|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Circumcision vs FGM - the ethics?
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it's a small unimportant part of the body I can't see there is a problem. Particularly if we're talking about a child. Parents have to make all sorts of choices that may affect a child for life (education, for one); I really can't get worked up here.
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education. But they can't undo a circumcision.
The earlobe is a small unimportant part of the body too so let's snip that off at birth. No problem right?
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education.
But they can't undo the education they've already had, and they're going to be at a rather significant disadvantage if their parents delayed their education until they could make their own, informed choices about it.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education.
But they can't undo the education they've already had, and they're going to be at a rather significant disadvantage if their parents delayed their education until they could make their own, informed choices about it.
I think this mostly goes to prove that the original analogy doesn't work.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education.
But they can't undo the education they've already had, and they're going to be at a rather significant disadvantage if their parents delayed their education until they could make their own, informed choices about it.
I think this mostly goes to prove that the original analogy doesn't work.
I think it does just the opposite. There are many decisions that parents make for their children every day. Some, like decisions about education (or raising a child in a particular religious environment or lack thereof), can have significant life-long effects, yet most people would say such decisions are undoubtedly within the prerogative of the parents, as long as the decisions do not rise to the level of abuse. Other decisions, which in my view would include circumcision of newborn boys, carry minimal lifelong effects.
Yes, I know some will say that circumcision of infants rises to the level of abuse. I do not consider myself to have been abused in the slightest. I am not in the least bit traumatized, nor have I found my quality of life wanting in any way. I find the notion that I have been abused silly, not to mention insulting to victims of actual abuse.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it's a small unimportant part of the body I can't see there is a problem. Particularly if we're talking about a child. Parents have to make all sorts of choices that may affect a child for life (education, for one); I really can't get worked up here.
Same here. And I simply don't get it that some people think I should lose even the slightest moment of sleep because my parents had me circumcised as an infant, or that I should feel like I have somehow been violated, deprived, or robbed of something. Sorry, don't feel that way at all.
Nobody's said that; you're talking to yourself in the mirror. What people have said is that there are some who DO resent having part of their anatomy removed for no good reason, and they are justified in so feeling. Not that you must.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yes, I know some will say that circumcision of infants rises to the level of abuse. I do not consider myself to have been abused in the slightest. I am not in the least bit traumatized, nor have I found my quality of life wanting in any way. I find the notion that I have been abused silly, not to mention insulting to victims of actual abuse.
It's not about what you feel. Really. Honest. But you don't get to decide for others how THEY should feel. And unnecessary and irreversable body part removal, whether or not YOU feel put out by yours, rises to the level of "feeling-you've-been-wronged-is-not-unjustified."
ETA: To Kelly:
Yes. FGM is horrific and circumcision is in comparison small peanuts (no pun intended). Comparisons between the two in an attempt to justify or condemn circumcision are bad logic and bad faith.
[ 20. July 2012, 03:25: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not about what you feel. Really. Honest. But you don't get to decide for others how THEY should feel. And unnecessary and irreversable body part removal, whether or not YOU feel put out by yours, rises to the level of "feeling-you've-been-wronged-is-not-unjustified."
Fair enough that it is not for me to decide how others should feel. But I will confess, maddening and insensitive though it may be (and culturally-conditioned as it likely is), I truly have a hard time understanding why anyone would feel they have been "wronged." I just don't get it.
It also seems to me that it works both ways -- if it is not for us to say how others should feel about this, then it is also not for us to say that other families and other cultures should bow to our ideas of what is acceptable and what is not.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not about what you feel. Really. Honest. But you don't get to decide for others how THEY should feel. And unnecessary and irreversable body part removal, whether or not YOU feel put out by yours, rises to the level of "feeling-you've-been-wronged-is-not-unjustified."
Fair enough that it is not for me to decide how others should feel. But I will confess, maddening and insensitive though it may be (and culturally-conditioned as it likely is), I truly have a hard time understanding why anyone would feel they have been "wronged." I just don't get it.
