Circumcision...why is it still legal? [Archive] - Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Dawgphood001

Apr 19, 2012, 06:41 PM

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene. On the other hand their is the ever present risk of complications and psychological damage. As with any other medical procedure which has such documented pros and cons, I say leave it up to the doctors.

No medical association in the entire world recommends infant circumcision to prevent disease. Any touted medical benefits are mere speculation.

UTIs occur far more often in girls than in boys, even when boys are circumcised. Yet no one suggests genital sculpting of girls to solve this issue.

Penile cancer is extremely rare even among intact men, and generally only happens to men in their 70's or 80's. It's best to cross that bridge when (and if) it is encountered.

Studies involving STDs and HIV are totally bogus. The studies that people are touting now that circumcision supposedly reduces HIV contraction risk by 60% are based on flawed methodology. There are many countries in Africa where circumcised men are more likely to have HIV than intact men.

Circumcision is not harmful to the long term health of men in the vast majority of cases.

If it is harmful to the long term health of even one man, it is an unethical procedure.

Given that circumcision is in fact harmful to many millions of men across the globe, such a statement is patently false.

There's also the fact that circumcision is by definition an injury to the penis, since it deprives the penis of normal tissue and function.

Attempting to liken male circumcision to female circumcision/genital removal/mutilation in it's commonly practiced forms is a gross over-exaggeration.

Not at all. Female genital mutilation takes many forms. While infibulation is more invasive than the average male circumcision, it only comprises 15% of FGM practiced world wide. Most female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoral hood, or the clitoris and the labia. Both of which are very comparable to male circumcision which essentially removes the male "clitoris".

Yeah, I have to agree, you can't compare male and female circumcision. They're done for totally different reasons, and one has a legit medical purpose.

Circumcision doesn't have a legit medical purpose at all. No medical association in the entire world recommends infant circumcision to treat or prevent any illness or disease.

Are there risks associated with male circumcision? There sure are, just like with any medical operation. I had no idea anybody ever used their mouth for part of this process, but that sounds unhygienic as hell.

To say the least.

The procedure does have a medical purpose though. I don't know if you've ever had to clean an infant's penis before, but URIs are not very uncommon, and being cut makes that cleaning process a little easier. Given a competent doctor, the risk of complications in a modern hospital is still very low.

Not low enough.

There's also the issue that cleaning an intact baby's penis is far easier than cleaning a circumcised one. Circumcision is essentially an open wound on a newborn infant that is left to fester in diapers laden with feces and urine.

How is that cleaner at all?

Some studies have even shown a higher prevalence of UTI among circumcised boys.

The issue of consent is really a non-starter. Medical decisions of minors are left in the hands of parents, and it doesn't make a difference if the kid is 12 or 12 hours

Circumcision isn't a medical decision. It's a cosmetic, cultural, social or religious decision that is forced upon an infant without their consent.

Although it is interesting you mention that, because some studies have shown that female circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755). Fascinating. I wonder why, given this study, parents aren't rushing to denude their daughters' clitorises?

Matter of fact, if we're discussing medical benefits provided by premature amputations of healthy bodily organs, why not perform mastectomies on newborn baby girls? I'm sure it would decrease their incidence of breast cancer later in life.

Honestly, if the doctor does the circumcision right, there shouldn't be any complications. As Truronian said, it comes with some advantages. Not to mention that Judaism prescribes circumcision, and outlawing it would force Jewish parents to go against their conscience.

Female circumcision is wrong, and should be outlawed everywhere.

"If a doctor does it right". Interesting. That says it all right there.

And many Jews are beginning to realize that male circumcision is harmful as well. That's why the Brit Shalom is becoming more popular instead of the Brit Milah.

I really think that calling male circumcision "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture" is an overstatement.

Have you ever seen a video of a circumcision?

Not that you should, because it's one of the most horrifying things anyone could ever see.

The real overstatement to me is believing that cutting into the most nerve-dense part of the male body without anaesthesia, causing the baby boy to scream until he turns purple or goes into withdrawal from shock, is somehow not abusive.

Dawgphood001

Apr 19, 2012, 06:44 PM

zktbJgd217I

Lord Gay

Apr 19, 2012, 07:00 PM

I think the risks and consequences of circumcision outweigh the benefits. While harm to a penis may be quite rare, can any male here say they would be comfortable with such damage happening to their penis? There have been cases of varying kinds of damage to the penis from botched circumcisions.

Some males have had part of their heads removed while others have had the entire head severed. In rare cases most of the shaft has been cut off, with the doctor sometimes coming clean about the accident and advising the parents to raise the child as a girl, or simply telling them it was a female all along.

In psychological quarters, there is the question of whether situations like these are behind at least some of the gender identity disorders out there, if this occurred and neither the child nor the parents were aware. There is also speculation as to psychosexual trauma from the operation regardless of permanent damage, since at birth the skin has not yet separated from the glans.

On a personal note, I dated a guy briefly who had received a (IMO) horrible situation as a result of his circumcision. The doctor had removed too much of the foreskin so that when he was erect, there was no slack; his skin was super-tight. As a result, he told me that he had spent his life unable to masturbate since it was too painful. He also did not enjoy oral, since it also hurt too much. I would certainly not agree that such a state is preferable to a slightly greater chance of infection.

The most common answer I've heard fathers give about having it done to their sons is so that their sons will look "normal" when in the locker room with other guys.

EDIT

Have you ever seen a video of a circumcision?

Not that you should, because it's one of the most horrifying things anyone could ever see.

The real overstatement to me is believing that cutting into the most nerve-dense part of the male body without anaesthesia, causing the baby boy to scream until he turns purple or goes into withdrawal from shock, is somehow not abusive.
This.

Dawgphood001

Apr 19, 2012, 07:19 PM

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

-Rabbi Moses Maimonides (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/)

People have known since the middle ages that circumcision is an attack on male sexuality.

Kalalification

Apr 19, 2012, 09:02 PM

Dawgphood001

Apr 19, 2012, 09:22 PM

Circumcision is a universally praised social practice, at least Stateside. It has legitimate benefits and only extremely rarely causes harm. The only people who'd want to outlaw it are butthurt uncircumsised weirdos.

Right. I'm sure the 80% of the world's men who have their foreskins are just dying to get it chopped off.:rolleyes:

All I'm hearing from you is a whole bunch of denial. That is, after all, the only reason why circumcision is still around.

One of the biggest myths about circumcision is that the only ones who oppose it are intact men. There are legions of circumcised men who wish they were not cut as infants, but can unfortunately do nothing about it, save for partial foreskin restoration. You don't hear about these men because our pro-circ culture makes speaking out about such things taboo.

_random_

Apr 19, 2012, 09:32 PM

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

I always look forward to the part where a Jewish member comes in and the HOOP folks have to explain why his ancient customs are actually terrible.

I'll admit that the medical benefits of circumcision are kind of dubious, but I have no problem with it as a cultural practice, and comparing it to FGM is offensive to pretty much everybody. Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning (http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-07-2010/114414-baby_baptism-0/) from a couple years back. It doesn't create enough risk in of itself to warrant illegalization and doing so would step on some serious toes. Prosecute those who can't do it right and be done with it.

Synsensa

Apr 19, 2012, 09:37 PM

I always look forward to the part where a Jewish member comes in and the HOOP folks have to explain why his ancient customs are actually terrible.

I'll admit that the medical benefits of circumcision are kind of dubious, but I have no problem with it as a cultural practice, and comparing it to FGM is offensive to pretty much everybody. Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning (http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-07-2010/114414-baby_baptism-0/) from a couple years back. It doesn't create enough risk in of itself to warrant illegalization and doing so would step on some serious toes. Prosecute those who can't do it right and be done with it.

The toes of the Jews are worth stepping on if they advocate a pointless and damaging medical procedure.

Dawgphood001

Apr 19, 2012, 10:30 PM

I always look forward to the part where a Jewish member comes in and the HOOP folks have to explain why his ancient customs are actually terrible.

Genital cutting of babies without consent isn't terrible? Giving a baby herpes due to "ancient customs" isn't terrible?

I'll admit that the medical benefits of circumcision are kind of dubious, but I have no problem with it as a cultural practice,

So...culture trumps human rights.

Funny that in places where FGM is practiced it is also seen as a "cultural practice".

and comparing it to FGM is offensive to pretty much everybody.

It's only offensive if you don't know the realities of FGM, and how strikingly similar to male circumcision it really is.

Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning (http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-07-2010/114414-baby_baptism-0/) from a couple years back.

So, we've established that circumcision is medically unnecessary, causes tremendous pain to the infant, and can result in sexual dysfunction, psychological trauma and even death.

