Can't give you any specific references, but I've heard on more than one
occasion that the Amish do NOT practice infant male circumcision.
>While traveling through Amish country in PA last week I couldn't help
>but wonder if the Amish practice routine circumcision. Does anyone
>know?
Giving their aversion to modern living it would be highly unlikely they would
practise circumcision.
Well, Centrella, there is nothing new about circumcision. Modern?? Not
an appropriate word. Atavistic more like it. And no the Amish do-not
circumcise. They have changed their lives little if any since they came
to America. I think they came from Holland? (Not sure) Maybe Germany
--
Circumcision is not a debate, it is a battle for a boy
to remain genitally whole.
http://www.uvm.edu/~gdavis/nocircvt.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I was raised in Philadelphia and we would go to Lancaster quit often and they
are German,not Dutch.
It is Pennsylvania Deutch(German) Country ,not Dutch like most think.
I've wonder this myself.What about the Mennonites?
Don wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:48:57 +0000, The Scooter
> <thesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >While traveling through Amish country in PA last week I couldn't help
> >but wonder if the Amish practice routine circumcision. Does anyone
> >know?
>
> I once visited in Lancaster, PA. While there, I took my kids to
> the local swim pool. I was shocked to find that, without
> exception, every kid that was in the changing room, including the
> Amish kids, were circed. But that was circa 1970-75, so I have no
> idea what the situation is now.
Even if you had made the setting of your little "story" yesterday it would
still be worthless chatter, not that I even believe it at all.
You still haven't sent me your composition in which you comment on the
moral issues surrounding routine infant circumcision, , , still waiting
..... remember you called me a liar, let me see the proof of you
accusation.
You have no idea what the situation was then either. It is almost
impossible that Amish families circumcised even then. This is something
that even in seventies would have been a family choice at a time when
Amish men generally were NOT circumcised.
Don tells yet another Whooper.
coonie wrote:
> In article <37BDEEBA...@usa.net>,
> Dawson William <daw...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Don wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999 08:48:57 +0000, The Scooter
> > > <thesc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >While traveling through Amish country in PA last week I couldn't
> help
> > > >but wonder if the Amish practice routine circumcision. Does anyone
> > > >know?
> > >
> > > I once visited in Lancaster, PA. While there, I took my kids to
> > > the local swim pool. I was shocked to find that, without
> > > exception, every kid that was in the changing room, including the
> > > Amish kids, were circed. But that was circa 1970-75, so I have no
> > > idea what the situation is now.
>
> You have no idea what the situation was then either. It is almost
> impossible that Amish families circumcised even then. This is something
> that even in seventies would have been a family choice at a time when
> Amish men generally were NOT circumcised.
> Don tells yet another Whooper.
Yes it is almost pathetic, Don has lost all of his arguments to support
routine infant circumcision, the medical community has turned against it,
the legal authorities are describing it as assault, ethicists maintain that
it is a moral outrage, Don is left with nothing but little stories which he
concocts (in the style of Paul, teller of parables).
>the legal authorities are describing it as assault,
Care to name one country were the legal authorities i.e. attorney generals,
district attorney's have described circumcision as such? Care to name one MD or
mohel that has been arrested for performing a circumcision in any country?
Centure33 wrote:
Legal authorities are describing routine infant circumcision as assault, it fits
the legal definition of assault.
Margaret A. Somerville
Director
McGill Centre for Medicine,
Ethics and Law
3690 Peel Street
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1W9
January 28, 1993
The Honourable Pierre Blais
Minister of Justice
and Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Dear Minister,
I am in receipt of a letter of December 15, 1992, from the former
Minister of Justice, the Honourable A. Kim Campbell, regarding
infant circumcision, a matter on which we have been in correspondence.
With respect, this letter has not assisted me in finding a clear
justification for male infant circumcision---in fact, it raises
further difficulties. My comments in this letter are in response
to statements in the Honourable Kim Campbell's letter.
Whether or not an act which "technically" offends the Criminal Code
will be prosecuted under it, depends on whether, first, the act in
question falls within what we would regard as a social exception.
An act that is considered to be contrary to public policy cannot
be justified pursuant to its being regarded as a social exception
and any act that involves more than de minimis harm is likely to
offend public policy, unless it is otherwise justified, for instance,
a therapeutic aim is involved and there is informed consent. In
short, social exception and de minimis harm are linked concepts.
The statement in the Minister's letter that "deliberately hitting
someone is illegal but deliberately bumping into them on the bus
is not illegal" can be queried. Usually, deliberately bumping into
a person on the bus would prima facie be an assault (unintentionally
doing so is almost certainly within a social exception). But whether
or not such an assault would be prosecuted is a matter of whether
the harm involved is so de minimis that it does not merit prosecution,
which is often the case. Therefore, this example is not analogous
to infant circumcision (and does not indicate whether or not this
constitutes an offence, and if so, whether or not it should be
prosecuted), if the latter involves more than de minimis harm.
The Minister refers in her letter to my article in the McGill Law
Journal in which I suggest, in the conclusion, that some non-therapeutic
interventions on competent adult persons, which in practice are
not considered contrary to public policy (donations of organs for
transplantation or cosmetic surgery), despite their involving more
than de minimis harm, could be justified by regarding informed
consent and therapeutic aim as alternative rather than cumulative
justifications of them within the Criminal Code. Contrary to the
way in which the Minister may, from her letter, have interpreted
my proposal, this would mean that for those incompetent to consent
for themselves, which necessarily includes all infants, a
non-therapeutic intervention that involves more than de minimis
harm would not fall within any exception justifying it within the
Criminal Code. This, of course, is exactly the difficulty faced
with respect to justification of male circumcision. In the vast
majority of cases, this is not generally regarded as therapeutic,
except possibly at a very tenuous level. Indeed, opponents of male
circumcision regard it as the antithesis of therapy.