It also seems to me that it works both ways -- if it is not for us to say how others should feel about this, then it is also not for us to say that other families and other cultures should bow to our ideas of what is acceptable and what is not.
Does not follow. Something can be wrong even if the wronged party doesn't feel wronged. Here's the problem: I said we don't demand that you feel wronged. You concluded that there is no such thing as right or wrong. That's a big leap.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yes, I know some will say that circumcision of infants rises to the level of abuse. I do not consider myself to have been abused in the slightest. I am not in the least bit traumatized, nor have I found my quality of life wanting in any way. I find the notion that I have been abused silly, not to mention insulting to victims of actual abuse.
I think everyone arguing here recognises that most circumcised men do just fine. I don't doubt that American males shag with roughly the same enthusiasm as Europeans, despite the fact that most of them have had the op. That's not really the point, though. The point is that as a matter of principle a surgical intervention needs to be justified, and "no worse off, not traumatised" isn't a justification. If circumcision, in 99% of cases, makes no practical difference (and it seems not to) then that's a reason not to do it.
Most of us are arguing not that circumcision is some terrible abuse, but that it is unnecessary and has no significant benefits. Which, if you look at countries that don't routinely circumcise, is obviously true. We're not missing out on anything either. To justify routine circumcision, you would need to argue that we are tangibly worse by not doing it. No one has even tried very hard to do that. Therefore routine circumcision appears not to be justified, and as such is wrong, but that's no reason for you to feel insulted.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Mousethief, what I'm saying (and what I think Nick is saying) is that this is so much a non-issue it is hard to take it seriously. A tiny scrap of skin was removed and nothing else changed*. When there are so many real examples of injustice in the world, that are worth protesting about, why get worked up about this?
* Nothing changed apart from a very attractive part of my body was made even more attractive. Any anyone who disagrees with either part of that statement is simply wrong. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 20. July 2012, 12:03: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
[Where I live you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, and while I've seen a lot of body modification, outside of the pierced ears for girls, I've never seen it on a minor.
Come to England and you'll see a lot of Chav mothers who have had baby 'Courtney' or 'Chelsea' taken to a high street piercing place to havetheir studs put in.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does not follow. Something can be wrong even if the wronged party doesn't feel wronged. Here's the problem: I said we don't demand that you feel wronged. You concluded that there is no such thing as right or wrong. That's a big leap.
It was late when I posted, so I may not have been as clear as I would have liked. Certainly there are things such as right and wrong. My point is that I have never heard an argument that came close to convincing me that it is wrong for parents to make the decision to circumcise their newborn sons. Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.
And yes, Robert Armin, I suppose it is hard for me to take this seriously as a real issue.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does not follow. Something can be wrong even if the wronged party doesn't feel wronged. Here's the problem: I said we don't demand that you feel wronged. You concluded that there is no such thing as right or wrong. That's a big leap.
It was late when I posted, so I may not have been as clear as I would have liked. Certainly there are things such as right and wrong. My point is that I have never heard an argument that came close to convincing me that it is wrong for parents to make the decision to circumcise their newborn sons. Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.
And yes, Robert Armin, I suppose it is hard for me to take this seriously as a real issue.
This is just one of those occasions where people with different opinions are never going to see eye to eye. The cutting off of parts of the body will always seem to me to be just obviously wrong.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
To Nick Tamen and Robert Armin, I'd ask: Where then is the line? If male circumcision "isn't enough to get worked up about," what is? As others have brought up, is trimming off bits of a baby's earlobe ok? Why not? At what age does it stop being acceptable? 2 weeks? 2 months? 2 years? Why? If the issue of the child remembering or not affects your ethical reasoning, then what else is acceptable to do to a child under the guise of "they won't remember and there's no permanent damage?"
The "When there are so many real examples of injustice in the world, that are worth protesting about, why get worked up about this?" question is a bit of a dick move (pun intended). Either an action is ethical, or it isn't -- and the presence of more clearly accepted or severe ethical quandaries doesn't affect the question at hand.
So again, if your position is that "it's hard to take this as a serious issue" rather than "I agree that it's unethical in principle, but I don't personally feel wronged" then what's the ethical boundary line?
