Hi Ben,
ben writes:
We should bear in mind that there is no demonstrated benefit of circumcision.
Such a demonstration is immaterial. Seems to me that looking for such things is really just fishing for an excuse to continue a practised cultural habit.
If one could demonstrate the circumcision fulfilled a public health need (for example if circumcision prevented the transmission of STDs) then there would be a public policy reason for promoting circumcision as a universal practice. I do not believe that those pushing for universal circumcision have made such a demonstration (and such people do exist, see for example
Medicirc: A Lifetime of Medical Benefits). It's not immaterial, it is rather the only justification one could possibly make for customary circumcision.
Ben writes:
All circumcision is - for both males and females - is a prehistoric practice carried out by retrograde cultures based on religion and custom, and rooted in the patriarchal idea that parents can/should control the sexuality of their children.
And? Without reading between the lines, I don't see the purpose of this paragraph.
Reading between the lines, it seems to be an ad-hominem attack on cultures that practice circumcision. Using words like "prehistoric" and "retrograde"
It's not an ad hominem attack at all. An ad hominem attack is one that appeals to personal prejudices rather than reason and fact. The vast majority of circumcisions are carried out by people who appeal to custom or tradition as their justification; they appeal to prehistoric texts such as the bible or the koran; they are people who seem to have missed out on the Enlightenment and are therefore IN FACT retrograde in their reliance on prehitoric doctrines as motivation for their actions.
Ben writes:
Sure, if somebody has a medical condition that requires circumcision then it's just bad luck and has to be done. But otherwise it is plain and simply UNNECESSARY SURGERY.
Define unnecessary. Anticipating a possible answer... since when was meaning and value in life just about "being alive"?
No need to get bogged down in the semantics of "unnecessary" or questions about the meaning of life. All you have to do is read a book on medical ethics. Surgical intervention is commonly held to be justified in two types of situation. First, when consent is not given by the subject of intervention but intervention is necessary to heal a verifiable illness or injury. For example if you get into a bad car crash and have to have surgery while you're unconscious it would be ethical for a surgeon to carry out said surgery without your consent. Second, when consent is given by somebody who is legally entitled to give informed consent and is of sound mind. For example if somebody wishes to donate a kidney to their sister, or have their labia surgically reshaped.
Anything beyond those two situations is both unnecessary and unethical. For example, carrying out plastic surgery on the face of your two-year-old daughter to make her more cute. Its unecessary because it doesn't heal a verifiable illness or injury, and its unethical because the two-year-old is not competent to give consent.
It's really really simple when you think about it.
Ben writes:
Just the same as it's okay to pull the tooth of a child if the tooth is rotten, but it's not okay to do it just because the parent thinks it makes their kid look nice.
There's nothing wrong with pulling kid's teeth just because you think it looks nice.
It's not medically necessary and the kid can't give informed consent. If a dentist, walking down the street, happened to feel that a kid he passed would be more attractive if he pulled out her two front teeth, then went on to carry out that operation, then it would clearly be wrong, unethical and illegal.
Ben writes:
Sorry, I just wanted to practice making assertions without any reasoning, just because it's what I felt.
Fair enough.