Yet you still don't see why it should be outlawed?

It doesn't create enough risk in of itself to warrant illegalization and doing so would step on some serious toes. Prosecute those who can't do it right and be done with it.

Whose "serious toes" would we be stepping on?

LucyDuke

Apr 19, 2012, 10:56 PM

classical_hero

Apr 20, 2012, 01:25 AM

I have some cousins who are circumcised and they have had no issues with them, so generally it is safe to do. The Female variation is not even in the same class, since it removal of sexual organs, so a woman who has had "circumcision" will have a less sexually fulfilling life nad often has massive consequences as a result of what has happened to them.

Lillefix

Apr 20, 2012, 01:52 AM

People talk about how safe it is to do, but I think that is to a great degree irrelevant. On a general basis you shouldn't cosmetically alter people's bodies without their consent. And that includes removing their healthy body parts. We don't go around removing children's blind intestines either, even though it may be beneficial(which is questionable, but never mind that).

Maniacal

Apr 20, 2012, 02:10 AM

I don't really care what someone does in regards to modification of their bodies when they are old enough to make the decision for themselves (around 18) but children should never have it forced upon them especially since none of the benefits are more than minor at best and it isn't entirely risk free. Although as Lucy points out it is very different from female circumcision.

Dawgphood001

Apr 20, 2012, 03:30 AM

Stop perpetuating misinformation about the female genitalia. The foreskin is not comparable to the clitoris, and most FGM involves removal of the clitoris, not just the hood.

See the Cake thread in The Tavern. :)

I have some cousins who are circumcised and they have had no issues with them, so generally it is safe to do. The Female variation is not even in the same class, since it removal of sexual organs, so a woman who has had "circumcision" will have a less sexually fulfilling life nad often has massive consequences as a result of what has happened to them.

Literally everything you have said about female cutting in that paragraph can be said about male cutting.

Johns Hopkins University did a study a while back about men circumcised as adults, who . Many were quite angry and regretful of their condition. One man compared the difference in sensation as "night and day" and said he "would give his house" in exchange for getting his foreskin back.

People talk about how safe it is to do, but I think that is to a great degree irrelevant. On a general basis you shouldn't cosmetically alter people's bodies without their consent. And that includes removing their healthy body parts. We don't go around removing children's blind intestines either, even though it may be beneficial(which is questionable, but never mind that).

Exactly.

ParkCungHee

Apr 20, 2012, 04:22 AM

If circumcision is torture I think we have literally run out of problems in the world. Torture, evidently, is a largely forgettable experience. Humans, it turns out, are largely incapable of administering any real harm to humans. The rack, the pit of Calcutta, hanging by hooks and wires, burning alive it's apparently all not too bad. Turns out, those people were all a bunch of whiners. Most of them weren't even circumcised.

metatron

Apr 20, 2012, 05:38 AM

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene.
Yeah, except for the STDs all of this is pretty much a result of "improved hygiene" i.e. "improved hygiene while being a jackass and not properly washing oneself".
The difference regarding STDs is quite real though and a result of the higher permiability of the foreskin.
However i have significant trouble to see why that should be an argument. The STD problem could easily be solved by simply cutting of the entire penis and nobody wants to do that either.

And the whole argument "but it's done for medical reasons" is a bit strange anyway.
If that was the motivation it would be very curious that non-muslim nation do it on such different scales.

Infant circumcision was taken up in the United States, Australia and the English-speaking parts of Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom. There are several hypotheses to explain why infant circumcision was accepted in the United States about the year 1900. The germ theory of disease elicited an image of the human body as a conveyance for many dangerous germs, making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine to be practised universally.[144] In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.[144] Aggleton wrote that John Harvey Kellogg viewed male circumcision in this way, and further "advocated an unashamedly punitive approach."[145] Circumcision was also said to protect against syphilis,[146] phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and "excessive venery" (which was believed to produceparalysis).[144] Gollaher states that physicians advocating circumcision in the late nineteenth century expected public scepticism, and refined their arguments to overcome it.
What do you think?
What is - in your mind - the reason for the vastly varying success of circumcision as a means of public health?

Maybe pretty much the entire non-anglosphere non-muslim world is filled with reckless anti-semites who don't care about the health of their offspring.
Or maybe circumcision is just an arcaic ritual that got an awesome run as a percieved impediment to mastubation and an overcompensation of lacking American hygiene at the brink of the 20th century, subsequently being exported to the Phillipines, Korea and some Christian nations in sub-saharan Afrika, meeting acceptance there for similar reasons.

I'm just spitballing here. As i said: What do you think?
Cutting off the head of the penis at the very minimum. More like cutting off the whole penis and that's still just the beginning.
Are you sure that's the proper comparison?
To have an equivalent of penile amputation you'd have to pretty much rip out the entirety of a girls corpora cavernosa and vistibular bulbs or something roughly in that ballpark...
You are very right about being insulted by the false equivalencies proposed in this thread by others. No reason to add new ones though.

(Edit: Ah...ok. I see, you guys debated this in a rather rough and imprecise fashion in the cake thread before. Now i can see where you are coming from.
NJone the less...)
Can we vaccinate children? I mean, 3 year olds can't consent to getting a shot. Should we give a kid a shot if he cries and says no no no?
Was an argument supposed to be in there somewhere? If so it probably takes the first price as most false equivalency in this thread so far.
Which is quite an accomplishment.
I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.
I didn't care about the last ... like... seven... of these threads. But one side coming up with "arguments" like this every single time serves as an idicator that their other arguments might not necessarily be as strong as they think...

innonimatu

Apr 20, 2012, 06:03 AM

In the view of many practitioners at the time, circumcision was a method of treating and preventing masturbation.

This. It was part of the general 19th/early 20th century bout of fear and insanity over all things sexual. When, following the decline of religion on the minds of the well-think members of society, the social taboos regarding sex were brought from the religious realm to the medical realm and false medical excuses were made up to keep them. It was part of the same movement that imprisoned in hospices thousands upon thousands of women with the disease of "female hysterics", that had parents being given the power to have their children arrested by police if they "failed to behave properly and to respect them" (that one went on in parts of Europe right until the 60s), etc. It's why homossexuality was called a "mental disease" and such a long battle had to be fought to put an end to that. That's well known, but many other "sexual deviances" were called mental diseases. People now take this freedom we have for granted, but in the 50s and 60s there was indeed a real "sexual revolution" putting an end to much of that false medicine. For which we should all be very grateful.

It's too bad that there are few works about the subject, the whole thing is fascinating. It explains, for example, the high regard with which psychoanalysis was held back during the first decades of the 20th century by many people, something we have a hard time understanding now. Charlatans they may look now, but they had a big virtue back then: they were not advocating arresting and torturing people as a treatment for "failing to behave properly" as happened with all those young man woman women declared insane and committed to hospices by their own parents. This sad phenomenon of the medical class providing cover for sexual repression affected mostly the higher classes, but I believe that the initial widespread adoption male circumcision in some western countries is one of its byproducts, which simply has not yet been recognized as such and reverted because it isn't obvious, the harmful act itself is done on powerless babies who cannot fight back, and both those who do it (in the medical class, but also parents who consent) and those who suffered it don't what to have to admit even to themselves that it was wrong.

Traitorfish

Apr 20, 2012, 06:17 AM

Literally everything you have said about female cutting in that paragraph can be said about male cutting.

Johns Hopkins University did a study a while back about men circumcised as adults, who . Many were quite angry and regretful of their condition. One man compared the difference in sensation as "night and day" and said he "would give his house" in exchange for getting his foreskin back.
Well, I underwent a voluntary adult circumcision and have no regrets at all, so: anecdote, meet anecdote. :dunno:

Camikaze

Apr 20, 2012, 07:53 AM

I think this is a really interesting issue. I have no particular opinion either way, but it's intriguing to think about just how far we let parental consent go, because that's what this is about, and it's kinda tricky.

The issue of consent is really a non-starter. Medical decisions of minors are left in the hands of parents, and it doesn't make a difference if the kid is 12 or 12 hours.

Can we vaccinate children? I mean, 3 year olds can't consent to getting a shot. Should we give a kid a shot if he cries and says no no no?

So these points are, I think, wrong. Firstly, any sort of medical procedure is prima facie unlawful, unless there is some lawful justification provided (i.e. consent). If you are to say that decisions on medical procedures are entirely in the hands of parents, then not only are you talking about vaccinations, but also about the decision to lop off a limb. Clearly one is acceptable and the other isn't, and circumcision would lie somewhere in between on the spectrum. So this is very much an issue of consent, and whether parental consent is effective to make this medical procedure lawful. What are the limits of what parents can consent to, specifically with regards to medical procedures*?

