Female genital mutilation okay in small doses, says American Academy of Pediatrics

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

06-01-2010, 02:15 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

I actually read it in full, I was curious.

That's known as a list of bullet points for an opinion. Not a or even a meta-study.

You said: "They did not discuss it."

They did discuss it, albeit shortly and lined up the most important arguments both pro and contra. Honestly, you don't need any more research.

What about this argument for example?

Quote:

it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant and the boy himself can decide about the intervention, or can opt for any available alternatives.

Why does the boy have to be circumcised when he absolutely cannot say anything about the matter?
06-01-2010, 11:04 PM
Spawnie

I have to admire dreads attempt to PR us into a red vs blue "militants" vs "agnostics" discussion here.

Funny since the two descriptions dont pair...
06-02-2010, 12:38 AM
Dreadnaught

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You said: "They did not discuss it."

They did discuss it, albeit shortly and lined up the most important arguments both pro and contra. Honestly, you don't need any more research.

What about this argument for example?

Lining up arguments != discussing research.

@Spawnie- Drawing some distinction between foreskin militants and foreskin agnostics is pretty accurate -- some people don't particularly care and shrug, while others think this is a crime against humanity. That's why you don't see large numbers of pro-circumcision Web sites out there. Because it's foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.
06-02-2010, 11:30 AM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Lining up arguments != discussing research.

@Spawnie- Drawing some distinction between foreskin militants and foreskin agnostics is pretty accurate -- some people don't particularly care and shrug, while others think this is a crime against humanity. That's why you don't see large numbers of pro-circumcision Web sites out there. Because it's foreskin militants vs. foreskin agnostics.

You still did not adress my question: Why is it okay to mutilate a baby when it can't speak for itself and the procedure is not necessary in any way?

Violates the Hippocratic Oath, by the way.
06-02-2010, 11:42 AM
Dreadnaught

Because it's not mutilation.

See? This can go round and round forever.
06-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Because it's not mutilation.

See? This can go round and round forever.

You still did not answer the question. At this age, the procedure is completely and totally unnecessary. You're trying to dodge the issue.

Again: WHY CAN'T IT WAIT UNTIL THE CHILD IS OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF?

And it definitely can be argued that circumcision is a form of mutilation.

Quote:

Some tribes practice some ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, as part of a rite of passage (e.g. initiation ritual). burning, flagellation or wheeling. In some cases, the term may apply to treatment of dead bodies, such as soldiers mutilated after they have been killed by an enemy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

And before you go off the deep end again and only argue against the definition, try to answer the question for this time, will ya?
06-02-2010, 12:36 PM
Spawnie

I wonder, since a nonbutchered cock is so filthy, how did the societies that didnt practice circumcision survive without someone to come along and lop off a bit of their cock on principle?
06-02-2010, 05:08 PM
LittleFuzzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spawnie

I wonder, since a nonbutchered cock is so filthy, how did the societies that didnt practice circumcision survive without someone to come along and lop off a bit of their cock on principle?

Not going to get involved in the argument, but I'll point out societies which practiced ritual cannibalism survived, even with the hideous risks of prion disease. Hell, not even 18th-19th century London killed the British Empire.
06-02-2010, 06:45 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Not going to get involved in the argument, but I'll point out societies which practiced ritual cannibalism survived, even with the hideous risks of prion disease. Hell, not even 18th-19th century London killed the British Empire.

So, now you're comparing cannibalism to circumcision? Nice, Dread will have a stroke :p
06-02-2010, 06:51 PM
Nessus

Well, you do know where bubble gum comes from, right?
06-03-2010, 03:37 AM
Dreadnaught

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation

Wikifist :haha:
06-03-2010, 04:04 AM
GGT

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Wikifist :haha:

Why are you laughing? :confused:

Quote:

The traditional Chinese practices of lÃ*ngchÃ* and foot binding are forms of mutilation that have captured the imagination of Westerners, as well as the now tourist centered "long-neck" people, a sub-group of the Karen known as the Padaung where women wear brass rings around their neck.[1] The act of tattooing is also considered a form of self-mutilation according to some cultural traditions, such as within the Muslim religion.[2][3] A joint statement released by the United Nations and numerous other international bodies opposes female genital cutting (female circumcision) as a form of mutilation.[4] Denniston et al. have argued that male circumcision is a form of mutilation;[5] their arguments have been criticised by Benatar and Benatar.[6]
06-03-2010, 06:37 AM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

And before you go off the deep end again and only argue against the definition, try to answer the question for this time, will ya?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

:haha:

Great expectations
06-03-2010, 10:06 AM
Timbuk2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Again: WHY CAN'T IT WAIT UNTIL THE CHILD IS OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF?

