4 ms·

The same could be said of any post-natal surgery for congenital birth defects, such as club foot or cleft lip. Many can go without surgery and live their entire

The same could be said of any post-natal surgery for congenital birth defects, such as club foot or cleft lip. Many can go without surgery and live their entire lives without developing early-onset arthritis or feeding issues. These days, and in the vast majority of cases, a person can live a relatively healthy and long life without surgery for congenital arrhythmia. But I have never heard or read wholesale condemnations of preventive infant surgery to mitigate, if not prevent, the outcomes of the aforementioned defects. In fact, the opposite is true; Someone (usually a parent or doctor) is expected to do something at the earliest possible moment, even if the issue left untreated would only have a negligible chance of getting "worse" in terms of health or otherwise. I agree that there's no medical reason for indiscriminate circumcision at birth, or, for that matter, indiscriminate surgery of any kind at any time. After all, that's what circumcision is: surgery. However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Another poster simply posted the word "propaganda". Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it — rather than a well-thought critique of the practice in secular and instrumental terms. A wholesale dismissal of circumcision is as unthinking as a blind acceptance of it. Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. > Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. > Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else. Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Regarding the post I replied to, I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements. If someone has made an absolute claim with with no stated qualifications or context whatsoever, that is a fundamental error I have a right to rebut it. No context needed on my part. > Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. > Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general. Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't, whether of an infant or adult. People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. The reasons may vary in quality and acceptability, but the general understanding of why parents and doctors advocate for circumcision is as a means and attempt to make the child's present or future life "better" (for some definition of the word). Whether the reasoning for "better" is acceptable depends on the particular case being examined. I would also add that almost all surgeries are accomplished by mutilation, even the ones deemed uncontroversial and necessary to save an infant's life. Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point. > Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision, then by process of elimination it surely must be against its religious practice. Historically, religious figures (to my knowledge, Judaic and Christian) have advocated for circumcision and employed people to undertake the task on behalf of the church/temple/etc. In some sects/denominations, the extra-medical practice of circumcision continues to exist. It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Gangrene also exists and generally requires amputation, but I don't see that as an argument for cutting off all infants' limbs, regardless of their medical state. If people in the US cut off male infants' limbs at birth as tradition, it would be perfectly appropriate to write a comment in the lines of "hey, if you have a boy, don't cut off his limbs". > I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements If you put things out of context, conversations won't make sense. Implicit context is an inevitable part of communication - it isn't divine, anyone with half a brain could figure out that when someone says "there's no medical reason for circumcision" that they mean in general, not in all cases without exceptions whatsoever. Nobody in their right mind would argue against surgery in general. Pretending that's the original argument is a form of logical fallacy called "attacking a strawman" - yes, you are right that circumcision can be valid in some cases, but nobody is arguing against that. > Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't Yes, and since there is a culture of circumcising infants indiscriminately in the US, the first step is to tell people to stop doing it for no fucking reason. > People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. This is just plain false - the number of circumcisions in the US that happen because of "my dad circumcised me, so I guess that's how it should be" is very high. It is necessary to fight that kind of pointless mutilation by advising people. > Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point. Here's a clear coherent point: We should tell people not to perform unnecessary surgery on infants in general for no reason. I have a feeling that we've been through this a couple of times already... > If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision It is directed towards general, indiscriminatory circumcision - or, to generalize, towards any kind of unneeded medical surgeries, some of which are unfortunately done on infants because of ignorance and tradition. > It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker. Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you? Even if it was true (which you have no way of knowing), the fact that the religion performs surgery on people in order to "mark them" as belonging to the group actually warrants such feelings. The person is never given the right to choose - they were simply marked, with an irreversible surgery, from the moment they were born, without even a chance of changing their minds. If such feelings exist in the poster, I'd definitely sympathize much more with them, than with religious people who feel "attacked" by such feelings.

bheadmaster 4y ago

> However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. > Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. > Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else. Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis. Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Regarding the post I replied to, I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements. If someone has made an absolute claim with with no stated qualifications or context whatsoever, that is a fundamental error I have a right to rebut it. No context needed on my part. > Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. > Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general. Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't, whether of an infant or adult. People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. The reasons may vary in quality and acceptability, but the general understanding of why parents and doctors advocate for circumcision is as a means and attempt to make the child's present or future life "better" (for some definition of the word). Whether the reasoning for "better" is acceptable depends on the particular case being examined. I would also add that almost all surgeries are accomplished by mutilation, even the ones deemed uncontroversial and necessary to save an infant's life. Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point. > Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for. If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision, then by process of elimination it surely must be against its religious practice. Historically, religious figures (to my knowledge, Judaic and Christian) have advocated for circumcision and employed people to undertake the task on behalf of the church/temple/etc. In some sects/denominations, the extra-medical practice of circumcision continues to exist. It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Gangrene also exists and generally requires amputation, but I don't see that as an argument for cutting off all infants' limbs, regardless of their medical state. If people in the US cut off male infants' limbs at birth as tradition, it would be perfectly appropriate to write a comment in the lines of "hey, if you have a boy, don't cut off his limbs". > I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements If you put things out of context, conversations won't make sense. Implicit context is an inevitable part of communication - it isn't divine, anyone with half a brain could figure out that when someone says "there's no medical reason for circumcision" that they mean in general, not in all cases without exceptions whatsoever. Nobody in their right mind would argue against surgery in general. Pretending that's the original argument is a form of logical fallacy called "attacking a strawman" - yes, you are right that circumcision can be valid in some cases, but nobody is arguing against that. > Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't Yes, and since there is a culture of circumcising infants indiscriminately in the US, the first step is to tell people to stop doing it for no fucking reason. > People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. This is just plain false - the number of circumcisions in the US that happen because of "my dad circumcised me, so I guess that's how it should be" is very high. It is necessary to fight that kind of pointless mutilation by advising people. > Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point. Here's a clear coherent point: We should tell people not to perform unnecessary surgery on infants in general for no reason. I have a feeling that we've been through this a couple of times already... > If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision It is directed towards general, indiscriminatory circumcision - or, to generalize, towards any kind of unneeded medical surgeries, some of which are unfortunately done on infants because of ignorance and tradition. > It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker. Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you? Even if it was true (which you have no way of knowing), the fact that the religion performs surgery on people in order to "mark them" as belonging to the group actually warrants such feelings. The person is never given the right to choose - they were simply marked, with an irreversible surgery, from the moment they were born, without even a chance of changing their minds. If such feelings exist in the poster, I'd definitely sympathize much more with them, than with religious people who feel "attacked" by such feelings.