Germans :nelson:
www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html
QuoteBenefits of Circumcision Are Said to Outweigh Risks
By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: August 27, 2012
The American Academy of Pediatrics has shifted its stance on infant male circumcision, announcing on Monday that new research, including studies in Africa suggesting that the procedure may protect heterosexual men against H.I.V., indicated that the health benefits outweighed the risks.
But the academy stopped short of recommending routine circumcision for all baby boys, saying the decision remains a family matter. The academy had previously taken a neutral position on circumcision.
The new policy statement, the first update of the academy's circumcision policy in over a decade, appears in the Aug. 27 issue of the journal Pediatrics. The group's guidelines greatly influence pediatric care and decisions about coverage by insurers; in the new statement, the academy also said that circumcision should be covered by insurance.
The long-delayed policy update comes as sentiment against circumcision is gaining strength in the United States and parts of Europe. Circumcision rates in the United States declined to 54.5 percent in 2009 from 62.7 percent in 1999, according to one federal estimate. Critics succeeded last year in placing a circumcision ban on the ballot in San Francisco, but a judge ruled against including the measure.
In Europe, a government ethics committee in Germany last week overruled a court decision that removing a child's foreskin was "grievous bodily harm" and therefore illegal. The country's Professional Association of Pediatricians called the ethics committee ruling "a scandal."
A provincial official in Austria has told state-run hospitals in the region to stop performing circumcisions, and the Danish authorities have commissioned a report to investigate whether medical doctors are present during religious circumcision rituals as required.
Officials with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, which for several years have been pondering circumcision recommendations of their own, have yet to weigh in and declined to comment on the academy's new stance. Medicaid programs in several states have stopped paying for the routine circumcision of infants.
"We're not pushing everybody to circumcise their babies," Dr. Douglas S. Diekema, a member of the academy's task force on circumcision and an author of the new policy, said in an interview. "This is not really pro-circumcision. It falls in the middle. It's pro-choice, for lack of a better word. Really, what we're saying is, 'This ought to be a choice that's available to parents.' "
But opponents of circumcision say no one — not even a well-meaning parent — has the right to make the decision to remove a healthy body part from another person.
"The bottom line is it's unethical," said Georganne Chapin, founding director of Intact America, a national group that advocates against circumcision. "A normal foreskin on a normal baby boy is no more threatening than the hymen or labia on your daughter."
In updating its 1999 policy, the academy's task force reviewed the medical literature on benefits and harms of the surgery. It was a protracted analysis that began in 2007, and the result is a 30-page report, which includes seven pages of references, including 248 citations.
Among those are 14 studies that provide what the experts characterize as "fair" evidence that circumcision in adulthood protects men from H.I.V. transmission from a female partner, cutting infection rates by 40 to 60 percent. Three of the studies were large randomized controlled trials of the kind considered the gold standard in medicine, but they were carried out in Africa, where H.I.V. — the virus the causes AIDS — is spread primarily among heterosexuals.
Circumcision does not appear to reduce H.I.V. transmission among men who have sex with men, Dr. Diekema said. "The degree of benefit, or degree of impact, in a place like the U.S. will clearly be smaller than in a place like Africa," he said.
Two studies have found that circumcision actually increases the risk of H.I.V. infection among sexually active men and women, the academy noted.
Other studies have linked male circumcision to lower rates of infection with human papillomavirus and herpes simplex Type 2. But male circumcision is not associated with lower rates of gonorrhea or chlamydia, and evidence for protection against syphilis is weak, the review said.
The procedure has long been recognized to lower urinary tract infections early in life and reduce the incidence of penile cancer.
Although newborn male circumcision is generally believed to be relatively safe, deaths are not unheard of, and the review noted that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown."
Significant complications are believed to occur in approximately one in 500 procedures. Botched operations can result in damage or even amputation of parts of the penis, and by one estimate about 117 boys die each year.
Anesthesia is often not used, and the task force recommended that pain relief, including penile nerve blocks, be used regularly, a change that may raise the rate of complications.
A version of this article appeared in print on August 27, 2012, on page A3 of the New York edition with the headline: Benefits of Circumcision Are Said to Outweigh Risks.
:cool:
what constitutes "fair" evidence? Three where large studies found that the rate was reduced, what were the 11 other studies? and 2 found that the rates actually increased. In short, this article is weak. Anyway, chop away, it's your kids :D
I think it's a storm in a tea cup. Millions of people live with/without foreskin just fine. I think whether you have it or not has a microscopic impact on your daily life, and everyone screaming, ZOMG YOU MUST/MUSTN'T CIRCUMCISE need to chill the fuck out.
Can you imagine being the founding director of Intact America? :D
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2012, 12:29:43 AM
I think it's a storm in a tea cup. Millions of people live with/without foreskin just fine. I think whether you have it or not has a microscopic impact on your daily life, and everyone screaming, ZOMG YOU MUST/MUSTN'T CIRCUMCISE need to chill the fuck out.
This is indeed true. My own assessment was that it was a minor procedure that provides minor health benefits - there's plenty of room to disagree on either point.
It shows, though, that rational debate based on facts is not possible these days. We seem to live in an age of near constant (media) outrage and moral panic and I find that, quite frankly, appalling.
I think we need to put valium into general water supply.
