Mass circumcision in the Philippines

[flitzerbiest]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110507/ap_ ... BpbmVjaQ--

How nice, they contacted the people at the Guinness Book of World Records. I don't have a copy--does anyone know the current record for child mutilation?

Theists: do you circumcise your children and why? Given that the medical argument for circumcision has been thoroughly debunked, what is the justification?

Question for debate: is it ethical to circumcise children under any circumstances other than medical necessity?

[Deadclown]

Adults can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Children can't make the decisions adults do, and should not have those decisions forced on them unless it is a medical necessity.

So, take children away from adults?

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

Or maybe.. it is you who should be educated! You seem to think you know all the answers on this.

How about this.. if you think it is wrong, don't circumcise your sons.

I do not appreciate how you completely ignore all of my points/evidence and don't even try to refute my argument, then accuse me of being arrogant. I addressed your points and your evidence. Please, show me where I am wrong or address my points? I know you disagree with me. I know you feel very strongly about it. That doesn't make me wrong. It also doesn't mean that you or anyone else has to do what I say, or that people who circumcise their children are automatically horrible people.

I do not plan on circumcising my sons, if I ever have any. If you wish to, there is nothing that I can, or would do to stop you, aside from engaging you in discourse in an attempt to convince you that you could possibly be in error. If you are unwilling to debate or discuss the topic, that's fine. Although if that is the case, please cease the snide remarks.

[Goat]

Adults can do whatever they want with their own bodies. Children can't make the decisions adults do, and should not have those decisions forced on them unless it is a medical necessity.

So, take children away from adults?

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

Or maybe.. it is you who should be educated! You seem to think you know all the answers on this.

How about this.. if you think it is wrong, don't circumcise your sons.

I do not appreciate how you completely ignore all of my points/evidence and don't even try to refute my argument, then accuse me of being arrogant. I addressed your points and your evidence. Please, show me where I am wrong or address my points? I know you disagree with me. I know you feel very strongly about it. That doesn't make me wrong. It also doesn't mean that you or anyone else has to do what I say, or that people who circumcise their children are automatically horrible people.

I do not plan on circumcising my sons, if I ever have any. If you wish to, there is nothing that I can, or would do to stop you, aside from engaging you in discourse in an attempt to convince you that you could possibly be in error. If you are unwilling to debate or discuss the topic, that's fine. Although if that is the case, please cease the snide remarks.

My.. I didn't ignore your points.. well, yes, I did, because you are using emotional key words and not having a rational discustion. You admit that your evidence is 'not conclusive at all', and you totally hand wave the points I made..

The one thing I do know is that you seem to want to impose your viewpoint on others.. and rant about 'mutilation' and other highly emotional terms that far exceed the situation. I find that hateful.

[Deadclown]

My.. I didn't ignore your points.. well, yes, I did, because you are using emotional key words and not having a rational discustion. You admit that your evidence is 'not conclusive at all', and you totally hand wave the points I made..

Is this how you tease the new guy? I have been very calm to this point, but you continue to throw out ad hominem attacks instead of actual logical discourse. If you think my argument is flawed, attack my argument, not me.

Caring about a subject and using emotional language in no way detracts from the logic and evidence. If you'd actually address my points while belittling me, I wouldn't care one little bit. I have remained calm and to the point in addressing your argument. I didn't 'hand wave' anything. I pointed out the errors. You cited an article that did not support your point or counter mine. Do your research better and come back at me with a better argument or supporting documentation. Considering the attacks you have made on me, I'd say your attempt to paint me as too emotional to debate is laughable.

You began by saying that my assertion was a myth and presenting an article to support your point. Anyone who reads the article can see that it does nothing of the sort.

You then proceeded to call me hypocritical and obnoxious for having an opinion and supporting it. I responded to it very definitive evidence that not only was my claim correct, but that circumcision causes harm.

