Infant Circumcision

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby DSenette » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:48 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
DSenette wrote:how are they calculating that in real world numbers though?

I guess the full Johns Hopkins study is the only place to find that much detail. Unfortunately, paywall.

that's why i hate "predictive" studies like this that attempt to extrapolate all of the probabilities and statistical analasys of "what might be the case assuming that the current reality was not, in fact, the current reality" and apply it to a general concept. i mean, if the infection rates in europe are in fact that much higher, and those infection rates are only because of their circumcision rates (and not other things like condom usage rates, general cultural differences, general hygene differences) then, yeah, by all means there's a direct cost analasys there.

but the reports on the study doesn't say "infection rates for STI-x in europe are 20% higher than in the US because circumcision rates in europe are z% lower than in the US". which would be a much more valid comparison (assuming that the only variable responsible for those rate differences are the circumcision rate differences)
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:52 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
Azrael wrote:Vaccinations.

I am not sure what you intend vaccinations to be an example of. I was asking for people who feel violated about their rights being abused. I am unaware of anyone feeling violated because they were vaccinated. Further vaccinations are in the best interest of the child. I am also not aware of anyone arguing otherwise. Perhaps you disagree on this? Otherwise I don't know why you brought it up.

Age of consent laws for tattoos, piercings, smoking, consumption of alcohol -- even for sexual intercourse. Educational requirements. Mandatory military service. All of these and hundreds more infringe on bodily autonomy to varying degrees.
If people are taking issue with these then they should make a noise, complain, seek legal counsel, et cetera. Maybe some of these things should be challenged.


... at which point you only further demonstrate that your threshold for concern about human rights is based on who is complaining. Which is an entirely absurd line in the sand, and it's what I called you out on in the first place.


If no one thinks a certain something is an issue and I don't think its an issue then I am not going to lose any sleep over it. This is an entirely rational position to take. As our society evolves we question the way we have done things regarding their ethicality and legality and we change our laws to accommodate our evolving society. I have no intention of putting forth an example of how we should live our society regarding with respect to all human rights and legal issues. Its an absurd thing to ask or expect. I am however arguing about a very specific issue, with reference to our current human rights and laws. This does not demand that I address all issues regarding bodily integrity and law.

As an example we can legalise interracial marriages without legalising same sex marriages. Doing so would not be a bad thing and when people are demanding same sex marriages then we should review our laws regarding that.

Bodily autonomy gets abridged all the time in hundreds of various ways. If you can't or won't come up with a metric for judging the seriousness of the complaint other than someone complaining, then your entire ethical system is completely indeterminate.


I thought it was very clear as far as surgical procedures went. 1. Medically necessary, 2, in the best interest of the child and 3, does not cause excess injury or harm. Its not a metric, its a methodology and seems reasonable for examining surgical procedures. Again, expecting me to come up with a consistent metric for judging violations of bodily integrity is absurd, especially when no such thing exists. I am arguing against a specific type of violation with reference to our rights and laws which is entirely reasonable and rational. Arguing against a particular violation does not demand that I address all violations.

Azrael wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:The argument for circumcision so far in this thread has largely been based on cultural or religious reasons. The medical benefits of circumcision have come up but has anyone actually argued that male circumcision is a good idea because of medical reasons? Further its been noted that those some benefits can largely be achieved through bathing and using a condom. If you would like to formulate an argument that circumcision is a good idea because of medical benefits to the child, I would then address it.


At which point you demonstrate that you didn't read the only link I've provided. You know what's great about medical research? It evolves.


I am satisfied there are medical benefits of circumcision. This isn't new. There are also benefits relating to a whole host of other forms of body mutilations which we don't commonly practice. Further you reference an opinion piece that referenced a study of the medical benefits. If you want to argue that the medical benefits of circumcision warrant infant circumcision then make that argument or reference somewhere where that argument is made.

As I have said I have primarily been arguing against the cultural and religious motives for circumcision because people have been making those arguments.

I am not going to argue against an argument you haven't made.



Azrael wrote:
The arguments against forced male circumcision are based on human rights which virtually all countries around the world have endorsed, even if they don't follow them directly. The Queensland Law Reform has argued that forced male circumcision may be unlawful under Australian law. I dare say countries do adhere to their law. The argument is based on current law and current human rights, if you feel that its set up in such a way that the argument cannot be defeated then perhaps its really a direct consequence of our rights and laws and is indeed the logical outcome.

Not so much. The arguments they present do account for medical benefit, and don't rely on a "who's loudest" rights-measurement scale. In case I haven't been clear, my point here is not about circumcision, it's about your faulty argument against it.


The arguments I have referenced do discuss medical benefits. Their arguments against male circumcision are based on human rights and law. I may not do a very good job of paraphrasing peer review quality publications or publications of the Queensland Law Reform here, and consequently you may misunderstand or take exception to some of the simplifications I make. To be clear the arguments I prescribe are fundamentally those made by the Queensland Law Reform. If you think their arguments are faulty then so be it. Its why I reference them so much, because their argument is my argument. And is incredibly similar to that of van Howe et al.

So perhaps you would like to point out where exactly their arguments are , faulty.

And absolutely no where has an argument been made based on the loudness of complaints. I personally use it as a metric to consider if something is an issue. If people are complaining about an action, Ill think about the ethics of such an action. But if no one is complaining about an issue then I am not about to try and convince people that they should be or that they should be unhappy about a something.

Again as an instructive example, if people start complaining that about age requirements relating to getting tattoos then I might stop and consider the issues related to getting tattoos and why an age restriction may be a good idea and if indeed it actually does violate peoples rights. But unless people aren't actually happy about it I am not going to waste my time arguing about it on the internet, especially in a thread about infant male circumcision. Maybe there shouldn't be an age restriction maybe there should but unless there are people who actually care about it, I'm not going to.

how are they calculating that in real world numbers though? the bit about comparing US circumcision rates to european ones. it stands to reason that if their calculations are correct, then we whould see that europe does indeed have a 12% higher HIV infection rate right? is that actually the case is what i'm asking.


On HIV infection rates around the world, from WIKI. :-/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... lence_rate

Prevalence in adults, 15-49.

