Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by B_tiger1111, Aug 21, 2011.
I wonder what will be the result
I understand that the second option is essentially "no", but it would have been nice to actually vote no.
I would have liked to vote "No!", but this simple and ageold option somehow is not present.
The second option is not an option, its an argument. Its the false premise that it is a decision that adult men are likely to make without compelling medical necessity.
It belies the intention of the poster, which is clearly to sway opinion, rather that ask about it.
An impartial poll would simply ask yes or no... But this poll is biased in its presentation.
Rather than a mere "yes"- a similarly biased Yes choice might have been worded " given female preference in my country, and the clearly proven medical benefit, I would "
this is just More agitprop from folks who have some kind of unhealthy obsession with circumcision, and seek to inflict their position on others thru law.
No. That will be his choice when he's older.
No...it would not be. "Give him the choice" is a tautologically true statement (unless he has a blood clotting disorder, in which case he shouldn't be circumcised) while your statement is a question-begging mess. And the "false premise" you mention does not exist. Choices are not choices if most people do not elect to pursue them? I'm not sure that you mean "premise" but I have no idea what you mean.
I don't call you "unhealthy obsessed" or "inflictive" when you're the one imposing your preference on someone else's body. This is an bioethical argument about bodily autonomy, parental rights and responsibilities, and medical treatment. I also notice the last time you were called on your "clearly proven medical benefit" you stopped replying, which I've seen you do in the past when your selective use of medical analysis was challenged. Honestly, your motivation isn't important to this argument; no one's is. Your argument is inadequate and that's all that matters.
All the intactivist threads in this forum are biased.
I agree that polls should KISS and there was nothing wrong with "No" but actually,
the opposite of "I'll leave the decision to him" is "I'll decide (regardless of what he might want)"
and the opposite of "given female preference in my country, and the clearly proven medical benefit, I would" is
"Given that his preference trumps any hypothetical future partner's, and the lack of any proven medical benefit, but above all his human right to choose for himself what normal, healthy, functional part of his own body he might ever want cut off (probably none), I wouldn't."
The answer not there: No.
We chose not to have him circed, without giving any thought about what he might want to do in the future.
My sister-in-law, a doctor, was totally against our decision. She said women won't find him attractive unless he's cut. We'll let him deal with that when the time comes.
No, actually, it is not.
It is, in fact, not even a valid response to the question as posited.
"Would I or wouldn't I" is the choice presented in the question, and therefore, foisting that choice onto a second person is not tautologically equivalent to saying no, when the alternate option is presented as merely 'yes' with no statement of philosophical intent.
Ergo... for the poll question to be tautologically valid with its responses, the two responses must present the same degree of either/or... with or wthout extrapolation.
If one is Yes, then the other must be No.
OR, If one presents a rationale, the other must present the opposing rationale.
As it is, this kind of polling is called PUSH polling, because it presents the question in a manner intended to incite a specific result, rather than to determine actual positions or attitudes.
It is a form of propaganda, and a manipulation of opinion, rather than pure sampling.
A properly unbiased poll would not reveal so glaringly the personal position of the person or organization presenting the poll.
As such... this kind of polling is a form of strawman argument... it attempts to skew the debate into the argument the poller WANTS to make, rather than reply to the actual argument or actual facts.
So, sorry... logically, the two offered choices are not equivalently diametric and therefore there is no valid tautology.
Anti-circumcision zealots prefer to portray the issue in terms of personal choice, as if parents are denying their children a choice....
This is not their real concern.... its just the spin they want the argument to take because they believe that to be a more winnable point than the plain fact that they don't like circumcised penis, for whatever personal reasons they may harbor.
Its a self defeating argument... much like the old US South, arguing State Rights... i.e. that the North had to respect their right to deny rights to blacks.
They want to claim the rights of children by stripping the rights of parents...
Despite the fact that parents retain full legal responsibility for their children and their actions... for example, parents can be sued, now, BOTH for having their children vaccinated, and for not having them vaccinated.
I am actually required by law to make medical decisions for my children, And NOT approving procedures that might improve their health is something I can be prosecuted for... as can be seen in parents who fail to allow transfusions over personal religious beliefs.
This is a minefield of conflicting legal and cultural precedents. The real argument is, at what point does the State have the right to tell you what you must or must not do with your own children?
If you want children to have the right to make THIS decision ( when they grow up) then how can you validly demand that parents get their children vaccinated to prevent epidemics? The risks of vaccination, tho vanishingly small, are still greater than the risks of circumcision.
Anti-RIC advocates simply do not care, nor concern themselves with the greater ramifications of their position... they simply want folks to see the issue in the narrow terms they prefer to paint.
They are not concerned with the health arguments, as the health arguments show a decided advantage to circumcision.
They are not really concerned with the rights of the child, except insofar as they want every child with a prepuce to keep their prepuce until they must face a painful and frightening procedure as an adult.
What they really want is for all dicks, or at least the majority of dicks, to have foreskins....
As if that actually matters to anyone who isn't obsessed with their dick.
And, like conservatives who will twist the facts to support their authoritarian views... they tend to twist the arguments into channels they think will win sympathy or support, rather than address the actual consequences of having the government further constrain people from seeking safe, reliable medical procedures.
It is akin to the abortion debate. The Anti-abortionists do not really care about unborn or unwanted babies... they just don't like young people having sex without suffering consequences.
They want the government to forbid even those who don't agree with them from having abortions.