You ignored all of my evidence and my argument completely while throwing out some more attacks. I assume because you are unwilling or unable to actually counter it. In fact, please show me where I admitted that my evidence was not conclusive. What I think you meant to say is that I pointed out how your article cited statistical studies and how some of those results actually supported my point? And how it also cites polled studies claiming 'women prefer circumcised penises', which has absolutely nothing to do with the point of this ethical discourse. The evidence I cited, however, was a medical study that showed strong clear evidence that my position is correct. Did you read it? On top of that I showed referenced photographic evidence that circumcision can cause harm. You probably didn't look at that either.

[quote="Goat"The one thing I do know is that you seem to want to impose your viewpoint on others.. and rant about 'mutilation' and other highly emotional terms that far exceed the situation. I find that hateful.[/quote]

This is a debate forum. If I understand the idea of such a website correctly it means that people take stances, defend them, and try to convince others through logic that their stance is the correct one. I've seen you do it versus religion in a few posts so far my first week. So saying I am hateful for attempting to demonstrate my well supported view and opinion is another baseless attack on me rather than my point.

[Guest]

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

Isnt that the goal of public education?

[Deadclown]

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

Isnt that the goal of public education?

Yes? I would certainly hope so anyway. A hundred years ago we knew less, and taught children different information. A hundred years from now we will know more and not be teaching them the same things that we do presently.

[Goat]

My.. I didn't ignore your points.. well, yes, I did, because you are using emotional key words and not having a rational discustion. You admit that your evidence is 'not conclusive at all', and you totally hand wave the points I made..

Is this how you tease the new guy? I have been very calm to this point, but you continue to throw out ad hominem attacks instead of actual logical discourse. If you think my argument is flawed, attack my argument, not me.

Except, you used the emotional language instead of providing unbiased and accurate information.

I pointed you to an article that showed your claims were overblown, and your one comment was 'They said it is not conclusive'.. and even when you used it to it to support your side, you admitted 'it is not conclusive'.

If it was as great a harm as you claim with your emotional ranting, then, the evidence would be conclusive.

If it is not conclusive, then, your radical emotional outburst, and your insistance that it is evil is uncalled for.

[Guest]

That is an extremely over the top measure and I am sure not what anyone would want. I am sure these parents think they are doing the right thing. Mine certainly did. How about instead we seek to educate people and minimize the harm?

Isnt that the goal of public education?

Yes? I would certainly hope so anyway. A hundred years ago we knew less, and taught children different information. A hundred years from now we will know more and not be teaching them the same things that we do presently.

OK, I guess I kind of lead you this way going on the assumption that would be your response. Compulsory education (in USA) has been a tool utilized sine the early parts of the 20th century. Every social program known to man has probably gone into our public education system at some point. Todays expert will be replaced by 2morows and around and around it has gone. The problem is the same as any other problem (IMHO): human nature. Human nature cannot be bridled, bought, nor enslaved in spite of the biggest ball and chain or deep dark dungeon. Hitler knew that to the point he ventured to eliminate entire races. This is the problem I see when anyone starts talking about over ruling undesirables. 1) Historically it has NEVER worked. and 2) it disregards the center of mans gravity: his soul or his sense of who he is or his identity, or whatever you want to call it. That is why I believe public education fails and will continue to fail. And since we are on the political forum, there is also the factor of entire school systems being "owned" by the teachers, the administrations, etc in the form of their paycheck. My point being that the paycheck speaks louder then a multitude of kids. "Do it for the children" is a slogan campaigns use when they want to raise taxes. But the monies dont reach the kids. Better pay makes a better teacher? Hasn't so far. Some day someone might actually think that maybe schools ought to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, let kids be kids and parents be parents. But in the mind of the experts, that is too simplistic.

Now, I step off my soap box, and leave my comments to your mercy. And I am not suggesting you are advocating anything tyrannical or totalitarian, but my observation is on the system as a whole. And, do I care if there was a mass circumcision in the Phillipines? Actually no. And I would not have know about it had the information not been posted here, and whether I know or not has not changed my life once single iota. If thats what their culture dictates...let them knock thierselves out. Or, I guess, in this case, cut themselves out.

