Strange logic... - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2011, 08:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
japonica's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Canada-->Australia
Posts: 969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)

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:

 

 

 

Quote:
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?

 

 


Mother to DD#1  s/b @40w 2003 for unknown reasons; DD#2   nearly 10 years old; DS  6.5 years old 
  Why are daughters protected but not sons?
 
 
 
  
japonica is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-05-2011, 11:11 PM
 
ElliesMomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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?


ElliesMomma is offline  
Old 08-07-2011, 07:02 AM
 
Greg B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Dover, DE, US
Posts: 741
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

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

Greg B is offline  
Old 08-07-2011, 09:12 AM
 
Dan Bollinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

Dan Bollinger is offline  
Old 08-20-2011, 07:20 AM
 
MoonJelly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Eastwatch by the Sea
Posts: 1,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!

{Partner to DH  and Former WOHM, now SAHM  to DD, DD , and DS } *** ***
MoonJelly is offline  
Old 08-20-2011, 04:55 PM
 
mare54's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 112
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by japonica View Post

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?

 

mare54 is offline  
Old 08-23-2011, 07:07 PM
 
BananaBreadGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

:) That is a good comparison to me!
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonJelly View Post

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!


 


I have one wonderful husband and one wonderful little toddler boy!
BananaBreadGirl is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off