*I don't purport to hold an opinion on the matter of whether or not there is any medical benefit, but whether there is or isn't, it clearly falls into the category of 'medical procedure'.

Also, there's the matter that there is a different level of competence to consent at 12 months and 12 years, but that's probably not particularly relevant to this discussion.

Obviously the standard would be different in the US, but the High Court has held the following in Australia in Marion's Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion%27s_Case) (in which the issue was parent's consenting to a hysterectomy for their mentally disabled 14 year old daughter):
There are exceptions to the requirement for, and the neutralising effect of, consent and therefore qualifications to the very broadly stated principle of bodily inviolability. In some instances consent is insufficient to make application of force to another person lawful and sometimes consent is not needed to make force lawful.
With such examples being that consent does not make euthanasia legal, and lack of consent does not make a lawful arrest illegal.
Medical treatment of adults with full mental capacity does not come within any of the exceptions mentioned. The factor necessary to render such treatment lawful when it would otherwise be an assault is, therefore, consent.
This, again, reflects the principle of personal inviolability echoed in the well-known words of Cardozo J in Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital:
"Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his [or her] patient's consent commits an assault."
In the case of medical treatment of those who cannot consent because of incapacity due to minority, the automatic reference point is the minor's parent or other guardian. Parental consent, when effective, is itself an exception to the need for personal consent to medical treatment.
The proposition endorsed by the majority in that case [Gillick v West Norfolk WHA] was that parental power to consent to medical treatment on behalf of a child diminishes gradually as the child's capacities and maturity grow and that this rate of development depends on the individual child.
And the court went on to endorse this position as the law in Australia. I mentioned this in another thread, if anyone saw that; Gillick competence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence).
The second question arises; namely, whether there are kinds of intervention which are, as a general rule, excluded from the scope of parental power to consent to.
Where their child is incapable of giving valid consent to medical treatment, parents, as guardians, may in a wide range of circumstances consent to medical treatment of their child who is a minor.
Where this parental power exists, two principles are involved. First, the subjective consent of a parent in the sense of a parent speaking for the child, is, ordinarily, indispensable. That authority emanates from a caring relationship. Secondly, the overriding criterion to be applied in the exercise of parental authority on behalf of a child is the welfare of the child objectively assessed. That these two principles become, for all practical purposes, one is a recognition that ordinarily a parent of a child who is not capable of giving informed consent is in the best position to act in the best interests of the child. Implicit in parental consent is understood to be the determination of what is best for the welfare of the child.

In arguing that there are kinds of intervention which are excluded from the scope of parental power, the Commonwealth submitted that the power does not extend to, for example, the right to have a child's foot cut off so that he or she could earn money begging, and it is clear that a parent has no right to take the life of a child. But these examples may be met with the proposition that such things are forbidden because it is inconceivable that they are in the best interests of the child. Even if, theoretically, begging could constitute a financially rewarding occupation, there is a presumption that other interests of the child must prevail. Thus, the overriding criterion of the child's best interests is itself a limit on parental power.
The bolded bit is probably the absolute crux of the issue of parental consent to medical treatment as it applies to whether a procedure as a whole, such as circumcision, is acceptable.
There are, in our opinion, features of a sterilisation procedure or, more accurately, factors involved in a decision to authorise sterilisation of another person which indicate that, in order to ensure the best protection of the interests of a child, such a decision should not come within the ordinary scope of parental power to consent to medical treatment. Court authorisation is necessary and is, in essence, a procedural safeguard.
Sterilisation requires invasive, irreversible and major surgery. But so do, for example, an appendectomy and some cosmetic surgery, both of which, in our opinion, come within the ordinary scope of a parent to consent to. However, other factors exist which have the combined effect of marking out the decision to authorise sterilisation as a special case. Court authorisation is required, first, because of the significant risk of making the wrong decision, either as to a child's present or future capacity to consent or about what are the best interests of a child who cannot consent, and secondly, because the consequences of a wrong decision are particularly grave.
The second concern is that the decision to sterilise, at least where it is to be carried out for contraceptive purposes, and especially now when technology and expertise make the procedure relatively safe, is not merely a medical issue. This is also reflected in the concern raised in several of the cases reviewed, that the consequences of sterilisation are not merely biological but also social and psychological.
The decision by a parent that an intellectually disabled child be sterilised may involve not only the interests of the child, but also the independent and possibly conflicting (though legitimate) interests of the parents and other family members [means that court involvement should exist so as the ensure the child's interest prevails].
The gravity of the consequences of wrongly authorising a sterilisation flows both from the resulting inability to reproduce and from the fact of being acted upon contrary to one's wishes or best interests. The fact of violation is likely to have social and psychological implications concerning the person's sense of identity, social place and self-esteem.
(Sorry if that was a little tl;dr, but I think it is highly relevant; I'll try not to go on about it for too long, as you can probably draw a lot of your own conclusions from it.)

So that would essentially constitute the law in Australia. AFAIK, no-one has attempted to apply it to circumcision.

Circumcision is generally performed on infants, which is why I don't think the question of a the differing competencies of children of varying ages is particularly relevant; we can assume when we're talking about whether circumcision should be legal or not that we're talking about parents making the decision for children who have absolutely no competence to consent to medical treatment. I think this means that requiring court authorisation would not be the route to go down, as the main point of that with regards to sterilisation is to determine whether the individual in question is competent to consent (or disabled enough to make sterilisation in their best interest).

The issue to consider, therefore, is whether or not circumcision is something that parents should be able to consent to. And there are a number of factors involved, the overarching principle of which is whether the decision is in the child's best interest.

Obviously circumcision is not the same thing as sterilisation, but taking the last concern first, one issue is the extent to which 'social and psychological implications' can result from a medical procedure. If there are negative 'social and psychological implications' to circumcision, then that could be reason for parental consent to not be effective, as it would obviously impact upon how beneficial the procedure would be to the child.

Another issue would be the religious one; if a child is being circumcised because of their parents' religion, is that really their interest that is being thought of, and how can the law recognise this as being in the child's interest is that interest is 'objectively assessed'? It would seem to me that the argument that circumcising a child for their religious wellbeing would be entirely inapplicable, and would indeed constitute something outside of what the law sees as "the child's best interest".

The main way this interest applies for a medical procedure like circumcision would be whether or not the procedure is medically beneficial. What health benefits does it provide? What are the side effects for this benefit? As stated above, I don't purport to have an opinion on this matter, and this is why I don't really have an opinion on whether circumcision should be legal or not.

And I would contend that a medical procedure being marginally beneficial on balance would not really be sufficient to allow for parental consent to take a decision that has permanent effects on an individual who will, one day, be able to consent.

So I guess the main point is that, yes, this is an issue of consent. Can parental consent transform what would otherwise be illegal into being legal? Should parental consent extend to procedures such as circumcision? It is important to again note that, as such a medical procedure is prima facie unlawful, without a justification of consent, the onus is on those that think circumcision should be legal to prove that parental consent is effective (and as a side note, although I don't have a strong opinion either way on this argument, I would tend towards the anti-circumcision side for this reason; the burden of proof seems to be rejected or remains somewhat unsatisfied a lot of the time). And for that consent to be effective, it must be a decision made in the best interest of the child.

Therefore the main question to answer for those that think circumcision should be allowed (and the onus is on them to provide an answer (and I'm not actually saying here that that answer hasn't been provided)), is how it is in the best interest of the child?

contre

Apr 20, 2012, 01:39 PM

Not at all. Female genital mutilation takes many forms. While infibulation is more invasive than the average male circumcision, it only comprises 15% of FGM practiced world wide. Most female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoral hood, or the clitoris and the labia. Both of which are very comparable to male circumcision which essentially removes the male "clitoris".

You are bordering on the extremely offensive. Circumcision is nothing at all like removing the clitoris. It's like removing the clitoral hood so that the clitoris becomes less sensitive. Trying to compare the two practices because they share the name "circumcision" is an insult to the millions of women who are horrifically mutilated every year.

This is not to say male circumcision is okay. Preforming unnecessary, dubiously medical procedures on infants is bad. But it's nothing, nothing like cutting up a woman's genitals.

I understand you are passionate about this, but you are going too far with your comparisons and that turns people off from your line of thought. People shut down when you make an absurd claim like the two things called circumcision are comparable, and they don't hear your valid argument.

Dawgphood001

Apr 20, 2012, 02:22 PM

You are bordering on the extremely offensive. Circumcision is nothing at all like removing the clitoris. It's like removing the clitoral hood so that the clitoris becomes less sensitive. Trying to compare the two practices because they share the name "circumcision" is an insult to the millions of women who are horrifically mutilated every year.

This is not to say male circumcision is okay. Preforming unnecessary, dubiously medical procedures on infants is bad. But it's nothing, nothing like cutting up a woman's genitals.

I understand you are passionate about this, but you are going too far with your comparisons and that turns people off from your line of thought. People shut down when you make an absurd claim like the two things called circumcision are comparable, and they don't hear your valid argument.

"Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. The excision of women is cruel on many levels. It is physically cruel and painful; it sets girls up for a lifetime of suffering. And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

"I think male circumcision is worse than incising a girl. With boys, a lot of skin is removed. Depending on how that is done, in Third World countries for instance where there's poor hygiene, and where the people who carry it out don't possess the necessary skills, the consequences can be worse for boys than for girls. With girls, a sharp object is pricked into the clitoris. It bleeds a little. And the whole family is satisfied and she is declared 'pure'. Strictly speaking, that procedure is less dramatic than male circumcision."

-Ayaan Hirsi Ali

...As mentioned before, not all FGM in all countries involves infibulation. In many parts of the world, circumcision like Ali described is the majority of all procedures. And, like she said, that procedure is far less extensive than MGM.

There are also many infibulated women who say that there sexuality is no different than that of intact women, and will vehemently defend this point, much like the many circumcised men in this country who will insist that the procedure has had no effect on their sexual function or pleasure. In countries where FGM is widely practiced, the procedure is endorsed and seen as perfectly normal by the women themselves, just like men here in the United States.

The procedures on both genders involve different mutilations of the anatomy, and female genital cutting is generally more extensive in certain parts of the world. But the cultural and psychological doublethink, denial, repression and ignorance surrounding both of the practices is pretty much exactly the same.

contre

Apr 20, 2012, 02:32 PM

And... I'm less inclined to care about male circumcision now.

Dawgphood001

Apr 20, 2012, 02:37 PM

And... I'm less inclined to care about male circumcision now.

Not my fault if you choose to be in denial given all these pertinent facts. That reflects poorly on you, not me. Have fun with your sexism.:)

Dawgphood001

Apr 20, 2012, 02:45 PM

Yet another interesting study. Apparently, some adult women who undergo labiaplasty are just as sexually satisfied as some adult men who choose to undergo circumcision:

Link (http://www.drmatlock.com/images/MagazinePDFs/JSexMed.pdf)

Traitorfish

Apr 20, 2012, 03:40 PM

Not my fault if you choose to be in denial given all these pertinent facts. That reflects poorly on you, not me. Have fun with your sexism.:)
I'm a circumcised male, so can I be less inclined to care about male circumcision without being sexist?

illram

Apr 20, 2012, 04:32 PM

Quackers

Apr 20, 2012, 04:38 PM

Cutting off the head of the penis at the very minimum. More like cutting off the whole penis and that's still just the beginning. What is called "female circumcision" is not any sort of "circumcision".

I would support a law against circumcising boys who could not consent.

Uhmm I never knew it was that bad!
I know woman can get pleasure two different ways, one with the Clit and the other...ermm inside :P. So you can still gain pleasure, now lopping off the entire penis would end up with no pleasure for a man. So are they really comparable?:P

LucyDuke

Apr 20, 2012, 05:24 PM

Uhmm I never knew it was that bad!
I know woman can get pleasure two different ways, one with the Clit and the other...ermm inside :P. So you can still gain pleasure, now lopping off the entire penis would end up with no pleasure for a man. So are they really comparable?:P

In the worst cases, intercourse becomes extremely painful. So extremely painful versus not pleasurable... and hey, you've still got your prostate. :p

(I don't think it's really useful to compare them anyway. :dunno:)

Lord Gay

Apr 20, 2012, 05:30 PM

Both men and women have two sources of pleasure: an external source and an internal source.

Straight men only know of one though, so, unfortunately, I will now have to kill you to keep the secret.

Hygro

Apr 20, 2012, 06:17 PM

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

This is basically true. It's kind of like telling someone their mother is a bad parent. They've only got one mother and there's nothing they can do to change it, so why make them feel worse about it? Obviously it would be better to stop cutting parts of babies for the sake of tradition justified by dubious exogenous claims, but currently the debate is people trying to argue they've got it better than the other side, so as to not feel bad about themselves.

Can't we all agree that everyone's junk is good, and we should, from here on out, not cut things off people who don't consent with adult judgement? It seems like a pretty simple way of moving forward.

GhostWriter16

Apr 20, 2012, 06:18 PM

I don't think I agree with that. I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration, plus its not really a harmful procedure.

Lord Gay

Apr 20, 2012, 06:44 PM

I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration,
In what regard?

Hygro

Apr 20, 2012, 06:48 PM

I don't think I agree with that. I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration, plus its not really a harmful procedure.

It is a harmful procedure, it's just not one so bad that those who had it done to them try to perpetuate it, perhaps to self justify or perhaps because it's not the biggest deal in the world.

But remember, religious freedom ends at forcing itself on others. We wouldn't accept 7th century Islamic freedom to convert others through forcible invasion, would we? Nor should we let someone's religion allow them to impose their violence (and it is violence) on someone else.

So it's not like circumcision is the devil, it's just that we shouldn't do it to non consenters.

Lord Gay

Apr 20, 2012, 06:55 PM

So it's not like circumcision is the devil, it's just that we shouldn't do it to non consenters.
Perhaps we should borrow a page from the R playbook and require all parents to watch a video before being able to have their son snipped. :mischief:

I think it's a disgusting practice but I leave the choice to the parents.

contre

Apr 20, 2012, 08:33 PM

I'd need to know just what circumcision means to Jews before I comment on religious freedom. If it's something like baptism where without it, you won't be considered pure in the eyes of god, then I'm kinda hesitant to ban it.

I think to a non-religious person, an ideal world would be one in which parents didn't pass on their religion to their kids from birth. Rather, the kids joined the religion as the grew. You know, choice v indoctrination. But let's be honest, that's not the world we live in and the idea seems like a pipe dream. So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.

Then again, for Christians, it's just a cultural thing that's done to us because it was done to our dads and it was done to our dads by our grandfathers. 200 years ago, I don't think most of our ancestors did circumcision. I remember it being a 1800s thing, perhaps to dissuade masturbation?

GhostWriter16

Apr 20, 2012, 08:36 PM

In what regard?

Its compulsory for Jews to circumcise their children according to their beliefs.

I'd need to know just what circumcision means to Jews before I comment on religious freedom. If it's something like baptism where without it, you won't be considered pure in the eyes of god, then I'm kinda hesitant to ban it.

I think to a non-religious person, an ideal world would be one in which parents didn't pass on their religion to their kids from birth. Rather, the kids joined the religion as the grew. You know, choice v indoctrination. But let's be honest, that's not the world we live in and the idea seems like a pipe dream. So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.

Then again, for Christians, it's just a cultural thing that's done to us because it was done to our dads and it was done to our dads by our grandfathers. 200 years ago, I don't think most of our ancestors did circumcision. I remember it being a 1800s thing, perhaps to dissuade masturbation?

That last part certainly doesn't work:p

contre

Apr 20, 2012, 08:38 PM

Its compulsory for Jews to circumcise their children according to their beliefs.

Yes, but from what point?

That last part certainly doesn't work:p

Well, the late 1800s had some crazy ideas. People thought mental illness came from excess masturbation. Corn flakes -- I'm not making this up, google it -- were invented to be a bland food to keep men un-stimulated to dissuade masturbation.

GhostWriter16

Apr 20, 2012, 08:41 PM

Yes, but from what point?

IIRC its the eighth day.

I do consider the pain marginally less meaningful to the kid since he won't remember it. I definitely would not allow a parent to force it on an older kid who would remember!:)

Well, the late 1800s had some crazy ideas. People thought mental illness came from excess masturbation. Corn flakes -- I'm not making this up, google it -- were invented to be a bland food to keep men un-stimulated to dissuade masturbation.

Yeah, that's a bit crazy. Corn flakes invented for that purpose? Wow. People were stupid back then:p

(And note, I think masturbation is a sin, and still think this is stupid.)

Lillefix

Apr 20, 2012, 08:43 PM

Its compulsory for Jews to circumcise their children according to their beliefs.

Yeah but so what? Why should we care about that?
(I honestly don't think circumcision is a big deal, but I don't think it's right to view things differently just because some random religion demands it)

A more extreme example would be the Jehova's witnesses, who want to refuse their children blood even if they will die without it. What's your stance on that? Should that be legal just because a religion demands it?

contre

Apr 20, 2012, 08:44 PM

IIRC its the eighth day.