USA, 0.6%
Germany, 0.1%
France, 0.4%
UK, 0.2%

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:09 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I thought it was very clear as far as surgical procedures went. 1. Medically necessary, 2, in the best interest of the child and 3, does not cause excess injury or harm.

I thought we've been over this? Azreal even mentioned a couple purely cosmetic procedures that are performed on infants without society batting an eye. They are neither medically necessary, the best interest of the child, and can cause pain. Indeed, portwine stains can be pretty fucking large, and poly/syndactyly can require multiple surgeries.

BattleMoose wrote:If no one thinks a certain something is an issue and I don't think its an issue then I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Which is precisely why I asked you to find out the proportion of circumcised men who are unhappy with their circumcisions.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Azrael » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:14 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Bodily autonomy gets abridged all the time in hundreds of various ways. If you can't or won't come up with a metric for judging the seriousness of the complaint other than someone complaining, then your entire ethical system is completely indeterminate.


I thought it was very clear as far as surgical procedures went. 1. Medically necessary, 2, in the best interest of the child and 3, does not cause excess injury or harm. Its not a metric, its a methodology and seems reasonable for examining surgical procedures. Again, expecting me to come up with a consistent metric for judging violations of bodily integrity is absurd, especially when no such thing exists. I am arguing against a specific type of violation with reference to our rights and laws which is entirely reasonable and rational. Arguing against a particular violation does not demand that I address all violations.

Vaccinations aren't medically necessary. Neither are procedures to fix (as mentioned) cleft palate, port wine stains or facial moles. At which point we have 'best interest' and 'excess harm'.

... that sounds an awful lot like a cost-benefit analysis.

Azrael wrote:... Their arguments against male circumcision are based on human rights and law. ... So perhaps you would like to point out where exactly their arguments are faulty.

Well if we're going to skip the moral part completely, their arguments are fundamentally flawed by basing a legal judgement on the UN Declaration of Rights. Do we have to go into an all out debate about the applicability of that specific document universally to sovereign law? I'll just point out that it *also* contradicts expiring unemployment benefits and anything but free healthcare.

While an Australian advocacy group may argue that the confluence of Australia's sovereign law and their adoption of the UDHR creates a conflict, you're trying to extrapolate that as both a universal legal obligation and using it to dismiss any weighing regarding a real world application of moral equivalence.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:15 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:I thought it was very clear as far as surgical procedures went. 1. Medically necessary, 2, in the best interest of the child and 3, does not cause excess injury or harm.

I thought we've been over this? Azreal even mentioned a couple purely cosmetic procedures that are performed on infants without society batting an eye. They are neither medically necessary, the best interest of the child, and can cause pain. Indeed, portwine stains can be pretty fucking large, and poly/syndactyly can require multiple surgeries.


We clearly have very different ideas of what would be in the best interest of the child.

BattleMoose wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:If no one thinks a certain something is an issue and I don't think its an issue then I am not going to lose any sleep over it.

Which is precisely why I asked you to find out the proportion of circumcised men who are unhappy with their circumcisions.


Here's a survey. http://www.noharmm.org/bodyimage.htm There are many like it. It took me literally about 2 minutes of googling. And in my opinion there is enough dissatisfaction to warrant talking about the issue.

EDIT:


Vaccinations aren't medically necessary. Neither are procedures to fix (as mentioned) cleft palate, port wine stains or facial moles. At which point we have 'best interest' and 'excess harm'.

... that sounds an awful lot like a cost-benefit analysis.


Best interest of the child is universally regarded, in rights and law as the primary issue regarding decisions affecting children. Something I have reference ad nauseum. If you want to call if a cost benefit analysis fine, just so you long as you recognise the only costs and benefits that are relevant are those which relate directly to the child in question and each child needs to be assessed uniquely.



... Their arguments against male circumcision are based on human rights and law. ... So perhaps you would like to point out where exactly their arguments are faulty.

Well if we're going to skip the moral part completely, their arguments are fundamentally flawed by basing a legal judgement on the UN Declaration of Rights. Do we have to go into an all out debate about the applicability of that specific document universally to sovereign law? I'll just point out that it *also* outlaws anything but free healthcare and expiring unemployment benefits.


The arguments are based on human rights and law. And I certainly haven't skipped the moral part. And their legal judgments are based on law and especially the Queensland Law Reform argue that forced male infant circumcision could be found illegal in an Australian court based on Australian law. This hardly seems irrational.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Azrael » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:28 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Best interest of the child is universally regarded, in rights and law as the primary issue regarding decisions affecting children. Something I have reference ad nauseum. If you want to call if a cost benefit analysis fine, just so you long as you recognise the only costs and benefits that are relevant are those which relate directly to the child in question and each child needs to be assessed uniquely.

Wait, wait: Doctors are supposed to individually weigh the vaccinations on an each-case basis? Ha.

The arguments are based on human rights and law. And I certainly haven't skipped the moral part. And their legal judgments are based on law and especially the Queensland Law Reform argue that forced male infant circumcision could be found illegal in an Australian court based on Australian law. This hardly seems irrational.

Yeah, as I said: An advocacy group suggesting that there may be a conflict at the confluence of Australian law and the UDHR.

Care to actually answer my challenge about that applicability elsewhere?

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:48 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Best interest of the child is universally regarded, in rights and law as the primary issue regarding decisions affecting children. Something I have reference ad nauseum. If you want to call if a cost benefit analysis fine, just so you long as you recognise the only costs and benefits that are relevant are those which relate directly to the child in question and each child needs to be assessed uniquely.

Wait, wait: Doctors are supposed to individually weigh the vaccinations on an each-case basis? Ha.


As far as vaccinations go its a pretty straight forward assessment.

Azrael wrote:
The arguments are based on human rights and law. And I certainly haven't skipped the moral part. And their legal judgments are based on law and especially the Queensland Law Reform argue that forced male infant circumcision could be found illegal in an Australian court based on Australian law. This hardly seems irrational.

Yeah, as I said: An advocacy group suggesting that there may be a conflict at the confluence of Australian law and the UDHR.

Care to actually answer my challenge about that applicability elsewhere?


Firstly, the issue isn't that there's a confluence of Australian law and the UDHR the issue is that we are behaving in violation of both.
Secondly, its not an advocacy group.

