Strange logic...

[japonica]

I was doing an online search for something completely unrelated and a pro-circ site offering the services of a local surgeon in my city came up in the search results. I thought I'd check it out and saw the statement at the top of the page:

Male circumcision is an elective surgery to remove the foreskin of the penis. The foreskin like the appendix, is a remnant from our evolutionary past and it is mostly believed now to serve no essential purpose.

Wow. I guess I'm still just shocked by this. Then I got to wondering, why aren't they removing our appendix, little toes, anything other body part at birth that can be argued is a "remnant" of our evolutionary past?

[ElliesMomma]

i'd have to look up the word "remnant," but it *seems* that EVERY part of us is a remnant of evolution. as for "essential" -- i guess it's not, as in necessary for life itself. 

never mind the many purposes the foreskin does serve, it's not a beating heart -- cut it out.

and you're right, let's remove earlobes at birth, since they are also "non-essential". 

good to know that that's the propaganda used to encourage circumcision.

i guess what else could we expect?

[Greg B]

Note the very careful wording, designed to persuade a person into thinking that circ is a good thing. 

Basically they are painting a picture that the foreskin has no value and removing it is no big deal, even to be preferred, all without saying anything that is not reasonable.  All fuzzy words, but words that have lots of added baggage.

Interstingly, their comparison to the appendix is also biased.  They portray it as having little value, yet recent research suggests there is significant value we get from our appendix. 

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/10/scientists-discover-purpose-of-human.html 

It is stuff like this that is very difficult to fight against when trying to educate people.  It forces you to be the seemingly unreasonable one.  You have to word things very well to seem reasonable.

Regards

[Dan Bollinger]

In debate terms, this is called a "straw man" argument. It is indeed a persuasion tactic with no merit whatsoever. 

[MoonJelly]

I'd say that circumcision, like appendectomy, is a remnant from the 20th century, when medical practioners were continually looking to cut things off of people!

[mare54]

Originally Posted by japonica 

I was doing an online search for something completely unrelated and a pro-circ site offering the services of a local surgeon in my city came up in the search results. I thought I'd check it out and saw the statement at the top of the page:

Wow. I guess I'm still just shocked by this. Then I got to wondering, why aren't they removing our appendix, little toes, anything other body part at birth that can be argued is a "remnant" of our evolutionary past?

The bright side is at least they weren't trying to convince anyone that circumcision is a "necessary" procedure!  It's the elective part that is disturbing.  It is still amazing to see such ignorance about the natural functions of the foreskin.  I am shocked at how many "medical" professionals who, to me, should know better, state things like "it's just a little snip"...... "it's just an extra flap of skin"..... "it's over so quickly, the baby doesn't even notice"...... "babies sleep through circumcision now"...."it doesn't hurt them".  Common sense tells you that when you go altering baby boys at birth, it HAS not change something!  And above all, choosing an elective surgery that has no medical indication on a newborn, really makes no sense.  I don't understand why it is so difficult to realize that an elective surgery decision should be in the hands of the person getting it, and no one else.  Why should a man have to go through life with a permanent scar from circumcision he didn't choose?

[BananaBreadGirl]

:) That is a good comparison to me!
 

Originally Posted by MoonJelly 

I'd say that circumcision, like appendectomy, is a remnant from the 20th century, when medical practioners were continually looking to cut things off of people!