yurell wrote: sourmìlk wrote:
yurell wrote:What? So everyone who answered that they did indeed experience a decrease in sensitivity were just lying were they? I call bullshit.
I didn't say that. But without evidence that sensitivity is a universal or even really common thing, those answers are anecdotes and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
No it's not,especially when it's from a significant minority.
Just because a significant minority of studies show that people lose sensitivity does not
mean that a significant minority of people lose sensitivity. Unless you really think that the differences in study results are due purely to who was sampled and had nothing to do with methodology. This is my whole point about the studies. Not that those people were lying, but that the number of studies that report a loss in sensitivity does not correlate to the number of people who lose sensitivity. Otherwise all we'll end up doing is counting the number of studies support each of our points of view until one of us shouts "I win!"
Quite apart from this, there is the issue of psychological damage -- there are numerous reports of people feeling violated at having their body altered without their consent.
And there are reports of people who are uncomfortable with their foreskins. Again, anecdotes.
By carving up their genitals for fun what you are doing is no better than rape, and I say that unapologetic.
My parents did not rape me. Do not say that what they did was as bad as rape.
You are violating people in some of the most intimate ways possible without their permission, and then have the audacity to justify the act by saying 'oh, there's no conclusive evidence that it harms everyone, and even if it does you're not going to be able to experience the loss of sensitivity since you have no standard of comparison.'
Yes, I expect that, when people perform an action, they get to use "there's no evidence that it hurts anybody" as justification for performing that action.
How the hell is that a justification? What significant benefit does circumcising bring compared to the possible harm it can cause? You're the one taking the active stance (cutting someone's penis instead of leaving it alone), justify why you're doing this especially since you've conceded it's mostly aesthetic.
If there is no upside to doing it and now downside to doing it (and the null hypothesis, which is what we're assuming here based on inconclusive evidence, is that that there is no downside) then either choice is reasonable. Your definition of "possible harm" isn't useful if you define "possible harm" as "harm not explicitly ruled out as possible." Assuming a lack of studies on the effects of eating red dye #4, would you consider it immoral to have your children eat food with red dye #4 in it because it could theoretically cause their head to explode?
'It's okay because they don't know what they're missing'. The same argument can be and has been made for slavery and any other number of abhorrent practises.
Man, it's a good thing I'm not making that argument. I'm actually making the argument of "it's okay because they're not missing anything." Their perception of sex is exactly the same
circumcised or uncircumcised. The same cannot be said of, for example, slavery.
What do you mean inconclusive regarding the risks of circumcision? The risks of circumcision are quite conclusive — in fact, I provided a quote in an earlier post discussing the risks attached to the surgery, and these are well documented. 115 people die per year as a result of complications arising from circumcision in North America, and 100% of those could have been avoided if the parents didn't turn to each other and say "Do you know what would make the act of bringing a new life to this world more poetic and beautiful? Hacking off the end of its cock."
Considering that the vast majority of American males are circumcised, I'd consider that far too insignificant to override parental discretion. More have died from drowning, should parents all forbid their kids from swimming? And not only that, but that could easily be counteracted by the slower spread of STDs.
Quite apart from that, even though the consequences of circumcision may be debated, but why should that mean nothing about overriding parental discretion? I'm pretty sure ritual scarification is illegal to perform on children, yet this has no more risk than that.
This basically is ritual scarification. If anything, it's the least bad form as the scar is almost never visible.
The example of using the infant for sexual pleasure is illegal, even in cases where it does no harm. The former is an example of a cosmetic medical practice, demonstrating that something isn't 'legal until it's proved harmful', while the latter is one of something regarded as a violation of a person's dignity even though they cannot experience it.
you're making a legal argument, not a moral one.
Yurell, you cannot make any claim that circumcision has any significant risks because the data do not support it.
The question of circumcision as a harmful activity is off the table: it hasn't been proven that it's harmful. And unless you're going to require that overriding parental discretion puts the burden of proof on the parents, you need to prove its harmful, not the other way around.
Also, to make a general point, >0 risk isn't sufficient to override parental discretion. Rock climbing has a >0 risk, I know of no laws forbidding parents from having their kids rock climb. Swimming has a >0 risk, there are no laws against giving your child swim lessons.
So, given that the health of circumcision is about neutral to our knowledge, given that the risk is negligible and much smaller than other things parents have their children do that we accept, and given that infant circumcision does not affect a person's life, what is wrong with circumcising one's child?