Moral Relativism

quote:

---

It is, however, morally equivalent: You do not have the right to hack off parts of my body.

---

Sheesh, by this logic cutting someone's fingernails and cutting someone's arm off are "morally equivalent".You're completely ignoring gradations of impact here. I disagree with circumcision, but to actually say that it's the "moral equivalent" of cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina, (and removing labia minora, etc.) is patently absurd and indefensible.And yes, I know that all FGM isn't infibulation. You keep reminding people of this, then claim the distinction is irrelevant...Do you mean your words to apply to infibulation or not?

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I did notice. But given the tremendous chip on your shoulder,

---

​

You are projecting.

---

Yeah, sure. It can't possibly be you...it has to be me.[ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you agreed, then you should have just agreed. But no, you did more than that.

---

​

...and it's the END OF THE WORLD, a FEDERAL CASE, and a CAPITAL OFFENSE all rolled into one, too!

---

See, there you go again, projecting your own insecurities onto me. It couldn't possibly be because you were wrong...no, I have to be over-reacting.Notice, for example, that you were the one making the accusation in the first place. I, on the other hand, have always responded to your comments by taking them seriously until you digress into ad hominem commentary. Do you actually have an argument to make or is your only recourse at the moment to impugn my integrity? Because if you don't have something to say, I repeat again that you refrain from responding. It does not accomplish anything.[more ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

quote:

---

quote:

---

who didn't understand that removal of the entire clitoris is not the physical equivalent of removal of the foreskin ("See! Female circumcision is worse!")

---

​

It couldn't be that I was simply disagreeing with a small part of your claim.

​

Nope, could never be that.

---

Of course it's that, schraf. That's why I responded: You disagreed. I pointed out that your disagreement is disingenuous. I made a direct statement about the physical processes involved and you responded by distorting my statement and ignoring the point.The words you are looking for are, "Oops. My mistake. I'll try not to let it happen again."[even more ad hominem commentary deleted for space]

quote:

---

...not that I don't think you are a smart guy, you know, but you do have some issues.

---

Honey, we need to get you a magazine rack for yours.Again...now that the ad hominem commentary is out of the way, perhaps you should refrain from responding. It isn't accomplishing anything and you can't seem to handle it. When we get right down to it, your post contained precisely zero content and was nothing more than you stroking yourself to some mental orgasm. I hope you had fun. If you have something constructive to say, perhaps we can continue but until then, just keep your fingers to yourself.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

schraf...why did you misquote me?

---

​

I didn't.

---

Yes, you did. Here is what I actually said: Here is what you quoted: And while we're at it, here's an important point I made in my post not too long after: Why did you feel the need to ignore this point? Don't you think this informs why I am equating the two? That the justification for both male and female circumcision is identical and if the justification for doing it to a girl is bogus, then it is just as bogus for doing it to a boy?And here's a physical point I made...twice. First time: Second time: Now you tell me: Don't you think dying from the procedure puts it on the same level as female circumcision?So I have to ask: Why did you misquote me?

quote:

---

Someone asked you a "yes or no" question, and you answered.

---

With a great deal of information explaining why I answered the way I did. You seem to have ignored all of that explanation in order to twist my intent.

quote:

---

I disagreed with your view, so I replied.

---

No, you disagreed with a strawman you invented due to your ignoring of the text of my post. You saw me say that male and female circumcision are equivalent and rather than examine the entire post to see why it is that I am equating them, you invented a reason, projected it upon me, and responded to it.That's misquotation, schraf.

quote:

---

By answering "yes" to the question, you are saying, "Yes, it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina."

---

Yes, but the question that wasn't asked for which I spent some time explicating and answering was that they are morally equivalent since every single justification used to perform female circumcision is used to justify male circumcision.I then pointed out that male circumcion has significant complications, reminding that many boys die from the procedure. And I remind you of my post which prompted Dan Carroll to ask his question in the first place: Did you read that post, schraf? Did you even bother to follow the thread back to make sure you understood where I was coming from?Yeah, infibulation as an intended consequence destroys a woman's sexual function. Male circumcision as an unintended consequence does the same thing (though one of the justifications for it is to reduce a man's sexual function) to the same level. Sexual reassignment surgery is not a minor thing. Death is not a minor thing.How many women in the world undergo female circumcision of any kind? Now given that about 20% of the entire male population of the world has been circumcised and given a serious complication rate of 1 in 500, how many men are in the same boat?Are you telling me that those men don't count?