The Queensland Law Reform Commission is an independent statutory body funded by the Queensland Government. It makes recommendations on areas of law in need of reform, and submits reports to the Attorney-General which are required to be tabled in Parliament.


You made the challenge that their arguments were flawed because their legal judgment was based on the UDHR and essentially were therefore faulty. I responded that factually this is not true their arguments actually being based on Australian law.

Which are the other challenges you are asking me to address?
Last edited by BattleMoose on Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:50 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Azrael » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:49 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Which are the other challenges you are asking me to address?


... the only one I actually challenged you to address, and you've again ignored:

Azrael wrote:Care to actually answer my challenge about that applicability elsewhere?


Moving on:
BattleMoose wrote:You made the challenge that their arguments were flawed because their legal judgment was based on the UDHR and essentially were therefore faulty. I responded that factually this is not true their arguments actually being based on Australian law.


BattleMoose wrote:Particularly the Queensland Law Review Report was being argued primarily from a moral viewpoint and certainly not a consequentalist moral viewpoint I might add. With references particularly to the UDHR and the UN Convention of Rights of the Child.


Care to decide which of these contradictory statements is true?

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:19 am UTC

Azrael wrote:
Moving on:
BattleMoose wrote:You made the challenge that their arguments were flawed because their legal judgment was based on the UDHR and essentially were therefore faulty. I responded that factually this is not true their arguments actually being based on Australian law.


BattleMoose wrote:Particularly the Queensland Law Review Report was being argued primarily from a moral viewpoint and certainly not a consequentalist moral viewpoint I might add. With references particularly to the UDHR and the UN Convention of Rights of the Child.


Care to decide which of these contradictory statements is true?


Look, these things happen when someone is talking about a 50+ page document. Perhaps you could be a little understanding in terms of simplifications being made when discussing a 50+ page document in a 2-3 paragraph forum post and the misunderstandings that my evolve from that. Instead of attacking the inconsistencies that evolve out of such simplifications as no doubt they can, you could simply query the inconsistencies or better yet refer to the original document.

The document in question does argue from a human rights perspective.
It also argues from an Australian legal perspective.
It argues that forced male infant circumcision is illegal based on Australian law as well as being inconsistent with human rights.

Repeating myself now, your contention was that the argument was faulty because it was based on the UDHR and I responded that they argued that it could be found illegal based on Australian law.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:17 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:It argues that forced male infant circumcision is illegal based on Australian law as well as being inconsistent with human rights.
So far you've been very careful that to say that it argues that it may be illegal. There's a rather important distinction there. As is being specific about which set of human rights you're talking about. Which is why the bit about UDHR would be so crucial, except that my reading on the review (REF, in case there are others or additions) looks like it doesn't talk about human rights at all. So your mistake becomes significantly more like inflating an argument.

Moving on again, I'll ask it a third time, because the point is just that damn important: How does the QLR's paper effect law anywhere else?

But let's just cut to the punch line: It doesn't. Which is the fundamental flaw in arguing about what's right (moral) based on a 20 year old research paper of what might be legal in one country, with a heavy influence on the effect of common law (the invocation of which causes all sorts of issues in other jurisdictions).

Hell, just for kicks, let's quote the review's final section:

10. POSSIBLE REFORMS

It may be reasonable to require, either by law or by a
professional Code of Practice, medical practitioners to inform
parents of all arguments for and against circumcision before,
and possibly at least a number of days before, undertaking the
procedure. A statutory consent form containing information on
arguments for and against circumcision could be drafted. The
form should be regularly updated with new information.

It might be reasonable to require that all circumcisions be
performed by medical practitioners or other experienced and
skilled people in circumstances which reduce to a minimum any
adverse consequences


Wow, yeah. Look at them suggest it's illegal.

I call complete and utter bullshit.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Fri Aug 24, 2012 4:40 am UTC

Azrael wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:It argues that forced male infant circumcision is illegal based on Australian law as well as being inconsistent with human rights.
So far you've been very careful that to say that it argues that it may be illegal. There's a rather important distinction there. As is being specific about which set of human rights you're talking about. Which is why the bit about UDHR would be so crucial, except that my reading on the review (REF, in case there are others or additions) looks like it doesn't talk about human rights at all. So your mistake becomes significantly more like inflating an argument.


To be considered illegal, it would first have to be declared so by a court or a law passed specifically making it so. Seeing as it has not yet been challenged in Court it cannot be said to be illegal but a court may rule that it is so, if it were to be challenged in court.

Firstly, a direct copy/paste from the beginning of the conclusion.

The common law operating in Queensland appears to be that if the young person is unable, through lack of maturity or other disability, to give effective consent to a proposed procedure and if the nature of the proposed treatment is invasive, ir- reversible and major surgery and for non-therapeutic purposes, then court approval is required before such treatment can pro- ceed. The court will not approve the treatment unless it is necessary and in the young person's best interests.132 The basis of this attitude is the respect which must be paid to an individual's bodily integrity.


And if you do in fact what an explicit comment relating to a right to bodily integrity.

Consent is intended to ensure protection for the patient against unauthorised interference with his or her right to bodily integrity


Also,
The overriding qualification to a parent or guardian's ability to consent to any medical procedure being performed on their child is that the procedure has to be in the child's best interests.


But I certainly do appreciate your claim that I errored in this regard. You could have politely asked, hey BattleMoose, I don't see any references in the publication relating to the rights of the child?

Moving on again, I'll ask it a third time, because the point is just that damn important: How does the QLR's paper effect law anywhere else?


This is an issue relating to International Law, Human Rights and of course domestic law as well. If we are going to discuss the legality of forced infant male circumcision domestic law has to be included. That requires picking a place whose law to discuss.

Which is what is happening now, we are discussing the legality of infant male circumcision in Queensland. The premises that are being used to argue the issue, rights to bodily integrity, best interests of the child are common in many countries. Also laws regarding assault, wounding and surgery as I understand are reasonably consistent within the British commonwealth and probably also in other Western Countries as well. If the starting premises are reasonably similar the conclusions found may also be similar. If it is found to be illegal within Queensland it would at least warrant examination of the legality elsewhere in the world. Its also worth noting that an entirely separate jurisdiction ruled in a court (Germany, Cologne), a judgment consistent with the views of the QLR and ebing based on the same premises. And if you feel that the publication is too, dated to be relevant I refer you to the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision which is only 3 years old.

http://www.law.utas.edu.au/reform/docum ... oPrint.pdf

You might particularly enjoy the section, Human Rights Law, subsection, The Applicable Human Rights.