I do consider the pain marginally less meaningful to the kid since he won't remember it. I definitely would not allow a parent to force it on an older kid who would remember!:)

That complicates it. Cause to ban circumcision there would be akin to denying a parent the right to raise their kid in their religion. I don't like that, but the alternative is worse.

Yeah but so what? Why should we care about that?
(I honestly don't think circumcision is a big deal, but I don't think it's right to view things differently just because some random religion demands it)

A more extreme example would be the Jehova's witnesses, who want to refuse their children blood even if they will die without it. What's your stance on that? Should that be legal just because a religion demands it?

Because to deny Jews that would be saying you may not raise your kid Jewish. Unlike the Jehovah's Witness example, circumcision isn't going to lead to death. The government does, and should, intervene when parents are willing to let their kids die through any means. That's a step too far.

GhostWriter16

Apr 20, 2012, 08:47 PM

Yeah but so what? Why should we care about that?
(I honestly don't think circumcision is a big deal, but I don't think it's right to view things differently just because some random religion demands it)

A more extreme example would be the Jehova's witnesses, who want to refuse their children blood even if they will die without it. What's your stance on that? Should that be legal just because a religion demands it?

My stance may seem like its "If a religion demands it, its OK" but its not. My position is I want to be very careful what religious rights we take from people. I do think at least some European countries do this (One example I know of is France, the burka ban is right up there with stupid restrictions:p)

Now, if you refuse to allow your child a blood transfusion that will save his life, this should be perfectly fine. You should just have to give up the child (Meaning I don't really think it should be legally OK.)

A comparable example would be circumcising a hemophilic, which I'd agree should not be legally OK (And I'm pretty sure Jewish rabbis don't want to do it either.)

But ordinary circumcision does no real damage.

GhostWriter16

Apr 20, 2012, 08:50 PM

That complicates it. Cause to ban circumcision there would be akin to denying a parent the right to raise their kid in their religion. I don't like that, but the alternative is worse.

Here's the thing, if you're gonna do it, there's no good reason to wait until one is an older kid. Now, if there was a major religion that advocated it, I might have to think about this again, but after age 1, its perfectly possible not to allow it with any religious problems. Is that good enough reason to ban it? If you add in the memory aspect, yes. I think that would be the worse part.

For me personally, I'm glad I was circumcised, but would never choose to be circumcised. The pain would be too great. I'm glad I don't remember it, personally speeaking.

Lillefix

Apr 20, 2012, 08:52 PM

Pragmatism. My eternal enemy...

contre

Apr 20, 2012, 08:55 PM

Here's the thing, if you're gonna do it, there's no good reason to wait until one is an older kid. Now, if there was a major religion that advocated it, I might have to think about this again, but after age 1, its perfectly possible not to allow it with any religious problems. Is that good enough reason to ban it? If you add in the memory aspect, yes. I think that would be the worse part.

For me personally, I'm glad I was circumcised, but would never choose to be circumcised. The pain would be too great. I'm glad I don't remember it, personally speeaking.

As I thought it through, I considered how many 13-year-old boys were going to be like, "actually I'd rather not be an orthodox Jew okay bye now" which is what not being circumcised would mean.

I don't really care about being circumcised, though I'm not sure if I'd've chosen it with my current knowledge. I don't hold it against my dad though.

SeekTruthFromFacts

Apr 20, 2012, 09:09 PM

Then again, for Christians, it's just a cultural thing that's done to us because it was done to our dads and it was done to our dads by our grandfathers. 200 years ago, I don't think most of our ancestors did circumcision. I remember it being a 1800s thing, perhaps to dissuade masturbation?

C'mon, friends, it's not that hard to check Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies#Middle_Ages_to_19th_cen tury) before giving your opinion?! Contre is right, it's specific to American culture, and nothing to do with Christianity. In fact, the early Gentile Christians were notable for not being circumcised. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+2&version=ESV)

Camikaze

Apr 20, 2012, 09:10 PM

Religious aspects of this seem to me to be irrelevant. If the benefit to the child is meant to be 'objectively assessed', religion can't really come into that. You cannot hold a religious justification up as an objectively assessable benefit to a child. There must be some other objective benefit to the child for parental consent to be effective for circumcision. Which seems to mean that there would have to be a health benefit.

If you were to say that religious rights should outweigh medical procedures being unlawful without legal justification, then you'd be saying that religious rights are more important than bodily inviolability. I don't think we want to go there.

GhostWriter16

Apr 20, 2012, 09:14 PM

I think unless a given medical procedure has a high chance of harming the baby, it should be a parent's decision, regardless. So I do hold to the "Circumcision is fine" position anyway. But the religious aspect makes it pretty important to me, even though its not necessary to MY beliefs, there are things that are, and I don't want them taken away from me by the state.

Camikaze

Apr 20, 2012, 09:53 PM

That would seem to be an odd position for a self-professed libertarian to hold. Bodily inviolability is surely one of the most important rights of all; why should it not also apply to children? Why should parents have a right to do what they want with their child's body so long as it doesn't have a high chance of harming them? Why should the standard be lowered from only being able to consent to what is in the child's benefit?

LucyDuke

Apr 20, 2012, 10:12 PM

I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons. As I've said, I would support a ban on circumcising those that cannot consent. But an exception must be made for the Jews that are going to do it anyway so that it can be done as safely as possible.

metatron

Apr 20, 2012, 10:53 PM

Because to deny Jews that would be saying you may not raise your kid Jewish. Unlike the Jehovah's Witness example, circumcision isn't going to lead to death. The government does, and should, intervene when parents are willing to let their kids die through any means. That's a step too far.

What would you think about a religious doctrine tht demands analphabetism?
That's not lethal either.
Yeah, sure, please save us the lengthy explanation about why that's worse.

The point is, you are essentially arguing in favor of a completely arbitrary violation of fundamental rights being ok as long it is merely a small violation of rights.
That, of course, is perfectly ridiculous.

By that standard i could beat you in the face, fetch your wallet, take exactly one dollar, toss the wallet back at you and then go like:
"Hey it's only a dollar! And you don't even bleed!"
I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons. As I've said, I would support a ban on circumcising those that cannot consent. But an exception must be made for the Jews that are going to do it anyway so that it can be done as safely as possible.
Emphasis added

By that standard Lincoln was wrong to sign the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act, right?
Since, well, Mormons continued to "do it anyway" for almost a century*.

:huh:

*Note how i am being super-generous here in multiple ways.

ParkCungHee

Apr 20, 2012, 11:50 PM

I didn't care about the last ... like... seven... of these threads.
I didn't either. But after seven, a pattern starts emerging.

But one side coming up with "arguments" like this every single time serves as an idicator that their other arguments might not necessarily be as strong as they think...
If you think I'm making an argument in favor of any particular action regarding male genitals, then I've been misunderstood.
My point is that these threads, especially this one, are stupid, and the result of certain poster's mental hangups.

This is basically true. It's kind of like telling someone their mother is a bad parent.
In the most extravagant, emotional and oddly personal language yes. If I see Seymour Skinner talking about bad mothers, I'll comment.

Can't we all agree that everyone's junk is good, and we should, from here on out, not cut things off people who don't consent with adult judgement? It seems like a pretty simple way of moving forward.
Simple yes, but entirely contrary to the OP.
Circumcision is a "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture," and "one of the most horrifying things anyone could see."
Unless you're like me and willing to see the abolition of responding to evil with force, it seems that a far greater retaliation is necessary. Trials would need to be conducted, several thousands of them in the United States alone. If the United States is actually sanctioning the torture of the majority of it's male population, revolution seems the natural reaction, and justified, if revolution was ever justified anywhere. The rest of the world probably should place sanctions on the United States and other nations which continue the practice.

contre

Apr 21, 2012, 12:01 AM

Surely it's also a violation of freedom to deny parents the right to pass on their religion to their children, no? 'cause that's the alternative.

There's a lot that parents have the right to do that would be infringing on another's rights -- the child in this case. That's part of the idea of a parent. So for something that falls into an ambiguous grey zone for me, like circumcision, I'm inclined to keep the status quo.

Camikaze

Apr 21, 2012, 01:12 AM

Does the right of parents to pass on their religion to their children take precedence over the right to bodily inviolability? It would seem to me that the latter right would be a limitation on the former right, rather than the other way around.

You're right though, that that makes it a tricky issue. But if you were conceding the medical benefit angle, and instead pinning the argument on parental religious rights, you'd necessarily be saying that religious tradition is a legal justification for what would otherwise be assault. And I don't think that should be the case. That's why I don't really think you can concede the medical benefit argument if you think circumcision should be allowed; medical benefit would seem the only sustainable justification (and to be clear, I don't purport to know enough about the issue to make a judgement on whether there is a medical benefit or not).

metatron

Apr 21, 2012, 02:41 AM

Surely it's also a violation of freedom to deny parents the right to pass on their religion to their children, no? 'cause that's the alternative.