[Deadclown]

Except, you used the emotional language instead of providing unbiased and accurate information.

This charge that I used emotional language is a total red herring and an ad hominem attack. How many logical fallacies are you going to employ? Why does this subject get a force field against reasonable debate? If I am actually genuinely getting emotional at this point, it is out of just sheer frustration.

I pointed you to an article that showed your claims were overblown, and your one comment was 'They said it is not conclusive'.. and even when you used it to it to support your side, you admitted 'it is not conclusive'.

You pointed to a really poor article that did nothing of the sort. Seriously, have you read your own article? Also, you misquote me. What I /actually/ said was...

"The article is hardly conclusive. Even the author of it says that he just believes that there are larger factors that contribute to it. Even if the effect is minimal, does that make it alright? I do agree with it in the idea that there are a lot of factors contributing to overall sexual satisfaction versus physical sensation."

I didn't want to have to do this (because I assumed it would be unnecessary and will be long), but let's go ahead and dissect your so called evidence. This way I can demonstrate what it is appropriate to do, so you can do me the same courtesy. I was in no way basing MY argument on this article. I based my argument on (as mentioned again and again now) actual honest medical evidence and photos that you have yet to even attempt to recognize or refute. You see, I read your article thoroughly so that I could discuss it with you and show why it does not refute my assertions. I naively imagined that we could actually have a reasonable logical debate.

Let's go through your so called 'evidence' piece by piece.

It’s also a difficult question to answer without a clear definition of what we mean by “sexual pleasure�. If we mean physical sensitivity, then we can turn to the circumcision research that focuses on what effect circumcision has on physical sexual sensitivity. But that research only gives us part of the picture, since physical sensitivity is not the same thing as the experience of sexual pleasure. Physical sensitivity refers to the observable ways your body responds to external stimulation. Sexual pleasure and sexual satisfaction refers to the way you subjectively experience that stimulation. Sexual pleasure includes physical psychological, emotional, and at times spiritual experiences.

He says flat out that he isn't trying to say anything in regards to physical sensitivity, which he admits in an article (by the same author) linked to that paragraph and that I quoted previously...

"Few would argue that circumcision changes physical sensitivity in the penis. By definition, circumcision is the cutting away of the foreskin, a part of the body that is rich with nerve endings. Circumcision also impacts the structure of the penis, and has a corresponding impact on penile sensation."

The author is clearly asserting that there is a difference between the over all act of sex and physical sensitivity of the penis. A point that I agreed with way back in post 5.

Research provides insight, but no easy answers to these questions. Consider some findings from several studies comparing circumcised and uncircumcised men on measures of sexual pleasure and satisfaction:

Here he admits that he doesn't have an easy answer to his assertion, and goes on to attempt to prove HIS point, which is a good deal different from yours. Here's where I point out that you Strawmanned me too. Which I shouldn't have accepted in the first place, but let go this far. Again because I was obviously naive. Now, onto the research he cites.

A recent study involving several thousand men in Uganda circumcised as adults found that circumcision did not impact sexual satisfaction or pain during or after intercourse.

This would be a vote in your favor, IF the author hadn't already clearly defined 'sexual satisfaction' as being something different from what I was even talking about.

In the only national probability sample in the United States to examine circumcision and sex, researchers found that circumcised men were less likely to experience sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised men.

Even if this is accurate and can be extrapolated out, it again does nothing to counter my point.

In a poll conducted by an anti-circumcision organization (whose methods for recruiting subjects were not reported) 61% of men who were circumcised as infants reported decreased sensation over time, and tied this decreased sensation to sexual dysfunction.

This is the only thing in the entire article that even touches on the idea of reduced physical sensation, and it supports my stance. The author questions the recruiting methods, but that is totally beside the point as *I* have hardly been trying to prop my argument up with this study.