Quote from: HVC on August 28, 2012, 12:22:44 AM
Three where large studies found that the rate was reduced, what were the 11 other studies? and 2 found that the rates actually increased. In short, this article is weak.
What the fuck am I reading?
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2012, 12:50:57 AM
It shows, though, that rational debate based on facts is not possible these days. We seem to live in an age of near constant (media) outrage and moral panic and I find that, quite frankly, appalling.
I think we need to put valium into general water supply.
I am not sure I agree. Moral outrage had to be stronger in the past, since it forced people much more to conform with society's demands.
Anyway, the burden here is not whether "benefits outweight the risks" (that would be the burden of showing that the procedure may be used on consenting adults). The burden is whether the benefits are so unequivocal and extensive (and so necessary e.g. for men in modern West), and harms so non-existent (because we are not talking about just risk of infection but e.g. decreased sexual satisfaction) that they validate a need for applying this procedure to a non-consenting child.
Circumcision was not devised as a medical procedure. It was a cultural custom that subsequently started to be justified on medical grounds, when cultural/relgious reasons no longer sufficed. The best example of this are societies, like most of Europe, where it never became a cultural phenomenon - and that are dead set against it, simply because it is unthinkable to subject children to irreversible body modifications on dubious scientific grounds.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2012, 12:06:49 AM
Germans :nelson:
I guess it's laughable that Germans are not really concerned about invasive "medical procedure" that allegedly helps straight men in Africa being applied to their own populace, where virus strains, cultural behaviour and vectors of infection are completely different? Is that it?
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2012, 02:44:13 AM
Anyway, the burden here is not whether "benefits outweight the risks" (that would be the burden of showing that the procedure may be used on consenting adults). The burden is whether the benefits are so unequivocal and extensive (and so necessary e.g. for men in modern West), and harms so non-existent (because we are not talking about just risk of infection but e.g. decreased sexual satisfaction) that they validate a need for applying this procedure to a non-consenting child.
Circumcision was not devised as a medical procedure. It was a cultural custom that subsequently started to be justified on medical grounds, when cultural/relgious reasons no longer sufficed. The best example of this are societies, like most of Europe, where it never became a cultural phenomenon - and that are dead set against it, simply because it is unthinkable to subject children to irreversible body modifications on dubious scientific grounds.
You seem to be suggesting that the burden of proof should be higher because the cultural bias against it is so strong.
From a purely rational/scientific POV people should prefer an irreversable procedure with small and ambiguous net benefits.
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2012, 02:34:21 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 28, 2012, 12:22:44 AM
Three where large studies found that the rate was reduced, what were the 11 other studies? and 2 found that the rates actually increased. In short, this article is weak.
What the fuck am I reading?
Hs, a lot of Hs.
You don't get what Marty is saying.
Let's try to come at it from a different angle: if we, as a society say, that you should not be performing cosmetic surgery on non-consenting individuals (even children), then circumcision should not be exempt of this just because joos and mooslimbs do it.
And I agree.
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2012, 02:34:21 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 28, 2012, 12:22:44 AM
Three where large studies found that the rate was reduced, what were the 11 other studies? and 2 found that the rates actually increased. In short, this article is weak.
What the fuck am I reading?
an h where* there shouldn't be an h :P
*used the right one this time :lol:
The US doctors don't have the same racist motivation that Europeans do.
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2012, 12:29:43 AM
I think it's a storm in a tea cup. Millions of people live with/without foreskin just fine. I think whether you have it or not has a microscopic impact on your daily life, and everyone screaming, ZOMG YOU MUST/MUSTN'T CIRCUMCISE need to chill the fuck out.
Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:19:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on August 28, 2012, 12:29:43 AM
I think it's a storm in a tea cup. Millions of people live with/without foreskin just fine. I think whether you have it or not has a microscopic impact on your daily life, and everyone screaming, ZOMG YOU MUST/MUSTN'T CIRCUMCISE need to chill the fuck out.
Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.
Disagree. As far as I can see there is no "must" side.
Is anyone these days saying that parents
must circumcise?
I'm referring to languishites and yeah, there's a number
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:34:27 AM
I'm referring to languishites and yeah, there's a number
Really? Like who? Siegy? :lol:
Seedy would be the prime example. Neil, although he's probably trolling too.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:34:27 AM
I'm referring to languishites and yeah, there's a number
:yeahright:
I don't give a fuck if people don't get their boys circumcised, and I don't think the other Languish dads do either. I'm not certain who you are referring to.
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2012, 07:57:35 AM
You don't get what Marty is saying.
Let's try to come at it from a different angle: if we, as a society say, that you should not be performing cosmetic surgery on non-consenting individuals (even children), then circumcision should not be exempt of this just because joos and mooslimbs do it.
And I agree.
"non-consenting" is a deliberate dodge on this one. Infants are incapable of any kind of consent. Hell, I do things to my 2 year old a dozen or more times a day that he does not consent to - going to be, sitting on the potty, washing his teeth, coming inside.
The thing about circumcision is it is far, far preferable to be done on an infant, and much more problematic if done on an adult. To insist on "consent" is the under-handed way to ban circumcision.
In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.
Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.
:lol: The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 09:22:55 AM
:lol: The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.
Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised? :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 09:24:41 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 09:22:55 AM
:lol: The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.
Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised? :contract:
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:42:19 AM
Seedy would be the prime example. Neil, although he's probably trolling too.
:hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.
Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.