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]I think everyone arguing here recognises that most circumcised men do just fine. I don't doubt that American males shag with roughly the same enthusiasm as Europeans, despite the fact that most of them have had the op. That's not really the point, though. The point is that as a matter of principle a surgical intervention needs to be justified, and "no worse off, not traumatised" isn't a justification. If circumcision, in 99% of cases, makes no practical difference (and it seems not to) then that's a reason not to do it.
Most of us are arguing not that circumcision is some terrible abuse, but that it is unnecessary and has no significant benefits. Which, if you look at countries that don't routinely circumcise, is obviously true. We're not missing out on anything either. To justify routine circumcision, you would need to argue that we are tangibly worse by not doing it. No one has even tried very hard to do that. Therefore routine circumcision appears not to be justified, and as such is wrong, but that's no reason for you to feel insulted.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. For the reasons you cite, routine non-religious circumcision will probably die out in the US within the next generation.
It's the heat behind it that makes Americans (most of whom either are circumcised or had their sons circumcised) uncomfortable-- the suggestion that the practice is abusive or that parents have "no right" to make this decision (again, despite the obvious truth that parents decide everything for infants, including things with far more impact than this).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
To Nick Tamen and Robert Armin, I'd ask: Where then is the line? If male circumcision "isn't enough to get worked up about," what is?
I don't mean this as a dodge, though it probably comes across as one, but frankly I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. I just know this isn't anywhere near the line in my view.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think everyone arguing here recognises that most circumcised men do just fine. . . . .
I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. For the reasons you cite, routine non-religious circumcision will probably die out in the US within the next generation.
Possibly, though I think it may be more nuanced than that. There are parts of the country where it is dying out faster than others, there are parts of the country where it isn't dying out nearly as much, and as I understand, a good part of the overall decrease in circumcisions rates has to do with the growing Latino population, in which it has never been as culturally established.
My guess is that for the foreseeable future, most medical groups will continue to say its a choice for the parents to make, and most (though not all) parents will want son to look like dad. Given that, I think it may be around longer than a generation.
quote:
It's the heat behind it that makes Americans (most of whom either are circumcised or had their sons circumcised) uncomfortable-- the suggestion that the practice is abusive or that parents have "no right" to make this decision (again, despite the obvious truth that parents decide everything for infants, including things with far more impact than this).
Precisely.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The earlobe is a small unimportant part of the body too so let's snip that off at birth. No problem right?
Is the damage done to a boy in chopping off his foreskin worth a secular fight against the faithful Jewish or Muslim communities?
Hell no.
If tomorrow some tiny sect tries to chop off earlobes of boys or girls for religious reasons, are the authorities going to step in?
Probably yes.
What's the difference?
Realpolitik.
Actually I think a bit of Realpolitik is a good thing. Complex societies need a bit of fudge to dampen major conflicts of interest between powerful factions. The real question here is whether the judiciary still realizes that it must give politicians some room to manoeuvre, or whether they will insist on principle to the bitter end.
In Germany, the action of a local court to outlaw circumcision in a specific case has led to a political promise at the federal level to provide some general law that will allow circumcision. Now people are already talking about challenging this future law in the Supreme Court. If the Bundestag passes the law, and the German Supreme Court rejects it, then I think very tough times will lie ahead for Germany. It will be a practical disaster given the massive Turkish community in Germany, and it will be a PR / diplomatic disaster given the past history of the Jewish community in Germany.
Everybody has to pick their fights. And as far as "child abuse" goes, this one is in my opinion best left alone. There really are worse things happening to children, which we can hope to address without disrupting the general peace and order of our multicultural societies. Why insist on attacking a minor problem that for sure is going to explode in your face?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
To Nick Tamen and Robert Armin, I'd ask: Where then is the line? If male circumcision "isn't enough to get worked up about," what is?
I don't mean this as a dodge, though it probably comes across as one, but frankly I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. I just know this isn't anywhere near the line in my view.
If your own position is admittedly unreasoned, I'm not sure what basis you have to claim that
quote:
Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.
