Circumcision

[jedusor]

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

Comments

[tahnan.livejournal.com]

Look, I'm sorry, I've been staying out of the discussion of the facts of circumcision, since the actual issue of circumcision isn't why I got angry at Julia, and in many ways these details are a distraction.

But this is too much. In a word: it's bullshit. This is a biased survey done by someone with an agenda, rather than a neutral scientific study. And those quotes are so exaggerated as to be melodramatic.

"Many men are living with these consequences and may not connect these problems to their circumcision or are too embarrassed to talk about such issues"—let's see now. "Many"? How many? And: this is a classic case of an undisprovable claim; if I say, for instance, that circumcision had no negative consequences for me, an adherent of the survey can claim that it did and I just don't know about them (or am denying them).

"infant circumcision trauma [is] counter-productive to a healthy,
nurturing newborn environment. He stated that such early genital
trauma has undoubtedly damaging, but as yet unstudied, lifelong
effects"—once again, it's undisprovable. I don't think my newborn environment was non-nurturing, but how can I prove it wasn't? Indeed, how could the parent of a circumcised three-week-old prove that the child's environment is nurturing, especially when the circumcision proves that it's not? And the claim that there are "undoubtedly" lifelong effects, even though we have no idea what they might be, is about as rationally convincing as an appeal to a Divine Creator who said so.

Once again: I'm not really per se all that interested in arguing the pros and cons of circumcision. But to be honest, Gotcha, I'm seriously disappointed to see you invoke unprovable assertion and circular reasoning as if they're genuine arguments.