Trying to pass on ones religion to ones child is a right, yes.
Permanently physically altering your child in the process is not a right, though.
If your religion demands that your religion has to reform. Period.

Otherwise we could come up with all sorts of nonsense in that "gray area" of yours. We could tattoo or brand our kids for starters. We could even scar their skulls so bad that the hair will never grow back. That's not a real problem - just wear hats for the rest of your life.
Or hey, let's just sugically alter our childrens faces. Cutting of the tip of a nose can't hurt really, can it?
There's a lot that parents have the right to do that would be infringing on another's rights -- the child in this case.
If that's the justification we could just as well have people circumcise their sons when they are 8 years old.
It's not like the 8 day old boy is not protesting.
And it's not like we'd care about the 8 year old rights regarding other matters (like when to go to bed).
So for something that falls into an ambiguous grey zone for me, like circumcision, I'm inclined to keep the status quo.
See my last post?

Some people probably said that about de facto forced polygamy 150 years ago.
stuff
Yeah i am sorry if i attributed stuff you didn't actually say to you.

Anyway. I don't even care about the matter itself all that much. But the mindset that pours out of most of the pro circumcision arguments annoys me immensely.

ParkCungHee

Apr 21, 2012, 02:48 AM

Anyway. I don't even care about the matter itself all that much. But the mindset that pours out of most of the pro circumcision arguments annoys me immensely.
I'm willing to wager a good deal of castration anxiety comes down on the other side of the debate as well. I don't stick around in these things long enough.

I'm glad people like you and contre and Camikaze can have reasonable discussions on the matter. But if people didn't have hangups about their junk, I'm pretty sure we could go a month without having this debate.

holy king

Apr 21, 2012, 08:48 AM

Uhmm I never knew it was that bad!
I know woman can get pleasure two different ways, one with the Clit and the other...ermm inside :P. So you can still gain pleasure, now lopping off the entire penis would end up with no pleasure for a man. So are they really comparable?:P

actually quite a lot of women are physically unable to have a vaginal orgasm.

Tycho

Apr 21, 2012, 10:11 AM

Circumcision is not truly dangerous; millions of children have this happen to them each and every day, so what's the problem? Compared to other medical procedures, circumcision is quite safe compared to other things.

Lillefix

Apr 21, 2012, 10:27 AM

Flying Pig

Apr 21, 2012, 10:56 AM

actually quite a lot of women are physically unable to have a vaginal orgasm.

Is that your excuse, then?

On a serious note, I think circumcision is legal for the same reason that alcohol is legal - I'm convinced that if somebody came up with it today, we'd decry it as totally unethical and somewhat suspect. However, it's become so established that there would be a huge backlash against banning it, as well as difficulty in enforcing that law, so it's here to stay unless people in general turn against it.

Tycho

Apr 21, 2012, 12:42 PM

The problem is that it's an unnecessary surgical procedure done to non-consenting persons.

True that it is a unnecessary in many regards (very few males actually have problems that circumcision claims to fix), but on the flipside, a problem that manifests itself that can only be cured by circumcision that appears in a person's later years can be even more painful to deal with.

Lillefix

Apr 21, 2012, 12:47 PM

True that it is a unnecessary in many regards (very few males actually have problems that circumcision claims to fix), but on the flipside, a problem that manifests itself that can only be cured by circumcision that appears in a person's later years can be even more painful to deal with.

If that was such a huge problem, evolution would have dealt with that ages ago.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 02:54 PM

I'm a circumcised male, so can I be less inclined to care about male circumcision without being sexist?

Sure. Stop caring about female genital mutilations.

Yeah this sums things up nicely I believe. I mean, I am not sure whether I am going to circumcise my (future) son if I ever have one (I have a daughter) but I certainly am not going to chide my good Jewish friend who recently had a baby boy and had him circumcised. Even if I disagreed, for male circumcision, we are talking about a fairly personal and private family decision for most people.

Think about that last sentence, where you mention it as a "personal" decision.

A personal decision for who? The doctors? The parents? The extended family?

Circumcision on infants is NEVER a personal decision of the infant. It is always something forced upon them, and it is always painful and traumatic.

Given that infant circumcision deprives men of an essential sensory organ without consent of the infant, it is a human rights violation, pure and simple.

A measured discussion regarding medical benefits vs risks is different than a hyperbolic campaign comparing it to female genital mutilation, which is preposterous comparison.

Female and male genital mutilation are far more alike than they are different. This is the simple truth.

Comparison table (http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html)

In SF a group recently tried to outlaw circumcision in City hospitals and the laws proponents went on a similar outrage binge; the measure was soundly defeated at the polls.

The measure didn't appear at the polls. It was taken off the ballot by a judge, and then Jerry Brown passed a measure that bans banning circumcision.

Democracy, for the loss!

In the worst cases, intercourse becomes extremely painful. So extremely painful versus not pleasurable... and hey, you've still got your prostate. :p

Sex is also very painful for many circumcised men as well, who have had too much skin removed, who experience the effects of keratinization, or who suffer from penile skin bridges/adhesions.

(I don't think it's really useful to compare them anyway. :dunno:)

Comparing them is useful because it helps Americans to see how all genital cutting is a terrible, painful cultural anomaly with the same justifications and rationales.

It is a harmful procedure, it's just not one so bad that those who had it done to them try to perpetuate it, perhaps to self justify or perhaps because it's not the biggest deal in the world.

But remember, religious freedom ends at forcing itself on others. We wouldn't accept 7th century Islamic freedom to convert others through forcible invasion, would we? Nor should we let someone's religion allow them to impose their violence (and it is violence) on someone else.

So it's not like circumcision is the devil, it's just that we shouldn't do it to non consenters.

There's a whole lot of self-denial among circumcised men, just like with circumcised women.

No one in this country wants to admit that we've been committing a tragic human rights violation on generations of men, almost as a matter of afterthought.

And that is very sad.

I'd need to know just what circumcision means to Jews before I comment on religious freedom. If it's something like baptism where without it, you won't be considered pure in the eyes of god, then I'm kinda hesitant to ban it.

I think to a non-religious person, an ideal world would be one in which parents didn't pass on their religion to their kids from birth. Rather, the kids joined the religion as the grew. You know, choice v indoctrination. But let's be honest, that's not the world we live in and the idea seems like a pipe dream. So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.

Then again, for Christians, it's just a cultural thing that's done to us because it was done to our dads and it was done to our dads by our grandfathers. 200 years ago, I don't think most of our ancestors did circumcision. I remember it being a 1800s thing, perhaps to dissuade masturbation?

Why do people keep bringing up religion? Religion should have no bearing on medicine or ethics, both of which circumcision goes against.

If we're going to allow people to cut their boys on the basis of religious rights, why are we disallowing people to cut their girls? That is favoring one religion over another, and has no place in a secular society such as ours.

And yes, Dr. Kellogg was the one who supported male circumcision on the basis of curing masturbation. He also advocated female genital mutilation for the same purpose, and female genital mutilation including clitoridectomy was widely practiced about 100 years ago in the United States. Female circumcision in the United States was actually insured by Blue Shield until 1977.

I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons.

But you care a whole lot if Muslims and African tribal religions want to cut their infant daughters.

Why the sexism?

As I've said, I would support a ban on circumcising those that cannot consent. But an exception must be made for the Jews that are going to do it anyway so that it can be done as safely as possible.

As I've mentioned again and again, the AAP a few years ago briefly considered allowing FGM in this country for that same rationale: to do it as safely as possible.

We should not be accommodating human rights violations, even if they are in the name of a religion.

Simple yes, but entirely contrary to the OP.
Circumcision is a "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture," and "one of the most horrifying things anyone could see."
Unless you're like me and willing to see the abolition of responding to evil with force, it seems that a far greater retaliation is necessary. Trials would need to be conducted, several thousands of them in the United States alone. If the United States is actually sanctioning the torture of the majority of it's male population, revolution seems the natural reaction, and justified, if revolution was ever justified anywhere. The rest of the world probably should place sanctions on the United States and other nations which continue the practice.