Thus far, I haven't heard a a reasonable argument in favor of circumcision. So if the arguments I have heard are coming from "reasonable minds," they're sure as shit not showing it.*
It would appear that the pro-circumcision argument is boiling down to "Haven't thought about it really. Seems all right to me. Besides, he should look like his father." And the anti-circumcision argument is something like "Don't cut off your children's body parts without a good reason."
If there's a way to communicate the ethical aspect of the situation without imparting heat, I'm all for it. But "let's not make people feel bad" isn't a good reason for not doing so.
*profanity added for alliterative purposes
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
Apologies for the DP, but in light of IngoB's post immediately above mine, I should clarify that the statements I've made thus far relate to the ethics of circumcision itself -- not to the question/ethics of its legality.
For what its worth, from a practical standpoint, I think the practice should remain legal. However, I think a "PR campaign" of sorts on the ethics of the matter is long past due (especially in places where the practice is common outside of those religious communities that require it). Let's make the right choice in the matter clear, but not put the weight of the state behind enforcing it.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
k - clearly, there is a discussion to be had about whether male circumcision is a good or bad thing as a routine procedure, ethically justifiable etc. The OP posited the argument that *on many levels the basic act of circucision [sic] is similar if not identical to the practice of female genital mutilation on girls.*
And enough people have weighed in to say *actually, no it's not similar, nor is it identical* (I like the lobe-lopping v. skewer thru the eardrum comparison).
Perhaps we could leave that and respond to whether the German govt. is right to ban the practice outright or whether there should be exceptions (I doubt anyone would argue in cases of medical necessity) for religious reasons.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Apologies for the DP, but in light of IngoB's post immediately above mine, I should clarify that the statements I've made thus far relate to the ethics of circumcision itself -- not to the question/ethics of its legality.
For what its worth, from a practical standpoint, I think the practice should remain legal. However, I think a "PR campaign" of sorts on the ethics of the matter is long past due (especially in places where the practice is common outside of those religious communities that require it). Let's make the right choice in the matter clear, but not put the weight of the state behind enforcing it.
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.
I would affirm the benefit of an ad campaign focusing on discouraging the practice on practical terms. But positing it as an ethical issue is going to needlessly insult & antagonize millions of parents in a way that will most likely interfere with your goals.
I think a better analogy to the ones given so far would be infant sleep position. For years it was believed the safest sleep position was to place baby on tummy to avoid choking if baby regurgitated some spit-up. Years later studies showed tummy-sleeping increased odds of SIDs and an ad campaign was begun to encourage back sleeping. (I had kids at both sides of this divide-- oldest slept on tummy, younger two on back).
Had that ad campaign vilified tummy sleeping as an "ethical" issue they would no doubt have antagonized millions of us parents who innocently put our babies to sleep on their tummies thinking it was best. Instead, the ad campaign simply focused on the practical matter of getting the word out that the latest research had caused the APA to reverse their advice, and now considered back sleeping safest. Most parents then sensibly changed their practices.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Perhaps we could leave that and respond to whether the German govt. is right to ban the practice outright or whether there should be exceptions (I doubt anyone would argue in cases of medical necessity) for religious reasons.
You mean as IngoB did approx three posts up?
And sorry if this seems thick, but do we really have to "leave" the discussion on ethics in order to discuss the German legal question?
And since I feel bad about discussing the thread's discussion topic without adding anything of value,I personally think IngoB's assessment was spot-on. How about yourself?
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
I wrote my own take on the issue. If we are not allowed to write anything because it is similar to, or echoes, another person's post, then there is hardly any point in having a *discussion* board. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.
I would affirm the benefit of an ad campaign focusing on discouraging the practice on practical terms. But positing it as an ethical issue is going to needlessly insult & antagonize millions of parents in a way that will most likely interfere with your goals.