And I agree with this entirely.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 09:24:41 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 09:22:55 AM
:lol: The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.
Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised? :contract:
Hint: it was in the post before yours.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 09:24:41 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 09:22:55 AM
:lol: The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.
Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised? :contract:
Hint: it was in the post before yours.
Neil is undoubtedly trolling - he's posting after all.
Seedy? :yeahright: I don't think I've ever seen him post on the topic.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.
Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.
I don't think libertarianism is the default position when it comes to removing body parts. Especially other people's body parts. Somewhere there is a line where it's not ok and I don't think painting concern about where that line is as "moral outrage" is particularly helpful.
Quote from: Tamas on August 28, 2012, 07:57:35 AM
You don't get what Marty is saying.
Let's try to come at it from a different angle: if we, as a society say, that you should not be performing cosmetic surgery on non-consenting individuals (even children), then circumcision should not be exempt of this just because joos and mooslimbs do it.
And I agree.
Me too.
Anyway, I prefer the solution that existed in the USSR: since circumcison was rarely used by 99% of the male population (and nobody's health got any worse for it, odd enough), the procedure wasn't referred to in the law.
However, if an individual did develop health problems due to curcumcision (and these do exist, many appearing later in life), then the Mohel who did it would be prosecuted for inflicting bodily harm.
Also, if it had been done during childhood (i.e. before the age of consent), then the parents would also be responsabilized for submitting their child to unnecessary surgery.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 28, 2012, 09:41:56 AM
Anyway, I prefer the solution that existed in the USSR
No kidding.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:19:28 AM
Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.
Indeed. One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 09:38:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.
Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.
I don't think libertarianism is the default position when it comes to removing body parts. Especially other people's body parts. Somewhere there is a line where it's not ok and I don't think painting concern about where that line is as "moral outrage" is particularly helpful.
Moral outrage is moral outrage. It's a factually neutral description. Moral outrage isn't a bad thing: it is generally necessary to support a prohibition. It was moral outrage that eliminated human slavery.
To my mind, the issue is a simple one: does the scientific evidence show that the procedure is a big deal, worthy of social action and legal prohibition (and yes, moral outrage), or not?
That question is pretty conclusively answered.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:42:19 AM
Seedy would be the prime example. Neil, although he's probably trolling too.
:yeahright:
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:19:28 AM
Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.
Indeed. One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.
:lol:
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2012, 02:48:03 AM
I guess it's laughable that Germans are not really concerned about invasive "medical procedure" that allegedly helps straight men in Africa being applied to their own populace, where virus strains, cultural behaviour and vectors of infection are completely different? Is that it?
Invasive...you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
I do think it is laughable they made sure their reputation as anti-semites remains as intact as their foreskins though.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.
Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.
You can make the same argument about any sort of prohibition.
When have I ever demanded that everyone must be circumcized?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 09:49:00 AM
Indeed. One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.
:lol:
Hey, my advocacy for circumcision is based solely on the practical fact that chicks dig firemen helmets over snakes in turtlenecks. You don't want your son to get laid and instead freak chicks out, that's on you. Avoiding dick cheese is merely a bonus.
Besides, the arguments against circumcision are invalid as they're either 1) from antisemitic Euros who hate the concept of even looking remotely like Jews, or 2) from fags like Marty, who simply like to jam strangers' toes into their foreskins and rub them off like some sort of gay ass oyster trying to make pearls.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 09:49:00 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 08:19:28 AM
Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.
Indeed. One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.
:lol:
Quote from: DGuller on August 28, 2012, 09:59:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 09:11:13 AM
In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.
Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.
You can make the same argument about any sort of prohibition.
Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".
In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.
Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.
Snakes in turtlenecks look like firemen helmets when erect.
I never met a girl freakout by it.
I wanted to get my son circumcised but didn't jump on it with the docs quick enough and most of them won't do it after six weeks which I didn't know. There was one doctor who would but independent reports identified him as a quack so the boy is going helmeted.
Yeah there was a medical reason I couldn't circumsize my oldest son. That medical reason eventually required surgery in that exact area so I just got it done then. If it were not for the surgery I would have left him helmeted also.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2012, 12:06:49 AM
Germans :nelson:
I think you have not understood the argument made by the German court. It was not about whether the procedure may be medically beneficial or carry risks, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics cares about. It was about whether parents should have the right to subject their children this medical procedure. The principles in question were not medical, but rather about the rights of the children and the parents. So I don't see why the American Academy of Pediatrics changing the policy on the procedure has any relevance for the previous case in Germany.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".
In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.
Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.
You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.
That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.
Quote from: Zanza on August 28, 2012, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2012, 12:06:49 AM
Germans :nelson:
I think you have not understood the argument made by the German court. It was not about whether the procedure may be medically beneficial or carry risks, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics cares about. It was about whether parents should have the right to subject their children this medical procedure. The principles in question were not medical, but rather about the rights of the children and the parents. So I don't see why the American Academy of Pediatrics changing the policy on the procedure has any relevance for the previous case in Germany.
Are you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 10:27:01 AM
You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.
That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.
In the US, the default is to be circumsized. And because of that, most chicks in the US do prefer circumsized men.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 10:27:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".
In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.
Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.
You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.
That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.
Except circumcision has been performed for thousands of years, and been the norm in north america for what - 70 years? Surely then the onus should be on those who want to ban the procedure.
