"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Koldo]

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

You can read about the side-effects of many vaccines here: Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Side Effects
Consider no longer being vulnerable to the disease they prevent as the benefit.

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

I don't remember saying that. Can you quote where I did ?

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

Do you consider having access to tap water to be 'living lavishly' ?
Really ?

And many doctors disagree with your point of view here.

I am afraid that truth remains truth even if people disagree with it.

 

[Curious George]

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

You see reason to believe the AAPs report is biased. I do not see reason to conclude it is biased. Is my position reasonable? If not, why not?

 

[Revoltingest]

I am biased towards parental rights, not circumcision.

You've argued that it's medically beneficial, without addressing the risks.
This is bias.

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.

Bias in case law & public advocacy is clear.
Bias in research is speculation.
I can't get you to acknowledge the latter....perhaps to create a straw man, eh.

 

[Revoltingest]

You see reason to believe the AAPs report is biased. I do not see reason to conclude it is biased. Is my position reasonable? If not, why not?

You're incorrectly paraphrasing again.
Try just quoting me, & addressing that.
Then you'll get it right.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am biased towards parental rights, not circumcision.

Do you approve of the right of parents to practice FGM?

 

[Curious George]

You can read about the side-effects of many vaccines here: Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Side Effects
Consider no longer being vulnerable to the disease they prevent as the benefit.

I agree that the reduced likelihood of getting an illness is a benefit. Circumcision provides this benefit to many medical issues.

I don't remember saying that. Can you quote where I did ?

no clear net gain to the child

My mistake, you said net. I was mistaken.

Do you consider having access to tap water to be 'living lavishly' ?
Really ?

That was hyperbole made clear by the next line in the sentence. Or do you not consider water a basic need? Really?

I am afraid that truth remains truth even if people disagree with it.

But on what basis do you conclude this truth? I would say that it is reasonable to conclude a truth based on the medical opinions of highly respected professionals, with the necessary qualifications.

Do you think it unreasonable to rely on expert medical opinions?

 

[Curious George]

You're incorrectly paraphrasing again.
Try just quoting me, & addressing that.
Then you'll get it right.

Do you see reason to conclude the AAP report is biased?

 

[Curious George]

Do you approve of the right of parents to practice FGM?

Lol, I thought we went down this road.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you see reason to conclude the AAP report is biased?

Paraphrasing.
Deal with what I post, not what you change it into.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol, I thought we went down this road.

I don't recall you're being clear in both stance & reasoning.
Since you've lately spoken of the parents' right to make
such choices for infants, this needs exploration.

You've opposed Type 1, but without justification.
What about something less, as Muslims in this link have advocated....
Female genital mutilation defended in article on ‘Muslims in Calgary’ website
Do you believe this is unwarranted interference in parental rights?

 

[Curious George]

Paraphrasing.
Deal with what I post, not what you change it into.

Um that was not paraphrasing, that was a question. Why not answer it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Um that was not paraphrasing, that was a question. Why not answer it?

Because I won't play that game, ie, loaded questions.

 

[Curious George]

I don't recall you're being clear in both stance & reasoning.
Since you've lately spoken of the parents' right to make
such choices for infants, this needs exploration.

You've opposed Type 1, but without justification.
What about something less, as Muslims in this link have advocated....
Female genital mutilation defended in article on ‘Muslims in Calgary’ website
Do you believe this is unwarranted interference in parental rights?

If we can say something causes harm and that the harm outweighs the benefits such that no reasonable person would choose to act in a way that causes the harm for those benefits then we can interfere.

To my understanding FGM falls into the not okay category based on this rule. Male circumcision does not.

 

[Revoltingest]

To my understanding FGM falls into the not okay category based on this rule. Male circumcision does not.

By what general standard?
If Muslims propose minimal cutting, even less than with MGM, why
oppose the parents' rights to impose it upon the infant/child?

 

[Curious George]

By what general standard?
If Muslims propose minimal cutting, even less than with MGM, why
oppose the parents' rights to impose it upon the infant/child?

Is there medical benefit?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there medical benefit?

I provided links wherein the proponents claim medical benefits with no loss of function.

Hmmm....do you oppose parents' getting infants' ears pierced?

 

[Koldo]

I agree that the reduced likelihood of getting an illness is a benefit. Circumcision provides this benefit to many medical issues.

It does. I don't disagree with that.

That was hyperbole made clear by the next line in the sentence. Or do you not consider water a basic need? Really?

I didn't understand it that way, but very well...
Water is extremely accessible in first-world countries. What makes you think it plays any factor when opting for a circumcision ?

But on what basis do you conclude this truth? I would say that it is reasonable to conclude a truth based on the medical opinions of highly respected professionals, with the necessary qualifications.

Do you think it unreasonable to rely on expert medical opinions?

Depends on what you mean by 'rely'.
If you have different qualified professionals with differing views, what do you do ?
Resorting to their authority will do no good, you ought to evaluate how they are inferring their conclusions.

I will cite the AAP which states there is a net gain in male circumcisions to make my point clearer:

"Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.

The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it. "

-New Evidence Points to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up to Parents, Says AAP

They have included sexually transmitted diseases in their rationale. How many babies do you know to be engaging in sexual activity ? I know of none and if you do please do report it to the police.

This is a benefit that will only be of use much much later in life, whereas the individual could then be making the choice to be circumcised if he finds this benefit worth it. Therefore, it is the sort of thing you have to disregard when you are considering the net gain of performing circumcisions in babies. Start doing that and it will soon be apparent there is no net gain.

 

[Curious George]

I provided links wherein the proponents claim medical benefits with no loss of function.

Hmmm....do you oppose parents' getting infants' ears pierced?

" Hussein’s article is also full of racist and anti-Semitic statements"

This gives reason to suspect religious bias. That I am aware, you have failed to provide any reason to suspect the doctors writing articles on benefits of circumcision of any bias, let alone this level of bias.

Are there doctors who acknowledge medical benefits that you are aware?

I know of no study that suggests ear piercings leads to loss of sensation or any unreasonable risk of harm that would give us reason to dictate that a parent accepting such risk on behalf of the child was unreasonable.
Consequently, I see no reasoning for us to interfere with a parents right to do so.

 

[Koldo]

Is there medical benefit?

I can think of least one: You can't have cancer where there is no tissue.
There we go, cancer prevention.

 

[Curious George]

It does. I don't disagree with that.



I didn't understand it that way, but very well...
Water is extremely accessible in first-world countries. What makes you think it plays any factor when opting for a circumcision ?



Depends on what you mean by 'rely'.
If you have different qualified professionals with differing views, what do you do ?
Resorting to their authority will do no good, you ought to evaluate how they are inferring their conclusions.

I will cite the AAP which states there is a net gain in male circumcisions to make my point clearer:

"Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.

The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it. "

-New Evidence Points to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up to Parents, Says AAP

They have included sexually transmitted diseases in their rationale. How many babies do you know to be engaging in sexual activity ? I know of none and if you do please do report it to the police.

This is a benefit that will only be of use much much later in life, whereas the individual could then be making the choice to be circumcised if he finds this benefit worth it. Therefore, it is the sort of thing you have to disregard when you are considering the net gain of performing circumcisions in babies. Start doing that and it will soon be apparent there is no net gain.

So are you suggesting vaccines against HPV should be disallowed in young children?

You are picking and choosing based on your whim. There is disagreement between experts. In the face of such disagreement there is no reason to conclude that a parent relying on expert reasoning with which you personally disagree is invalid.

The only fair conclusion that we can arrive at is that a parent is reasonable in choosing to circumcise and a parent is also reasonable in choosing not to circumcise.

This then leads us to the conclusion that it is not ok for us to deny a parent to make a reasonable decision for their child based on our personal beliefs.