It is actually a very similar document to that relating to Queensland.

But let's just cut to the punch line: It doesn't. Which is the fundamental flaw in arguing about what's right (moral) based on a 20 year old research paper of what might be legal in one country, with a heavy influence on the effect of common law (the invocation of which causes all sorts of issues in other jurisdictions).


In the pedantic sense that Queensland law is only relevant in Queensland, then thats absolutely right. Sure things may have changed in 20 years but then again we have a much more recent and very similar document for a different Jurisdiction. If you would rather talk about the legality in Tasmania rather than Queensland fine, but if we are talking about the legality of forced male circumcision we have to pick a place whose domestic law would apply. Queensland and Tasmania are fantastic places to pick because we have these publications produced by their government body established to advise them on their law.

Hell, just for kicks, let's quote the review's final section:

Azrael wrote:
10. POSSIBLE REFORMS

It may be reasonable to require, either by law or by a
professional Code of Practice, medical practitioners to inform
parents of all arguments for and against circumcision before,
and possibly at least a number of days before, undertaking the
procedure. A statutory consent form containing information on
arguments for and against circumcision could be drafted. The
form should be regularly updated with new information.

It might be reasonable to require that all circumcisions be
performed by medical practitioners or other experienced and
skilled people in circumstances which reduce to a minimum any
adverse consequences


Wow, yeah. Look at them suggest it's illegal.

I call complete and utter bullshit.


You went to their possible reform section without referencing their chapter on the legality of male circumcision when trying to address the question of whether or not they suggest it may be illegal.

In the absence of `real' consent, circumcision of male infants
would fall within the definition of assault under section 245 of
the Queensland Criminal Code. It might also be an offence
endangering life or health. A number of criminal offences may
be committed depending on the circumstances of the case, such
as:

* It could be seen as intended to cause grievous bodily
harm42 and be punishable under section 317 of the Criminal
Code.


I am certainly not going paste the whole chapter here. But I would recommend reading the chapter titled "The legality of Circumcision" if you want to know their position on the legality of male circumcision. Further, their first sentence in the chapter titled "Conclusions" state that they are of the opinion that court approval is required.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:04 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:If you would rather talk about the legality in Tasmania rather than Queensland fine, but if we are talking about the legality of forced male circumcision we have to pick a place whose domestic law would apply.

I'm fairly certain that Azrael does not want to talk about the legality of circumcision in Tasmania or anywhere else. My evidence for this is that he specifically distinguished discussing morality from discussing legality and the topic of this thread raised in the OP is the morality of circumcision.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Azrael » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:01 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:I am certainly not going paste the whole chapter here. But I would recommend reading the chapter titled "The legality of Circumcision" if you want to know their position on the legality of male circumcision. Further, their first sentence in the chapter titled "Conclusions" state that they are of the opinion that court approval is required.

Yeah, I did. And it too doesn't follow to your conclusion, despite you ability to snipe out particular sentences. Take a look here:


In addition to the requirement that medical procedures cannot,
except in emergency situation be carried out on individuals
without consent, such consent must be "real" consent. Consent
is not real consent if it has been obtained by fraud or by
misrepresentation as to the nature of the procedure and/or where
the patient has not been informed in broad terms of the nature
of the proposed procedure before giving consent.41


'Real' consent is informed consent. Children can't give consent, period. It's up to their guardians. This is why the ONLY reforms suggested by the panel were to assure that doctors were properly informing the parents. This use of 'real' consent is explicitly NOT about a child's inability to legally consent or their displeasure at the time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again: This is, at best, a sideshow. QLR came out with this paper 20 years ago, there has been no judicial or legislative action based on it and unless you have citations otherwise, no lawsuits using the rationale. It raised the possibility of a legal challenge in one jurisdiction that seemingly has not materialized.

But one possible interpretation of one jurisdiction's laws does not settle the moral question. After all, the right path (situational dependencies taken into account) might be to change the existing laws so that there is no legal restriction to something that is deemed to be moral.

So far, you've outright rejected consequentialism despite then having to claw back when your own surgical metric and QLR's review both refer to (at great importance) the benefit of the child -- what you really wanted was a caveat that the consequential analysis be done exclusively on the child. Then, when faced with challenges that your ethical system produced outcomes contrary with accepted moral truths, you hid behind the defense that people should get lawyers (or that no ethical system could possibly be consistent). Which, again, isn't addressing the morality of an action, but instead returning to a law = moral position. But what's really astonishing is that, from a moral perspective:

I would not. And as far as my ethical view point is concerned, its a moot question. If we are doing this thing that is violating peoples rights and some of those people are unhappy about it, then we should stop doing this thing. Where some is greater than 1.

Despite the fact that we abridge rights all the time -- constantly -- and it's absolutely certain that you can find at least one person who disagrees with any given restriction, despite society on the whole deeming it moral.

Your ethical position on the matter is chock full of holes, and all you have in defense is a re-interpretation of one jurisdiction's legal research paper on the matter.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby DSenette » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:21 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
how are they calculating that in real world numbers though? the bit about comparing US circumcision rates to european ones. it stands to reason that if their calculations are correct, then we whould see that europe does indeed have a 12% higher HIV infection rate right? is that actually the case is what i'm asking.


On HIV infection rates around the world, from WIKI. :-/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... lence_rate

Prevalence in adults, 15-49.

USA, 0.6%
Germany, 0.1%
France, 0.4%
UK, 0.2%

so, the infection rate in europe is actually less than that in the US, despite our increased importance placed on circumcision....in theory of course. i'm not a statistician so i don't know if i'm comparing numbers correctly.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
doublebackslash
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:48 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby doublebackslash » Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:34 am UTC

I'm just going to post my story.

I feel violated and incomplete because I was circucised as an infant.

There was no need, no benefit, and I assert a loss. Is my sex any less pleasuable because of it? What about my masterbation? What about my sense of self?

You know who gets circumcised as an adult? Those that want it. Can't study that, and there is plenty of anti-circ anecdotal evidence that restoration does, in fact, improve sensation and self image. http://www.restoringforeskin.org/ if you'd care.