quote:

---

Your following comment, "By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation." is irrelevant to the question

---

Incorrect. It points out that the question is not nearly as simple as it was made out to be. The phrase "male circumcision" doesn't refer to removal of the penis. "Female circumcision," on the other hand, refers to a whole host of procedures ranging from nicking the clitoral hood to complete removal of the clitoris. So if you're going to complain about equation of the two, you're going to have to define just what it is you mean by "female circumcision." Not all female circumcision is infibulation.

quote:

---

because clearly, the question referred to infibulation, and asked if you felt that it was equivalent to the cutting off of the foreskin.

---

And it is. It is morally equivalent. The number of men who are disastrously affected by their circumcisions exceeds the number of women who are disastrously affected by theirs.Doesn't that make them equivalent? How many boys need to die before it becomes equivalent?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Zhimbo responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is, however, morally equivalent: You do not have the right to hack off parts of my body.

---

​

Sheesh, by this logic cutting someone's fingernails and cutting someone's arm off are "morally equivalent".

---

Oh, gads...not you, too. Does nobody actually read for content? Yes, I know it's hard, but really people. It isn't like this place doesn't let you take your time to ponder over what another person put forward.Didn't you read the following comment in my post? So I have to wonder why it is you seem to think that I don't understand the responsibility of parents toward their children and how that involves making alterations to their physical person.But even if you failed to notice that, here's something for you to ponder:Your fingernails will grow back. Your arm won't. Before parents are allowed to alter the bodies of their children, it needs to be considered what the consequences are. Yeah, piercing your child's ears is not exactly a big thing, but it is still something that should never be done. It isn't your body. It can't be undone.To think that someone has control over your physical body to the point of making permanent changes to it without your permission and for no reason other than the cosmetic whim of the person doing it is, to use your words, "absurd and indefensible." It doesn't matter how "small" that change is. It cannot be allowed at any level.Consider, for example, how society would behave differently if it were a social norm that to do something even as small as piercing your child's ears is abhorrent. How would people behave when they had respect for each other's bodies and wouldn't dream of doing anything to them without their consent? How do you think people feel when they learn that someone can come along and cut you simply because they, not you, think you would look better that way?I seem to recall that some of the big reasons that people put forward for why female circumcision is barbaric are things like it makes them property, their bodies are not theirs to control, that it objectifies them, etc.So why is it any different when you're doing it to a boy? How is cutting him open without anesthesia and running the risk of complete mutilation of his penis if not outright killing him somehow not something to be just as upset over when it's someone with a Y chromosome?But then again, that is the social construction of masculinity: A man's body is for sacrifice and it is selfish of a man to try and maintain its integrity.And I can't believe I have to defend "Keep your knife away from me."

quote:

---

You're completely ignoring gradations of impact here.

---

No, you're completely ignoring actual outcome here.Sure, your circumcision may have gone off without a hitch. But do you know what the complications are from male circumcision? Do you know how often those complications show up? Little boys die from circumcision. Little boys have to have their genitalia surgically reconstructed, sometimes to the point of sex re-assignment, from circumcision.How many women in the world have undergone all forms of female circumcision (hint...not all female circumcision is infibulation)?How many men in the world have undergone male circumcision?What is the complication rate for male circumcision?How many men have had severe complications from their circumcicions compared to the total number of women who have had all forms of female circumcision?How many boys need to die before it is considered just as barbaric?

quote:

---

I disagree with circumcision, but to actually say that it's the "moral equivalent" of cutting off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina, (and removing labia minora, etc.) is patently absurd and indefensible.

---

Only because you don't seem to know just what male circumcision is like. You are confusing your mutilation and your subsequent acceptance of it with everybody else.Do you really think that opposition to a procedure that left a boy dead is "absured and indefensible"?How many boys need to die before it is considered just as barbaric?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Technically, way back when this began, I asked you was a simple question... if you felt that cutting off the foreskin was the same as cutting off the clitoris and/or sewing up the vagina. By bringing other forms of female circumcision in, you projected content on my post that wasn't there.I didn't comment on it at the time, because I didn't feel it was exceptionally important. But all schraf did was establish that she agreed with you on other forms, and then return it to my original question. Out of curiosity, how many boys have died? I don't mean that to say, "I bet it's none, butt-hole!" I'm honestly curious.

quote:

---

Technically, way back when this began, I asked you was a simple question... if you felt that cutting off the foreskin was the same as cutting off the clitoris and/or sewing up the vagina. By bringing other forms of female circumcision in, you projected content on my post that wasn't there.

