[ ARC forum 2 ]

Pretence

Written by Paul B. at 16 May 2002 11:53:35:

As an answer to: Re: Pretending written by mp at 16 May 2002 01:09:10:

> I want to hear your opinions and experiences without any ad hominem stuff

"Ad Hominem" refers to attacking (slurring) the person instead of his argument. While this may appear to be happening in this case, there is in fact no difficulty in dealing with the arguments "AJ" poses. The actual objection is to the deceptive manner of his arguments.

> You're very passionately against any circumcision, it that correct?

It's all about intellectual honesty. Circumcision, described by many as "a cure in search for a disease", is a ritual mutilation which has been adopted by certain religions in the past, as it would seem the disability it causes is relatively tolerable, and argued to be "in the interests of society" (suppression of sexuality - seen as a "threat" to social order - perhaps with good reason!).

Should adults choose circumcision for themselves for religious or whatever (psycho-sexual) reasons, might be a matter for interesting debate. Unfortunately, there are two important matters beyond this consideration.

Firstly, as you mention, infant circumcision. We would (like to) believe that our society has developed to the point where it values human rights and particularly the rights of the child. Infant circumcision is a flagrant violation of a child's rights.

The second matter is the synthesis of medical "indications" for circumcision. If you research history, particularly of the nineteenth century and you could do worse than to start here, you begin to understand that a virtual "religion" has been created with a belief set, mostly mythical, that circumcision is "needed" to either prevent, or manage, medical conditions.

Unfortunately, the two are intimately related. Having taken the step of religious "belief" in circumcision, adherents frequently become zealots, reasoning that if it is so good for them, it must be necessary for everyone else, particularly those who cannot decline such as their unfortunate children, or others' children. Before springing to his defence, I invite you to research, here and on Fathermag, AJ's development along this dimension over much of the last year.

> Including for a partial circumcision too?

I've dealt with that point already, as you will note.

> but are you against it no matter what for adults?

I repeat: It's all about intellectual honesty. Circumcision is simply unnecessary in almost every case, at least from a medical viewpoint. Why would one have (a particular) surgery when there is a more appropriate method of management? Particularly when it leads to reduced function? This is the very antithesis of ethical medical practice.

Those of us who are "anti"-circumcision have very little cause to object to someone saying "I wanted to be circumcised; I understand the disadvantages but value the particular appearance over functionality and it is my choice!" (as of course applies to other cosmetic surgery - breast augmentation and such). But wherever we see that viewpoint rationalized into claiming it was medically necessary or unavoidable, and feel that someone might in substantial ignorance be influenced by such lies, then we speak out.


Answers: