American Academy of Pediatrics softens its stance on FGM

This subject kind of rubs up against something very personal for me, so I won't even be attempting to pose any serious debate here. I just have one probing question.

Besides an urgent need for a decision (ie. such as medical necessities), and barring things like social pressure and expectation, what exactly do you think entitles you to the right to decide permanent alterations in another human being?

Because, children are other people. They're developing people, but individual people in their own rights. And as modern society likes to point out, ownership over a being with personhood isn't exactly morally sound.

420 chop off all dicks and cliterati every day

Verandering wrote:

Besides an urgent need for a decision (ie. such as medical necessities), and barring things like social pressure and expectation, what exactly do you think entitles you to the right to decide permanent alterations in another human being?

The problem with answering this question is that it boils down to "Barring any practical reason, what gives you the right to do this?"

Penguin wrote:

Verandering wrote:

Besides an urgent need for a decision (ie. such as medical necessities), and barring things like social pressure and expectation, what exactly do you think entitles you to the right to decide permanent alterations in another human being?

The problem with answering this question is that it boils down to "Barring any practical reason, what gives you the right to do this?"

I wouldn't say social pressure/expectation is a practical reason in the least, but ok, perhaps I didn't exactly work it for a direct answer.

karmyn31 wrote:

Seule wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

if I ever have a son, I would have him circumsized because I saw the problems my dad had because he wasn't. And if you're going to do it, it's best to do it when they're a baby because my dad was almost 50 when he had to have it done.

wat

isn't that kind of like saying "my dad got appendicitis and had to have an operation, so i'm gonna get my kids' appendixes removed when they're young"? or something? i mean it could be genetic but really?

Major uninary problems and sexual problems are a lot different than appendicitis.
Besides, why would it bother you what I choose to have done to my possible future child? That's between me and my possible future mate.

You're right, why would I be bothered by the prospective mutilation of a child? How ridiculous of me.

Jesus. wrote:

If we all thought that,
we wouldn't even HAVE this thread. Hell, we wouldn't even have this
cultural debate.

I'm not belittling what your (father? I'm
editing I cant see back in the post) went through with his penis. but
you have to understand how your logic sounds to someone against the
practice.

It's not even that I'm against it, really. I'm not like Malganis, don't have a big vendetta against it (not a dig at her, btw).

I mean... you have to understand, I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind this. It's just bizarre.

Seule wrote:

It's not even that I'm against it, really. I'm not like Malganis, don't have a big vendetta against it (not a dig at her, btw).

I mean... you have to understand, I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind this. It's just bizarre.

Well that's why I was against it in the first place, really. Just the "Well, of COURSE we're going to cut a chunk of skin off of your newborns penis. Its only natural not to have your natural skin there" thing. No one could give me a good reason aside from vague medical "reasons" (which to me sounded like the old "douche with Lysol/don't fap or you'll go blind" *logic*), rare worst case scenarios, and the general "EW, GROSS FORESKIN" of it. Then Mal showed me a video she found of a routine circumcision and I couldn't even bear to watch past the prep, and I've watched all sorts of surgeries/autopsies just because they're cool. So yeah. I'm very much against the practice. I'm adamant about next to nothing, but this is close. Infant genital cosmetic surgery=HUGE no/no in my book unless medically necessary.

It's my choice. And as I'll probably never have kids, it's a moot point.
Circumsizing a male doesn't affect his future sexual function the way it would a female.

Seule wrote:

I mean... you have to understand, I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind this. It's just bizarre.

Well, the notion of people defending themselves is also unacceptable, bizarre, ludicrous, etc. This may just be one of those places where our cultures will have to agree to disagree.

karmyn31 wrote:

It's my choice. And as I'll probably never have kids, it's a moot point.
Circumsizing a male doesn't affect his future sexual function the way it would a female.

... :picard: Wow, you just entirely missed the points of my, Jesus', Verandering's, Seule's, and Kremlin's posts. Holy crap.

Anyway, Imma just leave these here.

gaijinguy wrote:

Well, the notion of people defending themselves is also unacceptable, bizarre, ludicrous, etc. This may just be one of those places where our cultures will have to agree to disagree.

I can't believe you just compared infant circumcision to your idea of what Britain's self-defense policy is. Seriously. Do you have any idea of what a stupid argument that is?

gaijinguy wrote:

Seule wrote:

I mean... you have to understand, I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind this. It's just bizarre.

Well, the notion of people defending themselves is also unacceptable, bizarre, ludicrous, etc. This may just be one of those places where our cultures will have to agree to disagree.

Huh? Defending ourselves? What are you talking about?

Seule wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Seule wrote:

I mean... you have to understand, I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind this. It's just bizarre.

Well, the notion of people defending themselves is also unacceptable, bizarre, ludicrous, etc. This may just be one of those places where our cultures will have to agree to disagree.

Huh? Defending ourselves? What are you talking about?

I believe he was taking a shot at the UK's trend of punishing people who defend themselves and their homes from robbers, often more harshly than the robbers.

Penguin wrote:

Seule wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Seule wrote:

I mean... you have to understand, I'm English, we don't really do that here, and just... the idea of performing what is, for all intents and purposes, cosmetic surgery on babies... being socially acceptable, of all things, is just ludicrous for me. I honestly cannot even begin to understand the reasoning behind this. It's just bizarre.

Well, the notion of people defending themselves is also unacceptable, bizarre, ludicrous, etc. This may just be one of those places where our cultures will have to agree to disagree.

Huh? Defending ourselves? What are you talking about?

I believe he was taking a shot at the UK's trend of punishing people who defend themselves and their homes from robbers, often more harshly than the robbers.

Oh, right. That's actually just a tabloid myth.

It's completely legal to use proportionate force. We just don't take kindly to disproportionate force, like shooting someone in the back when he's running away. Rightly so.

ETA: Back on topic, people in favour of circumcision of babies: do you tut when you see babies with pierced ears?

ZoZo wrote:

It's completely legal to use proportionate force. We just don't take kindly to disproportionate force, like shooting someone in the back when he's running away. Rightly so.

Wikipedia's a tabloid? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seriously though, this underlines the difference in cultures Gaijinguy was pointing out.

Um, I'm fairly certain that even if this was a cultural thing... how would that make it right? It might be a cultural thing for these people to cut girls' clitorises off. It might be a cultural thing for people to beat their children, or tattoo their babies, or offer up their firstborn to the sun-god. It doesn't make it okay.

Are you seriously comparing removal of a useless bit of skin to the removal of a sensitive sex organ or human sacrifice?

Penguin wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

It's completely legal to use proportionate force. We just don't take kindly to disproportionate force, like shooting someone in the back when he's running away. Rightly so.

Wikipedia's a tabloid? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Seriously though, this underlines the difference in cultures Gaijinguy was pointing out.

You said "protecting yourselves"; I fail to see how that could be so?

As Seule said, cultural =/= right.

And I ask again: do you tut when you see babies with pierced ears?

Penguin wrote:

Are you seriously comparing removal of a useless bit of skin to the removal of a sensitive sex organ or human sacrifice?

No, I am really obviously not. Stop being so purposely dense.


Hey guys, why don't we play a game. Let's try to make 5 posts without the phrase "are you seriously comparing x to y". Go.

ZoZo wrote:

Oh, right. That's actually just a tabloid myth.

It's completely legal to use proportionate force. We just don't take kindly to disproportionate force, like shooting someone in the back when he's running away. Rightly so.

ETA: Back on topic, people in favour of circumcision of babies: do you tut when you see babies with pierced ears?

You mean, "shooting someone who's burgling your house in the back while he's running away in the dark."

And, no, I don't tut when I see babies with pierced ears. I'm a bit surprised, but meh.

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Oh, right. That's actually just a tabloid myth.

It's completely legal to use proportionate force. We just don't take kindly to disproportionate force, like shooting someone in the back when he's running away. Rightly so.

ETA: Back on topic, people in favour of circumcision of babies: do you tut when you see babies with pierced ears?

You mean, "shooting someone who's burgling your house in the back while he's running away in the dark."

Running away. Poses no threat.

My, this really is a cultural thing, isn't it?

ZoZo wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

ZoZo wrote:

Oh, right. That's actually just a tabloid myth.

It's completely legal to use proportionate force. We just don't take kindly to disproportionate force, like shooting someone in the back when he's running away. Rightly so.

ETA: Back on topic, people in favour of circumcision of babies: do you tut when you see babies with pierced ears?

You mean, "shooting someone who's burgling your house in the back while he's running away in the dark."

Running away. Poses no threat.

My, this really is a cultural thing, isn't it?

I take it the expression "a shot in the dark" doesn't have currency in the UK.

Penguin wrote:

The problem with answering this question is that it boils down to "Barring any practical reason, what gives you the right to do this?"

But that's just it, though. In most cases, FGM, circumcision and pierced ears on infants have no practical reason, and people do it anyway. And what gives them the right?

gaijinguy wrote:

I take it the expression "a shot in the dark" doesn't have currency in the UK.

Mate, our gun control is so tight the Olympic shooting team has to go and train in Switzerland. They don't even get funded, as their activities are considered illegal. So public attitudes towards guns are usually "this is a big shooty killstick, its use is disproportionate force". Plus, the whole running away thing. It might go some way towards explaining why our homicide rate is so much lower than yours.

Anyway, let's get back to discussion of chopping up babies' cocks.

ZoZo wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

I take it the expression "a shot in the dark" doesn't have currency in the UK.

Mate, our gun control is so tight the Olympic shooting team has to go and train in Switzerland. They don't even get funded, as their activities are considered illegal. So public attitudes towards guns are usually "this is a big shooty killstick, its use is disproportionate force". Plus, the whole running away thing. It might go some way towards explaining why our homicide rate is so much lower than yours.

So yay! You can just get raped and maimed instead. (Note how your total crime rate is significantly higher than ours.) So when a man gets life for defending himself from intruders, you can rest easy knowing your cultural dogma has been upheld.

Makes chopping off a foreskin seem pretty mild in comparison.

Penguin wrote:

Wikipedia's a tabloid? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You're so right, Penguin, an internet-based encyclopedia that anyone can edit is surely guaranteed to be more reliable than a tabloid newspaper.

but