Further, with respect, I disagree that male circumcision involves
only de minimis harm, as the Minister indicates in her letter. An
analogous example may make this clear. let us suppose that there
is a new group in Canada which decides that, shortly after birth,
the right earlobe of all children born into the group will be
removed in order to identify them as belonging to that group. I
believe that this would be prohibited under our Criminal Code as
it currently stands. It would involve more than de minimis harm
and as such it would not fall within any social exception and would
be regarded as contrary to public policy. It would be an assault
with wounding which was not justified by any therapeutic aim, the
only justification which would seem to be potentially relevant.
And, yet, this procedure may well be less harmful to the children
subjected to it than is male circumcision to the children subjected
to that, which indicates that de minimis harm is not an appropriate
justification of male circumcision.
There is and needs to be a great deal of sympathy for the maintenance
of tradition and for freedom of religious belief (and clearly male
circumcision is very strongly connected with both of these concerns).
But we need to be very careful about our justification of it and,
concurrently, our condemnation of female circumcision (with which
condemnation I strongly agree), if we are not to run the risk of
acting in an inherently inconsistent manner and simply on the basis
that what we have always done is acceptable (because we have always
done this) and that customs and traditions which are strange to us
(but which may [be] no more harmful or less harmful than those we
accept) are unacceptable.
Over the years, because of my work in medicine, ethics and law, I
have been approached on numerous occasions about the issue of male
infant circumcision. I am finding it more and more difficult to
justify this. In particular, the allegation that it constitutes
child abuse needs to be taken very seriously, and I do not find it
easy to explain why this is not the case. Further, in this respect
we need to be aware of recent research that shows that pain caused
to infants (and this is true of all those unable to describe verbally
their pain) is grossly under-rated. Moreover, under the analysis
of the law which I propose in my article, and to which the Minister
refers in her letter, male circumcision would not be totally banned.
Rather circumcision of those persons unable to consent for themselves
(which would, of course, include all infants) would not be allowed
under the Criminal Code as it presently stands.
Yours sincerely,
(signed)
Margaret A. Somerville, AM, FRSC
Gale Professor of Law,
Professor
Faculty of Medicine;
Director
McGill Centre for Medicine,
Ethics and Law
Good One Dawson. At least the Canadian scholars are getting the point.
This of course indicates the obtusness of Don, Hagan.. et-al.
They have, at their own risk, categorically classified antis as lunies.
This, of course shows the shallowness of their intellectual ability to
evaluate or penetrate the essentials of the arguments!
The author seems to say the judgement of if RIC is therapeutic hinges
the issue. As we know, RIC is a social surgery without any across the
board medical or therapeutic qualification.
> You have no idea what the situation was then either.
No, and unlike so many of the pro4skin crowd--including you with
your prognostications, below--I didn't pretend to know what the
situation was then. I merely reported on a visit with my own kids
to the local swim pool in Lancaster, PA back in the 70s.
>It is almost impossible that Amish families circumcised even then.
What's more impossible is that you have the foggiest idea of what
the situation was--but that doesn't stop _you_ from
authoritatively stating what you don't have the foggiest idea of
as if you actually knew what you were talking about while at the
same time denying the reality of what actually took place simply
because it goes against your 4skin-centric viewpoint.
>This is something that even in seventies would have been a family
>choice
Duh!
>... at a time when Amish men generally were NOT circumcised.
How do you know? Did you do short-arm inspections amongst the
Amish, or read their autopsy reports?
> Don tells yet another Whooper.
Unfortunately for the sake of your self-proclaimed omniscience,
"Coonie," [Dawson, please note that "Coonie" is a pseudonym, not
that I care]--you are full of it.
Don
---------
Sorry for the inconvenience, but in an effort to eliminate spam,
I do not post my e-mail address in the header. To e-mail me,
reassemble the following into a normal e-mail address:
secular at earthling dot net
[please note that it is earthling, not earthlink]
--------
>Legal authorities are describing routine infant circumcision as assault, it fits
>the legal definition of assault.
>
>
> Margaret A. Somerville
> Director
> McGill Centre for Medicine,
> Ethics and Law
> 3690 Peel Street
> Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 1W9
> January 28, 1993
[snip]
Somerville is off base in stating with certainty what the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) or Canadian Pediatric
Society (CPS) meant by the term "routine." Rather than meaning
"non-therapeutic" (as she defines "routine"), It is just as
likely that the word "routine" was used by the AAP and the CPS to
mean "A prescribed, detailed course of action to be followed
regularly; a standard procedure." [Excerpted from The American
Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition ©
1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.]
In addition, Somerville's ideas of how circumcision is viewed by
Canadian law is not supported in the law in her country as it is
currently practiced. There were 78,665 circs recorded in Canada
in 1975 when the overall circ rate was 44.4%. There were 57450 in
1984 when the rate was 29.5%. Circ rates in Canada have fallen a
bit more since 1984; the point is that there are a number of
circumcisions being performed in Canada with nary a case of a
doctor having been successfully tried and found guilty of a crime
(so far as I know), thus making moot what Somerville says with
regard to neonatal circumcision being a crime under Canadian
Criminal Law.
Somerville is basically just another anticircumcision activist
with an unrealistic outlook of the way things are. She has
defined her terms to suit her argument. Having done so, her
argument gives the appearance of being quite logical, but the
fact is that it does not accord with the reality of Canadian law
as it is currently practiced.
-----------
[Previously posted by Wadi]
The word "routine" has no connection with the word "therapeutic".
"Medicine is justly distributed into "prophylactic," or the art
of preserving health, and therapeutic, or the art of restoring
it." (James Watt)
Does Somerville have a problem with prophylactic medicine or just
the removal of the foreskin?