That being said...
discussions of onus and burden of proof is a really shitty way to debate an issue. Even in court, where we have strict rules on onus and burden of proof, they are shitty ways to frame an issue, and judges are rarely satisfied by an assertion of "the other side has not satisfied their onus". A judge wants to do what is right, period. That's not to say that the onus and burden of proof are ignored, but if it is at all close the issue of whose onus it is will not decide the matter.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 10:30:29 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 10:27:01 AM
You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.
That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.
In the US, the default is to be circumsized.
True for our generation, perhaps even your boys generation, but I think that may not be the case for my boys. While it wasn't hard to get them circumcised, we had to go out and make the inquiries - the default would have been nothing.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 10:27:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:06:39 AM
Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".
In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.
Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.
You seem to be indicating that the default position is to allow involuntary body modifications and that prohibiting circumcision would be an exception that must be defended. The opposite is true. Allowing circumcision is the exception and the onus is on proponents to make the case that it should be allowed.
That case could be made, but I personally think it needs more that a slight balance in risk vs benefit. And certainly middle-schoolesque rumours about what "chicks dig man" don't make it.
The default position where someone is attempting to lay down a law as to what others can or cannot do is always that the onus is on them to justify it. In what universe is this not true?
In short, to demonstrate that the "involuntary body modifications" in issue are a
big deal, worthy of condemnation by the state. Worthy of generating moral outrage at those who dare to commit them. Presumably, clipping an infant's toenails ought not to result in police action, while removing an eyeball should, if it cannot be justified. Circumcision is simply not a big enough deal to support moral outrage.
Once the matter is proved to be a Big Deal, the onus shifts for those wishing to do it, to demostrate that benefits outweigh risks. Which in the case of circumcision they do.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:29:28 AM
Quote from: Zanza on August 28, 2012, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 28, 2012, 12:06:49 AM
Germans :nelson:
I think you have not understood the argument made by the German court. It was not about whether the procedure may be medically beneficial or carry risks, which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics cares about. It was about whether parents should have the right to subject their children this medical procedure. The principles in question were not medical, but rather about the rights of the children and the parents. So I don't see why the American Academy of Pediatrics changing the policy on the procedure has any relevance for the previous case in Germany.
Are you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?
Well, it was primarily about their hatred of Jews, and secondly their hatred of Muslims. I don't see the German government rushing to put doctors who correct cross-eyed children in jail.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 10:37:31 AM
True for our generation, perhaps even your boys generation, but I think that may not be the case for my boys. While it wasn't hard to get them circumcised, we had to go out and make the inquiries - the default would have been nothing.
In our hospital we were asked to make a decision one way or the other. My wife didn't understand the question and I emphatically answered "yes." We had already discussed it & the wife agreed that it should be done. But the nurse apparently thought I was trying to leave my wife in the dark, so she gives me a nasty look and then goes into this detailed explanation about the procedure. Wife finally waves her off & says "yes, I agree with him-- please stop talking."
Quote from: derspiess on August 28, 2012, 10:47:41 AM
"yes, I agree with him-- please stop talking."
I like your wife :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 10:35:59 AM
Except circumcision has been performed for thousands of years, and been the norm in north america for what - 70 years? Surely then the onus should be on those who want to ban the procedure.
I don't see how that's relevant. It appears to be an appeal to tradition.
Quote
discussions of onus and burden of proof is a really shitty way to debate an issue. Even in court, where we have strict rules on onus and burden of proof, they are shitty ways to frame an issue, and judges are rarely satisfied by an assertion of "the other side has not satisfied their onus". A judge wants to do what is right, period. That's not to say that the onus and burden of proof are ignored, but if it is at all close the issue of whose onus it is will not decide the matter.
Fair enough although I think we're discussing the normative value not the legal. However the question is when there isn't strong indicators one way or the other which way does it fall? It seems to me that chopping off body parts is something that we prohibit by default unless good reason can be shown to allow it.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:29:28 AMAre you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?
No, what I am saying is that the decision was not about whether it was medically beneficial or not.
The doctor that was indicted himself acknowledged that there was no medical indication for the procedure so that was never contested. It was clear from the start that the only reason this circumcision was done was the religion of the parents.
The defence was about him being mistaken about the wrongful nature of the act. It was granted by the way as the question whether parents do or do not have the right to ask for a circumcision of their sons is controversial in German legal literature.
Here is the decision, if you are interested: http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/koeln/lg_koeln/j2012/151_Ns_169_11_Urteil_20120507.html
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 10:48:56 AM
Fair enough although I think we're discussing the normative value not the legal. However the question is when there isn't strong indicators one way or the other which way does it fall? It seems to me that chopping off body parts is something that we prohibit by default unless good reason can be shown to allow it.
The amount of "good reason" would seem to be proportional to the size of the "body part" wouldn't you think?
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 10:48:56 AM
I don't see how that's relevant. It appears to be an appeal to tradition.
Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind? Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.
Quote from: Zanza on August 28, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:29:28 AMAre you saying that in Germany it was irrelevant whether the procedure was beneficial or not?
No, what I am saying is that the decision was not about whether it was medically beneficial or not.
The doctor that was indicted himself acknowledged that there was no medical indication for the procedure so that was never contested. It was clear from the start that the only reason this circumcision was done was the religion of the parents.