Interesting. I'd only disagree insofar as parents have the legal right to engage in all sorts of unethical behavior regarding their children. But from a policy-standpoint, discussing it in terms of practicality rather than ethics with the goal of reducing the practice might prove fruitful.
quote:
I think a better analogy to the ones given so far would be infant sleep position. For years it was believed the safest sleep position was to place baby on tummy to avoid choking if baby regurgitated some spit-up. Years later studies showed tummy-sleeping increased odds of SIDs and an ad campaign was begun to encourage back sleeping. (I had kids at both sides of this divide-- oldest slept on tummy, younger two on back).
Had that ad campaign vilified tummy sleeping as an "ethical" issue they would no doubt have antagonized millions of us parents who innocently put our babies to sleep on their tummies thinking it was best. Instead, the ad campaign simply focused on the practical matter of getting the word out that the latest research had caused the APA to reverse their advice, and now considered back sleeping safest. Most parents then sensibly changed their practices.
Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.
Of course, the sleep position issue still falls a little short in that it doesn't carry that primal "my child must be like me" component that circumcision does. That's a very base instinct to have to do battle with.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
[QUOTE]Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.
Yes, because tummy sleeping, it turned out, increased their risk of death. Circumcision did not.
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
[QUOTE]
Of course, the sleep position issue still falls a little short in that it doesn't carry that primal "my child must be like me" component that circumcision does. That's a very base instinct to have to do battle with.
Having experienced both with my kids (circumcision and change in sleep position), I see no difference. The "my child must be like me" component is overstated-- it had next to no impact on our decision, nor, I suspect on most anyone else w/o a religious component. Instead, it was very very similar to the decisions we made re: sleep position-- we went with the best medical advice available to us at the time. When that changed, we changed our practices, as I suspect will happen w/ circumcision.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.
Yes, because tummy sleeping, it turned out, increased their risk of death. Circumcision did not.
Also because tummy sleeping is not a permanent bodily modification.
quote:
Having experienced both with my kids (circumcision and change in sleep position), I see no difference. The "my child must be like me" component is overstated-- it had next to no impact on our decision, nor, I suspect on most anyone else w/o a religious component. Instead, it was very very similar to the decisions we made re: sleep position-- we went with the best medical advice available to us at the time. When that changed, we changed our practices, as I suspect will happen w/ circumcision.
I'm not going to speak for your personal experience. I will say that it's not as overstated as you would claim. You might have been an enlightened parent, going with the best of medical opinion at the time, but most are not.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
If your own position is admittedly unreasoned, I'm not sure what basis you have to claim that
quote:
Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.
Thus far, I haven't heard a a reasonable argument in favor of circumcision. So if the arguments I have heard are coming from "reasonable minds," they're sure as shit not showing it.*
I haven't admitted my position is unreasoned -- I have admitted that I haven't fully considered where I would draw the line, but that I do know where I would not draw it. Nothing unreasoned about that.
As for reasonable minds differing, I get the sense this may be one of those times where all contrary arguments might be dismissed out of hand as unreasonable.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I haven't admitted my position is unreasoned -- I have admitted that I haven't fully considered where I would draw the line, but that I do know where I would not draw it. Nothing unreasoned about that.
Quite a pleasure to make your acquaintance Humpty. Will you be re-appropriating any words other than "reason" and "dodge" this thread?
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As for reasonable minds differing, I get the sense this may be one of those times where all contrary arguments might be dismissed out of hand as unreasonable.
No, just the ones that haven't had any thought put into them.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.
Yes, because tummy sleeping, it turned out, increased their risk of death. Circumcision did not.
Also because tummy sleeping is not a permanent bodily modification.
Maybe it's just me, but I find a permanent bodily modification, even an unnecessary one, preferable to risk of death. Yet no one raises tummy sleeping as an "ethical issue".
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]Having experienced both with my kids (circumcision and change in sleep position), I see no difference. The "my child must be like me" component is overstated-- it had next to no impact on our decision, nor, I suspect on most anyone else w/o a religious component. Instead, it was very very similar to the decisions we made re: sleep position-- we went with the best medical advice available to us at the time. When that changed, we changed our practices, as I suspect will happen w/ circumcision.