As there are undeniable health benefits accruing through neonatal
circumcision (no matter how small you grudgingly may admit) it
constitutes prophylactic medicine.
To attack the ethics of relating to neonatal circumcision is to
question the ethics relating to all prophylactic medicine.
Perhaps this is another reason why some appear to be reticent to
discuss these issues in a wider context.
-----------
[from an earlier post of mine]
This wider context includes:
The AAP (1999) stated: "Parents and physicians each have an
ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child's best
interest and well-being."
The related human rights issue is: "the right of the child to
attain the highest attainable standard of health."
-----------
[From Grant Fisher]
The trouble with this approach is that you don't know for sure
whether she intends this interpretation, or simply failed to
foresee circumstances where "prophylaxis" might be acceptable.
It would be best to see clarification from the author on some
common questions of interpretation; this wouldn't be construed as
enumerating all of the unacceptable practices, but rather would
help reinforce what the policy truly did and did not cover.
-----------
[From D. C. & M. V. Sessions]
Sean Quinn wrote:
>One cannot and need not explicitly name all things which do NOT
>match the criteria of acceptability. One defines the criteria
>of what IS ethically acceptable, and it follows that that which
>does not meet the criteria is unacceptable. That is the way
>legal documents and position statements are interpreted.
Bull. This fails on two counts:
1) This is the Orwellian "anything that isn't required is
forbidden." In a free society, one does NOT define _a_priori_
all the acceptable actions of the citizenry and then define
anything else to be illegal.
>(Otherwise every legal document would have to explicitly state
>its position with regard to every possible act that is not
>legal or ethically sound under the terms of the law or ethical
>position, which is clearly both unnecessary and impossible.).
If it's impossible to explicitly state all of the potentially
Illegal acts, it's doubly so to list all of the possible LEGAL
ones. We have collectively chosen to accept the former as the
price of declining the latter.
2) This falls into the classical trap of contrived anticirc
arguments, where an exceedingly broad general ethic is posited
which patently fails in a number of obvious counterexamples, and
so one by one the individual exceptions are crafted to cover
them. Unsurprisingly, exceptions are available for everything
_except_ circumcision.
Citing Prof. Somerville is a patent appeal to authority, and just
as empty as any other appeal to authority (see your law prof and
raise you the chair of the APA -- why are we unsurprised that
nobody is impressed?) If she were explaining the reasoning of a
court which had ruled on a point of law her expertise might earn
her a hearing; if she were predicting the Court's decision in a
specific case she would be generally regarded as reckless; if she
pontificates on the law in a matter which is not before the Court
she is engaging in fantasy -- and in this case a particularly
wishful one. The proof is in the pudding: there are millions of
circumcisions in Canada every year. Let her bring a motion
before the Court to act as the guardian ad litem for one of these
boys and put it to the test.
-----------
[From John Pritchard]
There was a case in this city a year or so ago in which a
pregnant young lady was jailed, imprisoned, incarcerated, or
whatever one wants to call it, by the Children's Aid because the
young lady was said to use 'sniff' and alcohol, both of which
could harm the fetus.
It caused quite a little stir. Interviewed on the radio as
something of an expert ethicist, Prof. Somerville was, to the
best of my recollection, strongly in favor of such detention and
of the right of Children's Aid to do so whenever it sees fit. In
this case and in that regarding circumcision, Prof. Somerville
seems to see a strong role for the state. The suggested cure, I
think, is worse than the disease.
The story had a happy ending. The young lady mended her ways and
gave birth to a happy healthy baby. The Supreme Court of Canada
ruled against involuntary detention in such cases.
In a completely unrelated case, currently ongoing, efforts are
being made on behalf of a permanently disabled five-year-old boy
to sue his mother for negligence. His condition resulted from
being born prematurely at 27 weeks as a result of a car accident
which occurred while his mother was driving. The matter is now
before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is reported that women's
rights advocates are nervous. Small wonder. I am a male two
thousand miles away and so am I. Orwell may be closer than we
think.
Are circumcision, careless driving, vaccination, drugs, alcohol
(does that include an occasional glass of wine with dinner?),
smoking, poor diet, etc. to be reasons for a later law suit?
Makes one wonder why any young woman would be foolish enough to
want to get pregnant in the first place. If she unexpectedly
finds herself in that unfortunate position, she should
immediately apply for all-purpose life-time liability insurance.
-----------
[From Chris Biow]
I presume that the actual URL to which you refer is
http://www.infocirc.org/wound.htm This contains a rather strained
argument, published in the McGill_Law_Journal, concerning
circumcision under Canadian law. Given the continued prevalence
of circumcision in Canada, I'll observe that the author's views
do not reflect de_facto court or government interpretation of
Canadian law. Law journals such as this commonly publish
speculative arguments for unusual legal interpretations, but this
publication carries no particular authority.
The only specific reference in this article to medical ethics is
footnote 30, concerning how personal ethical belief would allow a
doctor "to refuse to perform a particular medical procedure."
I find no reference to evidence of an "ethical mandate that
doctors have to preserve the integrity of the human body, unless
there is absolutely no other resort." If you know of one, please
quote the specific text. I am still referring specifically to
your claim.
-----------
> Good One Dawson. At least the Canadian scholars
>are getting the point.
Somerville is one "scholar," not two or more "scholars," is she
not?
>This of course indicates the obtusness of Don, Hagan.. et-al.
Her treatise indicates a lot more about her inability to see
things in realistic terms than it does about anyone else.
>They have, at their own risk, categorically classified antis as lunies.
Not so. I only categorize a few of the "antis as lunies." If you
want names: Zardoz, Dawson William (and Mrs. Dawson William),
Coonie, George Hill, "Dave Allen," and a few others. I certainly
don't think that Jon Meinecke or Sean "Quinn" and a few others
are "lunies". Most of the rest are somewhere in between.