In another survey of 139 women recruited through an anti-circumcision newsletter those women who preferred circumcised partners reported that uncircumcised partners were more likely to premature ejaculate. But when all the women’s responses were taken into account the data indicated that it was circumcised men who were more likely to premature ejaculate.

This is more evidence that does nothing to counter my point. Even if it also could possibly be extrapolated out as anything meaningful in either direction. I don't know about you, but 139 doesn't sound like a big sample size to me.

In yet another study, 71% of women preferred circumcised penises to uncircumcised ones for engaging in sexual behaviors.

It 'looks nicer'... to the majority of women polled in yet another study that has nothing to do with my point.

Two articles published in the same issue of The Journal of Urology that measured adult men before and after circumcision on sexual ratings arrived at very different results. One study found no reduction in satisfaction with erections while the other study reported a significant reduction in satisfaction with erections after circumcision. Neither study found an overall change in sexual satisfaction after adult circumcision.

Again a polled study regarding 'satisfaction' which the author previously defines. As a subjective enjoyment of the overall sexual experience which has many many variables. Even /here/ there is conflicting results with one study reporting one thing and the other reporting the other.

That concludes your presented evidence.

So does circumcision make sex better, worse, or the same? It’s reasonable to assume that being circumcised would play some part in how you experience sex, but I’d like to propose that there are probably other factors that have a larger impact on the quality of sex you’re having and how much pleasure you and/or your partners get from that sex.

Now, do you understand why your evidence is not in support of your assertion? Your author says repeatedly that what I am asserting is totally reasonable. He is just making the case that overall sexual pleasure comes from more than just how much your penis feels. Something that I freely admitted to being true, because it would be silly to think that emotions, partners, and condoms don't have combined a greater effect. Such things were never part of my assertion.

I hope you will do the reasonable thing and actually address my arguments, since I have repeatedly shown you that minimum level of respect in the course of a debate.

If it was as great a harm as you claim with your emotional ranting, then, the evidence would be conclusive.

If it is not conclusive, then, your radical emotional outburst, and your insistance that it is evil is uncalled for.

You really are not even reading my posts are you? Or my evidence? If I am getting emotional at this point, it is because you are engaging in dishonest tactics while ignoring my points. You are not debating at all rationally, and it is wearing thin. I am going to say this one last time.

YOU'RE evidence is not conclusive. MY evidence is conclusive. YOU'RE evidence is so bad it even half supports my point.

If you want to get the last word, go for it. If you actually attempt to address my points in this thread or the last one which I am (still) waiting for you to deign to regard, then I will respond. Other than that I'll just respond to other people since at this point I won't settle for anything less than mature debating.

-------------------------

Sorry about that to folks who are still reading.

OK, I guess I kind of lead you this way going on the assumption that would be your response. Compulsory education (in USA) has been a tool utilized sine the early parts of the 20th century. Every social program known to man has probably gone into our public education system at some point. Todays expert will be replaced by 2morows and around and around it has gone. The problem is the same as any other problem (IMHO): human nature. Human nature cannot be bridled, bought, nor enslaved in spite of the biggest ball and chain or deep dark dungeon. Hitler knew that to the point he ventured to eliminate entire races. This is the problem I see when anyone starts talking about over ruling undesirables. 1) Historically it has NEVER worked. and 2) it disregards the center of mans gravity: his soul or his sense of who he is or his identity, or whatever you want to call it. That is why I believe public education fails and will continue to fail. And since we are on the political forum, there is also the factor of entire school systems being "owned" by the teachers, the administrations, etc in the form of their paycheck. My point being that the paycheck speaks louder then a multitude of kids. "Do it for the children" is a slogan campaigns use when they want to raise taxes. But the monies dont reach the kids. Better pay makes a better teacher? Hasn't so far. Some day someone might actually think that maybe schools ought to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, let kids be kids and parents be parents. But in the mind of the experts, that is too simplistic.

Alright... you appear to be really going off on a tangent here. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything that's been expressed. If you were asking me leading questions in an attempt to set me up for this, please do not do so in the future.