"Imagine that you are resting comfortably, perhaps with a dearly loved person you enjoy being physically close to, when a few strange people enter the room and proceed to pick you up to carry you away. You protest and struggle, but they are stronger than you are. They take you to another room where they remove your clothes and strap you down on your back on a table. You try to free yourself, but the only part of your body that you can move is your head. All this time they continue to disregard your protest. Then a man enters, and after seeing that you are securely restrained, he uses a clamp, knife, and other instruments to cut off a piece of highly sensitive, specialized tissue from your genitals. The procedure lasts for about fifteen minutes. Your screams are ignored. Notice how you feel.
This visualization is similar to what happens to a male infant when he is circumcised. From the perspective of the infant, it is an act of violence. Circumcision causes extreme pain and trauma, behavioral and neurological changes, loss of an important body part, reduced sexual pleasure, potential psychological problems, risks of surgical complications, and unknown negative effects.
The foreskin would become in the adult about twelve square inches of highly erogenous and protective tissue that forms a movable sleeve to facilitate intercourse and enhance sexual pleasure. There are no proven medical benefits, and no national medical organization in the world recommends circumcision."

-Ronald Goldman, Ph.D

Circumcision, even if not intended to be torturous and tramatic, is experienced that way by the baby.

Surely it's also a violation of freedom to deny parents the right to pass on their religion to their children, no? 'cause that's the alternative.

The real violation of freedom is violating the freedom of the baby to decide what he wants to do with his body.

Don't you think?

There's a lot that parents have the right to do that would be infringing on another's rights -- the child in this case. That's part of the idea of a parent. So for something that falls into an ambiguous grey zone for me, like circumcision, I'm inclined to keep the status quo.

There is no ambiguous gray zone. Circumcision is an injury to the penis by definition that reduces penile size and function.

There's also the fact that circumcision ALWAYS causes pain to the infant, even if anaesthesia is involved, because anaesthesia wears off too soon and the wound continues to fester in a diaper filled with feces and urine weeks afterward.

There is also considerable evidence that circumcision greatly disrupts the process of bonding between mother and infant son.

There is no "ambiguity". Circumcision is wrong.

contre

Apr 21, 2012, 03:00 PM

Without running around in circles for hours with us continuing to disagree, could you explain how being circumcised reduces penis size?

Truronian

Apr 21, 2012, 03:29 PM

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 05:01 PM

Without running around in circles for hours with us continuing to disagree, could you explain how being circumcised reduces penis size?

Sure.

* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

Medical opinion on circumcision is mixed, but you are only acknowledging the anecdotes and viewpoints that affirm your stance Dawgphood. On top of that you are making spurious claims with little evidence (for example, claiming foreskin is 'an essential sensory organ'). I suspect most people sympathise with your reluctance to see such surgery performed on infants, but I don't see you winning anyone over with the severe and at times uninformed nature of your posts.

Medical opinion on circumcision isn't mixed. No professional medical organization in the entire world currently recommends circumcision as a way to prevent or treat any disease. Simply put, there is no medical reason to circumcise male neonates.

Furthermore, the foreskin is a highly specialized organ that serves many functions. (http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm) This isn't a "spurious" claim at all.

* Protection: Just as the eyelids protect the eyes, the foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive. It also maintains optimal warmth, pH balance, and cleanliness. The glans itself contains no sebaceous glands--glands that produce the sebum, or oil, that moisturizes our skin.[11] The foreskin produces the sebum that maintains proper health of the surface of the glans.

* Immunological Defense: The mucous membranes that line all body orifices are the body's first line of immunological defense. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme.[12] Lysozyme is also found in tears and mother's milk. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, an immune system component, abound in the foreskin's outer surface. Plasma cells in the foreskin's mucosal lining secrete immunoglobulins, antibodies that defend against infections.

* Erogenous Sensitivity: The foreskin is as sensitive as the fingertips or the lips of the mouth. It contains a richer variety and greater concentration of specialized nerve receptors than any other part of the penis.[15] These specialized nerve endings can discern motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations of texture.[16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]

* Coverage during Erection: As it becomes erect, the penile shaft becomes thicker and longer. The double-layered foreskin provides the skin necessary to accommodate the expanded organ and to allow the penile skin to glide freely, smoothly, and pleasurably over the shaft and glans.

* Self-Stimulating Sexual Functions: The foreskin's double-layered sheath enables the penile shaft skin to glide back and forth over the penile shaft. The foreskin can normally be slipped all the way, or almost all the way, back to the base of the penis, and also slipped forward beyond the glans. This wide range of motion is the mechanism by which the penis and the orgasmic triggers in the foreskin, frenulum, and glans are stimulated.

* Sexual Functions in Intercourse: One of the foreskin's functions is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement between the mucosal surfaces of the two partners during intercourse. The foreskin enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina nonabrasively inside its own slick sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the male's foreskin is missing.

The only "uninformed" people are those who continue to believe despite all the mountains of evidence to the contrary that circumcision has any medical purpose or utility. Circumcision is a bronze-age blood ritual that has long outlived it's utility in societies claiming to be humane and egalitarian.

contre

Apr 21, 2012, 05:08 PM

Shorter flaccid or erect? Cause unless I'm missing something (ha), I don't see what foreskin would have to do with the size of an erect penis.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 05:26 PM

Shorter flaccid or erect? Cause unless I'm missing something (ha), I don't see what foreskin would have to do with the size of an erect penis.

From that same link in my last post:

* Circumcision disables: The amputation of so much penile skin permanently immobilizes whatever skin remains, preventing it from gliding freely over the shaft and glans. This loss of mobility destroys the mechanism by which the glans is normally stimulated. When the circumcised penis becomes erect, the immobilized remaining skin is stretched, sometimes so tightly that not enough skin is left to cover the erect shaft. Hair-bearing skin from the groin and scrotum is often pulled onto the shaft, where hair is not normally found. The surgically externalized mucous membrane of the glans has no sebaceous glands. Without the protection and emollients of the foreskin, it dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding.

* Circumcision disfigures: Circumcision alters the appearance of the penis drastically. It permanently externalizes the glans, normally an internal organ. Circumcision leaves a large circumferential surgical scar on the penile shaft. Because circumcision usually necessitates tearing the foreskin from the glans, pieces of the glans may be torn off, too, leaving it pitted and scarred. Shreds of foreskin may adhere to the raw glans, forming tags and bridges of dangling, displaced skin.[32]

Depending on the amount of skin cut off and how the scar forms, the circumcised penis may be permanently twisted, or curve or bow during erection.[33] The contraction of the scar tissue may pull the shaft into the abdomen, in effect shortening the penis or burying it completely.[34]

* Circumcision disrupts circulation: Circumcision interrupts the normal circulation of blood throughout the penile skin system and glans. The blood flowing into major penile arteries is obstructed by the line of scar tissue at the point of incision, creating backflow instead of feeding the branches and capillary networks beyond the scar. Deprived of blood, the meatus may contract and scarify, obstructing the flow of urine.[35] This condition, known as meatal stenosis, often requires corrective surgery. Meatal stenosis is found almost exclusively among boys who have been circumcised.

Circumcision also severs the lymph vessels, interrupting the circulation of lymph and sometimes causing lymphedema, a painful, disfiguring condition in which the remaining skin of the penis swells with trapped lymph fluid.

Tycho

Apr 21, 2012, 05:29 PM

If that was such a huge problem, evolution would have dealt with that ages ago.

Like with the appendix and other useless organs, am I right?

There is no ambiguous gray zone. Circumcision is an injury to the penis by definition that reduces penile size and function.

There's also the fact that circumcision ALWAYS causes pain to the infant, even if anaesthesia is involved, because anaesthesia wears off too soon and the wound continues to fester in a diaper filled with feces and urine weeks afterward.

There is also considerable evidence that circumcision greatly disrupts the process of bonding between mother and infant son.

There is no "ambiguity". Circumcision is wrong.

The only "uninformed" people are those who continue to believe despite all the mountains of evidence to the contrary that circumcision has any medical purpose or utility. Circumcision is a bronze-age blood ritual that has long outlived it's utility in societies claiming to be humane and egalitarian.

Sir, what is wrong with you?

No, I'm being serious, "reduces penile size and function"? That is the most ludicrous thing I have heard of for quite awhile. You make it sound like it is a crime against humanity, when it really, really isn't.

Now, I am not saying that it is not completely hazardous (much like any other surgery risks are involved), but not to the extent of what you say.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 05:42 PM

Like with the appendix and other useless organs, am I right?

Read what I am posting. The foreskin is not a "useless" organ, at all. The foreskin isn't any more "useless" than your eyelids or lips are "useless".

Sir, what is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you? You're the one advocating the unnecessary amputation of normal penile anatomy.

Sounds pretty strange to me.

No, I'm being serious,

So am I.

"reduces penile size and function"?

Absolutely, in 100% of all circumcisions.

That is the most ludicrous thing I have heard of for quite awhile.