>This, of course shows the shallowness of their intellectual ability to
>evaluate or penetrate the essentials of the arguments!
Considering that you and Dullson haven't offered _any_ analysis
of Somerville's arguments, your statement is about as ludicrous
as they come.
>The author seems to say the judgement of if RIC is therapeutic hinges
>the issue.
What she "seems to say" is irrelevant considering that there is
very little about her treatise that accords with Canadian law as
it is currently practiced.
>As we know, RIC is a social surgery without any across the
>board medical or therapeutic qualification.
... the "we" being the 4skin-centric anticircumcision True
Believer fanatics.
Don wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:54:38 GMT, coonie <coon...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > You have no idea what the situation was then either.
>
> No, and unlike so many of the pro4skin crowd--including you with
> your prognostications, below--I didn't pretend to know what the
> situation was then. I merely reported on a visit with my own kids
> to the local swim pool in Lancaster, PA back in the 70s.
>
> >It is almost impossible that Amish families circumcised even then.
>
> What's more impossible is that you have the foggiest idea of what
> the situation was--but that doesn't stop _you_ from
> authoritatively stating what you don't have the foggiest idea of
> as if you actually knew what you were talking about while at the
> same time denying the reality of what actually took place simply
> because it goes against your 4skin-centric viewpoint.
The reality of what took place? Come on Don even you have to admit that
nothing took place except for you claiming to have sneaked a peek at
little boys and then determining from that the circumcision rate among a
group of people of which you know nothing, for all you know it could
have been a group of boys from a jewish summer camp.
Of course that won't stop you from putting your own circumfetish
viewpoint on it, you said "I didn't pretend to know what the
situation was then. I merely reported on a visit with my own kids
to the local swim pool in Lancaster, PA" and then in the next paragraph
you said "while at the
same time denying the reality of what actually took place", which is it
Don, a report on your observations during a visit or the "reality" of
the situation.
Don steps in some yet again.
Don isn't a doctor or a researcher, but he plays one on internet.
Don wrote:
No not moot at all, she is a renowned expert in her fields and is reflecting the
changing opinion of legal and medical authorities to routine infant circumcision, by
the way I would trust her definition of routine to be slightly more accurate than
your biased circumcision friendly definition.
> Somerville is basically just another anticircumcision activist
> with an unrealistic outlook of the way things are.
Wow you categorise anyone who goes against circumcision as an activist, she entered
into this subject with reluctance because she could not reconcile the word of the law
and her training in ethics with regards to routine infant circumcision, how does that
make her an activist.
> She has
> defined her terms to suit her argument. Having done so, her
> argument gives the appearance of being quite logical, but the
> fact is that it does not accord with the reality of Canadian law
> as it is currently practiced.
She is an authority with matters legal, her assessment of the legality of routine
infant circumcision as it applies to the letter of the law is accurate. Other legal
authorities have come to the same conclusions as her. You claim that she has defined
her terms in an inaccurate way, care to give examples so we can see the validity of
your accusation.
> Does Somerville have a problem with prophylactic medicine or just
> the removal of the foreskin?
Why don't you call her and ask, there is enough information in the letter to allow
you to easily contact her.
> As there are undeniable health benefits accruing through neonatal
> circumcision (no matter how small you grudgingly may admit) it
> constitutes prophylactic medicine.
It is a huge leap to take potential, minor benefits and parlay them into an argument
for considering a surgery to be prophylactic, as you probably already know the
benefits MUST outweigh the risks, and as you yourself have so often pointed out, in
the case of routine infant circumcision, they do not, don't feel badly the medical
community agrees with you, the potential benefits of routine infant circumcision in
their opinion do not outweigh the risks and so they refuse to recommend routine
infant circumcision.
> To attack the ethics of relating to neonatal circumcision is to
> question the ethics relating to all prophylactic medicine.
> Perhaps this is another reason why some appear to be reticent to
> discuss these issues in a wider context.
Not true, not at all, for circumcision to be considered prophylactic it would have to
demonstrate benefits beyound risks which in one hundred years of human
experimentation it has failed to do.
Your presumption could equally apply to any amputation ie amputation of the arms
totally eliminates cancer of the finger. In order for a surgical procedure to be
considered worthwhile it must first demonstrate that it causes less harm than the
alternatives, this is just not the case for circumcision.
Your insistence on packaging a whole bunch of other surgical and medical procedure in
the same category as circumcision is reall inappropriate, such associations are not
necessary nor applied to other procedures.
> [from an earlier post of mine]
>
> This wider context includes:
>
> The AAP (1999) stated: "Parents and physicians each have an
> ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child's best
> interest and well-being."
>
> The related human rights issue is: "the right of the child to
> attain the highest attainable standard of health."
And obviousy routine infant circumcision, in not providing benefits beyound risks
does not fit into the category of surgical procedures which help us to attain the
highest standary of health for our children.
> The trouble with this approach is that you don't know for sure
> whether she intends this interpretation, or simply failed to
> foresee circumstances where "prophylaxis" might be acceptable.
Did you read her credentials, I don't think she has staked her reputation without due
consideration of all the factors.
> It would be best to see clarification from the author on some
> common questions of interpretation; this wouldn't be construed as
> enumerating all of the unacceptable practices, but rather would
> help reinforce what the policy truly did and did not cover.
What is it that you are having trouble to understand, I think she made it abundantly
clear, perhaps it is not what you wanted to hear but it is what she wrote.
Don wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 14:09:45 GMT, coonie <coon...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Good One Dawson. At least the Canadian scholars
> >are getting the point.
>
> Somerville is one "scholar," not two or more "scholars," is she
> not?