Invoking Hitler is hardly necessary in this case. Going on about public education is not really appropriate for this thread either, which concerns the ethics of circumcision. I am not leading a campaign and I am not using this as a political platform. I am expressing and defending my opinion with evidence in a public forum. My major arguments are in Post 7 if you would like to address them.

Now, I step off my soap box, and leave my comments to your mercy. And I am not suggesting you are advocating anything tyrannical or totalitarian, but my observation is on the system as a whole. And, do I care if there was a mass circumcision in the Phillipines? Actually no. And I would not have know about it had the information not been posted here, and whether I know or not has not changed my life once single iota. If thats what their culture dictates...let them knock thierselves out. Or, I guess, in this case, cut themselves out.

You are totally entitled to your opinion. I certainly agree that hundreds of boys in the Philippines getting circumcised does not really affect my life much. That doesn't mean that I feel that it is an ethically correct thing, which is the purpose of this thread.

[Guest]

Alright... you appear to be really going off on a tangent here. I don't see how this has anything to do with anything that's been expressed.

Then you might read again. Its a direct answer to you comment about education

If you were asking me leading questions in an attempt to set me up for this, please do not do so in the future.

I will consider your request.

Invoking Hitler is hardly necessary in this case. Going on about public education is not really appropriate for this thread either, which concerns the ethics of circumcision. I am not leading a campaign and I am not using this as a political platform. I am expressing and defending my opinion with evidence in a public forum. My major arguments are in Post 7 if you would like to address them.

So, you respond off topic (post 15) and then object to me responding to your off topic lead? (post 15)

Now, I step off my soap box, and leave my comments to your mercy. And I am not suggesting you are advocating anything tyrannical or totalitarian, but my observation is on the system as a whole. And, do I care if there was a mass circumcision in the Phillipines? Actually no. And I would not have know about it had the information not been posted here, and whether I know or not has not changed my life once single iota. If thats what their culture dictates...let them knock thierselves out. Or, I guess, in this case, cut themselves out.

You are totally entitled to your opinion. I certainly agree that hundreds of boys in the Philippines getting circumcised does not really affect my life much. That doesn't mean that I feel that it is an ethically correct thing, which is the purpose of this thread.

Until you can provide a cross-the-board and world wide emphatic definition for the word "ethical" then does not the charge lose its effectiveness? "I feel" it is ethically wrong? Is any part of the subject of this thread have anything to do with anything that is not how you "feel?"

[Deadclown]

Then you might read again. Its a direct answer to you comment about education

My comment about education was a self obvious fact that was brought about by a leading question (as you admitted). I should have just ignored it, but hey, I like to dive head long into the deep end. Your comments were rants that had nothing to do with topic. Education is not the topic here. If you would like to make it the topic elsewhere, then please go for it.

So, you respond off topic (post 15) and then object to me responding to your off topic lead? (post 15)

No. You initially ignored my points in favor of concentrating on public education (for some reason), instead of actually focusing on the topic at hand. This is called a Red Herring. It means that you are distracting from the topic. I have so far made points and contributed evidence, that has yet to be refuted by you or anyone. Moving the goal posts around and ignoring my points do not reduce their validity. I was politely inviting you to address them. You certainly do not have to, but I think it'll make for a better debate.

Until you can provide a cross-the-board and world wide emphatic definition for the word "ethical" then does not the charge lose its effectiveness? "I feel" it is ethically wrong? Is any part of the subject of this thread have anything to do with anything that is not how you "feel?"

You should read the opening post. I'll quote the pertinent bit.

Question for debate: is it ethical to circumcise children under any circumstances other than medical necessity?

This is the point you should be focusing on instead of public education. You should be arguing why it is ethically justifiable to circumcise children anywhere (since it is hardly a practice that exists inside of a cultural vacuum). I argued from the perspective that it is a generally universally held idea that causing harm is unethical. I presented evidence that showed it to be harmful. Talking about the specifics of ethics is just nitpicking.