​

I didn't comment on it at the time, because I didn't feel it was exceptionally important. But all schraf did was establish that she agreed with you on other forms, and then return it to my original question.

---

Right, that's all I did, and it was apparently a big mistake.At a certain point it becomes clear that some people are so self-righetous that it renders them incapable of compromise or being reasonable.

quote:

---

How many women in the world undergo female circumcision of any kind? Now given that about 20% of the entire male population of the world has been circumcised and given a serious complication rate of 1 in 500, how many men are in the same boat?

​

Are you telling me that those men don't count?

---

AHA!Now we seem to have gotten to one of the real issues.It has been a common undercurrent of yours in this thread to downplay the suffering of women from FGM, as if that somehow makes any difference to the suffering of men from MGM.I also notice that you failed to include the last part of my post, which was "By answering "yes" to the question, you are saying, "Yes, it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina."Your following comment, "By the way, not all female circumcision is infibulation." is irrelevant to the question, because clearly, the question referred to infibulation, and asked if you felt that it was equivalent to the cutting off of the foreskin."Now, how is this a misquote?It could have been a misunderstanding on my part, or carelessness in reading your post on my part, but it was NOT a misquote.Oh, and I think I have good reason to think that you can become self-righteous and unreasonable, and invent things to rail against, considering the fact that you haven't taken back your accusations to Scott in the same-sex marriage thread.It's a little rich for you to condescendingly demand apology from me, declare that you have little faith that you will receive one because you hold a low opinion of me, then refuse to do what you require of me (for a much more grievous offense).

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

Out of curiosity, how many boys have died?

---

Depending upon the estimates, a couple hundred every year in the US alone.The problem is that statistics aren't kept, either by the government or by the medical assocations, regarding circumcision. It is the most performed surgery in the United States. In 1990, for example, there were about 2.1 million boys born in the US. About 59% of them were circumcised. There is a complication rate (meaning all complications from excessive bleeding all the way up to death) from about 2% to 10%, meaning that in that year alone, somewhere between 25,000 and 125,000 boys had complications in their circumcision.And that's just in the US.Even if we go with the American Academy of Pediatrics which claims a 0.2% complication rate (but says at the same time, "The exact incidence of postoperative complications is unknown," so where do they get the 0.2% number from), this means that there are over 130,000 males in the US living with a botched circumcision counting those born from 1940 to 1990.In studies in the UK and Australia, it was observed that between 9.5% (UK) and 66% (Australia) of those who were circumcised at birth needed re-circumcision later on since too little skin was taken at first. One of the things that circumcision actually is medically indicated for is phimosis which is where the opening of the foreskin is too small for the engorged glans, causing painful erections. When a circumcision is botched with too little skin taken, it can cause a scar to form at the site which actually causes phimosis.On the other side, if too much is taken the remaining skin doesn't have enough give and the shaft is pushed into the body...again, causing painful erections.And in the recovery, changing of the dressing (painful) causes stress in the baby which can actually cause heart arrhythmias (circumcision is routinely done without anesthesia) as shown by Ruff ("The circumcision was complicated by moderate bleeding and the baby's distress was sufficient to produce circumoral cyanosis and persistent tachycardia. It was concluded that crying induced by many dressing changes need to obtain haemostasis, resulted in raised intrapulmonary pressure sufficient to rupture a weak spot and cause pneumothorax. Although the child was managed successfully, this required a further hospital stay of 19 days.")Infection comes along for 10% of the cases in the UK, including gangrene of the penis not to mention other blood infections resulting in other complications such as tetanus, tuberculosis, osteomyelitis, pneumonia, and even cerebral palsy.But those are in the West. When we go to places like tribal Africa, we find that conditions are much worse. In 1990, a study on ritual male circumcision among the Xhosa of the Ciskei had a 9% mortality rate due to infection.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

Depending upon the estimates, a couple hundred every year in the US alone.