The defence was about him being mistaken about the wrongful nature of the act. It was granted by the way as the question whether parents do or do not have the right to ask for a circumcision of their sons is controversial in German legal literature.
Here is the decision, if you are interested: http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/lgs/koeln/lg_koeln/j2012/151_Ns_169_11_Urteil_20120507.html
My German isn't as good as it could be, so I'm afraid the link isn't going to do me any good. ;)
To my mind, a cost/benefit analysis of the procedure always ought to be significant in determining the legality of a medical procedure, whatever motivated it.
Obviously, circumcision is only "indicated" in a tiny minority of cases.
Quote from: Malthus on August 28, 2012, 10:38:49 AMThe default position where someone is attempting to lay down a law as to what others can or cannot do is always that the onus is on them to justify it. In what universe is this not true?
In short, to demonstrate that the "involuntary body modifications" in issue are a big deal, worthy of condemnation by the state. Worthy of generating moral outrage at those who dare to commit them. Presumably, clipping an infant's toenails ought not to result in police action, while removing an eyeball should, if it cannot be justified. Circumcision is simply not a big enough deal to support moral outrage.
The way our law works in this case is not to prohibit stuff explicitely, it just generally bans bodily harm, but makes not mention of circumcision. Rather the child has certain rights from our constitution, among them "every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity", so the default position was that the physical integrity has to be untouched. You need to find a good reason why that right can be overruled. As far as I can tell our medical associations do not consider circumcision a major risk, but also not particularly beneficial - i.e. the position that the American Academy of Pediatrics apparently had before this announcement - so there is no medical indication to do it. That leaves the religious considerations which were - by the Cologne court - deemed insufficient to overrule the right of the child to physical integrity.
EDIT: Our parliament now wants to allow it for religious reasons too, not because they consider it a medically beneficial procedure. So as I said, the question that is currently discussed in Germany is not about whether it is beneficial or not - which is what the American Academy of Pediatrics talks about - but about whether religious considerations should overrule the general right to physical integrity. So Tim's laughing at Germany due to this article shows he didn't understand the argument here.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:04:47 AM
Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind? Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.
Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 10:30:29 AM
In the US, the default is to be circumsized. And because of that, most chicks in the US do prefer circumsized men.
There's also the thing about having a foreskin reducing the friction during sex. Personally, I don't know why anyone would want to reduce the friction, but that's just me. Friction is fun.
But then again I don't know it any other way. I guess if I wanted to reduce the sensation I could just wear a rubber. Maybe that's what sex feels like for uncircumcised guys.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:04:47 AM
Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind? Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.
Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.
For a lot of people, tradition is a good reason to continue doing something.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.
Hey maybe someday we can set up your revolutionary tribunal to reshape popular actions in accordance to cold rationality. Actually that would be awesome :wub:
But until then the coercive power of the state to change people's behaviors, particularly when they might be seen to come into conflict with the gaurantees of the Constitution, will usually be taken with careful consideration.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 11:36:15 AM
For a lot of people, tradition is a good reason to continue doing something.
Indeed. So using a threat of prison or fines or some other sort of coercion to force them to do something else might not be looked at very favorably. The cause of reversing the tradition better be a very good one.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 11:36:15 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:04:47 AM
Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind? Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.
Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.
For a lot of people, tradition is a good reason to continue doing something.
I could go all Burkean and tell you why tradition is an excellent reason to do something...
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:37:10 AM
Hey maybe someday we can set up your revolutionary tribunal to reshape popular actions in accordance to cold rationality.
We don't need a tribunal. Foreskin Man will save the day.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foreskinman.com%2Fimages%2Fforeskin-man-no-2-front-cover.jpg&hash=480d4893bf1948096cb6a6d930392eb3263fcc27)
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
I could go all Burkean and tell you why tradition is an excellent reason to do something...
Max believes exactly the opposite.
We often disagree on this. :ph34r:
Well if Max felt otherwise he would never have become your husband so we should be thankful he has the fiery heart of a Jacobin.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:43:35 AM
Well if Max felt otherwise he would never have become your husband so we should be thankful he has the fiery heart of a Jacobin.
I am. :sleep:
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:33:40 AM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:04:47 AM
Um ok what people actually do is not relevent to formation of public policy in your mind? Care to explain that one because that sounds counter to common-sense.
Oh I have no doubt that appeal to tradition is alive and well in determining public policy.
The only reason to be wary of appeals to tradition as they can lead to public policy that it harmful for individuals and society (re: slavery, discrimination towards minorities, smoking). However, all of those can be framed in ways where one can clearly show that tradition was a harmful influence and needed to be overturned. I'm not really sure one can make the same claim for circumcision except for minority cases of infected children and botched circumcisions which more have to do with skill/quality of practitioner.
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
Actually it can grow back if you do not roll back the foreskin and make sure it never re-adheres.
Interesting. I did not know that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:15:01 AM
:cool:
Given that the benefits were noticed in Africa and you live in the frigid north I am not so sure you should be so happy about mutilating your son. Besides you are going to teach him about the benefits of using a condom right?
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:51:11 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
Actually it can grow back if you do not roll back the foreskin and make sure it never re-adheres.
And women who are rarely get pregnant.
Who performs a chop job in such a way that it will grow back?
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 11:57:17 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:15:01 AM
:cool:
Given that the benefits were noticed in Africa and you live in the frigid north I am not so sure you should be so happy about mutilating your son. Besides you are going to teach him about the benefits of using a condom right?