Not only is circumcision the mutilation of genitalia it does, in fact, case long term harm. I'm proof. It causes my regular psychological damage.

Barbarism, plain and simple, done without any thought or concern by the majority to the minority that DO IN FACT care, deeply.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:00 am UTC

Azrael wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:I am certainly not going paste the whole chapter here. But I would recommend reading the chapter titled "The legality of Circumcision" if you want to know their position on the legality of male circumcision. Further, their first sentence in the chapter titled "Conclusions" state that they are of the opinion that court approval is required.

Yeah, I did. And it too doesn't follow to your conclusion, despite you ability to snipe out particular sentences. Take a look here:


In addition to the requirement that medical procedures cannot,
except in emergency situation be carried out on individuals
without consent, such consent must be "real" consent. Consent
is not real consent if it has been obtained by fraud or by
misrepresentation as to the nature of the procedure and/or where
the patient has not been informed in broad terms of the nature
of the proposed procedure before giving consent.41


'Real' consent is informed consent. Children can't give consent, period. It's up to their guardians. This is why the ONLY reforms suggested by the panel were to assure that doctors were properly informing the parents. This use of 'real' consent is explicitly NOT about a child's inability to legally consent or their displeasure at the time.


Firstly, I am referring you to whole chapters, and the quoted text I additionally note are a part of a whole chapter and discussion regarding a particular aspect of the discussion. I additionally note I am not quoting the whole chapter purely because it would take up too much space and the reader is actually referred to the original document. I find the allegations of quote sniping very unfair.

Secondly, the issue of 'real consent' is about whether or not parents are about to provide real consent for a procedure like this and if that consent is lawful.

Thirdly, heaven forbid I get accused of quote sniping again.

The Commission has yet to decide what, if any, reform of the law should be recommended in relation to infant male circumcision.


This is literally the final sentence of the document before appendices. See document for context. :-/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Azrael wrote:So far, you've outright rejected consequentialism despite then having to claw back when your own surgical metric and QLR's review both refer to (at great importance) the benefit of the child -- what you really wanted was a caveat that the consequential analysis be done exclusively on the child.


I have told you that you misinterpreted a comment of mine even acknowledging that that comment was open to misinterpretation. But you insist to continue with the misinterpretation. Its not my surgical metric either. And I have been referring to the Convention of the Rights of the child from just about page 1 of this thread.

Azrael wrote:Then, when faced with challenges that your ethical system produced outcomes contrary with accepted moral truths, you hid behind the defense that people should get lawyers (or that no ethical system could possibly be consistent). Which, again, isn't addressing the morality of an action, but instead returning to a law = moral position. But what's really astonishing is that, from a moral perspective:

I would not. And as far as my ethical view point is concerned, its a moot question. If we are doing this thing that is violating peoples rights and some of those people are unhappy about it, then we should stop doing this thing. Where some is greater than 1.

Despite the fact that we abridge rights all the time -- constantly -- and it's absolutely certain that you can find at least one person who disagrees with any given restriction, despite society on the whole deeming it moral.

Your ethical position on the matter is chock full of holes, and all you have in defense is a re-interpretation of one jurisdiction's legal research paper on the matter.


I outright reject the notion that because society acts in a certain way that that somehow becomes a definition or even an acceptance of a "moral truth". (re age of consent for tattoos, probably) If it happens to be that society is indeed acting in a way that is violating peoples rights and people are unhappy about it, then we really ought to be talking about it. I'm fairly sure I've said this ad nauseum. I have not nor do I tend to come to a determination about all the actions of society with respect to human rights and whether or not I think such actions are indeed a violation or not or even moral. But if people do think theres a problem we should talk about it.

My assertion is not that law = a moral position but rather that law should reflect our moral obligations. Australia has signed a number of International Treaties and despite not implementing the provisions contained within those treaties wholly into domestic law, Australia is still obligated to do so and Australians are entitled to those rights. And where the appropriate legal mechanisms are in place the courts essentially do end up evaluating our moral obligations into law. No where else does such a thorough analysis of our moral obligations take place. Assuming of course that one considers International Treaties regarding human rights as moral obligations.

Also, society is absolutely awful at determining what is moral, absolutely awful.

and all you have in defense is a re-interpretation of one jurisdiction's legal research paper on the matter.


Firstly we are interpreting it quiet differently. Secondly, there is quiet a lot more than just one jurisdictions research paper, we have just only discussed one so far.

On Wednesday!
EDIT: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-22/bid-to-stop-male-circumcision/4214496

The institute claims that the laws governing non-therapeutic male circumcision in Tasmania are so unclear, it is not certain if it is even legal.
(quote snipe)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Azrael » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:27 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
The Commission has yet to decide what, if any, reform of the law should be recommended in relation to infant male circumcision.


This is literally the final sentence of the document before appendices. See document for context. :-/

Which version? Because in the one I linked earlier that is explicitly not the case. The last section is called POSSIBLE REFORMS, and I quoted it in it's entirely earlier.

Also, it's a long leg to stand on that the commission has forthcoming reforms when 20 years have passed without publishing them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I outright reject the notion that because society acts in a certain way that that somehow becomes a definition or even an acceptance of a "moral truth"...

My assertion is not that law = a moral position but rather that law should reflect our moral obligations...

Also, society is absolutely awful at determining what is moral, absolutely awful...


Great, so without referring to law or legal review, what is your moral justification for your position regarding circumcision? And what consistent conclusions does it come to regarding child vaccination, cleft palate repair, wine spot / facial mole removal and other surgeries where consent cannot be given (i.e. medical emergencies).

Because the farther I push you on this, the farther you retreat into parroting someone's legal precedent as a demonstration of moral adjudication. [And adjudication by law is frequently a reflection of society's "absolutely awful" determination of what's moral, I might add.] So while you deny 'law = moral', your position here assumes that 'law has followed from moral' when it is very easy to show that this is not always true, in that immoral laws exist.

So if law should follow from moral, establish moral first.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Enuja » Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:46 pm UTC

Relevant news to this thread: the American Academy of Pediatricians have a new policy on infant circumcision today, saying that the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks. Here's the NPR story, the pdf of the very short policy statement, and the pdf of the technical report.

