2011-01-24 National Post (Canada) - A painless, lifesaving surgery

[Mister.Barbecue]

She wrote a reply to my letter of complaint:
--------
Many people have written to me wishing to correct my mistakes. I will save you the trouble of talking to a middleman. Your quarrel is with the WHO, and so I believe you should send your findings to them, as their latest report is my primary source for the health issues around circumcision. Thanks anyway. I am not getting into a discussion, not because I have no respect for your views - I believe after the tsunami of mail I have recieved, all saying essentially the same things, that we will not change each others' minds. My bottom line is that you do not legislate against a practice that has never been proved to harm males in anything but statistically nugatory numbers. I am fine with pediatricians remaining neutral rather than advocating for it, but to legislate against something, you must consider it a criminal act. And there we will never ever agree, so there is no point.
- Barbara

p.s. there are sometimes complications and deaths from vaccinations and dental procedures, and no, I do not consider "even one death" a reason not to circumcise for the simple reason that uncircumcised boys also sometimes have infections and complications resulting in terrible consequences, so it is a saw-off. When you consider the lives saved according to the latest irrefutable research, I believe the "one death" argument is rather specious.

[Mincan]

And she cares not for the "rights-based rhetoric." Apparently people should not expect to keep their fully born body to the age of majority.

I wrote:
Proposition 1:
There are those that, if given the choice, would not circumcise themselves. (I.e. myself, posters in these comments, 140,000 restoring men in the US, etc)
Proposition 2:
Therefore, circumcision ought to be the choice of the person whose genitals are involved so their wishes are respected.
Proposition 3:
To secure this choice for the individual, it seems we need to stop parents making this decision for them, as they are reluctant to let this power go.
Conclusion:
Therefore, circumcision on minors below the age of consent ought to be illegal.

Since she doesn't possess the value of "individual rights" this argument would go over her head. I also posted this to her as an email requesting her response be in proper argument form, lo and behold:

"I'll give you a free tip. Headers like those invoke the "delete"
button amongst journalists before reading the body of the letter."

I replied:
I'll return the favour. People who dismiss the value of individual rights
are/will be seen as human filth.

And just WTF is WHO saying anyway to justify this opinion piece? Does WHO endorse RIC?

[admin]

Originally Posted by Mincan

Does W.H.O. endorse RIC?

Last I read, no.

They acknowledged adult voluntary circumcision as tool to fight AIDS in areas with rampact epidemics and poor condom use uptake.

Who knows what this Kay creature is reading.