I didn't do it for the health benefits though - I did it to annoy the Germans. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 11:58:34 AM
Who performs a chop job in such a way that it will grow back?
Kids grow you see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
I think decisions parents make about how they raise their children play a much bigger impact in their child's life (i.e. long-reaching effects that sure a person can work to overcome but not everyone does) over the presence or absence of a little piece of skin.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Yep, exactly. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Ok so you are comparing a chop job to decisions related to withholding food and education. I think my work here is done.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 11:51:11 AM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
Actually it can grow back if you do not roll back the foreskin and make sure it never re-adheres.
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 12:02:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 11:58:34 AM
Who performs a chop job in such a way that it will grow back?
Kids grow you see.
But the foreskin doesnt once removed, you see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Ok so you are comparing a chop job to decisions related to withholding food and education. I think my work here is done.
Try again.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
Ok so you are comparing a chop job to decisions related to withholding food and education. I think my work here is done.
Was your work to make yourself look crazy? :unsure:
Obviously education and nutrition (/dietary habits) play a larger role in a person's life than a little skin.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Ok so you are comparing a chop job to decisions related to withholding food and education. I think my work here is done.
Try again.
Are you seriously telling me that a decision about whether to buy a bananna or an apple is equivalent to choping off a body part. No wonder you were able to do it with that kind of justification in mind. ;)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
That certainly flies in the face of what my doctors have been telling me <_<
It is clearly common enough to be mentioned when one is performed for whatever reason.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:08:05 PM
But the foreskin doesnt once removed, you see.
But it can you see.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:11:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:07:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:01:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:00:22 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
But those happen all the time. Sure they don't involved a minor surgical procedure, but they are still made.
Give me an example that would be equivalent of removing a part of the body.
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Ok so you are comparing a chop job to decisions related to withholding food and education. I think my work here is done.
Try again.
Are you seriously telling me that a decision about whether to buy a bananna or an apple is equivalent to choping off a body part. No wonder you were able to do it with that kind of justification in mind. ;)
I am seriously telling you that consistently feeding your child bananas and apples, rather than candy bars and ice cream, is far more important to a child than the presence or absence of a foreskin. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:11:12 PM
Are you seriously telling me that a decision about whether to buy a bananna or an apple is equivalent to choping off a body part. No wonder you were able to do it with that kind of justification in mind. ;)
Okay, CC-troll. Time to get back in your cage. Scoot now. :)
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
That certainly flies in the face of what my doctors have been telling me <_<
Valmy, I've never heard of that myself.
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
That certainly flies in the face of what my doctors have been telling me <_<
It is clearly common enough to be mentioned when one is performed for whatever reason.
I listened to my body and it told me that you are wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
That certainly flies in the face of what my doctors have been telling me <_<
Valmy, I've never heard of that myself.
Seedy clearly just wanted to reference Akin for an unknown reason.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PMIf it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
:lmfao:
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
That certainly flies in the face of what my doctors have been telling me <_<
Valmy, I've never heard of that myself.
Seedy clearly just wanted to reference Akin for an unknown reason.
Ah. *whoosh* :Embarrass:
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 12:11:12 PM
Are you seriously telling me that a decision about whether to buy a bananna or an apple is equivalent to choping off a body part. No wonder you were able to do it with that kind of justification in mind. ;)
I only wish I was able to chop off a few fingers and toes. The fewer body parts the little guy has to worry about the better.
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 11:42:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 11:38:35 AM
I could go all Burkean and tell you why tradition is an excellent reason to do something...
Max believes exactly the opposite.
We often disagree on this. :ph34r:
Do you feel that his background in traditionalist cults might have some effect on him in this regard?
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:14:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:13:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 12:11:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
That certainly flies in the face of what my doctors have been telling me <_<
Valmy, I've never heard of that myself.
Seedy clearly just wanted to reference Akin for an unknown reason.
Ah crap I missed that. Good one Seedy.
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:03:33 PM
I would think that raising a child in religion, which language you speak to them, where you send them to school, whether you read to them or not, what kind of food you feed them - all are far more important than the presence of absence of a foreskin.
Yes, as I said, I'm wary of, not necessarily opposed to.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 28, 2012, 12:07:37 PM
From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate circumcision, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
:lol:
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
Do you feel that his background in traditionalist cults might have some effect on him in this regard?
Yes, it has enlightened me to the dangers of using tradition as a reason. Enlightenment is often painful, I understand if not everyone wants to experience it.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 12:26:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
Do you feel that his background in traditionalist cults might have some effect on him in this regard?
Yes, it has enlightened me to the dangers of using tradition as a reason. Enlightenment is often painful, I understand if not everyone wants to experience it.
But what about what I said to that point?
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 12:26:28 PM
Yes, it has enlightened me to the dangers of using tradition as a reason. Enlightenment is often painful, I understand if not everyone wants to experience it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.e-rockford.com%2Fmikebrown%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F04%2F8831.poster_tradition2.jpg&hash=d9f15bd5fadbd7dfcf00d33ea8d42502d7286684)
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
I did it to annoy the Germans. :cool:
I think Syt and I are the only two Germans that even know about it and we don't care. :secret:
Please note that statement was not entirely serious. Valmy, :lol: I love it.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 12:26:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
Do you feel that his background in traditionalist cults might have some effect on him in this regard?