I'm not going to speak for your personal experience. I will say that it's not as overstated as you would claim. You might have been an enlightened parent, going with the best of medical opinion at the time, but most are not. [/QB]
And you know this how? I doubt very much that other parents are much different than I am in that regard. We all just want what is in our child's best interests.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
Quite a pleasure to make your acquaintance Humpty. Will you be re-appropriating any words other than "reason" and "dodge" this thread?
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As for reasonable minds differing, I get the sense this may be one of those times where all contrary arguments might be dismissed out of hand as unreasonable.
No, just the ones that haven't had any thought put into them.
I'm sorry if the distinction between not putting any thought into the issue and not fully considering where to draw the line you asked for escapes you.
Thanks for making my point.
[ 20. July 2012, 18:45: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe it's just me, but I find a permanent bodily modification, even an unnecessary one, preferable to risk of death. Yet no one raises tummy sleeping as an "ethical issue".
Firstly, it's not an either-or issue. Noone's saying circumcise your male children or they have to tummy sleep. Secondly, tummy sleeping is presented as an ethical issue, actually (don't let your children sleep on their tummy, it might result in their death). It's just more people agree on the ethics of preserving their child's life than they do on the ethics of leaving their child's body intact.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And you know this how? I doubt very much that other parents are much different than I am in that regard. We all just want what is in our child's best interests.
Because I talk to people who've have it done to their children. "I had it done, and it didn't hurt me" is often presented as a tie-breaker after the physical risks/rewards are considered. Even among those for whom it isn't a religious issue. Is there not a biological urge to prefer offspring similar to oneself? Surely there must be surveys done on this...
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe it's just me, but I find a permanent bodily modification, even an unnecessary one, preferable to risk of death. Yet no one raises tummy sleeping as an "ethical issue".
Firstly, it's not an either-or issue. Noone's saying circumcise your male children or they have to tummy sleep. Secondly, tummy sleeping is presented as an ethical issue, actually (don't let your children sleep on their tummy, it might result in their death). It's just more people agree on the ethics of preserving their child's life than they do on the ethics of leaving their child's body intact.
But at one time tummy sleeping was just as ubiquitous as circumcision in the US. Now it is not. The difference, as I said, was an education campaign that didn't present it as an "ethical" issue-- "you're a bad parent if you do this!", but rather as a practical one. The ads rightly assume that all parents want what's best for their children, you don't need to badger and guilt them into compliance, you simply need to present them with the best data available.
quote:
Originally posted by Fëanor:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And you know this how? I doubt very much that other parents are much different than I am in that regard. We all just want what is in our child's best interests.
Because I talk to people who've have it done to their children. "I had it done, and it didn't hurt me" is often presented as a tie-breaker after the physical risks/rewards are considered. Even among those for whom it isn't a religious issue. Is there not a biological urge to prefer offspring similar to oneself? Surely there must be surveys done on this... [/QB]
Yes, it's presented as a tie-breaker. In fact, that was precisely what happened in our case. Because at that time all we knew was that there was controversy and a difference of opinion. That some suggested a benefit and others disputed that. And yet, the decision needed to be made now. So, in the face of uncertainty, we chose the option that we knew, that we had experience of, because it hadn't caused any problems either to my husband or to anyone else we knew (again, circumcision being the norm in our community at the time).
Sorry, but that's a reasonable decision. It's not about some biological urge to "make my kid like me". It's about the tendency in a high-stakes gamble to default to the known rather than the unknown. That makes sense, when the situation is murky. Again, when the situation becomes less murky-- i.e. there's sufficient education so that the risk/benefits are clearer-- then you're less likely to default to the known.
Again, that's precisely what happened with tummy sleeping. Most parents put their babies on their tummies because that's what their parents did. They grew up seeing their younger siblings sleep on their tummies. And most of their siblings survived just fine. So it was the default for decades-- until the medical data became clear, and education made that data available to the general public, leading to a significant decline in the incidence of SIDs.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fëanor
Shipmate
# 14514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm sorry if the distinction between not putting any thought into the issue and not fully considering where to draw the line you asked for escapes you.
No need to apologize -- the distinction doesn't escape me. I've just seen no evidence (yet) to apply it here.