Edited for spelling
Last edited by Enuja on Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
drego642
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:04 am UTC
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby drego642 » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:32 pm UTC

doublebackslash wrote:I'm just going to post my story.

I feel violated and incomplete because I was circucised as an infant.

There was no need, no benefit, and I assert a loss. Is my sex any less pleasuable because of it? What about my masterbation? What about my sense of self?

You know who gets circumcised as an adult? Those that want it. Can't study that, and there is plenty of anti-circ anecdotal evidence that restoration does, in fact, improve sensation and self image. http://www.restoringforeskin.org/ if you'd care.

Not only is circumcision the mutilation of genitalia it does, in fact, case long term harm. I'm proof. It causes my regular psychological damage.

Barbarism, plain and simple, done without any thought or concern by the majority to the minority that DO IN FACT care, deeply.


THIS. I feel the exact same way about mine.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:41 pm UTC

doublebackslash wrote:Can't study that, and there is plenty of anti-circ anecdotal evidence that restoration does, in fact, improve sensation and self image

Wait, you mean to say that an organization advocating for foreskin restoration and the elimination of circumcisions report anecdotal evidence that foreskin restoration and/or uncircumcised men results in/have a better penis than circumcised men?

No way.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:48 pm UTC

After pages and pages of this I'm still trying to figure out how an experience that is subjective and unmeasurable as getting an orgasm and how you feel when you do, is measured in a way that is objective? People keep telling me that I've lost something important. I wish they could show me what they keep telling me I'm missing. I'd like to know.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:After pages and pages of this I'm still trying to figure out how an experience that is subjective and unmeasurable as getting an orgasm and how you feel when you do, is measured in a way that is objective? People keep telling me that I've lost something important. I wish they could show me what they keep telling me I'm missing. I'd like to know.


*shrug* The word of people who have been adults both with and without a foreskin would seem to be the best information possible on the subject.

I got circumcised as a baby. Never really considered it much of a problem, and have no strong feelings on the matter. However, as it's an operation that is clearly not medically necessary, I can agree with the "leave the decision to the individual" folks. Your body, your call, IMO. Kids are individuals, not property.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:52 pm UTC

You can test the sensitivity of different parts of the body. You can also measure blood flow, temperature, etc. While I'm sure this happens less frequently, you can also observe a population of men having sex, and examine time to orgasm, time to arousal, etc.

A lot of the data culled for these studies is highly anecdotal. "Penis satisfaction" or "Is your partner a good lay" is a lot of what it boils down to. One study of I believe Kenyan men found 80% where satisfied with their penis, and after circumcision 99% were. Whenever a number like that pops up, you know the findings are probably biased/useless.

But, as you know, one very over used anti-circumcision line of discussion is convincing everyone that a cut penis is flawed, lesser, deficient. That because you are unhappy with your dick, clearly all cut men should be/are. That somehow, groups of adult men who have medical issues that require circumcision to fix, or who are seeking circumcision because they believe it to be 'better', are somehow a reasonable test population.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
doublebackslash
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 4:48 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby doublebackslash » Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:44 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
doublebackslash wrote:Can't study that, and there is plenty of anti-circ anecdotal evidence that restoration does, in fact, improve sensation and self image

Wait, you mean to say that an organization advocating for foreskin restoration and the elimination of circumcisions report anecdotal evidence that foreskin restoration and/or uncircumcised men results in/have a better penis than circumcised men?

No way.


Yeah. Seems some people care about it enough to organize and it is a bountiful source of witnesses that are willing to attest to a similar feeling of loss and violation that I feel as well as to the differences between their circumcised penis and their semi-resopted one. Certain types of nerve endings involved in pleasure cannot be restored by any known means, but the action of the penis and the dekeritinization of the mucus membranes ALONE make a difference.

Most evidence in favor circumcsion that I've seen emphasises preventions of disease, but always seem to forget that condoms are better at preventing disease than a lack of foreskin. Full stop. Don't want people to get diseases? Tell them to wrap it up. No mutilation required. This is especially true in developed nations where condoms are available everyone, literally.

That notwithstanding? Can always be circumcised later, no need to rip the glans away from the foreskin to which it is fused and remove many square inches of equivalent adult erogenous tissue. None.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:04 pm UTC

doublebackslash wrote:Seems some people care about it enough to organize and it is a bountiful source of witnesses that are willing to attest to a similar feeling of loss and violation that I feel as well as to the differences between their circumcised penis and their semi-resopted one.

Bolded is subjective and a factually incorrect assessment of numbers.
Italics are not supported by medical data.

doublebackslash wrote:Most evidence in favor circumcsion that I've seen emphasises preventions of disease, but always seem to forget that condoms are better at preventing disease than a lack of foreskin.

Yes, and that is a fairly weak argument. However, your claim that 'most' arguments take this route is false; the arguments I've made, and the current standing debate, has nothing to do with whether or not the medical pro's to circumcision have any merit in and of themselves. Just as you can call bullshit on this aspect of the medical benefits, then so too can we call bullshit on, say, the notion that 'many people will feel violated'. Most/many/a lot of circumcised men will never be having unprotected sex with HIV positive partners; Most/many/a lot of circumcised men will never experience feelings of being violated by the procedure.

EDIT: But curiously, I wonder if you clicked on Enuja's link on this very page.

doublebackslash wrote:Can always be circumcised later, no need to rip the glans away from the foreskin to which it is fused and remove many square inches of equivalent adult erogenous tissue. None.

Yes, the 'consent' argument is a very interesting discussion and position to hold, one I fully see the logic to. If you don't want to alter your child in anyway shape or form (barring medical necessity of course) without their consent, then kudos to you. I hope you actually, factually, follow that to the letter then, which is actually quite a bit more complicated than you think.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:58 am UTC

Azrael wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:
The Commission has yet to decide what, if any, reform of the law should be recommended in relation to infant male circumcision.


This is literally the final sentence of the document before appendices. See document for context. :-/

Which version? Because in the one I linked earlier that is explicitly not the case. The last section is called POSSIBLE REFORMS, and I quoted it in it's entirely earlier.

Also, it's a long leg to stand on that the commission has forthcoming reforms when 20 years have passed without publishing them.



This version. http://www.qlrc.qld.gov.au/mpapers/mp06.pdf
I thought them to be identical but we have apparently found a divergence between the two.