Yes, it has enlightened me to the dangers of using tradition as a reason. Enlightenment is often painful, I understand if not everyone wants to experience it.
I think you might be too close to the problem.
Quote from: Zanza on August 28, 2012, 12:30:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:00:40 PM
I did it to annoy the Germans. :cool:
I think Syt and I are the only two Germans that even know about it and we don't care. :secret:
Don't try and deny it. It infuriates you to know end, knowing that my sons's penises are free and unobstructed.
Know.
Or no as we say here.
Quote from: Zanza on August 28, 2012, 12:40:13 PM
Know.
Or no as we say here.
I thought you said 'nein'. :hmm:
I rarely do that when speaking or writing English. I am just not sure whether "no" in Yukonish is written "know".
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
Do you feel that his background in traditionalist cults might have some effect on him in this regard?
I feel it is the entire basis for his opinion in this regard. :)
Quote from: Zanza on August 28, 2012, 12:47:10 PM
I rarely do that when speaking or writing English. I am just not sure whether "no" in Yukonish is written "know".
We prefer to call it Yukonese. -_-
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 12:26:28 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 28, 2012, 12:20:57 PM
Do you feel that his background in traditionalist cults might have some effect on him in this regard?
Yes, it has enlightened me to the dangers of using tradition as a reason. Enlightenment is often painful, I understand if not everyone wants to experience it.
:mad:
Take it back!
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 12:12:55 PM
I am seriously telling you that consistently feeding your child bananas and apples, rather than candy bars and ice cream, is far more important to a child than the presence or absence of a foreskin. :)
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
You don't miss what you never knew you had. :sleep:
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 01:37:27 PM
You don't miss what you never knew you had. :sleep:
So just cut the whole thing off just to make sure he doesnt get aids.... with that reasoning he will never miss it. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone can recover from what their parents did to them in childhood. There are some handicaps that are very hard to recover from.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 01:37:27 PM
You don't miss what you never knew you had. :sleep:
So just cut the whole thing off just to make sure he doesnt get aids.... with that reasoning he will never miss it. ;)
I don't see how you can honestly equate those two things.
Anyway, I wish my parents had decided to proceed with snipping that little bit of skin at birth. I still have memories of the pain I felt when I later had it removed for medical reasons.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone can recover from what their parents did to them in childhood. There are some handicaps that are very hard to recover from.
Exactly, we should do all that can be done to make sure parents do not limit the choices of their children. Being a good parent is actually the opposite.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 01:42:42 PM
I don't see how you can honestly equate those two things.
That because you are looking past the logical flaw in Merry's justification that they will never miss what they never knew they had.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
Exactly, we should do all that can be done to make sure parents do not limit the choices of their children. Being a good parent is actually the opposite.
Your choices are pretty limited with regards to foreskin even if you keep. Only fools like C4 then go through the pain of having it removed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:45:23 PM
That because you are looking past the logical flaw in Merry's justification that they will never miss what they never knew they had.
Still really aren't the same. There of course can be some missing of that bit of skin, but nowhere near the amount of missing of losing the entire organ.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:27:45 PM
But what about what I said to that point?
Sorry I had to go to class before I could address this.
I don't think I agree. There are things like those you mentioned that are actively harmful and yes, tradition shouldn't be used to excuse them. But beyond that an obsession with tradition can prevent one from accepting or even seeking out new methods, practices or ideas that can be beneficial, even in small incremental ways.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
Eh it is easier to have plastic surgery to get a new foreskin put back on than try to make it to the National Football League after being denied football until you are 18. Or somehow gain a new first language. I think my kids will deal.
Someone should introduce CC to the "Tug Ahoy" device and the wonderful world of obsessive foreskin restorers. :D
http://www.restoringtally.com/blog/2010/05/patent-tug-ahoy-foreskin-restoration-device
:lol: from that site:
http://www.restoringforeskin.org/ (http://www.restoringforeskin.org/)
wow
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone can recover from what their parents did to them in childhood. There are some handicaps that are very hard to recover from.
Exactly, we should do all that can be done to make sure parents do not limit the choices of their children. Being a good parent is actually the opposite.
I really don't think I agree with that. I very much want to limit the choices of my child. I don't want him to use drugs, drop out of school, or become a Rider fan.
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on August 28, 2012, 01:37:27 PM
You don't miss what you never knew you had. :sleep:
So just cut the whole thing off just to make sure he doesnt get aids.... with that reasoning he will never miss it. ;)
Sure, you could, but that would be a detriment to the child. Cutting off the foreskin is not.
Quote from: Martinus on August 28, 2012, 02:44:13 AM
Anyway, the burden here is not whether "benefits outweight the risks" (that would be the burden of showing that the procedure may be used on consenting adults). The burden is whether the benefits are so unequivocal and extensive (and so necessary e.g. for men in modern West), and harms so non-existent (because we are not talking about just risk of infection but e.g. decreased sexual satisfaction) that they validate a need for applying this procedure to a non-consenting child.
Circumcision was not devised as a medical procedure. It was a cultural custom that subsequently started to be justified on medical grounds, when cultural/relgious reasons no longer sufficed. The best example of this are societies, like most of Europe, where it never became a cultural phenomenon - and that are dead set against it, simply because it is unthinkable to subject children to irreversible body modifications on dubious scientific grounds that's what Jews do.
