Decline in circumcision rate could cost billions

[heavenlyboy34]

It's not my place to dictate other cultures behavior.

And your analogy is not synonymous with circumcision.

It's not supposed to be analogous to circumcision. It's identical in the ethics and logic behind it. Remember, you said

Come on ya'll this is a medical procedure that is socially acceptable.

Following this logic, clitoridectomy is as acceptable as neonatal circumcision just because a "society" normalizes it.

 

[tod evans]

It's not supposed to be analogous to circumcision. It's identical in the ethics and logic behind it. Remember, you said Following this logic, clitoridectomy is as acceptable as neonatal circumcision just because a "society" normalizes it.

It's still not my place to dictate another cultures behavior.

If you choose to draw coloration between circumcision and a clitoridectomy it's not my place to tell you you can't.

However I disagree with both your "logic" and the statement it contains.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Except you wouldn't have to do anything different with a intact child's penis, because the foreskin is fused to the glans until childhood, usually, and sometimes until age 10-13. Forcibly retracting the foreskin can lead to complications.

The "cleanliness argument" is usually used by 1) those who have no idea of childhood male anatomy or the penis in general 2) parents trying to make themselves feel better about the choices they made about their child or 3) haven't really researched the proper "cleaning" technique of an intact male: to leave it alone!

"100 times easier to clean..." can you at least admit, ignorant statement is ignorant?

I guess I'm not "intact." It's weird how you circumcision opposers always have to throw some kind of stigmatized word at us to tell us we're not normal.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It's not supposed to be analogous to circumcision. It's identical in the ethics and logic behind it. Remember, you said Following this logic, clitoridectomy is as acceptable as neonatal circumcision just because a "society" normalizes it.

"Society" normalizes a lot of things that you yourself believe in. How do you tell society it's wrong?

"Hey everyone, you should follow my arbitrary set of moral constructs instead of your own!"

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I guess I'm not "intact." It's weird how you circumcision opposers always have to throw some kind of stigmatized word at us to tell us we're not normal.

Isn't that just the pot calling the kettle black!

 

[heavenlyboy34]

"Society" normalizes a lot of things that you yourself believe in. How do you tell society it's wrong?

An extremely vague question. You'll have to ask Tod about it, as he brought it up.

"Hey everyone, you should follow my arbitrary set of moral constructs instead of your own!"

How are my moral constructs arbitrary? They've been around since at least Hippocrates.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Isn't that just the pot calling the kettle black!

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

An extremely vague question. You'll have to ask Tod about it, as he brought it up.



How are my moral constructs arbitrary? They've been around since at least Hippocrates.

A better question is, How are they NOT arbitrary? The fact that other people just happen to believe those same things, even if they lived a couple thousand years ago, does not change the fact that they are arbitrary.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

A better question is, How are they NOT arbitrary? The fact that other people just happen to believe those same things, even if they lived a couple thousand years ago, does not change the fact that they are arbitrary.

They're not arbitrary because they've been reasoned through and peer-reviewed and applied to practice for thousands of years. There are numerous volumes on the subject.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Every time this subject comes up, the pro-mutilation crowd tries to mischaracterize the anti-mutilation position as in violation of parents' rights and every other straw they can grasp for.

 

[tod evans]

Every time this subject comes up, the pro-mutilation crowd tries to mischaracterize the anti-mutilation position as in violation of parents' rights and every other straw they can grasp for.

I'm not arguing pro or anti circumcision only saying the choice should remain with the childs parents.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

They're not arbitrary because they've been reasoned through and peer-reviewed and applied to practice for thousands of years. There are numerous volumes on the subject.

LOL seriously, you're using the "a bunch of people looked at this and decided they agree, so it must not be arbitrary!" They've been "reasoned through"... give me a break. Because a few thousand-year-old men wrote tomes on how they agree with you, that doesn't make it not arbitrary. If morality is what should happen, then it can't just be deicded on, no matter how smart these men that you seem to trust blindly in supposedly are. I don't care who wrote what, they're still human and therefore, it's still arbitrary whether that be to your mind, their minds, or yours and theirs put together.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Every time this subject comes up, the pro-mutilation crowd tries to mischaracterize the anti-mutilation position as in violation of parents' rights and every other straw they can grasp for.

So are you collectivizing me among that group? That's why I didn't understand what you were talking about. Now I know it was because you weren't actually referencing me. You were talking about me as if I were automatically the same as a bunch of other people because of some shared belief.

Seriously, hb, you should know better than this.

Also, I don't see how saying you're against parents' rights is the same as using stigmatized words like "amputation" instead of circumcision and "intact" to describe a non-circumcised male.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

LOL seriously, you're using the "a bunch of people looked at this and decided they agree, so it must not be arbitrary!" They've been "reasoned through"... give me a break. Because a few thousand-year-old men wrote tomes on how they agree with you, that doesn't make it not arbitrary. If morality is what should happen, then it can't just be deicded on, no matter how smart these men that you seem to trust blindly in supposedly are. I don't care who wrote what, they're still human and therefore, it's still arbitrary whether that be to your mind, their minds, or yours and theirs put together.