---

What's the exact cause of death? If it's infection or similar, the problem would just be that it's not done under clean conditions and isn't given proper care once complications set in, wouldn't it? The higher death rate in tribal cultures would seem to support this.

quote:

---

The problem is that statistics aren't kept, either by the government or by the medical assocations, regarding circumcision. It is the most performed surgery in the United States. In 1990, for example, there were about 2.1 million boys born in the US. About 59% of them were circumcised. There is a complication rate (meaning all complications from excessive bleeding all the way up to death) from about 2% to 10%, meaning that in that year alone, somewhere between 25,000 and 125,000 boys had complications in their circumcision.

---

Unfortunately, without specifics, statistics are kind of useless in this case. I mean, even assuming 10% of cases have complications, who knows if 99% of that 10 is a minor complication? I'm not saying a more involved study isn't warranted, it's just that there don't seem to be stats that are of any use at present.

quote:

---

In studies in the UK and Australia, it was observed that between 9.5% (UK) and 66% (Australia) of those who were circumcised at birth needed re-circumcision later on since too little skin was taken at first.

---

This is a good example of bad stats. In Australia, what percentage of circumcisions noted are done in hospitals with scalpels, and what percentage are done by aboriginal cultures with flat rocks?

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

It has been a common undercurrent of yours in this thread to downplay the suffering of women from FGM

---

See, this is one of your issues.You seem to think that I am downplaying the suffering of women from FGM. Instead, I am doing the exact opposite. I am pointing out that the women are suffering from FGM and that we should rightly condemn the practice.I then point out that just as many if not more men are suffering from the practice of MGM, so if we are outraged and horrified at the practice when applied to women, then we should be equally outraged and horrified at the practice when applied to me.This is your problem: In my equation of MGM with FGM, you have manufactured the intent in me that I am reducing FGM to the level of MGM. Instead, I am raising MGM to the level of FGM.In short, you seem to think that men have it easy so if somebody thinks that men and women have it the same, then that must mean that women have it easy. It never occurs to you that the point is that men and women both have it rough.

quote:

---

I also notice that you failed to include the last part of my post, which was "By answering "yes" to the question, you are saying, "Yes, it's the same thing to cut off the foreskin as it is to remove the clitoris and/or sew up the vagina."

---

That's because the lead in to it was an erroneous assumption. Since we know that false assumptions lead to false conclusions, the rest of your statement becomes irrelevant. Didn't you read my post? In other words, it doesn't matter what you think about it since your analysis of the situation is flawed. I did not accept the premise that the question was a simple "yes-or-no." Therefore, for you to try and analyze my response of "yes" as if the question were a simple "yes-or-no" is to engage in a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

It could have been a misunderstanding on my part, or carelessness in reading your post on my part, but it was NOT a misquote.

---

It most certainly is. It completely ignores the part where I point out that the original question cannot be answered in a simple yes-or-no fashion. There are many justifications for why someone might say yes and many justifications for why someone might say no. As I pointed out, it is true that the abstract notion of removal of the foreskin is not equivalent to the abstract notion of removal of the clitoris. However, reality is not as nice and neat as that. Male circumcision is not as clean and neat as it is made out to be. When your circumcision is botched and you contract gangrene in the penis requiring its removal, it's just as bad as having your clitoris removed. When you die from the procedure, it's just as bad as having your clitoris removed.In short, schraf, there is a difference between the theory of circumcision and the actual reality of it. Doctors don't mean to kill the boys, but they do.How many boys have to die before MGM becomes as bad as FGM? How much suffering does a male have to go through in having his skin literally torn off his body without anesthesia before it becomes as bad as FGM?Once again, I am not making light of FGM. I am pointing out that it is horrible and that it is you who are making light of MGM.

quote:

---

It's a little rich for you to condescendingly demand apology from me, declare that you have little faith that you will receive one because you hold a low opinion of me, then refuse to do what you require of me (for a much more grievous offense).

---

Um, when SLPx makes his opinions known, I'll deal with him. Until then, I will not substitute your judgement for his.Hint, consider the words "use children in some sort of social experiment, in the name of 'rights.'" and ponder how anybody could think that there is any significant number of people who consider adopting a child as some sort of political statement, not to mention being able to get through the screening process without that point being found out.Does the word "recruit" mean anything to you with regard to why someone would want to adopt a child?Have you not been paying attention to the reasons why gay people are refused the right to adopt children and how the exact phrase SLPx used, namely "social experiment" and "in the name of 'rights,'" gets bandied about?So yes, I do demand an apology from you. You made a statement to me which I found to be inappropriate. Therefore, I am the one that seeks an apology.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator writes:

quote:

---

At a certain point it becomes clear that some people are so self-righetous that it renders them incapable of compromise or being reasonable.