Repeated.
06-03-2010, 12:24 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

Great expectations

Yeah. It's the usual style - try to open a completely different battlefield by targetting something else.

Again: WHY CAN'T IT WAIT UNTIL THE CHILD IS OLD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FOR HIMSELF?
06-03-2010, 12:36 PM
Nessus

I'm not sure if just being smug counts as a red herring, but that doesn't keep him from trying
06-03-2010, 12:54 PM
Khendraja'aro

Well, this only proves another saying of mine:

Slavish adherence to tradition only proves that your mind is incapable of anything else.
06-04-2010, 02:51 AM
Dreadnaught

This is why I say folks are foreskin militants and others are foreskin agnostics. If you believe that the foreskin is a cherished, vital and Godly skin flap, of course you would be militant about when/how/if someone gets it removed. If you believe that it's a skin flap one can live with or without (and there may be some benefits to just not having it), you're agnostic and won't take sides.
06-04-2010, 07:57 AM
Nessus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...t-smugbert.gif

:rolleyes: That's a perfectly fair assessment of the situation and the views presented, well done
06-04-2010, 12:51 PM
Khendraja'aro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

This is why I say folks are foreskin militants and others are foreskin agnostics. If you believe that the foreskin is a cherished, vital and Godly skin flap, of course you would be militant about when/how/if someone gets it removed. If you believe that it's a skin flap one can live with or without (and there may be some benefits to just not having it), you're agnostic and won't take sides.

Geeze man, you still did not answer the question. Is your brain fried or something?
06-04-2010, 01:06 PM
Dreadnaught

Is yours? If you're a foreskin agnostic, you don't care if parents choose when a child is an infant. Just like if you're an ear piercing agnostic, you don't care if someone gets their baby's ear's pierced.

If you're a foreskin militant, you keep asking the same incredulous question over and over because you can't imagine that someone could be a foreskin agnostic, despite the hundreds of millions of perfectly happy circumcised people.
06-04-2010, 01:28 PM
Nessus

I refuse to believe you're this dense, but are just trolling/strawmanning, which is pretty damn lame from a moderator
06-04-2010, 01:39 PM
Khendraja'aro

Yeah, his brain is fried. And he still did no answer the question. I think it's because he does not have an answer and thus chooses the easy way out: Trolling.

What about the not-so-happy-because-they-lost-all-methods-of-procreation-due-to-complications circumsized people?
06-04-2010, 03:48 PM
GGT

Dread, using the term MILITANT shows how you want to dismiss this, by demonizing one side. Won't work. :donkey:

Comparing infant ear lobe piercing to foreskin circumsion is doubly wrong. Different skins and procedures. Although I do agree neither should be performed on an infant, and both are considered cultural cosmetics, foreskin amputation is permanent---penile tissue won't grow back or repair itself. That's why it falls under the term MUTILATION. :donkey:
06-04-2010, 03:59 PM
Ominous Gamer

ear piercing ≠ circumsion

Dread, listen to yourself.
06-04-2010, 11:52 PM
Dreadnaught

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessus

I refuse to believe you're this dense, but are just trolling/strawmanning, which is pretty damn lame from a moderator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yeah, his brain is fried. And he still did no answer the question. I think it's because he does not have an answer and thus chooses the easy way out: Trolling.

What about the not-so-happy-because-they-lost-all-methods-of-procreation-due-to-complications circumsized people?

Once again: If you're a foreskin agnostic, you don't care if parents choose when a child is an infant. Just like if you're an ear piercing agnostic, you don't care if someone gets their baby's ear's pierced.

If you're a foreskin militant, you keep asking the same incredulous question over and over because you can't imagine that someone could be a foreskin agnostic, despite the hundreds of millions of perfectly happy circumcised people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGT

Dread, using the term MILITANT shows how you want to dismiss this, by demonizing one side. Won't work. :donkey:

I'm doing quote the opposite. I'm trying to make it clear why different people have different views on this, and why one group (the militants) finds the other's simply unacceptable. I'm not using the word "militant" pejoratively.
06-05-2010, 04:02 AM
Veldan Rath

Dread, I love ya but,

ANSWER THE FRAKING QUESTION

Even if you were 'agnostic' about, your kid might not be, so why not wait?

It's unnecessary to do, you just can not admit that it is not an intellectually defensible thing to do.
06-05-2010, 05:22 AM
Dreadnaught

So are braces. I'm not going to wait for my kid to be 18 before I get him braces if needed,
06-05-2010, 05:31 AM
Being

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

So are braces. I'm not going to wait for my kid to be 18 before I get him braces if needed,

Beware the dentist trap. They sell more unnecessary crap than home shopping network.
06-05-2010, 05:39 AM
Veldan Rath

BRACES????

Really?

Braces can be a necessary procedure...is circumcision?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page