Posts: 177 | From: Somewhere Between Heaven and Hell | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
Perhaps we could leave that and respond to whether the German govt. is right to ban the practice outright or whether there should be exceptions (I doubt anyone would argue in cases of medical necessity) for religious reasons.
Just to clarify once more: it is not the German government which has changed the status quo on circumcision in Germany. It's a local German court ("Landgericht Köln", Court of the District Cologne), which has decided in one specific case, but thereby removed "legal cover" for all doctors.
The story in brief: A four year old boy was circumcised by a doctor. Two days later his mother brought him to the ER because of strong bleeding. The district attorney then indicted the doctor for bodily injury. A lower court ("Amtsgericht") acquitted the doctor, stating that circumcision for religious reason was oriented to the well-being of the child. The district attorney appealed, and the higher court ("Landesgericht") rejected that appeal - but merely acquitted the doctor because of so-called "Vebotsirrtum" (error concerning prohibition), i.e., the court accepted that the doctor was labouring under the reasonable misconception that circumcision for religious reasons is allowed. It did not accept that this was correct however, stating explicitly that the bodily injury of circumcision is not acceptable for religious reasons.
The decision is not directly binding for other courts (Germany has no official "common law" system), but is likely to influence their decision. However, the immediate problem is that now doctors must be aware that circumcision for religious reasons is legally problematic. Hence they will not be able to use "Verbotsirrtum" if a court decides against them. The next doctor who gets dragged to a court that happens to be against circumcision is likely to get criminally charged. Thus the risk for doctors has gone through the roof.
The German Bundestag (German Lower House) has issued a resolution supported by most members that the government should introduce a law to explicitly allow circumcision for religious reasons. However, this resolution is not in itself legally binding, and so the issue remains in legal limbo for now.
The "Deutscher Richterbund" (Union of Judges) has stated that it is supporting the resolution, the "Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter" (Union of Criminal Investigators) has protested against it. Polls see the German public about evenly divided on the issue. That is the situation best I am aware of it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The German Bundestag (German Lower House) has issued a resolution supported by most members that the government should introduce a law to explicitly allow circumcision for religious reasons. However, this resolution is not in itself legally binding, and so the issue remains in legal limbo for now.
Thank you IngoB for your interesting explanation. You are probably the only one among us who knows what they are talking about on the specifics.
Presumably (in England I'd say obviously) a resolution isn't law unless and until any legislation is passed.
quote:
The "Deutscher Richterbund" (Union of Judges) has stated that it is supporting the resolution, the "Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter" (Union of Criminal Investigators) has protested against it.
If the legislation is passed, don't the judges and the criminal investigators have to do as they are told?
quote:
Polls see the German public about evenly divided on the issue. That is the situation best I am aware of it.
Are the public who are against this, against it on the sort of vaguely edifying reasons we have been discussing on this thread, or because they are prejudiced against the groups that practice it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
That is a very strange comic Tortuf. And issue 3 (in which Foreskin Man teams up with Vulva Girl) seems to be saying that C is equivalent to FGM - which I think we've all agreed just isn't so.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
It is just possible that the site is a tad on the weird side.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
It is just possible that the site is a tad on the weird side.
Oh I don't know. I'm sure the Museum of Genital Integrity in San Diego exists.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
and the Understatement of the Year Award goes to.... Tortuf!
There is a list of things wrong with that site, the most egregious being the comparison of circumcision to female genital mutilation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.
That doesn't mean all the things that they might do for, or on behalf of, their child(ren) are equally ethical, or right. The question isn't, "do parents make all decisions for their young charges." That's obvious. But not the issue under debate.
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
It is just possible that the site is a tad on the weird side.
Oh I don't know. I'm sure the Museum of Genital Integrity in San Diego exists.
Well there is a penis museum (NSFW) in Iceland.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Here you go.
wow - some ppl are so seriously time-rich and off the planet - mama - are you hearing me from the basement?
PS - thanks for the summary, Ingo
[ 21. July 2012, 17:26: Message edited by: Jahlove ]
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Well there is a penis museum (NSFW) in Iceland.