Frankly, if you really care about freedom of choice... then just let folks choose based upon their own beliefs and their own circumstances.
There's some weird soup going on here ("tautalogically valid"?) but you have a valid point about extraneous information. If this question is simply about overall willingness to circumcise (that's unclear to me), the stuff after "No" is just extraneous. However, I'll doubt the OP was asking if we'd be willing to circumcise our children under any circumstances.
The thing is, if you're going to claim refusing circumcision and giving him the choice are not tautological statements (valid), your claim that "giving him the choice" is a biased option goes down the tubes -- because how else can you express the distinction between refusing circumcision and allowing the individual autonomy? In that case, the options have to be "No -- I won't let him," "Let him decide," and "Yes -- I'll make him."
I don't see a construction of the question where both of your complaints can simultaneously be valid. In any case, badly written as it was, I think most respondents assumed this was about RIC. The 70%-30%-ish split against seems typical of polls on RIC here. Which I'm 70% happy about.
A strawman is actually not quite that (it's dismissing position x on the basis of dismissing unrelated, unargued position y).
That's funny -- I've heard the same analogy used to describe the idea that we should refer to parents (the state) even in making decisions that are bad
I definitely would not identify as a zealot, but...err...they are effectively denying their children the choice.
Can you give me some case law here? I've been getting into bioethical law lately, and although you can sue for virtually everything, I've never heard of a parent being held liable for vaccination side effects.
I agree that's the fundamental argument behind whether RIC should be legal, but...my real argument is that RIC is an unethical procedure and should stop. I think you're the first one to bring up legal issues, although I'll talk about those if they want.
As I explained to you in the thread where you immediately stopped replying to, viewing either the risks or benefits in isolation makes no sense at all. The question is a two-pronged test:
1. Whether the benefits of circumcision (including patient satisfaction levels, I'd hope) outweigh the costs (risks of a botch, allocation of resources, whatever)
2. AND, if they do, whether the utility of pre-empting patient consent through guardianship is enough. That is, if circumcision does have more benefits than costs, is the net-benefit (benefits minus cost) greater with RIC than it would be with elective circumcision for the adult?
The central question being: Is RIC the best policy, or could better outcomes be achieved under a different regime (e.g., individual autonomy without parental pre-emption)?
I've studied the epidemiology of vaccinations extensively, and "anything less risky than a vaccination must be fine" is an argument for people with little understanding of medical policy, vaccinations, or the concept of utility. I'm sorry, but I'm sure you know how much of an oversimplification you're making.
1. The health arguments do not show a decided net benefit to circumcision. Again, check out my response to you in the other thread that you've so far ignored.
2. "Until they must face a painful and frightening procedure as an adult"? Seriously, man? You're arguing men should be stripped of the capacity to make the decision about their preference. Are you actually arguing that being stuck unhappily circumcised is better than being unhappily circumcised, and having the option of an (unpleasant, inconvenient) recourse? You're not the first pro-RIC person I've heard this from. How can you think about that for more than fifteen seconds and not find it a completely laughable argument?
3. I don't know where you're getting the idea that my opposition to RIC is anything but a matter of bioethics and health policy...
4. For someone so concerned about unbiased poll questions and strawman fallacies, you sure do seem to be committing a Poisoning the Well fallacy. You almost post more about motivations than substantive arguments. Have you not noticed a lot of pro-RIC people here are creepy and often even have creepy circumcision-themed usernames? That doesn't invalidate your argument, so I'm not sure why you're so focused on this.
Ultimately, I think the child's eventual satisfaction with his body is more important than his parents' beliefs and circumstances when it comes to deciding to do something irreversible to his penis. If this weren't about freedom of choice, I wouldn't give a damn like I do.
This is just about one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Fortunately, there may be only one or two people who would believe it. What do you think, the foreskin of newborns is just dying to fall off on its own? How exactly are shots riskier than genital surgery?
Williams & Kapila, the most thorough study of neonatal circ complications done to date, puts the risk of serious complications at between 2 and 10 percent (incidentally, for adult circumcisions it's negligible -- one of the best arguments for delaying it). That works out to about 50,000 to 60,000 circumcision complications requiring medical attention per year in the United States. Half a million per decade.
Health benefits? So far, not a single medical association in the world has declared circumcision to be, on balance, health-positive. That's why none of them endorse or recommend infant circumcision. Arguably the most pro-circ statement at present comes from (surprise!) the United States, where the AAP says there are potential (not definitive, certainly not applicable to all) benefits, and known risks. The rest of the developed world is not nearly so kind toward infant circumcision -- the Royal Dutch Medical Association, for example, actively discourages it.
The AAP doesn't even see hygiene as a potential benefit. Their most recent declaration: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimum penile hygiene.
What's left is nothing more than parents' stubborn beliefs, unsupported by medicine. No developed country in the world, including the United States, hints that circumcised boys are better off. Not a single study since the Civil War has demonstrated that the US has enjoyed better health, saved money or made people happier for aggressively pursuing circumcision of newborns.
What's been the experience of Canada, Australia and New Zealand since their significant declines in circumcision over the past 30 years? Obvious health changes? A spike in stories of penile problems? (Or perhaps fewer, with far less botches). Is the populace any less happy? Have they saved money? (Actually, must be in the hundreds of millions by now.)
The whole concept of newborn circumcision as a "health" measure is ludicrous. Comparing it favorably to vaccinations is insanity.
haha, where's the "no" option
Voted but staying away from this argument.