CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Ad Novitam

Well, it's been a while since I thought about starting this series on logical fallacies used to defend and promote the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals, and I thought it was time to add another installation to it. The last time I wrote on this series, I talked about the appeal to age and tradition, otherwise known as "ad antiquitam." This time, I'll be talking about its polar opposite, "ad novitam." These are ironically often used in conjunction with each other, the latter often used as a fallback to the former.

AKA: "Because It's New"
If "ad antiquitam" is appeal to age, culture and old tradition, "ad novitam" appeals to novelty and modernity. While "ad antiquitam" capitalizes on the security of the traditional, "ad novitam" appeals to the sense of wanting to be "fashionable," "progressive" and "up-to-date." These fallacies share a common trait in that people try to use them to support claims that should stand or fall on their own merits; both of them introduce the irrelevant fact of age as a means of influencing acceptance. It is a mistake to think that the newness of something is a factor contributing to its soundness.

Keeping It "New"

Male circumcision is no "new" and "innovative" discovery. In fact, historical records trace it back some 6,000 years. So circumcision advocates have a careful balancing act to perform; they have to convince their audience that circumcision is both this "ancient tradition that has been practiced for thousands of years," and, at the same time, that it is this "innovative technology that is going to save lives."

Although male circumcision has been practiced for millennia (as has female circumcision), "research" in attempt to medicalize it began relatively recently. The quest to make circumcision relevant to modern medicine has been going on for over 170 years, and it continues to this day.

In the latest attempt to repackage male circumcision as prophylaxis, male circumcision proponents have called it a "game changer." A "paradigm shift." To quote Ronald Gray, the head author of one of the three "trials" being used to promote male circumcision in Africa and the United States alike:

"We've never used surgery to prevent an infectious disease. It's a completely new concept, a new paradigm."

(Really, doc?)

One can read about a whole list of "brand new circumcision devices" that will "revolutionize" the world. (See PrePex and AccuCirc) One doctor markets his "technique" as "new" and "innovative." Actually, it's nothing more than the Mogen (invented in 1954) clamp glorified.

In short, circumcision advocates have found refuge in "ad novitam." They have discovered that by keeping male circumcision "fresh" and "new" with a steady flow "studies" and "research," and inventing "new" devices and procedures to do it, it is possible to preserve age-old tradition.

I'm sure trepanning was "new" and "innovative" for its time. Somehow, I think it would be dismissed as pseudo-scientific madness today, no matter how much research was published on the matter, now matter what device were used...

In other words:

Brand new "studies" and "research," same old bullshit.

The fact that an act may be newly proposed does not automatically make it correct. As I said in my last installation of this series; progress is defined by replacing the older with the better.  It is not "progress" to want to take humanity back 6,000 years. The current efforts to peg circumcision as "phrophylaxis" under the guise of "scientific research," "medicine" and "public health" are nothing more than ironic attempts clothing male circumcision as "modern" and "innovative" ad novitam.

In the case of circumcision, ad novitam is used in conjunction with the fallacy of appealing to certain respected authorities, namely science and medicine. The reason circumcision can be argued to be "new" and "innovative" is because "studies say..." (Without even appealing to novelty, "newness" and being "up to date" is implicit.) I hope to make this the next topic in this blog series, if I can ever get to it... (Though I have touched this subject before.)

Note the red letters in all-caps:

"NOW" as opposed to "BEFORE" or "YESTERDAY."

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Ad Antiquitam

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Ad Antiquitam

Long time no see...

Well, it's been a while since my announcement that I wanted to start this blog series, and I must admit, I've been rather busy and unable to sit down and dedicate any time to it. Not to mention I haven't written anything this month, and I've been aching to. I will begin the series by talking about "ad antiquitam," or appeal to antiquity, because it's rather easy to tackle, and because it's quite possibly the logical fallacy most often used when defending the practice of the forced genital cutting of either sex.

AKA: "Because it's old"

Ad antiquitam is the fallacy of appealing to antiquity, culture, and/or tradition. It assumes that a belief or an assertion must be automatically correct by mere virtue of age. "It's always been done this way," the old refrain goes. "My father, his father, and his father did it." Simply put, it's nothing more than a habit with no real decision making process. Capitalizing on comfort in the familiar, it is a philosophy at best, which is often embellished by talk of continuity.

This is the way is always been done, and this is the way we'll continue to do it.

The practice of circumcision long precedes any attempt to scientifically "study" its so-called "medical benefits." In fact, it seems no discussion about circumcision "research" and "scientific discoveries" is complete without an obligatory reference to the antiquity of the practice, be it the fact that it is commanded to Jews in the biblical book of Genesis, or the fact that the practice predates Judaism, being depicted on ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, as if the antiquity of the practice were of any relevance. 

We've all seen this image before...

The age of a belief may attest to experience, but it has no relevance to its truth. It is fallacious to assume that something is "better" or "correct" merely because it is old. Progress is defined by replacing the older with the better. The fact that a belief may be thousands of years old does not automatically make it correct. Old values aren't necessarily "the right ones." And yet, the fallacy prevails, and interested individuals and parties continue to appeal to it.

Slavery too has been around since the time of the Egyptians.

Child labor was practiced into the 20th century in this country.

Women used to not be able to vote.

Traditionally, women are subservient to men.

In older Asian culture, women walk several paces behind their husbands.

