Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mindmaker]

You really can't compare getting pierced with needles or getting a piece of your body removed.
Hell, I'm terrified by needles, always was, so I understand what horror lies within.

"Some places" doesn't justify a procedure which can be potentially harmful in various ways and isn't even needed.
Would you let your young daughter have a breast enlargement, just because the other kids make fun of her being flatchested?
Mind you, this is something that can be seen at all times, while I've never been in a situation where anybody could take a closer look at my genitals at school.

Potentially Apples and Oranges-comparison is intended.

[RedKing]

Herein lies the crux of the problem.
You (and MSH and scriver and doubtless others) see it as harmful, as mutilation, as unnecessary.
I (and others) don't see it that way. Which is why, in the absence of solid medical evidence that it's harmful, the law should not take a side and instead leave it up to individual families to make that determination. That's the American system of democracy at its most basic.

[Cthulhu]

Someone in San Francisco needs to propose a satirical counterbill that mandates circumcision.  It's irresponsible for parents to let their kids go around with hideous aardvark penises.

[Mindmaker]

We considered those issues before making the decision. That one study is...shall we say, not exactly from a neutral medical provider. There are counter studies that say there's no effect at all, and yet others that having a foreskin leads to increased infections. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In this case, we're playing the probabilities. There are well over a hundred million circumcised adult males in the US population. If any of these problems occurred in any statistically signficant percentage, I feel that the medical community would know that.

Of course, when informed about the purpose of the poll, some of the circumcision-supporters might have simply walked away shaking their head, which might lead to overblown percentages.
But that doesn't mean that this issues aren't real. Those were circumcised people, who were reporting about the issues that procedure has caused to them.
You can't simply throw that away.

And while I won't deny that infections are probably more common for uncircumcised people, did the study take the hygiene taken into account?
Because I doubt this is an issue to anyone, who maintains it properly.

[scriver]

I want to clarify that I do not see it as harmful or mutilation, far from it. But I do see it as unnecessary and as plastic surgery, perpetuated in out age for no reason other than tradition. It is because I do not think it is harmful in any other way than stepping on the childs right to hie body (not that I think most will mind it if they grow up with it, it's just principle) that I do not think it should be illegalised.

And the whole infection theory might be true, but to paraphrase, if it where happening on any large scale people in countries like mine should be a lot more aware of this issue, to the point that it would affect our daily routines. But we aren't, there is no issue. And yeah, as been said before, the hygienic standards of the modern age makes the point moot anyway.

[freeformschooler]

We considered those issues before making the decision. That one study is...shall we say, not exactly from a neutral medical provider. There are counter studies that say there's no effect at all, and yet others that having a foreskin leads to increased infections. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. In this case, we're playing the probabilities. There are well over a hundred million circumcised adult males in the US population. If any of these problems occurred in any statistically signficant percentage, I feel that the medical community would know that.

Of course, when informed about the purpose of the poll, some of the circumcision-supporters might have simply walked away shaking their head, which might lead to overblown percentages.
But that doesn't mean that this issues aren't real. Those were circumcised people, who were reporting about the issues that procedure has caused to them.
You can't simply throw that away.

And while I won't deny that infections are probably more common for uncircumcised people, did the study take the hygiene taken into account?
Because I doubt this is an issue to anyone, who maintains it properly.

These are all true things I can agree with. I'm not going to pretend like there haven't been horrific accidents and slip ups during circumcision. There are. This is the same with every medical procedure. However, I don't think I can argue with you any more on this, as we stand firm on two different POVs:

1) I and RedKing are supporters of having the option of circumcision. I don't like the idea of the procedure, but I like having the option. This is because while there are some choice few horror stories, I haven't seen overwhelming evidence suggesting that circumcision, beyond being mutilation, is a bad thing.
2) You and others believe that circumcision should not be in the parents' hands. I don't need to list the reasons why, as you've already done a good job explaining them.

Note that these are not necessarily opposite positions. Which means, possibly, that we could come to a compromise in the argument. What if, for example, circumcision was banned from being chosen by the parent and not the child, and it's only a choice that could be made by the child themselves, when they're able to make it? Obviously the rate of circumcision would be substantially lower, but I'm perfectly fine with that. I like the option being there, and can agree with it being taken out of the parents' hands and put into the hands of the operatee themselves.

I don't personally see this taking effect, but what do you guys think?

[Cthulhu]

That's not a compromise at all.  I don't know of any anti-circumcision people who think adults shouldn't be allowed to do it if they want.

[freeformschooler]

That's not a compromise at all.  I don't know of any anti-circumcision people who think adults shouldn't be allowed to do it if they want.

Then I don't understand. What am I arguing against, exactly, then? I'm presenting a solution that involves taking circumcision out of the parent's hands but not banning it outright. The only thing the opposing side seems to be supporting is that circumcision shouldn't be allowed to be decided by the parents of the child.

[Glowcat]

That's not a compromise at all.  I don't know of any anti-circumcision people who think adults shouldn't be allowed to do it if they want.

Then I don't understand. What am I arguing against, exactly, then? I'm presenting a solution that involves taking circumcision out of the parent's hands but not banning it outright. The only thing the opposing side seems to be supporting is that circumcision shouldn't be allowed to be decided by the parents of the child.

He means that you're advocating the full anti-circumcision position. It can't really be called a compromise when it falls entirely under one side's goals.

[RedKing]

I guess I'm tentatively "meh" on that proposal. Like I said earlier...leaving the decision until the child is well old enough to be aware (and terrified) of what the process entails will give you a circumcision rate in the single digits, about on par with getting a Prince Albert piercing (and mostly from the same body-mod demographic).

But at the same time, the underlying logic is the same as the reason why Baptists don't baptise until adulthood, and consider infant baptisms invalid. (See what I did there? BAM! Thread re-railed.)

[freeformschooler]

That's not a compromise at all.  I don't know of any anti-circumcision people who think adults shouldn't be allowed to do it if they want.

Then I don't understand. What am I arguing against, exactly, then? I'm presenting a solution that involves taking circumcision out of the parent's hands but not banning it outright. The only thing the opposing side seems to be supporting is that circumcision shouldn't be allowed to be decided by the parents of the child.

He means that you're advocating the full anti-circumcision position. It can't really be called a compromise when it falls entirely under one side's goals.

Well then I was clearly misunderstood, since I had thought and read somewhere that the ban would include banning any circumcision at all. Apologies. I still stand by my beliefs but would agree with this.

EDIT: No wait I don't, because that would give rise to back alley circumcisions.

[Mindmaker]

Well, I could only imagine that those people are against plastic surgery as well. Maybe even against tatoos and piercings.

I really wouldn't mind. You're and adult, do whatever you want with your body.

[freeformschooler]

Yeah, I guess I can't even agree with my own not-real compromise because of the inevitable repercussions

[Glowcat]

But at the same time, the underlying logic is the same as the reason why Baptists don't baptise until adulthood, and consider infant baptisms invalid. (See what I did there? BAM! Thread re-reailed.)

Heh. Re-railed? The original post was about double standards with regard to who is allowed to bring up a religious discussion without being considered rude. We took a left turn at Albuquerque and went off on an entirely unplanned adventure.

[freeformschooler]

But at the same time, the underlying logic is the same as the reason why Baptists don't baptise until adulthood, and consider infant baptisms invalid. (See what I did there? BAM! Thread re-reailed.)

Heh. Re-railed? The original post was about double standards with regard to who is allowed to bring up a religious discussion without being considered rude. We took a left turn at Albuquerque and went off on an entirely unplanned adventure.

Oh geez, you're just setting yourself up for someone more creative than I to make a crude joke.