"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Curious George]

You meant to say "Not all doctors do...".
(Different meaning.)
Looking at their organizations, I spoke of the group.
Certainly some doctors will claim great benefit, eg, making God/Allah happy.

Yet you have no proof of this bias. You have no other reason beyond, religion influences some people and some of these doctors are religious.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't aware that circumcision precluded one from choosing a religion. Which religion does not allow people who are circumcised?

Many parents impose circumcision according to religious dictates.
Some say it's a necessity (according to case law I linked earlier).

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet you have no proof of this bias. You have no other reason beyond, religion influences some people and some of these doctors are religious.

You have no proof either.
We're both just opining on the internet.
But read the links I provided.
You'll find evidence there that some believers see circumcision as
so essential to their religion that it would be destroyed without it.
Pretty strange, eh? Their religion would disappear if boys grew
up with complete genitalia.

Similar arguments are made for FGM.
In Defense Of Female Circumcision? Panel Presents Seven Facts
Lawyers claim female genital mutilation is a religious right
Female genital mutilation defended in article on ‘Muslims in Calgary’ website
Your arguments for MGM are no better than those for FGM.
So who are you to impose your culture upon them?

 

[Curious George]

Sure, but there is more negative to circumcision than vaccines.
Which is why there is a net gain in vaccines and not in circumcision.

How you quantify this seems subjective. Do you have a breakdown?

I don't understand how this relates to what I have said in that quote.
Can you clarify ?

You said there was no clear benefit. There is a clear benefit, it is arguable whether there is a net benefit.

In what way could having a proper hygiene be an issue in a first-world country ? Explain what you mean.

Because not everyone lives lavishly or even has continual access to basic needs in a first world country.

There is no "net benefit such that the benefits outweigh the risks" in circumcisions.
It is this fact that makes it reasonable to ban circumcision.

And many doctors disagree with your point of view here.

 

[Curious George]

You have no proof either.
We're both just opining on the internet.
But read the links I provided.
You'll find evidence there that some believers see circumcision as
so essential to their religion that it would be destroyed without it.
Pretty strange, eh.

I have no doubt some people do believe this. But that some people believe this has no bearing on whether the doctors believed that and couldn't separate their beliefs from their professional views. You are making a wild accusation. How can you not see that is a poor reason to infringe on another's rights?

 

[Curious George]

Many parents impose circumcision according to religious dictates.
Some say it's a necessity (according to case law I linked earlier).

Sure. But that does not mean that someone who is circumcised is in any degree less free to choose their own religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet you have no proof of this bias. You have no other reason beyond, religion influences some people and some of these doctors are religious.

The evidence for religious bias is in the political objection to banning circumcision, & in the arguments made in case law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure. But that does not mean that someone who is circumcised is in any degree less free to choose their own religion.

You're not addressing the point, which is that permanent genital
alteration is made in the name of a religion the one cut doesn't have.

 

[Curious George]

The evidence for religious bias is in the political objection to banning circumcision, & in the arguments made in case law.

We are not talking about case law we are talking about medical opinions. Are these medical opinions biased. You say yes. I say we do not know, and have no reason to assume they are.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no doubt some people do believe this. But that some people believe this has no bearing on whether the doctors believed that and couldn't separate their beliefs from their professional views. You are making a wild accusation. How can you not see that is a poor reason to infringe on another's rights?

I understand that you don't see religious influence in law & medical research.
We disagree.

 

[Curious George]

You're not addressing the point, which is that permanent genital
alteration is made in the name of a religion the one cut doesn't have.

The point was that you implied that a person should be able to choose their own religion later in life. How does circumcision hinder this? It does not. Therefore, circumcising a child does not hinder your call to let the person choose religion for themselves.

 

[Revoltingest]

We are not talking about case law we are talking about medical opinions.

You aren't, but I am.
I've shown how religion influences law to abridge the
rights of those unable to speak for themselves....
...except to cry out in agony (no anesthetic).

 

[Curious George]

I understand that you don't see religious influence in law & medical research.
We disagree.

And is that a reasonable position? Or do you have some evidence that indicates a religious bias in the AAP's review of existing evidence regarding circumcision?

 

[Revoltingest]

The point was that you implied that a person should be able to choose their own religion later in life. How does circumcision hinder this? It does not. Therefore, circumcising a child does not hinder your call to let the person choose religion for themselves.

Not the point.

 

[Curious George]

You aren't, but I am.
I've shown how religion influences law to abridge the
rights of those unable to speak for themselves....
...except to cry out in agony (no anesthetic).

Then perhaps you are letting your perception of bias in one area color your perception of bias in other areas.

 

[Revoltingest]

And is that a reasonable position? Or do you have some evidence that indicates a religious bias in the AAP's review of existing evidence regarding circumcision?

It's quite reasonable.
I speculated that religious bias corrupts research, & offered a basis for it.
You disagree, finding the research unbiased.
This won't change.

 

[Curious George]

It's quite reasonable.
I speculated that religious bias corrupts research, & offered a basis for it.
You disagree, finding the research unbiased.
This won't change.

I am asking whether it is reasonable to not assume there is a bias when one sees no evidence of a bias.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then perhaps you are letting your perception of bias in one area color your perception of bias in other areas.

I agree.
I am biased towards bodily autonomy, but you aren't.
You are biased towards male circumcision, but I'm opposed.

This is all obvious, isn't it?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am asking whether it is reasonable to not assume there is a bias when one sees no evidence of a bias.

You're paraphrasing, & introducing error.
Try again.

 

[Curious George]

I agree.
I am biased towards bodily autonomy, but you aren't.
You are biased towards male circumcision, but I'm opposed.

This is all obvious, isn't it?

I am biased towards parental rights, not circumcision.

But that was not what I meant. You are suggesting you see clear evidence of religious bias in case law, therefore the report from the AAP, (not case law) is clearly religiously biased.