AAP paper backs down, says circumcision has only "religious and not medical benefits" I wonder why they still do it? ($$$)

IDeliverToPMME_Users · 2017-09-09T17:08:53+00:00

$ is only part of the reason it's kept around.

Don't forget denial, the fear of backlash, the loss of credibility, the legal repercussions, the public image risk of opposing something that is defended by champions of victimhood....

Tedesche · 2017-09-10T02:03:46+00:00

The ethical standard used was “the best interest of the child,” and in this setting the well-informed parent was felt to be the best proxy to pass this judgment.

Apparently, the AAP believes that the "best interests of the child" are to have his body be subject to the cultural values of his parents.

JakeDC · 2017-09-09T21:52:17+00:00

WTF is a "religious benefit?" Why would the AAP be deciding what a "religious benefit" was?

How about something more reasonable, like "Circumcision has no medical benefits. It is merely a ritual in certain religions." ?

Yndrd1984 · 2017-09-09T22:00:04+00:00

This is still pretty terrible.

First, it's just one person's opinion, not a change of position by the AAP's task force that aligns it with the rest of the medical community.

In circumcision, what we have is a messy immeasurable choice that we leave to parents to process and decide for themselves rather than dictate to them. This may seem odd in a society in which circumcision is rarely sought, but makes perfect sense in the multicultural world in which many of us live.

Second, the horrific paragraph above. He seems to believe that freedom of religion implies a right to impose physical harm onto other people in order to force them to display one's religious symbols (but only in some cases, based on his personal biases, of course). I always want people like this to provide another example of this - where one person can force a permanent change on another person purely because of their culture.

To the anticircumcision activists, I would suggest that rather than directing an angry focus on the negative and the courts, your efforts would be better spent to educate and promote the prepuce positively, to win in the court of public opinion, and to change the culture, so as to make having a foreskin be the “popular thing to do.”

I know it sounds naïve, but my challenge to all of us is to imagine a day we can peacefully live in a world in which not all penises have to look the same.

Third are the above piles of drivel. I've never met an anti-circumcision activist that wanted "all penises to look the same", they want penises to look the way that the person who has the penis wants them to look. And of course making it the “popular thing to do” is good, but if the end goal is for people to have the right to control their own body we have to make it illegal.

daiinbrasil · 2017-09-10T00:43:19+00:00

Why is it that people who believe that god created man with a foreskin thinks that it is ok to remove a piece of what god created?

Title	AAP paper backs down, says circumcision has only "religious and not medical benefits" I wonder why they still do it? ($$$)
Author	PowerToAnnihilate
Upvotes	90
Comments	60
Date	September 9, 2017 3:34 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6z2bi2/aap_paper_backs_down_says_circumcision_has_only/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/aap-paper-backs-down-says-circumcision-has-only.914573 https://theredarchive.com/post/914573

Comments