confure even yourself now. I see we've gone full circle and we're back to justifying non-medical circumcision in the best interests of all, and not just the child, as you first started out (I assume you've tried to capture the concept of 'all' with your convoluted literal wranglings that only serve to back-fire on you).

Yes, but their practices clearly failed other tests of whether or not something is reasonable or desirable.

Oh, so you're the one introducing other factors now. How do you expect us to have a meaningful debate here when you write something seemingly straight forwardly but you have a hidden qualification that you see fit not to share with us, unless it's teased out of you?

My "nope" was in answer to a different question than my "I don't know" was in answer to, hence the discrepancy.

I think not, in essence. The 'nope' was in answer to whether you're against suicide bombers, etc. The 'don't know' was in answer to whether you think the World would be better off without suicide bombers. Regardless, you're adopting a somewhat irresponsible attitude all in the interests of trying not to be seen as objecting to circumcision.

Probably. I change my mind upon further consideration all the time. At this point in time, it may be that I've watched too much Star Trek and butterfly-effect-type movies.

I'm beginning to think there might actually be some truth in that. Perhaps due consideration before a hasty response might help matters?

It ensures a process, not just an end. And I think a process by which to acheive desirable outcomes is more valuable than a desirable outcome by itself.

Oh, so the ultimate aim of no suicide bombers (desirable outcome, to use your phrase) IS what you would like to see now. I thought 'nope' meant 'no', but now it seems that it means 'yes'.

 

[fls]

And you accuse me of lacking clarity. This is your third attempt!

Gee Linda, I think you're starting to confure even yourself now. I see we've gone full circle and we're back to justifying non-medical circumcision in the best interests of all, and not just the child, as you first started out (I assume you've tried to capture the concept of 'all' with your convoluted literal wranglings that only serve to back-fire on you).

I am simply trying to convey that I mean for my statement to apply to whatever it is that you are concerned about. If I have somehow mis-worded it so that you think I am referring to something else, I assure you that whatever it is that you are talking about is what I am talking about.

Oh, so you're the one introducing other factors now. How do you expect us to have a meaningful debate here when you write something seemingly straight forwardly but you have a hidden qualification that you see fit not to share with us, unless it's teased out of you?

There are usually several issues to be taken into consideration whenever one is attempting to form an opinion. If I mention one issue as the most relevant in a particular situation, please don't take that to mean that other issues don't become relevant if the situation is slightly changed. And please don't take that to mean that the same issue would be the most relevant when considering an entirely different situation altogether. And if I don't mention every single factor than may have bearing on a particular situation, or may have a bearing on any and all other situations that could ever be considered, please be assured that I do so in the interests of being direct, rather than in the interests of trying to hide something. I will usually attempt to find that perfect balance between saying too much and saying too little. But I can absolutely guarantee that I will be unable to please you. I'm okay with that, by the way. I'll still try.

I think not, in essence. The 'nope' was in answer to whether you're against suicide bombers, etc. The 'don't know' was in answer to whether you think the World would be better off without suicide bombers. Regardless, you're adopting a somewhat irresponsible attitude all in the interests of trying not to be seen as objecting to circumcision.

The "nope" was in response to whether or not I would whole scale remove a practice if I had the power to do so. The "I don't know" was in answer to whether the world is better off with suicide bombers. One possibility for me to consider is that the process of eliminating the practice strengthens humankind's ability to recognize practices that are harmful and prevent them from arising with the same ease. If I eliminated that process by waving my magic wand, when the suicide bombers disappeared, something else would simply fill the gap.

I'm beginning to think there might actually be some truth in that. Perhaps due consideration before a hasty response might help matters?

I've always thought so. Everybody else tells me that I think too much.

Oh, so the ultimate aim of no suicide bombers (desirable outcome, to use your phrase) IS what you would like to see now. I thought 'nope' meant 'no', but now it seems that it means 'yes'.

I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, in other words.

Linda

 

[Southwind17]

I'll sleep on this one, if you don't mind