Fixed it
Quote from: Barrister on August 28, 2012, 02:42:00 PM
I really don't think I agree with that. I very much want to limit the choices of my child. I don't want him to use drugs, drop out of school, or become a Rider fan.
Yeah I will de everything in my power to make sure my son does not convert to Mormonism or attend Texas A&M University. Up to and including physical force.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 02:01:18 PM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 12:27:45 PM
But what about what I said to that point?
Sorry I had to go to class before I could address this.
I don't think I agree. There are things like those you mentioned that are actively harmful and yes, tradition shouldn't be used to excuse them. But beyond that an obsession with tradition can prevent one from accepting or even seeking out new methods, practices or ideas that can be beneficial, even in small incremental ways.
But I don't think it is an obsession with tradition. And I'd rather think - why should we change things (in a restrictive sense) if there isn't any demonstrable harm?
Yeah, why should we outlaw the practices of religious and cultural minorities when there isn't demonstrable harm?
Who was talking about outlawing something?
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 05:27:01 PM
Who was talking about outlawing something?
The Germans and a number of other European commentators, using exactly the reasoning you and Martinus and MS are advancing.
I'm not responsible for what the Germans do.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 06:39:46 PM
I'm not responsible for what the Germans do.
Of course you're not. But when you use the same rhetoric, you should expect people to notice.
I don't know what your point is.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 06:45:46 PM
I don't know what your point is.
My point is that a whole bunch of the rhetoric being used here is also being used in Europe (by the likes of Martinus and MS) to argue for the outlawing of fundamental practices of minority religious groups.
That's the point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ok
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 06:45:46 PM
I don't know what your point is.
I guess I don't know what your point was. I thought you were saying it shouldn't be allowed just because it was traditional. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on August 28, 2012, 06:50:18 PM
I guess I don't know what your point was. I thought you were saying it shouldn't be allowed just because it was traditional. :hmm:
No, I was saying it wasn't a good idea just because it's traditional.
For the record, just because something is a minority religious practice doesn't make it a good idea either. I kind of falls in the same category.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 06:54:53 PM
For the record, just because something is a minority religious practice doesn't make it a good idea either. I kind of falls in the same category.
Of course not.
But is it so "not a good idea" to the point that it should be outlawed?
If you don't think it should be forbidden, what is the purpose of establishing that it's "not a good idea"? Are we just sharing opinions about what other people do that we mildly disapprove of?
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 11:50:12 AM
I'm also rather wary of making irreversible and unnecessary choices on behalf of children.
I'm not. My son is my son. I own him until he becomes 20 years old, according with sefaradi tradition.
After that, he still ows me his respect and obediance.
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 06:52:11 PM
No, I was saying it wasn't a good idea just because it's traditional.
Oh. Well then. Yes whether or not it is a good idea will have to stand on its own merits.
I do not see convincing evidence it is necessarily a bad idea.
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2012, 07:00:48 PM
Are we just sharing opinions about what other people do that we mildly disapprove of?
Indeed. I could write a tome :D
Quote from: Jacob on August 28, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
Quote from: Maximus on August 28, 2012, 05:27:01 PM
Who was talking about outlawing something?
The Germans and a number of other European commentators, using exactly the reasoning you and Martinus and MS are advancing.
As I said before, the default legal stance in Germany is that the "physical integrity" is protected as that's considered one of the basic human rights of our constitution. If the religious ritual - not the medically indicated procedure - of circumcision should be an exception to that general rule, the argument must be made for why it should be an exception, not against outlawing it as it is already outlawed under the much more general rule. It's not about possible medical benefits (not even the American Pediatrics go so far to make a general recommendation), but rather about whether phyiscal integrity or religious freedom should be the higher value in our constitution.
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone can recover from what their parents did to them in childhood. There are some handicaps that are very hard to recover from.
Ok so your line of reasoning is that since we may not be able to fully recover from parent-induced obesity, we should go the whole hog and let the parents have their kids subjected to wolverine-like surgery (which would be cool) or tatoo their entire body with swastikas, right?
I think drawing the line at irreversible body modification is pretty reasonable middle ground.
The circumcision issue fails to move me for some reason. :mellow: I've seen it debated strenuously IRL, too, mostly trolling either side on my part. :blush:
I'm circumcised, but during the crucial growing-up years, I had mainly Catholic friends who were majority uncircumcised, so I just took it as a fact of life. I remember in kindergarten peeing at the same time with my friend Rachinelli and having an "ours' look different!" moment, but beyond that...nothing much.
I guess if I had a son, I'd just go along with whatever the majority trend in my country was, which would hopefully give him less neuroses about being genitally abnormal as puberty set in.
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2012, 02:00:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 28, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on August 28, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
There is an important distinction there BB. You may be the worst possible parent (for the purposes of this argument only of course :) ) who feeds their child crap food, sends them to a crap school and provides a crap role model. But when your child becomes old enough to realize you are full of crap they have a choice to do things differently. Not so with missing body part.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone can recover from what their parents did to them in childhood. There are some handicaps that are very hard to recover from.
Ok so your line of reasoning is that since we may not be able to fully recover from parent-induced obesity, we should go the whole hog and let the parents have their kids subjected to wolverine-like surgery (which would be cool) or tatoo their entire body with swastikas, right?
I think drawing the line at irreversible body modification is pretty reasonable middle ground.
No, don't be an idiot.