Print

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

[SalmonGod]

I fail to see what major difference lies between the two such that one can be defined as surgery and the other not.

My position isn't anything terribly deep.  I saw potential for small benefits and zero negatives.

...There are risks to all surgery.  Complications include chance of infection, haemorrhaging or occasionally very serious accidents resulting in deformation (which in one case forced a sex change operation).  Really, the idea that circumcision has zero negatives cannot be defended at all (although the position that these negatives are outweighed by the positives can be more easily defended).

Which is why, in general, calling into question the benefits of a surgery is sufficient to call into question if that surgery should be performed at all.  Useless surgery with a potential risk should not be performed, which is why I wouldn't circumsize my children unless there's strong evidence that it will have a serious benefit.

Bolded emphasis mine.  It seemed to me like your argument was leaning on the weight of the word.  From there, I felt was only debating by the terms so set forth.  If you want to drop weighted terminology from the point and discuss specifics, we can do that.  I'm at work, so I'm not going to much research on prevalence of infections or deformation, though my preconceived notion would be that they are very very rare.  As for bleeding... it's performed in a hospital (or at least that is the only situation where I would support the operation occuring).  They can deal with that.

[Leafsnail]

Well, if you really think that was my intention, I can rephrase my argument slightly.  The word surgery is completely and utterly irrelevant to my case, and I would actually apply it equally to tongue piercing and removing ingrown toenails.

"Which is why, in general, calling into question the benefits of any inherently risky procedure is sufficient to call into question whether that procedure should be performed at all.  Useless procedures with a potential risk should not be performed, which is why I wouldn't circumsize my children unless there's strong evidence that it will have a serious benefit."

[wlerin]

If performed eight days after birth, when clotting factors are at their highest concentration, the risk of bloodloss is minimal.

[Bauglir]

Essentially, if you're going that route, all procedures are risky. So you'll be wanting to define an acceptable level of risk, beneath which the procedure should be considered effectively harmless (to people who want parents to be able to make the choice, the procedure ought to fall under this threshold; to others, it ought to fall above it; if this is not the case, you should reexamine your position). Since there's really two concepts being measured here, it's probably important to note the severity of the most probable risks (the difference between spontaneous combustion and a papercut) as well as their actual probabilities, when you get to defining your threshold.

And we have now reached the point where only unfettered pedantry can win the day, apparently.

[Criptfeind]

Disagreement Bauglir.

Even if you define it as physically harmless, you can still debate against it on ethical grounds of consent.

[SalmonGod]

Disagreement Bauglir.

Even if you define it as physically harmless, you can still debate against it on ethical grounds of consent.

Which I respond to as such:

And as for justifying opposition to the practice by saying it tramples on individual rights, then I would support your position when a sizeable portion of subjects to this practice express the feeling that their rights were trampled on.  So far I am aware of one individual who feels as such, and I would actually support that his parents pay for the procedure to reverse the operation if that's what he wants.

So far it is the first case I've ever known where those not subject to a perceived trampling of rights are opposed in greater numbers to the violation than supposed victims.   

[MetalSlimeHunt]

So far it is the first case I've ever known where those not subject to a perceived trampling of rights are opposed in greater numbers to the violation than supposed victims.

Except that you don't know that, unless you've been going around depansing people who object to the circumcision of infants.
Individual rights do not include trampling the rights of others due to their age.

[SalmonGod]

Except that you don't know that, unless you've been going around depansing people who object to the circumcision of infants. Individual rights do not include trampling the rights of others due to their age.

But it will remain apparent until more than one person opposed confesses to having suffered the procedure.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Except that you don't know that, unless you've been going around depansing people who object to the circumcision of infants. Individual rights do not include trampling the rights of others due to their age.

But it will remain apparent until more than one person opposed confesses to having suffered the procedure.

Confesses is an odd way to put it, but yeah, I was circumcised. The way my parents tell it, they were quite heavily pressured by the hospital staff to agree to it. I obviously have no way to verify their story, but there you go.

[Dwarf]

SalmonGod, just why are you obsessed with defending circumcision?

[SalmonGod]

Why are people so obsessed with attacking it?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why are people so obsessed with attacking it?

We've already been over that.
-Lack of choice on the child's part.
-Permanant alteration to the body without consent.
-Very questionable usefulness.
-Ancient, barbaric procedure with no more place in the modern world than cutting a hole in your skull to let the demons out.

[Bauglir]

That last point is pure demonization. It's opinion phrased in such a way as to automatically pressure people to side with you. The others are worth talking about, but asking, "Why are you so obsessed with <opposing argument>?" is just a nice segue into an ad hominem attack instead of rational argument. C'mon guys, we're better than this.

NOTE: Yes, I know that's two separate posters, but they're the two I most feel the need to reply to here.

[SalmonGod]

... so it's not wierd for people to post such opinions or beliefs, but it's wierd for someone to post disagreement with them?

Especially when one is accused of having engaged in or been subject to a "barbaric procedure"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That last point is pure demonization. It's opinion phrased in such a way as to automatically pressure people to side with you.

That last point is more my personal opinion on the matter than anything else.