Of course, female circumcision is also several thousands of years old, and it's a very important custom to different tribes in Africa, as well as Muslim sects in South East Asia, but for whatever reason ad antiquitam is not a valid argument here.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

And there are other instances where ad antiquitam doesn't work.

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Child marriage in India

 Ritual scarification

In short, ad antiquitam ultimately fails as an argument for male infant circumcision, which is why circumcision advocates who appeal to age and tradition must ultimately fall back on arguments of "potential medical benefits." Attempting to make arguments sound legit by dressing them up in pseudo-science is yet another form of logical fallacy, but that's a topic for another blog post.

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Introduction

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES: Introduction

I'd been meaning to write a blog series, where I go through logical fallacies which are commonly used by circumcision advocates when defending circumcision, particularly the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, and dismantle each and every one of them, one by one. I have finally decided to sit down and start writing the series, though, right from the start, I shall let my readers know that I am unsure how or when this series will end. I will be drawing from several resources for this blog series, including books, other blogs and websites, and my own thoughts which I've been compiling for some time now.

I'd like for each post in this series to be thorough and well-thought-out, so as a warning, this project may span the rest of the year, if not spill into next year, as I want to devote the right amount of time for each post. The posts in this series will be interspersed amongst other blog posts, perhaps other blog series I start, so please do not expect it to be consecutive and uninterrupted; I want to make posts on other news and thoughts as I see fit.

Posts on this series will be properly labeled with the heading "CIRCUMCISION PHALLUSIES BLOG SERIES," so readers, be on the lookout!

To Start
The current state of affairs, at least in my country of the United States, seems to be one such that penises are circumcised by default, while anatomically correct genitals need to be apologized for. In the American psyche, the word "penis" conjures up the image of a penis, the head of it permanently exposed, without a foreskin. In most, if not all American textbooks, the male penis appears circumcised, as though it had always been that way, molded without a foreskin from within the womb by nature. The foreskin, if mentioned at all, is referred to only in passing, within the context of circumcision. Some textbooks refer to it as "that extra piece of tissue removed during circumcision." (Imagine, if you will, a book that begins describing the breasts as "those mounds of fat and flesh removed during a mastectomy.") Circumcision is considered "normal," while possessing intact genitals is considered "alien," "foreign," or even a deformity that should be corrected. While there doesn't seem to be any real need for a good reason to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting minor, a good reason seems to be required in order to NOT circumcise a child. This is the only instance in American  medicine where doctors and researchers are more interested in the deliberate destruction of a normal, healthy part of the human body, rather than preserving it. To me, all of this seems logically turned on its head.

Normally, the human body is left as is; you need a good reason in order perform surgery, or cut any part of the body away. Normally, the human body is presented as it occurs in nature, not in a contrived, surgically altered state. Normally, scientists, researchers and educators are interested in the functions and purposes of body parts, and do not begin describing them by the procedures in which they are removed. In America, descriptions of the anatomically correct penis, descriptions of the foreskin, all tend to begin by talking about circumcision, and of all the diseases and medical conditions which befall males who aren't circumcised. When we talk about, say, the prostate, or mammary glands, we do not begin by talking about prostate or breast cancer. We do not start talking about the liver by talking about hepatitis. We do not begin to talk about kidneys by talking about kidney stones. And yet, when you ask your average American doctor to talk about the foreskin, what is the first things out of his mouth? "Uncircumcised children could develop phimosis and UTIs. Uncircumcised men get smegma. Balanitis is a problem in uncircumcised men. Penile cancer is more common amongst uncircumcised men." They begin with all the ailments they know about which are said to afflict men with foreskins and couldn't care less about what the foreskin actually does, and about the fact that actually, the majority of most men in the world do fine with their whole organs. (70% or so of the world's male population is not circumcised.)

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality, injury, or condition which represents an immediate threat to the person's well being. Unnecessary, invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive. In any other case, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

When compared to other parts of the body and their surgical alteration, the logical reasoning behind circumcision in America is turned upside-down. Normally, the human body is innocent until proven guilty. With circumcision, the foreskin is guilty until proven innocent. American doctors and "researchers" aren't looking for ways to cure or prevent disease, but for diseases which justify their "cure." Normally, in the disease/cure equation, the end result, health and well-being are always constant, while the means is a variable, researchers ever searching for more effective, less invasive cures and prevention methods. In American science and medicine, circumcision is a fixed constant, and the point isn't to find better cures or disease prevention methods, but rather, to justify circumcision, and to make sure it is always a necessary end result. In short, absolute madness!

"The cardinal medical question should not be whether circumcision can prevent disease, but how disease can best be prevented." ~Morten Frisch

Why Do Normal, Natural, Anatomically Correct Genitals Need Justification?
The circumcised penis is a forced phenomenon; an artificial, contrived subversion of what the male genital organ is supposed to be. Why then, does the circumcised penis enjoy default status in the United States? Why is it that having an anatomically correct penis with a foreskin needs justification? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Since being circumcised requires causative action, and having a foreskin the natural state of the male organs, shouldn't it be CIRCUMCISION which demands an explanation?

In this blog series, I aim to turn the tables and place the onus of justification where it needs to be. Having a foreskin needs no more explanation than having lips, ears or eyelids. It is not having intact genital organs, but taking a knife and forcibly altering them in healthy, non-consenting minors that demands an explanation.

What are the arguments for taking a healthy, non-consenting child and forcibly cutting off a normal, healthy part of his body? Are they logically sound? Or are they phallacious?

I close with my mission statement. This my position, and the argument that I put forward.

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.