Need help with argument

[Katydid17]

Hello all, newbie here, and I need to know how to fight my neighbor's argument about circ'ing.

I brought up the point that a baby boy being circ'ed is having his body altered without making the choice himself. She said parents have to accept the responsibility of making medical decisions for their children that will affect them later, since the child is unable to. She illustrated this with vaccinations, saying the child is unable to consent to having the vaccine injected into his or her body, but loving parents do it anyway because it is medically important.

Well, I did vaccinate my son, for this very reason. So, for those of you who have vaccinated but not circ'ed, how do you justify making one irreversible medical decision for your child while saying folks have no right to make the other? Please don't go on the "one is not medically necessary and the other is" tangent, because I have already tried that with her and she keeps wanting to argue this bottom line: either parents have a right to alter their childrens' bodies (vaccines, circ) or not (no vaccines, no circ).

Thanks for any help,

Kate

[eightyferrettoes]

Ask her if she thinks a parent has the right to have a rhinoplasty on a baby. Or have their fingernails removed to make it easier to clean. Or bind their feet in the name of femininity.

Or whether parents can have their daughter circumcised.

Because that's where her line of thinking leads.

[AntoninBeGonin]

.

[Katydid17]

yes, eightyferrettoes, but...

...that doesn't answer my question. I have already argued with her about stuff like that. She is at the basic level of: if it is wrong to circ because it is taking Choice away from the boy, then why is it not wrong to vaccinate based on the same idea?

I need to hear from people who *have* vaccinated.

Kate

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by Katydid17

...that doesn't answer my question. I have already argued with her about stuff like that. She is at the basic level of: if it is wrong to circ because it is taking Choice away from the boy, then why is it not wrong to vaccinate based on the same idea?

I need to hear from people who *have* vaccinated.

Kate

My apologies, I didn't see the last paragraph of your post. Ds decided to slam the door on his fingers and started screaming. I've erased my original post.

~Nay

[eightyferrettoes]

As a vaccinating parent, I believe that vax has medical benefits; like keeping my kid from coming down with the whooping cough. There is NO medical benefit to circumcision.

Simple enough to me. I think your friend is being intentionally obtuse.

Although I have to say, I grapple with the implications of shooting crap into his arm without his consent. But that doesn't make me want to circ, it makes me want to quit vaxing. And the minute that I am convinced it's not medically beneficial, I will never vax again.

[Katydid17]

Yes, she is...

but I still want to squash her argument, and right now I'm so angry I can't think straight.

Kate

[eightyferrettoes]

So what sparked the argument? Is she trying to talk you out of vaxing, or are you trying to talk her out of circ?

[LeosMama]

My son is vaxed and not circed. I do believe I have the right and responsibility to alter his body for his benefit b/c he doesn't understand and can't make these choices.

But to me it's a no brainer: you only do things to him that are medically beneficia. You don't do things to them that have no proven value. I think he's not going to be very tall, but I'm not going to get him injected with growth hormone.

By the time he's ten, I'm sure we'll have an idea what his nose is going to look like. Mine is large and has a lump in the middle, rather ugly in our culture. DH's is long and pointy, also no beauty. DS might have a whopper of a pointy, lumpy nose. So when he's half-grown and I'm still responsible for his medical care, I'm going to get his nose fixed. I want him to be handsome and fit in, and not get teased by the other boys. And I heard someone say that altered noses get fewer infections and are more appealing to women.

Come on. Does that make any sense at all?? It is EXACTLY the same argument. If she blows you off with rhinoplasty and says that it's not the same, put it on her, have her show you the current medical statement or studies that show that being circumcized is beneficial. It's cosmetic surgery. COSMETIC SURGERY FOR A NEWBORN!!!

-Lindsay

[AntoninBeGonin]

Originally Posted by Katydid17

...that doesn't answer my question. I have already argued with her about stuff like that. She is at the basic level of: if it is wrong to circ because it is taking Choice away from the boy, then why is it not wrong to vaccinate based on the same idea?

I need to hear from people who *have* vaccinated.

Kate

Okay, the kid is happy again so I'll type. We have vaccinated. We're aren't anymore simply because we're waiting until he's a minimum of two with a much stronger immune system.

If your friend is going to look at it that way, then yes, it is wrong to vaccinate based solely on that one criterium. But still, I don't think it's really possible to compare the two. RIC never, ever has any medical benefit. It's an always harmful and sometimes fatal cosmetic surgery.

Give her another argument. Ask her if she ever rubs her eyes dry with toilet paper. She wipes her behind after she uses the bathroom, right? So what's the difference between eyes and butt, they're both body parts. By her own logic she should either never wipe her butt or wipe her eyes completely dry with tp...

~Nay

[Daisyuk]

The difference is that circumcision removes a healthy part of someone's body, and they then have to live without that part of their body for life. The damage happens to all boys that are circumcised and it's intentional. Circumcision has no medical benefits.