Don wants me to get more, so I will.
> >This of course indicates the obtusness of Don, Hagan.. et-al.
>
> Her treatise indicates a lot more about her inability to see
> things in realistic terms than it does about anyone else.
In other words she doesn't agree with Don. Don is not a lawyer, ethicist,
doctor or health care professional and yet he routinely denounces all
professional opinions which oppose routine infant circumcision while
accepting at face value all arguments supporting routine infant
circumcision.
> >They have, at their own risk, categorically classified antis as lunies.
>
> Not so. I only categorize a few of the "antis as lunies." If you
> want names: Zardoz, Dawson William (and Mrs. Dawson William),
> Coonie, George Hill, "Dave Allen," and a few others. I certainly
> don't think that Jon Meinecke or Sean "Quinn" and a few others
> are "lunies". Most of the rest are somewhere in between.
This is Don's medical opinion, never mind that Don is not qualified in any
way to give a medical opinion.
> >This, of course shows the shallowness of their intellectual ability to
> >evaluate or penetrate the essentials of the arguments!
>
> Considering that you and Dullson haven't offered _any_ analysis
> of Somerville's arguments, your statement is about as ludicrous
> as they come.
I do offer an analysis of her statement, here it is, I AGREE WITH HER.
> >The author seems to say the judgement of if RIC is therapeutic hinges
> >the issue.
>
> What she "seems to say" is irrelevant considering that there is
> very little about her treatise that accords with Canadian law as
> it is currently practiced.
She is an authority on law and ethics and as such is risking her
considerable reputation on what she has said. Her evaluation of Canadian law
bears quite a bit more consideration than your lay person analysis.
> >As we know, RIC is a social surgery without any across the
> >board medical or therapeutic qualification.
>
> ... the "we" being the 4skin-centric anticircumcision True
> Believer fanatics.
You know full well that there isn't a single medical organisation which
recommends routine infant circumcision, I submit that the "we" referred to
is comprised of far more than a small group of crusaders for the respect of
human rights.
Aren't most Amish born at home with the assistance of a midwife?
[snip]
>Don isn't a doctor or a researcher, but he plays one on internet.
Dawson isn't a doctor, or a researcher, or a psychic -- or even
mentally competent -- but he/she (there are two Dawsons) pretends
to be all of these on the Internet. And although it is important
for him/her to deny any reality that goes against his/her
preconceived pro4skin bias, the fact is that even I thought it
quite surprising that the Amish kids we saw when I took my kids
to the pool in Lancaster PA back in the 70s were circumcised.
(And if they weren't Amish but were instead Jewish -- as Dawson's
vivid imagination must have it -- then they must have been
wearing their halloween costumes in mid summer before they
changed into their swim suits.)
[ Quoting some earlier material ]
I replied to Sessions' remarks as follows. No follow-up from him/her.
<quote>
A good general principle, but not really relevant to my meaning in this
case. As a commentary on the meaning of legal documents which deal
explicitly with *exceptions to a general rule* you could not be more
badly mistaken. The criteria for exceptions are well defined. If an
action or event does not meet the criteria required for it to be
considered an exception: stiff cheese, old boy. Whether you agree with
Somerville or not is another matter.
Somerville is delineating the circumstances under which a specific
action (surgery without consent) may be performed. The fact that this
position of "What is not required is forbidden" is an appropriate
target for satire in some instances in no way suggests that it is
inappropriate in all circumstances. Consider the power of the police to
shoot a citizen. "What is not required is forbidden" is entirely
appropriate to this specific domain.
</quote>
--
Sean Quinn.
>You claim that she has defined
>her terms in an inaccurate way, care to give examples so we can see the
>validity of
>your accusation.
OK, she claims circumcision of the neonate is a crime in Canada. If what she
claims were reality instead of a fertile intactivist imagination their would be
tens of thousands of arrests in Canada of both parent's and medical doctors
that perform circumcisions. And of Canadian parent's that consent to
circumcision.
Giving the fact of the matter Canadian MD's still perform circumcision on
infants. And that Canadian parent's still request and consent to circumcision.
With the result of no MD or parent ever being arrested for these actions the
only conclusion is circumcision is legal.
Don wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:12:57 -0400, Dawson William
> <daw...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes it is almost pathetic,
>
> No, you are wrong, it isn't that you are _almost_ pathetic, you
> _are_ pathetic. Both you and Coonie pretend to read my mind when
> the fact is that you are just engaging in mental masturbation.
I wouldn't even want to read your mind, what you think is really of very
little consequence.
> >Don has lost all of his arguments to support routine infant
> >circumcision,
>
> Don't you wish. If you and your 4skin-centric buddies here ever
> came up with anything other than ad hominem to support _your_
> 4skin-centric point of view, you would find that I have plenty of
> arguments to support infant circumcision (not that I care whether
> parents do or don't circ to anywhere near the extent that _you_
> do.
And this from the KING of ad hominem, I would take it seriously if you
hadn't prostituted your believes so often just to gain a point, at least
I state clearly what side of the fence I am on and take the consequences
like a man, I don't try to hide among the ranks of those with whom I do
not agree just to wreak havoc from within, hypocrite.
> >the medical community has turned against it,
>
> Only in the minds of the 4skin-centric. In actuality, the
> politically correct, official statements of organizations such as
> the CPS and the AAP are quite neutral.
Very far from neutral indeed, they agreed that routine infant
circumcision is not to be recommended, do try to keep your comments
accurate.
> >the legal authorities are describing it as assault,
>
> The legal "authorities"--yeah, right. What you mean is that a few
> of the darlings of the 4skin-centric crowd (Sommerville, George
> Hill, etc.) describe it that way; they describe it that way even
> though what they say doesn't accord with the reality of the way
> that the courts actually look at it.