---

Amen, sister!Have you considered the possibility that you should remove the plank from your own eye...?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

What's the exact cause of death?

---

Depends on how the circumcision is botched. It is rare to bleed out, for example. However, I did give reference to a child that then experienced tachycardia from his botched circumcision. That is, he had excessive bleeding which required repeated changes of dressing. The pain of the changing of dressing caused the infant to cry so greatly that it affected his heart.

quote:

---

If it's infection or similar, the problem would just be that it's not done under clean conditions and isn't given proper care once complications set in, wouldn't it?

---

"Just"?You know, there's a reason that diseases like SARS and multi-drug-resistant bacteria are mostly found in hospitals.

quote:

---

The higher death rate in tribal cultures would seem to support this.

---

And that makes it any better? 200 boys a year die in the US from complications of their circumcision and that isn't enough to cause one to demand it stop? How many boys have to die before it becomes an issue? Give me a number so I won't have to bother you until it's "bad enough."

quote:

---

Unfortunately, without specifics, statistics are kind of useless in this case.

---

Ah yes...it can't possibly be that bad. 200 boys a year die in the US and it's "useless."That any boy has to die from this should be sufficient to cause outrage, but you react as if we have to justify why we subjected an infant to a completely unnecessary procedure that caused him to die! You're actually saying that there is some level of acceptable loss?Congress made it a federal crime to perform any form of FGM in the United States when we couldn't find any instance of it happening in any systematic way. And yet, boys die from MGM and you're whining about needing to know the intimate details of the procedure before you'll even begin to care.By the way, the estimated 2-10% complication rate is for medicalized circumcision. For tribal circumcision, the rates are even higher.According to the British Journal of Urology, the most common complications are bleeding and sepsis (remember, this is in medical circumcisions). We then have complications like fistula caused by poor suturing or use of certain clamps resulting in strangulation and resulting necrosis of the urethra, meatal stenosis (8-20% of all circumcised men experience ulceration of the glans after circumcision which is ongoing as the stenosis causes ulceration followed by more stenosis.) The scar from the circumcision can cause a tether between the glans and shaft, resulting in painful erections and deformity. The procedure itself can produce cysts...in fact, the silica talc from the surgical gloves can cause granulomas that cause lesions up to 15 years later. In some circumcisions that used an anesthetic afterward, there are reported cases of impotence (cases seem to be connected to the use of a mistakenly potent solution of lignocaine applied to the exposed nerves following circumcision).And those are just the physical complications since we tend to circumcise our boys as infants. When we look at places like Turkey where circumcision happens later, such as when the boys are around 4-7, Cansever observed the following psychological effects:"circumcision is perceived by the child as an aggressive attack upon his body, which, damaged, mutilated, and in some cases destroyed him. The feeling of 'I am now castrated' seems to prevail in the psychic world of the child. As a result he feels inadequate, helpless and functions less efficiently."But even in our country, we must not discount the psychological effect. Our boys are circumcised as infants and it usually done without anesthetic. It is an extremely stressful situation and for the next 24 hours, the infants exhibit eleveted stress hormones. Remember the case cited above where the child nearly cried himself into a heart attack.So tell me how bad it has to be before you start to care.

quote:

---

I mean, even assuming 10% of cases have complications, who knows if 99% of that 10 is a minor complication?

---

Who cares? The fact that even one boy dies from this is sufficient to have it be considered barbaric.How many boys have to die before you care?

quote:

---

I'm not saying a more involved study isn't warranted, it's just that there don't seem to be stats that are of any use at present.

---

Why don't you look at the British Journal of Urology? That complication of the circumcision actually causing phimosis occurred in 2% of the UK circumcisions...sometimes so severe as to create urinary tract infections.

quote:

---

quote:

---

In studies in the UK and Australia, it was observed that between 9.5% (UK) and 66% (Australia) of those who were circumcised at birth needed re-circumcision later on since too little skin was taken at first.

---

​

This is a good example of bad stats. In Australia, what percentage of circumcisions noted are done in hospitals with scalpels, and what percentage are done by aboriginal cultures with flat rocks?