That's not what I said. The code wasn't just figured out by "a few thousand-year-old men". It has been tested and agreed on by the medical ethicists ever since. When something has been tried and true for that long, it's not arbitrary. (That's why doctors still say the oath and are held to it by the various medical associations)

Routine circumcision, however, is arbitrary and rooted in irrational religious "reasoning" (like a mythical covenant between YHWH and Moses) and quack medicine.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

So are you collectivizing me among that group? That's why I didn't understand what you were talking about. Now I know it was because you weren't actually referencing me. You were talking about me as if I were automatically the same as a bunch of other people because of some shared belief.

You gave me the impression that you affiliate yourself with that group. If you don't, I withdraw it.

Also, I don't see how saying you're against parents' rights is the same as using stigmatized words like "amputation" instead of circumcision and "intact" to describe a non-circumcised male.

"Amputation" may be a stigmatized word to you, but it's a legitimate use of language (I posted definitions about this earlier). "Intact" is widely used by people of all opinions on the issue.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not what I said. The code wasn't just figured out by "a few thousand-year-old men". It has been tested and agreed on by the medical ethicists ever since. When something has been tried and true for that long, it's not arbitrary. (That's why doctors still say the oath and are held to it by the various medical associations)

Routine circumcision, however, is arbitrary and rooted in irrational religious "reasoning" (like a mythical covenant between YHWH and Moses) and quack medicine.

Okay, so you're not saying "a few thousand-year-old men". You're saying a bunch of old men and a bunch of less old men who happen to practice medicine agreed with them. Therefore, it's not arbitrary. The point is, consensus among a certain group of "thinkers" does not make a concept non-arbitrary. I would like to know how ethics can be "tested" as well. What kind of scientific test can you do to determine a moral truth that is not relative to your experience in the world?

"Tried and true" doesn't apply to ethics. No matter how long a moral construct has been tried, it cannot be determined to be "true." A moral construct is a belief in what ought to be, not what is, so tests cannot determine moral absolutes.

You may think it's arbitrary, and I will respect that belief. However, the only way something can be not arbitrary is if it is determined by God. If you believe in God, then you have a basis for believing in absolutes. If you do not, there is no source you can point to in the world that means what you believe is what ought to be accepted by everyone. It's arbitrary.

What you call quack medicine is a whole lot less deadly than western medicine.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Okay, so you're not saying "a few thousand-year-old men". You're saying a bunch of old men and a bunch of less old men who happen to practice medicine agreed with them. Therefore, it's not arbitrary. The point is, consensus among a certain group of "thinkers" does not make a concept non-arbitrary. I would like to know how ethics can be "tested" as well. What kind of scientific test can you do to determine a moral truth that is not relative to your experience in the world?

"Tried and true" doesn't apply to ethics. No matter how long a moral construct has been tried, it cannot be determined to be "true." A moral construct is a belief in what ought to be, not what is, so tests cannot determine moral absolutes.

You may think it's arbitrary, and I will respect that belief. However, the only way something can be not arbitrary is if it is determined by God. If you believe in God, then you have a basis for believing in absolutes. If you do not, there is no source you can point to in the world that means what you believe is what ought to be accepted by everyone. It's arbitrary.

What you call quack medicine is a whole lot less deadly than western medicine.

Let's talk about deaths and western medicine, especially the fact that over 100 baby boys die from complications of a routine surgical procedure... circumcision.

The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. This compares with 44 neonatal deaths from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, all of which losses have aroused deep concern among child health authorities and stimulated special programs to reduce mortality.

"Eastern" medical advocates... which you seem to be... I would also like to point out, don't really practice circumcision. It's not common in China, Taiwan, Thailand, India, Nepal... they all boast circumcision rates of 20% or less

 

[Pericles]

Except you wouldn't have to do anything different with a intact child's penis, because the foreskin is fused to the glans until childhood, usually, and sometimes until age 10-13. Forcibly retracting the foreskin can lead to complications.

The "cleanliness argument" is usually used by 1) those who have no idea of childhood male anatomy or the penis in general 2) parents trying to make themselves feel better about the choices they made about their child or 3) haven't really researched the proper "cleaning" technique of an intact male: to leave it alone!

"100 times easier to clean..." can you at least admit, ignorant statement is ignorant?

Or guys with real world military experience who have seen the MEDEVAC rates for uncircumcised guys. Which was the reason for the rael push for the procedure in the US post World War II - the number of non battle losses due to penile infection for uncircumcised men(over 110,000), compared to a handful of cases (less than 25) for circumcised men.

 

[Pericles]

Hey! Thanks for telling me what to do with my child. I appreciate it.

Some people have limits to their libertarianism.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Or guys with real world military experience who have seen the MEDEVAC rates for uncircumcised guys. Which was the reason for the rael push for the procedure in the US post World War II - the number of non battle losses due to penile infection for uncircumcised men(over 110,000), compared to a handful of cases (less than 25) for circumcised men.

So, you're saying the US military wants our boys circumcised? You might be doing more to turn people on this forum away from circumcision... Please, do tell more.

Sources to back up your claim? The only claim I have found is one from a doctor who served on the AAP board in 1989, who stated it was used primarily for African deployments, as a method of lowering HIV/STI infections, which I have already disproved in my other post, and balanoposthitis (a common infection due to extremely poor hygiene)... a very poor example for lobbing off 15 inches of tissue.