On or off: the arguments over circumcision

While heading into work this morning, my partner had the radio tuned to 101.1FM and the presentors were talking about the topic for the “Can of Worms” episode this evening – “is it ok to circumcise your son?”

As part of the session, they had Guy Cox, Ph.D. on the show to talk about the health benefits of the procedure. The spiel he gave was interesting, not because of the information, but because he used nothing but the fallacious method of presenting the exceptions as the rule arguments as support.

Further, his arguments stem from an obvious case of bias confirmation as many of the citations he provided were from research that has shown to be flawed or otherwise since been disproven.

As far as I am concerned, , whether performed on a male or female, circumcision is mutilation. Period.

I never understood the religious view on it. If people are made in God’s own image, then was the foreskin a mistake? If it is made in the image of god, then wouldn’t cutting it off be succinct to sacrilage?

However, I’m not religious, so I believe it is an evolutionary adaptation. Evolution created the foreskin for a reason. A reason that exists in most mammals and one that is not yet a sign of vestigal use. Some have used the appendix as a analogy for this argument, but unlike the appendix, the foreskin has not shrunk to a shadow of its former glory, nor does it lie there dormant. Thus claiming it is useless is also fallacious.

I wish people would get better informed of the realities of circumcision rather than allow old religious arguments, a desire to not be wrong about past decisions or the allure of business dollars to affect their judgements. Get informed about what the foreskin is there for (http://skinfore.blogspot.com.au/?zx=a2b3a2a56c0dfe45) and how it affects those that have circumcisions done (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circu… before feeling free to wax lyrical and spread further disinformation and opinions.

If nothing else, you may be better informed and you can at least be hoinest with yourself about your decisions rather than seeking to support them with false proofs and rhetoric.

[Reposted from xntrek]

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “On or off: the arguments over circumcision”

  1. I believe God created the foreskin specifically so that could be removed so that the people could be identified as God’s special people.. that was their end of the commitment to Him… albeit a small part of it… Today… I think it’s a moot point. One does not have to become an Israelite first by circumcision, and then become a Christian by baptism… but maybe Hebrews still see the significance. That’s just my opinion…

    1. But … it seems this god asks a lot, does he not? Identify as my special people by mutilating just your men? So … Women are not special? In the meantime, that wasn’t enough – there are more and more things that are required to prove their commitment. I think there is a very big logic loop failure in that argument.

      1. Religious arguments often have failures in logic. As for women being special in early Jewish culture – they weren’t. They were property and therefore of no interest other than for the production of children and obedience to their menfolk. There’s really no good reason for circumcision in the modern world unless it’s for religious reasons and even then, it’s not a good reason but reasoning with the devout is like conversing with a goat. It might take up time, but it’s pointless in the long run.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s