And, again, its an advisory body, it advises. Whether or not those changes are implemented are largely political. And considering the highly controversial nature of the topic, I am not surprised that absolutly no one is at all interested in implementing reform.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Azrael wrote:
I outright reject the notion that because society acts in a certain way that that somehow becomes a definition or even an acceptance of a "moral truth"...

My assertion is not that law = a moral position but rather that law should reflect our moral obligations...

Also, society is absolutely awful at determining what is moral, absolutely awful...


Great, so without referring to law or legal review, what is your moral justification for your position regarding circumcision? And what consistent conclusions does it come to regarding child vaccination, cleft palate repair, wine spot / facial mole removal and other surgeries where consent cannot be given (i.e. medical emergencies).


Serious broken record time. Best interest of the child, based on human rights, based on International treaties that Australia has signed, specifically, UN Convention on Rights of the child.

Azrael wrote:Because the farther I push you on this, the farther you retreat into parroting someone's legal precedent as a demonstration of moral adjudication. [And adjudication by law is frequently a reflection of society's "absolutely awful" determination of what's moral, I might add.] So while you deny 'law = moral', your position here assumes that 'law has followed from moral' when it is very easy to show that this is not always true, in that immoral laws exist.

So if law should follow from moral, establish moral first.


The more you ask questions and challenge the legal review document the more I talk about.

Clearly immoral laws exist. But I think you would be very hard pressed to find an imorral law that is consistent with Human Rights law. While I certainly don't hold Human Rights law to be a complete picture of morality I do think that it should be a critical piece of the picture for both individual and societal morality. That is to say, by following human rights law, it is very unlikely that we would be unduly hurting others. And if we do violate human rights law, we may be unduly hurting others.

And if we are found to be violating human rights, that should be a huge red flag for us that we may be unduly hurting others. And we really ought to have a very big think about why we are violating those rights and wether thats okay and if those violations are consistent with our individual moral perspectives and our societal ones.

This is awkward because individuals can and do have different moral values [even if their views are usually inconsistent with their morality] between each other and society. How can one argue that an action is moral if one additionally recognises that idividuals hold different definitions of morality, especially if those views are unkown? Also those arguments depending on the situation may have to be tailored to each individual, if possible.

Earlier in this thread, much earlier, I tried to get other posters to recognise the hurt that forced infant male circumcission can and does cause. This was met with complete and utter failure. In the abscence of such recognition of hurt being caused I tried to argue from the human rights violations perspective.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:50 am UTC

You may be winning the war even if it seems as if you are losing the battle. Education and awareness will do more to change things then volumes of legislation.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:43 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Serious broken record time. Best interest of the child, based on human rights, based on International treaties that Australia has signed, specifically, UN Convention on Rights of the child.
Azrael wrote:so without referring to law or legal review
Do you understand what the above words mean?
BattleMoose wrote:And if we are found to be violating human rights, that should be a huge red flag for us that we may be unduly hurting others. And we really ought to have a very big think about why we are violating those rights and wether thats okay and if those violations are consistent with our individual moral perspectives and our societal ones.
Right. But you accept that the law can't cover all cases, and so there may be situations where not violating a given right is actually a terrible thing to do. Yes?
BattleMoose wrote:How can one argue that an action is moral if one additionally recognises that idividuals hold different definitions of morality, especially if those views are unkown?
By clarifying your moral views in the first place, and furthermore recognizing that, given certain initial assumptions about the purpose of morality, it is wholly possible for people--societies--governments--and laws--to be morally idiotic.
BattleMoose wrote:Earlier in this thread, much earlier, I tried to get other posters to recognise the hurt that forced infant male circumcission can and does cause. This was met with complete and utter failure. In the abscence of such recognition of hurt being caused I tried to argue from the human rights violations perspective.
You've brought this up before. "My prior tactics didn't work, so I've adopted a new set of tactics". Okay. But that's irrelevant, because your current tactics don't make any sense. Particularly not in an environment designed explicitly for logically persuasive arguments.

If you want to convince people with appeals to authority or law, that's fine; this isn't the place for that.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:28 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Serious broken record time. Best interest of the child, based on human rights, based on International treaties that Australia has signed, specifically, UN Convention on Rights of the child.
Azrael wrote:so without referring to law or legal review
Do you understand what the above words mean?


Its nice that we are yelling.

Best interest of the child is my moral viewpoint. To the question, what is your moral justification for your position regarding circumcision? I answered, best interest of the child.

Be civil.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:44 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Best interest of the child is my moral viewpoint. To the question, what is your moral justification for your position regarding circumcision? I answered, best interest of the child.
Okay. That directly contradicts what you just said (you said best interest of the child based on laws that told you it was in their best interests). Thank you for clarifying.

I assume, then, that you've either changed your position or some sort of miscommunication has been going on. Just so we're clear: You think that preventing circumcision is in the best interests of the child regardless of what any governing body or legal document has to say on the matter, yes? In other words: If I waved my magical wand and tomorrow, every single government, constitution, and legislative agency in the world decided circumcision was uncontroversial and didn't count as a violation of a child's rights, it would still be 100% wrong.

Because that's the point of contention.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:52 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Best interest of the child is my moral viewpoint. To the question, what is your moral justification for your position regarding circumcision? I answered, best interest of the child.
Okay. That directly contradicts what you just said (you said best interest of the child based on laws that told you it was in their best interests). Thank you for clarifying.


Best interest of the child is a my moral viewpoint. It also happens to be law (in some places). It also happens to be a human right. None of these are mutually exclusive concepts. There are no contradictions here.

I assume, then, that you've either changed your position or some sort of miscommunication has been going on. Just so we're clear: You think that preventing circumcision is in the best interests of the child regardless of what any governing body or legal document has to say on the matter, yes?


NO! I am arguing that the decision to circumcise or not, has to be based on the child's best interests. (This thread is long, I have said this so many times) This viewpoint you could say I would hold regardless of what any governing body or legal document has to say on the matter.

The Great Hippo wrote:In other words: If I waved my magical wand and tomorrow, every single government, constitution, and legislative agency in the world decided circumcision was uncontroversial and didn't count as a violation of a child's rights, it would still be 100% wrong.


If we suddenly didn't have human rights anymore, I would still count circumcisions which were performed while not considering the best interests of the child as morally wrong. Because it would conflict directly with my morals.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 28, 2012 1:20 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:If we suddenly didn't have human rights anymore, I would still count circumcisions which were performed while not considering the best interests of the child as morally wrong. Because it would conflict directly with my morals.

This is confusing to me; do you think there are people out there circumcising their children for... not the best interests of the child? Like, 'Oh boy I have a son, I better circumcise him because man doesn't that procedure hurt!'?

The matter of intent almost completely unravels your position; parents are circumcising their children because they think it is what's best for their children. They may be misinformed in some cases, they may be unaware of the risks in others, and they may be basing that desire on cultural or religious ideologies, but the intent is precisely along the lines of 'I am doing this because it is best for my child'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:00 pm UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Best interest of the child is a my moral viewpoint. It also happens to be law (in some places). It also happens to be a human right. None of these are mutually exclusive concepts. There are no contradictions here.
So long as the first statement is not based on the other two (which is, again, precisely what you said), I agree--there is no contradiction.
BattleMoose wrote:NO! I am arguing that the decision to circumcise or not, has to be based on the child's best interests. (This thread is long, I have said this so many times) This viewpoint you could say I would hold regardless of what any governing body or legal document has to say on the matter.
Okay. But I'm confused as to what you're saying 'NO!' to, since you seem to be agreeing with me.
BattleMoose wrote:If we suddenly didn't have human rights anymore, I would still count circumcisions which were performed while not considering the best interests of the child as morally wrong. Because it would conflict directly with my morals.
So it's okay as long as I consider the child's best interests before I do it? Come on. Have some moral tenacity, here.

If circumcision is wrong, it is wrong because it is not in the best interests of the child. I don't care how much you think about it, first--it's still wrong. Extenuating circumstances may reduce it to the lesser of two evils, but if you oppose circumcision, you can see how those circumstances would be exceedingly rare. Outside of those exceedingly rare circumstances, parents who do it because they think it's in their child's best interests would therefore be wrong.

The best interests of the child are something we can talk about in objective terms. We can actually measure whether or not actions move toward or away from their best interests. We can actually say things like 'Circumcision is not in the best interests of the child, period', and we don't need laws, human rights, legislative documents, or government agencies to reaffirm those statements. Because, again--these are things we can measure. They remain true (or false) regardless of what anyone else says.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:06 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:If we suddenly didn't have human rights anymore, I would still count circumcisions which were performed while not considering the best interests of the child as morally wrong. Because it would conflict directly with my morals.

This is confusing to me; do you think there are people out there circumcising their children for... not the best interests of the child? Like, 'Oh boy I have a son, I better circumcise him because man doesn't that procedure hurt!'?

The matter of intent almost completely unravels your position; parents are circumcising their children because they think it is what's best for their children. They may be misinformed in some cases, they may be unaware of the risks in others, and they may be basing that desire on cultural or religious ideologies, but the intent is precisely along the lines of 'I am doing this because it is best for my child'.


People circumcise for religious reasons, traditional reasons, or for no more reason than "I dunno, I guess I am, so why not?". Those fail to pass the bar of a significant medical reason.

Merely thinking your are doing the best thing for your child is not the same thing as actually doing the best thing for your child. Reasonably permanent, non-medically necessary modifications should not be done to children when they can't reasonably make an informed consent. Tattooing your baby would also be wrong. Even if your religion says that tattooing babies is awesome.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Merely thinking your are doing the best thing for your child is not the same thing as actually doing the best thing for your child.
That's what Izawwlgood just said. That's also what I just said.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:13 pm UTC

Sorry, meant that as agreement. Posted the whole bit for context, and intended to expand upon the given explanation.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:19 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:If we suddenly didn't have human rights anymore, I would still count circumcisions which were performed while not considering the best interests of the child as morally wrong. Because it would conflict directly with my morals.

This is confusing to me; do you think there are people out there circumcising their children for... not the best interests of the child? Like, 'Oh boy I have a son, I better circumcise him because man doesn't that procedure hurt!'?

The matter of intent almost completely unravels your position; parents are circumcising their children because they think it is what's best for their children. They may be misinformed in some cases, they may be unaware of the risks in others, and they may be basing that desire on cultural or religious ideologies, but the intent is precisely along the lines of 'I am doing this because it is best for my child'.
Not in my case. My doctor told my parents to make me match my father. That way they could avoid having to answer awkward questions about why we were different. I can't say if that was the prevailing reasoning at the time, but anecdotally, children were/are being circumcised for the best interests of their parents.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby DSenette » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:If we suddenly didn't have human rights anymore, I would still count circumcisions which were performed while not considering the best interests of the child as morally wrong. Because it would conflict directly with my morals.

This is confusing to me; do you think there are people out there circumcising their children for... not the best interests of the child? Like, 'Oh boy I have a son, I better circumcise him because man doesn't that procedure hurt!'?

The matter of intent almost completely unravels your position; parents are circumcising their children because they think it is what's best for their children. They may be misinformed in some cases, they may be unaware of the risks in others, and they may be basing that desire on cultural or religious ideologies, but the intent is precisely along the lines of 'I am doing this because it is best for my child'.
Not in my case. My doctor told my parents to make me match my father. That way they could avoid having to answer awkward questions about why we were different. I can't say if that was the prevailing reasoning at the time, but anecdotally, children were/are being circumcised for the best interests of their parents.

right, and to add to that, circumcising children to prevent them from being treated differently in school, or through life etc... isn't a very good "in the child's best interest" citation either. since it would be in everyone's best interest to just not have social stigma attached to someone's penis. perpetuating a stigma for the sake of protecting someone from stigmatization is counter productive.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sorry, meant that as agreement. Posted the whole bit for context, and intended to expand upon the given explanation.
Oh, I beg pardon; I read it (incorrectly!) as a correction rather than agreement.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Infant Circumcision

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Not in my case. My doctor told my parents to make me match my father...

DSenette wrote:right, and to add to that, circumcising children to prevent them from being treated differently in school, or through life, etc

Sure, and I would certainly agree that these are 'wrong' reasons to circumcise your child; in this case, the procedure has little to no value to the family/community, and the intent is, as pointed out, not in the best interests of the child but in the best interest of the parents.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests