Ban all genital mutilation of children

[laklak]

Dr. Willie considers the question.

[Forty Two]

The interesting question is whether parents are doing it for perceived health reasons or for cosmetic reasons (and because Dad has a helmet).

Why is that interesting?

Because then it is being done for cosmetic reasons as opposed to health reasons. And my initial point - "Cosmetic surgery on babies is obscene", stands.

Apparently, circumcision is not cosmetic.

I'm not sure what you mean. If parents are getting it for cosmetic reasons, then it is cosmetic.

That doesn't make sense. If a parent gets a broken arm set for cosmetic reasons, is it cosmetic? Of course not. It has a medical reason apart from cosmetics. In the case of circumcision, if a parent gets the circumcision because, in their mind, it's required by their Judaism, that still does not mean there aren't good medical reasons for it - the medical reasons apply regardless of the intent of the parent. It doesn't become "obscene" to authorize a medically justified procedure because the person doing the authorization is doing so because the procedure will provide perceived cosmetic benefits.

Moreover, cosmetics is not the only reason parents are getting it. Some are, and others are doing it for religious reasons, and others have researched the issue and are making a considered judgment based on the medical evidence. Some, even, are doing for a combination of those reasons. If, in your view, those parents who take this step for the cosmetic reason are engaged in obscenity, then that's your opinion, I guess. However, I fail to see how the subjective intent of the parents has any impact on the propriety of the procedure. Can you explain that?

And, I can think of lots of cosmetic surgery on babies that is not obscene. Like cosmetic reconstructive surgery after a burn or an accident.

But that is done for the baby's benefit. Circumcision, done cosmetically, is probably largely done for the benefit of the parents.

So is circumcision, even if the parents aren't thinking about that benefit at the time and even if they don't know about the benefit, and even if they reject the efficacy, and are only doing so to make the penis look pretty. The material from the AAP and CDC, and the summary in the NPR article, and the Mayo Clinic, and such show the benefits of it. Regardless of the parents' intent, the procedure has the benefits it has, which benefit the baby.

Some portion of parents who authorize circumcisions may do so for purely cosmetic reasons. I'll assume that to be true here. However, that would render the parents "reasons" to be non-medical or even, I guess in your view, "obscene" (because apparently you think parents deciding procedures based on cosmetics is an obscenity) but it doesn't make the procedure obscene because the merits and justification of the procedure exist apart from the parents' reasons.

[Forty Two]

I never said how prevalent it was in Oz. i just said that I wouldn't be surprised if the prevalence was about the same as in the US.

You know how prevalent it is the US. Therefore you were commenting on how prevalent you think it likely is in Australia.

I don't know how prevalent it is in the US, I know that it is not rare, and that there are lots of people that do it. I don't know the percentages or numbers. I said I would not be surprised if it was different in Australia. I don't think the cultures are not that different, and it also is done in the UK, and both the US and the Oz, Canada and the UK, are countries formed out that cultural milieu.

It's possible that it's generally considered a barbaric assault on children in Australia, but the information I've discovered about the practice in Oz seems to suggest otherwise. It seems to suggest that a lot of parents do it, and there are plenty of places that do the service, and the government hasn't made it illegal, and there appear to be as many people posting online in favor of the practice than opposing it.

I had no trouble finding places that advertise, specifically, infant ear piercing. I also found that there is no legal age restriction in Oz. Funny, that there would be no age restriction for a process that a culture in a country finds repugnant and akin to assault.

You just can't help yourself, can you? FFS, stop with the strawmen. I never said it was akin to assault or that the culture finds it repugnant. It's simply extremely rare here.

Well, then I guess we'll have to see what the numbers are, if any exist. Neither of our personal views on the topic are definitive, including mine as to the prevalence in the US. It's a legal procedure here, and done enough to warrant widespread businesses serving that market. That seems to be true in Oz. Beyond that, I can't conclude much.

[pErvinalia]

Why is that interesting?

Because then it is being done for cosmetic reasons as opposed to health reasons. And my initial point - "Cosmetic surgery on babies is obscene", stands.

Apparently, circumcision is not cosmetic.

I'm not sure what you mean. If parents are getting it for cosmetic reasons, then it is cosmetic.

That doesn't make sense. If a parent gets a broken arm set for cosmetic reasons, is it cosmetic?

WTF? Who gets a bone set for cosmetic reasons?

In the case of circumcision, if a parent gets the circumcision because, in their mind, it's required by their Judaism, that still does not mean there aren't good medical reasons for it - the medical reasons apply regardless of the intent of the parent.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

It doesn't become "obscene" to authorize a medically justified procedure because the person doing the authorization is doing so because the procedure will provide perceived cosmetic benefits.

I beg to differ.

Can you explain that?

No. I'm not that insane.

And, I can think of lots of cosmetic surgery on babies that is not obscene. Like cosmetic reconstructive surgery after a burn or an accident.

But that is done for the baby's benefit. Circumcision, done cosmetically, is probably largely done for the benefit of the parents.

So is circumcision, even if the parents aren't thinking about that benefit at the time and even if they don't know about the benefit, and even if they reject the efficacy, and are only doing so to make the penis look pretty. The material from the AAP and CDC, and the summary in the NPR article, and the Mayo Clinic, and such show the benefits of it. Regardless of the parents' intent, the procedure has the benefits it has, which benefit the baby.

What makes it obscene in my view is the intent. I really shouldn't have to explain this. Intent matters in all sorts of social and legal spheres.

[pErvinalia]

I never said how prevalent it was in Oz. i just said that I wouldn't be surprised if the prevalence was about the same as in the US.

You know how prevalent it is the US. Therefore you were commenting on how prevalent you think it likely is in Australia.

I don't know how prevalent it is in the US, I know that it is not rare, and that there are lots of people that do it.

That's a measure of prevalence.

I said I would not be surprised if it was different in Australia.

That's not what you said. You said you would not be surprised if it was the same.

I don't think the cultures are not that different, and it also is done in the UK, and both the US and the Oz, Canada and the UK, are countries formed out that cultural milieu.

Are you drinking? Any chance you could revert to English?

It's possible that it's generally considered a barbaric assault on children in Australia, but the information I've discovered about the practice in Oz seems to suggest otherwise.

Who the fuck said it's considered "a barbaric assault on children in Australia"?? Stop strawmanning, FFS.

It seems to suggest that a lot of parents do it,

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort, unless one is trying to confirm their biases. It suggests that there are some parents that do it.

and there are plenty of places that do the service, and the government hasn't made it illegal, and there appear to be as many people posting online in favor of the practice than opposing it.

I'd suggest you don't see people posting online opposing it as it's so incredibly rare here that it's irrelevant.

I had no trouble finding places that advertise, specifically, infant ear piercing. I also found that there is no legal age restriction in Oz. Funny, that there would be no age restriction for a process that a culture in a country finds repugnant and akin to assault.

You just can't help yourself, can you? FFS, stop with the strawmen. I never said it was akin to assault or that the culture finds it repugnant. It's simply extremely rare here.

Well, then I guess we'll have to see what the numbers are, if any exist. Neither of our personal views on the topic are definitive, including mine as to the prevalence in the US.

FFS. Have you been to Australia? I'm guessing not. Have I been to Merka? No. It's eminently reasonable to assume the you have a greater knowledge of a minor visible social practice in the US than I do, and vice versa for me in Australia. Only you could argue that someone with 40 years of visual experience of a particular country has no more experience of a visual phenomenon than someone who has zero years of experience of that country.

It's a legal procedure here, and done enough to warrant widespread businesses serving that market. That seems to be true in Oz. Beyond that, I can't conclude much.

I can conclude that you have no fucking clue what goes on in Australia, and that you will never admit that you have no clue.

[mistermack]

I personally don't believe the "evidence" of medical benefits.
Those sorts of studies can be easily bent to conclude what you want, and with religious organisations looking on, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the conclusions weren't pre-ordered.

My brother, who is three years older than me, was circumcised as a baby for medical reasons, and I was not.
He's suffered recently from a succession of infections and kidney stones. I can only remember one mild infection in my whole life.

And anyway, infections that you get as a child can play an important part in stimulating the immune system. So maybe I got protection that way as a baby and he didn't.

[Forty Two]

WTF? Who gets a bone set for cosmetic reasons?

That's an illustration to make the point of why the parent's subjective reason for doing the procedure does not effect its medical efficacy or benefit. There are crazy parents all over the place. There are parents with Munchausen By Proxy, where they bring their kids in for their own nutball reasons. That doesn't mean that a necessary or beneficial procedure is no longer necessary or beneficial because the parent is nutcase.

I could use a different example, like, if a child with a massive, misshapen nose, is in an accident and needs her nose fixed to facilitate breathing, but the mother's reason for authorizing the nose job is to make the child's nose prettier. The mother's intent doesn't make the procedure obscene, does it? It still has the benefit of helping the child breathe better, right?

In the case of circumcision, if a parent gets the circumcision because, in their mind, it's required by their Judaism, that still does not mean there aren't good medical reasons for it - the medical reasons apply regardless of the intent of the parent.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

It does, because it illustrates that the parent's subjective non-medical reason for authorizing the procedure does not change the benefits or medical justification for the procedure. It also would not, in my view, make doing the procedure "obscene" even if the parent has that subjective non-medical reason.

It doesn't become "obscene" to authorize a medically justified procedure because the person doing the authorization is doing so because the procedure will provide perceived cosmetic benefits.

I beg to differ.

O.k., why?

Can you explain that?

No. I'm not that insane.

Sounds like a typical argument of yours. Declare yourself to be right. Refuse to back up your declaration or even try to make a coherent argument. Declare victory. Next step is to go on and on about how you've already explained it, etc.

And, I can think of lots of cosmetic surgery on babies that is not obscene. Like cosmetic reconstructive surgery after a burn or an accident.

But that is done for the baby's benefit. Circumcision, done cosmetically, is probably largely done for the benefit of the parents.

So is circumcision, even if the parents aren't thinking about that benefit at the time and even if they don't know about the benefit, and even if they reject the efficacy, and are only doing so to make the penis look pretty. The material from the AAP and CDC, and the summary in the NPR article, and the Mayo Clinic, and such show the benefits of it. Regardless of the parents' intent, the procedure has the benefits it has, which benefit the baby.

What makes it obscene in my view is the intent. I really shouldn't have to explain this. Intent matters in all sorts of social and legal spheres.[/quote]

That could make the parent's intent obscene, if you think doing cosmetic surgery is obscene where the subjective intent of the parent is to benefit the parents, not the procedure or the fact of the procedure being done.

Sure, intent matters in many spheres, but that doesn't mean that you don't have to explain how you think it matters in a given, particular sphere.

Further, do you think a lot of parents authorize circumcisions because of the benefit to them, the parents, and not some benefit they think the child gets from it? What benefit does a parent get from the procedure? They don't have to look at foreskin? It's easier on the parents to wash the boy's penis? What? It seems to me that the most parents advance reasons why circumcision is good - from hygiene, to the reduced infection rate, etc., but to a person they have some justification in their mind that it helps the baby in the near term or later in life.

Have you actually heard someone say that they want to circumcise their kid for purely cosmetic reasons to benefit the parents?

[Svartalf]

Males can live perfectly well after circumcision. Female mutilation is a life long sentence to pain and infection with very painful copulation.
It is totally disgusting. Here girls are checked when they have been on a long holiday to certain parents countries but few actually return.

they can even reproduce like rabbits, yeah, but I must admit that I feel perfectly right being whole and would probably have regrets if I were missing my foreskin.

[Forty Two]

I personally don't believe the "evidence" of medical benefits.
Those sorts of studies can be easily bent to conclude what you want, and with religious organisations looking on, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the conclusions weren't pre-ordered.

Well, what sources should we believe, if not the CDC, AAP, association of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Mayo Clinic?

My brother, who is three years older than me, was circumcised as a baby for medical reasons, and I was not.
He's suffered recently from a succession of infections and kidney stones. I can only remember one mild infection in my whole life.

Does that change the stats?

And anyway, infections that you get as a child can play an important part in stimulating the immune system. So maybe I got protection that way as a baby and he didn't.

Apparently, the numbers the CDC and AAP group found was that data was very conclusive on the points they raised as benefits. Are there contrary studies showing the other way?

[mistermack]

Personally, I'm not that much against cosmetic surgery on kids.
If a kid had a huge an misshapen nose, I wouldn't criticise the parents for having it improved. I would even pay for it for my own kid.
It's like having teeth done.
I would criticise, if what was there was normal, and they just wanted to make it pretty.

[Svartalf]

Wait till growth is over, you can't a;lter a growing organism with previsible and lasting results.

[Forty Two]

I never said how prevalent it was in Oz. i just said that I wouldn't be surprised if the prevalence was about the same as in the US.

You know how prevalent it is the US. Therefore you were commenting on how prevalent you think it likely is in Australia.

I don't know how prevalent it is in the US, I know that it is not rare, and that there are lots of people that do it.

That's a measure of prevalence.

But, it does not explain "how" prevalent it is. "Lots" means a large number or a great deal, but it doesn't tell us a percentage.

I said I would not be surprised if it was different in Australia.

That's not what you said. You said you would not be surprised if it was the same.

Correct. -- my statement there about not being surprised if it was different was a typo. I would be surprised if it was different. I would not be surprised if it was the same (or similar).

I don't think the cultures are not that different, and it also is done in the UK, and both the US and the Oz, Canada and the UK, are countries formed out that cultural milieu.

Are you drinking? Any chance you could revert to English?

Fuck off, I'm typing fast. I don't think the cultures are that different. What's it like to go through life unable to talk to people without being such a...whatever?

It's possible that it's generally considered a barbaric assault on children in Australia, but the information I've discovered about the practice in Oz seems to suggest otherwise.

Who the fuck said it's considered "a barbaric assault on children in Australia"?? Stop strawmanning, FFS.

Oh, come on. I'll rephrase - "It's possible that it's generally considered how you described it, but the information I've discovered appears to suggest otherwise..."

How would you describe it, again? Just so I'm clear I'm not strawmanning. How would you characterize the practice of piercing a child's ears when they are an infant?

It seems to suggest that a lot of parents do it,

It doesn't suggest anything of the sort, unless one is trying to confirm their biases. It suggests that there are some parents that do it.

Sure, some, and enough to warrant an industry that advertises the practice. There's enough people out there that there is a commercial market for the practice, with businesses competing for a piece. That's what I consider a "lot." A lot does not need to be a majority, just a significant some.

and there are plenty of places that do the service, and the government hasn't made it illegal, and there appear to be as many people posting online in favor of the practice than opposing it.

I'd suggest you don't see people posting online opposing it as it's so incredibly rare here that it's irrelevant.

If you say so. But, I did see people posting onlline both for it and opposing it. Just the same as I've seen here in the US, where you have the people who like it, and the people who come on and proselytize against it, sometimes comparing it to some form of child abuse, and using words like "mutilate" and "stab."

I had no trouble finding places that advertise, specifically, infant ear piercing. I also found that there is no legal age restriction in Oz. Funny, that there would be no age restriction for a process that a culture in a country finds repugnant and akin to assault.

You just can't help yourself, can you? FFS, stop with the strawmen. I never said it was akin to assault or that the culture finds it repugnant. It's simply extremely rare here.

Well, then I guess we'll have to see what the numbers are, if any exist. Neither of our personal views on the topic are definitive, including mine as to the prevalence in the US.

FFS. Have you been to Australia? I'm guessing not. Have I been to Merka? No.

Not being to Merka has never stopped you from opining with great authority on the goings on here. It's one of your favorite things to do, apparently.

[pErvinalia]

WTF? Who gets a bone set for cosmetic reasons?

That's an illustration to make the point of why the parent's subjective reason for doing the procedure does not effect its medical efficacy or benefit. There are crazy parents all over the place. There are parents with Munchausen By Proxy, where they bring their kids in for their own nutball reasons. That doesn't mean that a necessary or beneficial procedure is no longer necessary or beneficial because the parent is nutcase.

I could use a different example, like, if a child with a massive, misshapen nose, is in an accident and needs her nose fixed to facilitate breathing, but the mother's reason for authorizing the nose job is to make the child's nose prettier. The mother's intent doesn't make the procedure obscene, does it? It still has the benefit of helping the child breathe better, right?

You've moved into the realm of farce.

In the case of circumcision, if a parent gets the circumcision because, in their mind, it's required by their Judaism, that still does not mean there aren't good medical reasons for it - the medical reasons apply regardless of the intent of the parent.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I have said.

It does, because it illustrates that the parent's subjective non-medical reason for authorizing the procedure does not change the benefits or medical justification for the procedure.

I never said it did. FFS, why are you so incapable of following an argument? Your posts are just a succession of fallacies one after the other. Year after year. It's never ending.

Can you explain that?

No. I'm not that insane.

Sounds like a typical argument of yours. Declare yourself to be right. Refuse to back up your declaration or even try to make a coherent argument. Declare victory. Next step is to go on and on about how you've already explained it, etc.

Further, do you think a lot of parents authorize circumcisions because of the benefit to them, the parents, and not some benefit they think the child gets from it?

Well that's why I said it was an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but it would be interesting to know.

Have you actually heard someone say that they want to circumcise their kid for purely cosmetic reasons to benefit the parents?

Off the top of my head I can't say. But I've certainly heard it said in light hearted terms that dads want their kids to look like them in the penile department. That it's not uncommon to hear that suggests that there might be an element of truth to it. It's a foreign concept to me, but I'm particularly non-superficial.

[pErvinalia]

I never said how prevalent it was in Oz. i just said that I wouldn't be surprised if the prevalence was about the same as in the US.

You know how prevalent it is the US. Therefore you were commenting on how prevalent you think it likely is in Australia.

I don't know how prevalent it is in the US, I know that it is not rare, and that there are lots of people that do it.

That's a measure of prevalence.

But, it does not explain "how" prevalent it is. "Lots" means a large number or a great deal, but it doesn't tell us a percentage.

Oh ffs. You are unbelievable. I'm not reading the rest of your idiocy.

[pErvinalia]

Personally, I'm not that much against cosmetic surgery on kids.
If a kid had a huge an misshapen nose, I wouldn't criticise the parents for having it improved. I would even pay for it for my own kid.
It's like having teeth done.
I would criticise, if what was there was normal, and they just wanted to make it pretty.

Yeah, the last sentence encapsulates it well.