You don't even know Somerville, the first you ever heard of Somerville
is when I posted the letter that Somerville wrote and yet that hasn't
prevented you from ASSuming that Somerville is an activist and trying to
besmirch her legal and ethical opinions by labelling her as such,
pathetic hypocrit, when you have half the credentials that Somerville
has, then I will take your opinions seriously.
> >ethicists maintain that it is a moral outrage,
>
> "Ethicists,"--yeah, right. Some ethicists do, some don't. Like
> any other hotly debated issue, ethicists vary on this one.
And of course the ones that "vary" in favour of your position (routine
infant circumcision), are scholarly and probably right, while the ones
that "vary" in favour of banning routine infant circumcision are
activists.
> >Don is left with nothing but little stories which he
> >concocts (in the style of Paul, teller of parables).
>
> Don't you wish that were the case. Unfortunately for the sake of
> your prosmegma campaign,
Prosmegma, gee Don, I thought that you were supposed to be the voice of
reason, you sound more like a lunatic on a rave campaign to me, aren't
you afraid that you will hurt your own cause with this type of posting.
> I offer my anecdotes in the same way
> that others do.
By this he means Paul, another one who attempts to influence people to
his point of view by offering little parables in which miraculously the
foreskin always get maligned, strange that wherever these two go and
whoever they meet, circumcision is always mentionned and someone always
ends up with their pants down.
> The difference between us, however, is that I
> realize that anecdotes don't prove anything one way or the other.
Then keep them to yourself unless you want the rest of us to start using
the same lame and unimaginative tactic.
> Still, I wouldn't be so juvenile as to deny every anecdote that
> goes against my point of view
And yet that is exactly what you have consistently done, isn't it.
> like you, the seven year-old
> infant,
Oh for God sake get over it, a child of seven can be considered an
infant, it says so in very many dictionnaries, only when used to
describe medical procedures does the definition sometimes become limited
to immediately after birth and even then I have heard infant used to
describe children very often in my hospital.
Don you go on so much, how come you don't go on about your denial of the
fact that the skin is indeed an organ of the body and in fact the
largest organ of the body, I proved you WRONG on this point but to this
day you have never been man enough to admit that I was right, so Don
take your lumps and I will gladly take mine, until then zip it.
> and "Coonie"-the-pseudononymous does.
>
> It's you two who are _really_ pathetic, having to deny anything
> and everything that upsets your personal realities.
Now I'm shattered, how will I go on, by the way Don when are you going
to send me your composition in which you explain your position about the
moral issues surrounding RIC, got something to hide!
Don wrote:
Well what he wrote amounts to a personal attack against me, including
lies about me, but that is to be expected since he has no really
pertinent comment to make about the points I made, too bad really, I
expected him to at least try to defend his points.
By the way there is only one person posting under my name, me. A long
time ago my wife posted under my name, I admitted that and apologised
for it (I feel people should know who they are talking to, hence the
apology), and have since moved on, Don also had someone in his household
post under his name (he said so himself), I am therefore totally baffled
as to why he would continue to belabour this point given that the very
same happened to him, what gives?
Centure33 wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Amish Circumcise?
> >From: Dawson William daw...@usa.net
> >Date: Sat, 21 August 1999 01:08 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <37BEDD25...@usa.net>
>
> >You claim that she has defined
> >her terms in an inaccurate way, care to give examples so we can see the
> >validity of
> >your accusation.
>
> OK, she claims circumcision of the neonate is a crime in Canada. If what she
> claims were reality instead of a fertile intactivist imagination their would be
> tens of thousands of arrests in Canada of both parent's and medical doctors
> that perform circumcisions. And of Canadian parent's that consent to
> circumcision.
>
> Giving the fact of the matter Canadian MD's still perform circumcision on
> infants. And that Canadian parent's still request and consent to circumcision.
> With the result of no MD or parent ever being arrested for these actions the
> only conclusion is circumcision is legal.
You seem to have missed the point, routine infant circumcision fits the legal
definition of aggravated assault, routine infant circumcision has just recently
lost the veil of medical indication which it hid behind for many decades. The way
is now clear for the first time to see people prosecuted for circumcision. It will
happen it is just a matter of time.
The legal opinion that I posted is just one, there are many other legal authorities
who are beginnig to understand the true nature of circumcision, with this
understanding will come outrage and prosecutions, it is inevitable, it became
inevitable the day that the leading North American health organizations withdrew
their approval from routine infant circumcision.
The wheels of justice do not turn quickly, but turn they do, and once they begin to
turn routine infant circumcision will disappear overnight.
No Dimbo.. she is speaking philosophically and using legal reasoning.
There are no specific laws against RIC in Canada, but the RIC rate is
very low these day. I always said the cold climate made Canadians
smarter.
--
Circumcision is not a debate, it is a battle for a boy
to remain genitally whole.
http://www.uvm.edu/~gdavis/nocircvt.htm
> No Dimbo.. she is speaking philosophically and using legal reasoning.
Really than it is not illegal in Canada.
>There are no specific laws against RIC in Canada, but the RIC rate is
>very low these day.
Any proof of this low circumcision rate? And what exactly does low rates have
to do with crimes such as battery and assault? She claims that RIC is currently
illegal under Canadian law that it is battery and assault. Giving that no
Canadian parent nor MD was ever arrested for either performing or consenting to
circumcision. Leads to the conclusion your judgment as well as Ms. Somerville's
is severely impaired. In that you cannot differentiate fact from anti-circ
bullshit.
>> Only in the minds of the 4skin-centric. In actuality, the
>> politically correct, official statements of organizations such as
>> the CPS and the AAP are quite neutral.
>
>Very far from neutral indeed, they agreed that routine infant
>circumcision is not to be recommended, do try to keep your comments
>accurate.
Dawson: I'm trying to be nice. You should give it a try. You seem
so angry most of the time.
The AAP says:
--
"To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should
be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the
opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for
parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic
traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this
decision."
The AUA says:
--
"When circumcision is being discussed with parents and informed
consent obtained, medical benefits and risks, and ethnic,
cultural, religious and individual preferences should be
considered."
The CPS says:
--
"When parents are making a decision about circumcision, they
should be advised of the present state of medical knowledge about
its benefits and harms. Their decision may ultimately be based on
personal, religious or cultural factors."
>> >the legal authorities are describing it as assault,
>>
>> The legal "authorities"--yeah, right. What you mean is that a few
>> of the darlings of the 4skin-centric crowd (Sommerville, George
>> Hill, etc.) describe it that way; they describe it that way even
>> though what they say doesn't accord with the reality of the way
>> that the courts actually look at it.
>
>You don't even know Somerville,
I likely know her as well as you do.
>the first you ever heard of Somerville
Do you honestly think that you can state with certainty when I
first heard of Somerville?
>is when I posted the letter that Somerville wrote
I had heard of Somerville long before you came on the scene. Her
letters stating her opinions about the legality (or illegality)
of circumcision, both male and female, date from the 1980s and
early 1990s. I had heard of her before I had ever heard of you.
>and yet that hasn't prevented you from ASSuming that Somerville is
>an activist
It isn't an assumption. She is an activist, albeit one with some
credentials. She has been active on the circ issue since the
1980s. She took part in a NOCIRC Symposium. That's how I know
(rather than assume) that she is an activist.
>and trying to besmirch her legal and ethical opinions by
>labelling her as such, pathetic hypocrit,
Why does the truth bother you so much?
>when you have half the credentials that Somerville
>has, then I will take your opinions seriously.
If I had half the credentials Somerville had, I wouldn't likely
be spending my time concerned with a matter so trivial as the
alleged illegality of male circumcision performed by doctors when
it is obvious that what I said isn't reflected in the law as it
is practiced by the courts.
>> >ethicists maintain that it is a moral outrage,
>>
>> "Ethicists,"--yeah, right. Some ethicists do, some don't. Like
>> any other hotly debated issue, ethicists vary on this one.
>
>And of course the ones that "vary" in favour of your position (routine
>infant circumcision), are scholarly and probably right, while the ones
>that "vary" in favour of banning routine infant circumcision are
>activists.
I neither favor routine infant circumcision or no routine infant
circumcision, thus yours is a straw man accusation. It is simply
not applicable.
>> >Don is left with nothing but little stories which he
>> >concocts (in the style of Paul, teller of parables).
>>
>> Don't you wish that were the case. Unfortunately for the sake of
>> your prosmegma campaign,
>
>Prosmegma, gee Don, I thought that you were supposed to be the voice of
>reason,
It takes a lot more than reason with some people. I have tried,
and given up, and tried again, and given up again--many
times--using reason with you. I wish that it did work with you,
but it doesn't seem to work any better with you than it did with
Zardoz.
>you sound more like a lunatic on a rave campaign to me, aren't
>you afraid that you will hurt your own cause with this type of posting.
I don't have a cause to hurt, but you do, and you are doing a
good job of it.
>> I offer my anecdotes in the same way
>> that others do.
>
>By this he means Paul,
Apparently you still think that you are omniscient.
No, I don't mean Paul. I mean Paul, Coonie, Nick, George,
Geoffrey, Dawson, you name it. See if you can adjust your reality
to the actuality of what I do think instead of relying so heavily
on your fertile imagination.
>another one who attempts to influence people to
>his point of view by offering little parables in which miraculously the
>foreskin always get maligned, strange that wherever these two go and
>whoever they meet, circumcision is always mentionned and someone always
>ends up with their pants down.
I have only been surprised on two different occasions in my
entire life by seeing circumcised individuals in places that I
didn't expect to. One was in Lancaster, PA in the 70s when I took
my own kids swimming and the other was on my recent trip to
Argentina when a four year-old dropped his pants to take a leak
pretty much in front of everyone who was in the vicinity (about
half a bus load of tourists). But like I said, my experience
proves nothing. But the reaction of you anticirc True Believers
who have to deny the reality of my experience says a lot about
your thinking processes.
>> The difference between us, however, is that I
>> realize that anecdotes don't prove anything one way or the other.
>
>Then keep them to yourself unless you want the rest of us to start using
>the same lame and unimaginative tactic.
The "rest of us" always did tell their anecdotes, and that
includes you. If you don't like it, then don't use them yourself.
Myself, I will use them whenever I see fit. If it is comforting
to you and the others, then by all means deny that what I
experienced.
>> Still, I wouldn't be so juvenile as to deny every anecdote that
>> goes against my point of view
>
>And yet that is exactly what you have consistently done, isn't it.
Generally speaking, I don't deny anecdotes at all, the reason
being that there are anecdotes on either side of almost any
issue. So no, you are, once again, simply wrong.
>> like you, the seven year-old
>> infant,
>
>Oh for God sake get over it, a child of seven can be considered an
>infant, it says so in very many dictionnaries, only when used to
>describe medical procedures does the definition sometimes become limited
>to immediately after birth and even then I have heard infant used to
>describe children very often in my hospital.
"Oh for God sake," whether a child of seven can or cannot be
considered an infant, a child of seven cannot undergo "routine
infant circumcision. You are the one who needs to "get over it"
and be honest enough to admit your error, as I did when I was
wrong about the skin-is-an-organ thing.
>Don you go on so much, how come you don't go on about your denial of the
>fact that the skin is indeed an organ of the body and in fact the
>largest organ of the body, I proved you WRONG on this point but to this
>day you have never been man enough to admit that I was right, so Don
>take your lumps and I will gladly take mine, until then zip it.
