RootsBooster Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Thank-you for clipping my sentence in the middle, changing it entirely and then answering that. Another fine "I'm losing the argument so I'll make up my own then" tactic... Oh, sorry, how about this then... Is circumcision irreversible physical harm. In the 70s when I was born it was routinely done to the majority of male children and has never caused them any physical harm? Arguably it has actually done them some serious potential physical good (back to the WHO report) Yes, unless you have a lot of money and suitable donor skin. And a GOOD surgeon. yes, from here: "harm Pronunciation: /hɑːm/ noun [mass noun] physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted" Other than the loss of a body part, I don't know, has there ever been a study into other harm caused by it? What does this have to do with the topic of religious/ritual circumcision? Is that better? I'm still happy with it. You can hardly say that X shouldn't be done on the grounds that it causes harm then exclude it from the argument when what you claim causes harm actually appears to be quite beneficial... I'm saying it shouldn't be done because it violates basic human rights. I'm saying it's harm because it meets the criteria for the definition of harm. Why are you so intent on dancing around all the main questions? It's troll-like. EDIT: If you want to start a thread about the possible health benefits of circumcision, feel free. This thread is about the forced circumcision in the name of religion, with absolutely NO health benefits mentioned in the "religious law" that demands it. Edited June 20, 2012 by RootsBooster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'm saying it shouldn't be done because it violates basic human rights. I'm saying it's harm because it meets the criteria for the definition of harm. 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. Why are you so intent on dancing around all the main questions? It's troll-like. 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Evil Doctor, would you be so strong in your defense if you didn't have a belief in a deity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 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.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Dome Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now