Vaccinations stimulate the person's body to provide and grow their own antibodies to prevent disease as thought they had been exposed to that disease already, the original vaccine does not stay in the body for the whole lifetime of the person. Vaccine damage happens very rarely and is completely unintentional. Vaccination has medical benefits.

[calngavinsmom]

How about this one? NO medical organization in the world recomends circumcision. Not one. In fact, many are starting to try to discourage doctors from preforming them....and guess what more and more doctors are doing just that.

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

Whereas, they alll recomend that you vaccinate your child.

Also, I live in Canada and our healthcare system does not cover the cost of circumcisions anymore(the USA is also starting to follow suit) why? Because it is considered cosmetic surgery. Non-thereputic, non-indicated, not-recomended cosmetic surgery. As in the same category as breast implants.

Ask her if she had a dd who had small breasts after puberty if she would force her to get implants. Because well you know large breasted women are more popular with men, they fill out their clothes better, and how the heck is she supposed to hold up a bikini top with small breasts anyway?

Sheesh, sorry this post turned into a rant, but I have been in your shoes dealing with ignorant people and they are just sooooooo :

HTH,
Tara

[DevaMajka]

but loving parents do it anyway because it is medically important.

she keeps wanting to argue this bottom line: either parents have a right to alter their childrens' bodies (vaccines, circ) or not (no vaccines, no circ).

then why is it illegal to circumcise females in this country? Or does she think that ought to be legal?
And if what she says is true, then noone should give me any flak for piercing my son's nose (not that I'd do that lol) or give him a tatoo. Or, if you want to go the medical/surgical route (which is more dangerous), I could say I want to have his ears altered.

The bottom line is that parent's do have a right to make decisions for their children WHEN it is *beneficial*. So the fact that, in circumcision, the risks outweigh the benefits IS important here. Someone who has decided to vaccinate does so because they believe the benefits outweigh the risks. If they didn't, they wouldn't vaccinate. You don't give meds to a baby just because you can- there's usually a good reason- high fever, baby's in pain, whatever. How many people would argue that they "have the right" to give their baby tylenol whenever they feel like it- whether the baby is sick or not?

If your friend refuses to admit that being medically beneficial or not has a place in this discussion, then it's obvious that she's going to find a reason to reject anything you say. She doesn't want to have her mind changed.

I guess I don't really understand her argument that, as a parent, she has the right to do whatever she wants to her baby. Parents don't have the right to abuse their kids. They don't have the right to let their children in the car without a carseat.

Anyways, I wish you luck

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by AntoninBeGonin

If your friend is going to look at it that way, then yes, it is wrong to vaccinate based solely on that one criterium.

True- it would be wrong to vaccinate if your only reason was that you have the right to do so. "No, I don't think there's any medical benefits to vaccinating, and I know there's risks, but I'm going to do it anyways, because I have the right to alter my kids body"

[Quirky]

The whole idea of consent by proxy - i.e. parents making informed medical decisions for their children - is that there is a medical benefit to the procedure. If there is no medical benefit, then no ethical doctor should perform the procedure because it would be assault.

(Now, doctors in this country who perform circs are acting unethically. The AAP has come out and stated that there is no medical benefit to routine circumcision, so it follows that circ is unethical. Yet doctors turn a blind eye to this because of the money they can make doing circs.)

I would stick to the argument that no medical society in the world has found a benefit to circ sufficient to recommend it for all newborns. Whereas all medical societies recommend vaxes. So the two are apples and oranges.

[nd_deadhead]

Hi Kate! Welcome to the board!

"She said parents have to accept the responsibility of making medical decisions for their children that will affect them later, since the child is unable to."

Here is the key to your argument: circumcision is NOT a medical decision. Circumcision does NOT prevent disease; vaccinations DO prevent disease.

Medical organization all over the world strong recommend childhood vax; NO medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision.


As parents, we have a responsibility to make medical decisions for our children; we do NOT have the right to make permanent cosmetic decisions for them.

[mamacarla]

here - read this - it is an easy question answer format that should help prepare you for your next discussion

http://oknocirc.blogspot.com/

[Super Pickle]

Katydid,
Here is how I differentiate between the two:

Adults submit themselves to shots all the time. We do it because it's just a tiny bit painful and we figure the benefit is worth the risk.
We do not, on the other hand, submit ourselves to unanesthetized genital surgery. If adult men could choose for themselves, the rate would be extremely low.

Also, parents hold their babies while they get shots. We see it happen and we know how our babies react.
Parents rarely witness circumcision. They have no idea how it is performed or how their babies react. THat's because the medical profession knows it has something to hide.

[Fi.]

Put it this way:

Circumcision is cosmetic with no legitimate medical benefits.
Vaccinations are legitimate medical treatments.

If she pulls out the "circ has medical benefits" card, prove her wrong.