When I make a mistake and realize it, I am the first to admit it,
as I did with the skin-is-an-organ thing. You also used to admit
your errors; now you seem to think like George Hill does that you
are infallible.
>> and "Coonie"-the-pseudononymous does.
>>
>> It's you two who are _really_ pathetic, having to deny anything
>> and everything that upsets your personal realities.
>
>Now I'm shattered, how will I go on, by the way Don when are you going
>to send me your composition in which you explain your position about the
>moral issues surrounding RIC, got something to hide!
I am probably not ever going to send it to you ever, at least not
knowingly and not with you in your present state of hostility.
By the way, the majority of readers who read my article and who
get back to me with feedback say that they appreciate my balance
and that they have decided _not_ to circumcise. Just today, for
example, I got a similar e-mail (I say "similar" because we had
already exchanged a couple of e-mails as the result of a
discussion in another newsgroup before he asked me for my
article) from a guy in England who said that were he not already
anticirc, my article would have been the deciding factor against
circ because of my presentation on circ complications.
Interestingly, he also said that he thought my article was subtly
anticirc. [He gave me permission to post his letter and his
e-mail address, if you are interested.]
And therein lies the kicker. If it weren't for the constant
hyperbole put out by the anticirc contingent in the newsgroups,
if it weren't for the antagonism expressed by so many anticircers
towards anything and anyone who holds a slightly different
opinion, I wouldn't even be involved in these newsgroup
discussions inasmuch as I have no problem with people presenting
honest information and opinion from both sides of the issue. If
it weren't for the anticirc hype which appears on the various
anticirc web sites as well as the procirc hype which appears on
the procirc web sites, I wouldn't have bothered to put together
the pro and con article to begin with. And you can rant and
demean all you wish, but I have yet to see you or any or anyone
else here other than myself make the effort to put out anything
in the way of accurate, unbiased, straightforward, honest
information--the kind of information which the various medical
societies say parents need in order to make an informed decision.
Don
Denture33 wrote:
>
> Giving their aversion to modern living it would be highly unlikely they would
> practise circumcision.
Actually, practicing circumcision is ancient and barbaric.
But, to Denture, cutting off a part of the body with a piece of obsidian is quite
advanced surgery.
Yes, when he does his body counts he uses an abacus. He'd use his
fingers put he can't count that high.
The High Court of the State of New York, in an official opinion, recoginized
circumcision as an assault, and furthermore it found that the child has a
right to recover damages.
Kalina vs General Hospital of the City of Syracuse (100 NYS2d
226, 18 A.D.2d 757 (1962))
This opinion has never been reversed or overruled.
I think we need debate this no further.
George
> The High Court of the State of New York, in an official opinion, recoginized
> circumcision as an assault, and furthermore it found that the child has a
> right to recover damages.
>
> Kalina vs General Hospital of the City of Syracuse (100 NYS2d
> 226, 18 A.D.2d 757 (1962))
>
>
> This opinion has never been reversed or overruled.
>
> I think we need debate this no further.
I think we need to know who was pressing charges (the parents or the owner
of the penis involved), and why the hospital was found culpable in this
paricular unprecedented (and unrepeated) legal instance. We need to know
the specifics of the case. The facts would probably reveal a screw-up
somewhere (like a circ accidentally being performed because of a paperwork
screw-up).I mean, ONE adverse judgment vs. how many TENS UPON TENS OF
MILLIONS of uncontested neonatal circs? Hey, this kind of legal action is
what money-mongering "personal injury" lawyers are all about. If there was
a "market" for profitable neonatal circ litigation, I'm betting that these
bloodsuckers would have been all over it ages ago.
George Hill wrote:
> Don <see.a...@below.org> wrote in message
> news:37d29a80...@news.alt.net...
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 21:53:38 -0400, Dawson William
> > <daw...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> >the legal authorities are describing it as assault,
> > >>
> > >> The legal "authorities"--yeah, right. What you mean is that a few
> > >> of the darlings of the 4skin-centric crowd (Sommerville, George
> > >> Hill, etc.) describe it that way; they describe it that way even
> > >> though what they say doesn't accord with the reality of the way
> > >> that the courts actually look at it.
>
> The High Court of the State of New York, in an official opinion, recoginized
> circumcision as an assault, and furthermore it found that the child has a
> right to recover damages.
>
> Kalina vs General Hospital of the City of Syracuse (100 NYS2d
> 226, 18 A.D.2d 757 (1962))
>
> This opinion has never been reversed or overruled.
>
> I think we need debate this no further.
>
> George
Thank you George, but I suppose Don will now accuse the court of being filled
with activists.
After a post at the beginning of the summer suggesting that Don would
be backing off a bit, he posts just as much as ever... maybe more.
Amazing person, he. Just cannot let go. Hundreds of posts per week
on every thread and, as always, nothing interesting to say.
Once again, lies abound.
Thanks for keeping me laughing, Don.
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:35:41 GMT, see.a...@below.org (Don) wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:24:48 -0400, Dawson William
><daw...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>>Thank you George, but I suppose Don will now accuse the court of being filled
>>with activists.
>
>No, he already accused George of trying to pull a fast one in not
>revealing the rest of the story. (Which only goes to show that
>your mind-reading abilities are not.)
>
>Don
>
>---------
>Sorry for the inconvenience, but in an effort to eliminate spam,
>I do not post my e-mail address in the header. To e-mail me,
>reassemble the following into a normal e-mail address:
>secular at earthling dot net
>[please note that it is earthling, not earthlink]
>--------
{}{}{} Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com {}{}{}
{}{}{}{} Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source {}{}{}{}
{}{}{}{}{} Five News Servers with a BINARIES ONLY Server {}{}{}{}{}