Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Bloomdido 10]

Evil Doctor, would you be so strong in your defense if you didn't have a belief in a deity?

[RootsBooster 24]

Your entire "rationale" is that circumcision is bad because it causes harm.

No it is NOT. As I have said MANY times, my argument is that it VIOLATES BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. It is an act of irreversible physical damage comitted against somebody who has no say in the matter.

Many doctor and the WHO agree that it is beneficial - i.e. not only does it not fall into the harm category it's falls into the good for you category. This completely invalidates your argument.

Ermmmmm I'm not the one basing my argument around something beneficial causing harm then demanding that the evidence and argument against the "causing harm" claim be omitted. If that's not dancing around the main questions I don't know what is!

 

You are going against the definition of harm with this, you continually ignore valid and important questions. You repeatedly bring the POSSIBLE health benefits up as your main argument in a thread in which the topic of religious reasons has no bearing on health matters.

 

At this point it has become clear you are simply trolling and I wish you a good time with your continuing efforts on this thread.

 

Before I head off to bed I will just remind you of my main two issues and give you another chance to answer them...

I'm going to make it easier for you, as you seem to have straw in your eyes.

 

If my neighbour worshipped me, and he BELIEVED I was a god incarnate ( I don't see how you think this is any more ridiculous than it happening in the bible) and he made a covenant (an agreement/promise) with me to remove his earlobes (those things which have no use and removal helps prevent cancer of the earlobe) and the earlobes of his descendants, without their consent or consultation...

remembering your own words "Just because you don't believe in it doesn't make them wrong"...

How is that a straw man, and do you think it would be acceptable for his great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandsons to have their earlobes removed without their consent, as infants?

 

also, this is my point entirely...

 

This is not a valid agreement between the child and the god. The parents deciding to commit irreversible damage to the child, with no rational reason for it, is a violation of human rights. Do you disagree?

... this last one, to make it easier for you to wrestle with, "do you think that forced circumcision on an unwilling participant DOESN'T violate human rights?"

Edited June 20, 2012 by RootsBooster

[Bloomdido 10]

To quote Frantz Fanon who I have just this minute discovered;

 

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are

presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new

evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is

extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it

is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,

ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”

[JFKvsNixon 11]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2231533/?tool=pmcentrez

 

Irrespective of the claims of that paper, which by the way is refuted here in the same journal.

 

Although there is evidence that circumcision will provide certain health benefits, the evidence continues to show that for little boys born in Canada, where antibiotics are readily available, the physical harm outweighs long-term benefit for both HIV and UTI prevention.

 

The ethical issues in removing healthy tissue from patients who are unable to consent to the procedure forms the basis of another treatise. One can only imagine the outcry if baby girls were submitted to cosmetic surgery in the first few days of life. Do our baby boys deserve less?

 

Would you really ignore the advice given by the BMA based upon a claim of brief paper?

[Ian Dome 10]

You do realise that's not a reason FOR doing it, right?

 

i'll ask again - your outrage on behalf of our beloved little boys is sweet - now show me a significant number of people who grew up and wants his foreskin back. Because then you may have a point.

[Cyclone 10]

Your entire "rationale" is that circumcision is bad because it causes harm. Many doctor and the WHO agree that it is beneficial - i.e. not only does it not fall into the harm category it's falls into the good for you category. This completely invalidates your argument.

There are possible benefits, but only in certain circumstances. Applying the technique to a baby where those circumstances do not apply is not beneficial, at best it's akin to piercing the ears of a baby, but in reality it's not reversible, so it's worse than that.

 

 

Ermmmmm I'm not the one basing my argument around something beneficial causing harm then demanding that the evidence and argument against the "causing harm" claim be omitted. If that's not dancing around the main questions I don't know what is!

You're using potential benefits as an argument to justify doing this to babies where there is no medical justification. You might as well try to justify taking out their appendix because in some cases it's a beneficial process.

[Cyclone 10]

i'll ask again - your outrage on behalf of our beloved little boys is sweet - now show me a significant number of people who grew up and wants his foreskin back. Because then you may have a point.

 

Why would this need to be demonstrated before there is a point?

[Cyclone 10]

What trumps in the human rights debate - the right of the parents to follow their religious law or the rights of the child to remain uncircumcised. If the latter then surely it should also apply to all elective circumcisions?

 

You seriously need to ask whether the rights of a child not to be mutilated trumps the right of a parent to follow religious beliefs? What if they believe that they should chop a leg off, or sacrifice the baby, would you still be asking which right is paramount?

[Teddybare 10]

You seriously need to ask whether the rights of a child not to be mutilated trumps the right of a parent to follow religious beliefs? What if they believe that they should chop a leg off, or sacrifice the baby, would you still be asking which right is paramount?

 

No. But maybe ear piercings and otoplasties on children should come into the same debate.

[rubydazzler 11]

i'll ask again - your outrage on behalf of our beloved little boys is sweet - now show me a significant number of people men who grew up and wants his foreskin back. Because then you may have a point.

Because they don't know what they're missing? How can you know you want something you can't even remember having? Obviously men who've grown up with this lack are going to defend their condition, what choice do they have? You really need information from men (and their partners) who had the procedure in adult life on how it affected them, before you can reach a judgment.

 

evildoctorneil, you say baby boys in the 70s were being circumcised routinely? Was this over the entire UK or in the particular area you were born? Lots of my friends had boys and it was never even suggested to them, let alone considered. So I'm a little sceptical about that claim. We need a poll

[Ian Dome 10]

Because they don't know what they're missing? How can you know you want something you can't even remember having? Obviously men who've grown up with this lack are going to defend their condition, what choice do they have?

 

They have the choice not to circumcise their own baby boys..just sayin.

 

so go on, how many choose not to carry on the tradition?

[Ian Dome 10]

Why would this need to be demonstrated before there is a point?

 

because they're "victims" according to you people. so show me some examples. you can't. so whats the problem? you're campaigning against something nobody who you're claiming to be victims agrees with you on.