Thanks for this, MT. It's on my "must visit" list for our next family hols.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.
That doesn't mean all the things that they might do for, or on behalf of, their child(ren) are equally ethical, or right. The question isn't, "do parents make all decisions for their young charges." That's obvious. But not the issue under debate.
Actually it is. The claim has been made here-- repeatedly-- that circumcision is ethically wrong precisely because the parents are making the decision for the child. I would agree with your point that not all parental decisions are equal, but that is actually not the issue under debate.
[ 21. July 2012, 17:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.
That doesn't mean all the things that they might do for, or on behalf of, their child(ren) are equally ethical, or right. The question isn't, "do parents make all decisions for their young charges." That's obvious. But not the issue under debate.
Actually it is. The claim has been made here-- repeatedly-- that circumcision is ethically wrong precisely because the parents are making the decision for the child. I would agree with your point that not all parental decisions are equal, but that is actually not the issue under debate.
Of course parents make decisions for their children, and the younger the child the more the parents have to make decisions. But parents are limited, ethically, in the decisions that they make. Their children are not possessions. If a decision can be delayed until the child can make its own decision then it should be. Otherwise the decision must be 'in the child's best interests' (UK law & SA law - probably USA law?). On purely medical grounds that seems to stack against circumcision as there is no clear evidence that circumcision has medical benefits. On the psychological need to fit in, it could be argued for certain communities, but would need to be balanced against the right to bodily integrity (especially as this in SA is part of the Bill of Rights).
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE]Of course parents make decisions for their children, and the younger the child the more the parents have to make decisions.
Again, I agree. If we can all agree on that, then let's leave aside the many, many comments which have explicitly said circumcision is wrong because the parent is making the decision for the child.
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE] But parents are limited, ethically, in the decisions that they make. Their children are not possessions. If a decision can be delayed until the child can make its own decision then it should be.
Since circumcision is a much more painful procedure, with greater risk of complications the later it is performed, it really isn't a decision that can be delayed.
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE]Otherwise the decision must be 'in the child's best interests' (UK law & SA law - probably USA law?). On purely medical grounds that seems to stack against circumcision as there is no clear evidence that circumcision has medical benefits.
I would agree. But again, note that at the time circumcision became prevalent in the US, this was not nearly as clear as it is now.
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE] On the psychological need to fit in, it could be argued for certain communities, but would need to be balanced against the right to bodily integrity (especially as this in SA is part of the Bill of Rights).
Again, this is a strawman. The "fitting in" argument has never been much of a factor. Parents the world over really have one thing in common: we all want what's best for our kids. As explained before, the "like me" argument is really more about defaulting to the known. If you are given contradictory information regarding your child's health and wellbeing, you're going to default to the known ("like me"). If you were circumcised and turned out OK, you'll do the same with your child-- not out of some desire to create a "mini me" but out of your desire to do what's best in a situation with contradictory data.
Again, it's not an ethical issue, it's an educational one.
[ 21. July 2012, 19:32: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the legislation is passed, don't the judges and the criminal investigators have to do as they are told?
Basically. That's why they are trying to influence things now.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Are the public who are against this, against it on the sort of vaguely edifying reasons we have been discussing on this thread, or because they are prejudiced against the groups that practice it?
Hard to say. I'm getting my info mostly from reading Spiegel Online, which perhaps can be compared to the Guardian in the UK. The comment section there hardly is representative of the "German people".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think there's a bit of both. It's wrong because the parent is deciding on a completely unnecessary medical procedure. Every such procedure has risks, but you weigh the risks against the benefits. There are no proven benefits to offset the risks.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
both what???
The point is that the parents who approve the procedure think there are benefits. They aren't just arbitrarily deciding to have an unnecesary procedure out of vanity-- cuz they want a mini-me. They believe it's in their child's best interest-- because at one time, that seemed to be the medical.
Which is why framing it as an "ethical" rather than an educational issue is unnecessarily inflammatory and probably counter-productive.
[ 21. July 2012, 23:53: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
that had absolutely 0 edit window. : ( please excuse typos.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
