7 hours later…
07:41
@clark Your reasoning is flawed. Where you go wrong is to assume that illness reduces the number of people on the planet. But people do not take the sudden death of their children quietly and proceed as if nothing happened. Instead they not only compensate, but they overcompensate, driving population growth. But once child mortality drops, then the birth numbers also drop and stabilise on a good level (approximately 2 children per woman).
@clark The keys to halting population growth is ending poverty, and providing good healthcare. Vaccines are great at that since they provide a massive boost in public health for a very small cost, and ease of distribution.
@clark Also claiming that male infant circumcision does not harm the baby, is nonsense. Any surgical procedure is fraught with risk, especially for infants that do not have a developed immune system to combat infections. There are complications, infections and deaths due to male infant circumcision every year.
@clark As for "Important to religious people"... by that standard female circumcision would be permissible. Also if you read the church fathers, such as Tertullian, you will find that the expressed purpose of circumcision is to make sex less pleasurable. So: NO... circumcision is not acceptabel to be performed on babies. There is a risk, and there is no benefit. If a consenting adult wants to do it... fine, that is their decision.
« first day last day (15 days later) »
Transcript for
Jul2
Jul '183
Jul18
Discussion between MichaelK and mavavilj
Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...