---

They were all medical circumcisions performed in a hospital. Every single one.Do you see what I mean when I say you have a bias? It can't be that bad. You're certain that it can't be that bad. No matter what I show you, you're certain that there is some way to explain it away as if the death of a baby at the hands of an adult when it didn't have to die is not something to be concerned about.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

"Just"?

---

Yes, "just." As in, if there is just a solvable problem, let's solve it.This is not a negative attitude.

quote:

---

And that makes it any better? 200 boys a year die in the US from complications of their circumcision and that isn't enough to cause one to demand it stop? How many boys have to die before it becomes an issue? Give me a number so I won't have to bother you until it's "bad enough."

---

If you had read my post, I didn't deny that it was an issue. I asked what the cause of death was. If it's an avoidable cause of death, let's avoid it. If the only way to avoid it is by abandoning circumcision, let's do so.Please stop projecting on me.

quote:

---

Ah yes...it can't possibly be that bad. 200 boys a year die in the US and it's "useless."

---

Yes, as statistics go, it's quite useless. It's vague, and possibly misleading. Which is why I said that a more involved study was warranted.

quote:

---

That any boy has to die from this should be sufficient to cause outrage, but you react as if we have to justify why we subjected an infant to a completely unnecessary procedure that caused him to die! You're actually saying that there is some level of acceptable loss?

---

I'd love for you to point to where I said anything of the kind.Again... all I did was ask what the cause of the deaths were, and the circumstances under which they occurred.

quote:

---

Congress made it a federal crime to perform any form of FGM in the United States when we couldn't find any instance of it happening in any systematic way. And yet, boys die from MGM and you're whining about needing to know the intimate details of the procedure before you'll even begin to care.

---

Damn my quest for further knowledge on a subject before reaching a personal conclusion. DAMN IT STRAIGHT TO HELL!

quote:

---

By the way, the estimated 2-10% complication rate is for medicalized circumcision. For tribal circumcision, the rates are even higher.

---

There we go. There's more information. Is that so hard?

quote:

---

So tell me how bad it has to be before you start to care.

---

And hey, more insults. Those are easy, aren't they?

quote:

---

Who cares? The fact that even one boy dies from this is sufficient to have it be considered barbaric.

---

Yes, but what's the source of the barbarism? As I said, if there is a condition on circumcision that causes the deaths, eliminate it. If the condition is intrinsic to circumcision, get rid of it.

quote:

---

How many boys have to die before you care?

---

Why are you taking such offense at my asking for more information?

quote:

---

Why don't you look at the British Journal of Urology? That complication of the circumcision actually causing phimosis occurred in 2% of the UK circumcisions...sometimes so severe as to create urinary tract infections.

---

Excellent, a source for information. See how much better this is?

quote:

---

They were all medical circumcisions performed in a hospital. Every single one.

---

Fantastic. More info. When you deliver it calmly like this, circumcision looks worse and worse. I'd think you'd welcome the chance to deliver it, rather than jump down the throat of the person asking for it.

quote:

---

Do you see what I mean when I say you have a bias? It can't be that bad. You're certain that it can't be that bad. No matter what I show you, you're certain that there is some way to explain it away as if the death of a baby at the hands of an adult when it didn't have to die is not something to be concerned about.

---

When did I even imply any of this?Where's that bias, again?

Dan, I think the problem is that I can't see how you can justify a process that puts an infant at risk when you don't have to in the first place.I had thought it was common sense...apparently it's not. It's surgery. That inherently means a risk of infection. Infection means you risk death. There is no way to perform circumcision without risking infection and thus possible death.This is where my incredulity comes from: How can anybody possibly consider justifying subjecting anybody to unnecessary surgery without his consent?Every surgery contains risk. Every single one. You cannot cut into somebody without the risk of doing more damage than you were trying to do. Even something as simple as piercing your ears can lead to a blood infection which, if not treated appropriately (and since there is no real monitoring of the person who just got pierced and cleansing is the responsibility not of the clinicians but of the parents, not exactly a well-regulated process which actually must be explained to a great many people) can kill you.Even if it's a rare occurence, there is no justification for risking someone else's life for an unnecessary procedure without his consent.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

So perhaps I am ignorant of the ramifications of surgery, in which case I will gladly read up on the matter. I don't see how that warrants accusations like "How many little boys have to die before you care?"