What is really ludicrous is suggesting that cutting off a part of the genitals somehow doesn't affect size and function.

Cognitive dissonance in its purest form.

You make it sound like it is a crime against humanity, when it really, really isn't.

“Every human being’s right to life carries with it, as an intrinsic part of it, rights of bodily integrity and autonomy – the right to have one’s own body whole and intact and (upon reaching an age of understanding) to take decisions about one’s body“

-Lord Justice Robert Walker, United Kingdom.

contre

Apr 21, 2012, 05:50 PM

Yeah. So, you let your passion blind you and I'm pretty much hard pressed to really take you seriously. If you wish to blame that on my laziness, fine. But part of championing a cause is doing it responsibly. You have not done that. You have gone out of your way to belittle people who reacted with bemusement. You have dropped first year sociology phrases like "cognitive dissonance" -- in short, you have done more to harm your case then help it.

Here's a quote that you might consider adding to your signature:

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins" - Benjamin Franklin

edit: for what it's worth, if I ever had a son I was leaning towards not having him circumcised. What you've written in this thread has at least convinced me to not do it.

innonimatu

Apr 21, 2012, 05:57 PM

edit: for what it's worth, if I ever had a son I was leaning towards not having him circumcised. What you've written in this thread has at least convinced me to not do it.

Please think twice about it, it would be a rather nasty thing to do to your son out of spite for someone else.

Regardless of the true frequency of side effects caused by infant circumcision they do happen, and inflicting an unnecessary, risk-carrying procedure on people without any choice simply shouldn't be done. They should be able to make that decision by themselves later in life.

contre

Apr 21, 2012, 06:01 PM

That would be a rather nasty thing to do to your son out of spite for someone else...

Regardless of the true frequency of side effects caused by infant circumcision they do happen, and inflicting an unnecessary, risk-carrying procedure on people without any choice simply shouldn't me done. They should be able to make that decision by themselves later in life.

Um. I'm definitively not going to have a son circumcised because of this thread. That's not in spite of him, it's because of him.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 06:02 PM

Yeah. So, you let your passion blind you and I'm pretty much hard pressed to really take you seriously.

I admit that this issue is very personal to me, but what I've said in this thread and have put up as evidence is totally legitimate research that has been firmly established in medical circles.

If you wish to blame that on my laziness, fine. But part of championing a cause is doing it responsibly. You have not done that.

I have provided factual information about the harms and effects of circumcision. As far as I'm concerned, that's responsible.

You have gone out of your way to belittle people who reacted with bemusement.

Yes, and people have also gone out of their way to call my opinions "ludicrous" and "uninformed" when they are nothing of the sort.

You have dropped first year sociology phrases like "cognitive dissonance"

Because it's pertinent to the topic.

-- in short, you have done more to harm your case then help it.

Hmm...looking at your edit below that wouldn't appear to be the case.

Here's a quote that you might consider adding to your signature:

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins" - Benjamin Franklin

I consider my passion for this cause to be founded in reason. I'm working on trying to express it less emotionally, but circumcision is by its nature a topic that involves a lot of painful emotions.

edit: for what it's worth, if I ever had a son I was leaning towards not having him circumcised. What you've written in this thread has at least convinced me to not do it.

That makes me happy.:)

If you ever have a son and choose to keep him intact, be sure to also make sure that no one retracts his foreskin prematurely. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth and is meant to be separated between the ages of around 3 and 13 by the boy himself when he is ready. Too often foreskin is prematurely retracted by ignorant doctors and others, which can cause infection and other complications.

contre

Apr 21, 2012, 06:04 PM

I just hope to have daughters now so my wife can deal with the period stuff and I can smoke a cigar and sip brandy down stairs in the living room.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 06:20 PM

I just hope to have daughters now so my wife can deal with the period stuff and I can smoke a cigar and sip brandy down stairs in the living room.

Bah, your wife will probably make you buy tampons.:p

I'm happy that things are starting to change for genital mutilations world wide. The Swedish and Dutch medical associations recently revised their opinions on male infant circumcision by declaring it a painful and unnecessary ritual that should be relegated to the past. The circumcision rate is continuing to plummet in the United States, despite the best efforts of the circumcision industry to promote this quackery. There are many activists in this country that tirelessly advocate for the rights of children, among them the people behind the MGM Bill (http://mgmbill.org/) which if enacted would make both female and male genital cuttings of any kind illegal and punishable by imprisonment.

There are also the people over at Foregen (http://www.foregen.org/) who are working on a way to completely regenerate the foreskin of circumcised men and women with the use of regenerative tissue therapy. This means that circumcised men and women can experience the body they were born with and designed by nature to have.

However, it's also sad that the WHO, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and other powerful, moneyed organizations are promoting "medical" male circumcision in Africa. Such a promotion is grossly hypocritical given the WHO's condemnation of female genital cutting. It's reminiscent of the Tuskeegee experiment of years past, and the attitude of White Man's burden.

I think eventually circumcision will be abolished or almost unheard of in the coming years, but not before a lot of pain and suffering comes to the surface, unfortunately.

Tycho

Apr 21, 2012, 06:34 PM

Let me first start off by apologizing in general for the argument.

I stand by my earlier arguments and by the belief that it is a parent's decision to have their child circumcised, as the parents hold the most authority, as with many other decisions.

I respect your general argument, Dawgphood, but the extremist and somewhat violent tone disturbs me a tad bit.

cegman

Apr 21, 2012, 06:40 PM

Yo Dawg. I want you to know that your arguments have made me very happy to have had my son Circumcised.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 06:55 PM

Let me first start off by apologizing in general for the argument.

Accepted.

I stand by my earlier arguments and by the belief that it is a parent's decision to have their child circumcised, as the parents hold the most authority, as with many other decisions.

Well then, if you believe parents have the authority to have normal male sexual parts amputated off an infant, surely parents must be able to authorize the amputation of normal female sexual parts.

Right?

I respect your general argument, Dawgphood, but the extremist and somewhat violent tone disturbs me a tad bit.

I consider my tone to be realistic. The reality of circumcision is that it is, as you describe, profoundly disturbing.

Yo Dawg. I want you to know that your arguments have made me very happy to have had my son Circumcised.

Sarcasm???

innonimatu

Apr 21, 2012, 07:07 PM

Um. I'm definitively not going to have a son circumcised because of this thread. That's not in spite of him, it's because of him.

Oh, sorry, my mistake, I misread what you wrote! :blush:

cegman

Apr 21, 2012, 07:15 PM

G-Max

Apr 21, 2012, 08:11 PM

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene. On the other hand their is the ever present risk of complications and psychological damage. As with any other medical procedure which has such documented pros and cons, I say leave it up to the doctors.

I say leave it up to the babies, and trust me, not one of them ever decides to get cut.

Yeah, I have to agree, you can't compare male and female circumcision. They're done for totally different reasons, and one has a legit medical purpose.

No, neither one has a legit medical purpose.

I don't know if you've ever had to clean an infant's penis before, but URIs are not very uncommon, and being cut makes that cleaning process a little easier.

Easier cleaning does not justify mutilation.

The issue of consent is really a non-starter. Medical decisions of minors are left in the hands of parents, and it doesn't make a difference if the kid is 12 or 12 hours.

Ah, the old "is = ought" fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while...

Honestly, if the doctor does the circumcision right, there shouldn't be any complications.

The complications are only secondary to the main reasons for opposing the practice...

I really think that calling male circumcision "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture" is an overstatement.

How much pain would have to be inflicted on a baby, and how many body parts removed, before you'd consider it abuse/damage/torture?

Can we vaccinate children? I mean, 3 year olds can't consent to getting a shot. Should we give a kid a shot if he cries and says no no no?

I wouldn't vaccinate a 3-year-old regardless of what they had to say about it, but to answer your question, "no" means "no".

This... with the added stipulation that the act of circumsicion rarely causes harm to the child.

Circumcision harms the child by definition.

Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the drowning (http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/29-07-2010/114414-baby_baptism-0/) from a couple years back.

Correct. The parts of the practice that go exactly according to plan are the biggest reason for wanting it banned.

I have some cousins who are circumcised and they have had no issues with them, so generally it is safe to do.

On what planet do excruciating pain and the loss of functionally important tissue not preclude something from being "safe"?

If circumcision is torture I think we have literally run out of problems in the world. Torture, evidently, is a largely forgettable experience. Humans, it turns out, are largely incapable of administering any real harm to humans. The rack, the pit of Calcutta, hanging by hooks and wires, burning alive it's apparently all not too bad. Turns out, those people were all a bunch of whiners. Most of them weren't even circumcised.

I dunno. I might take the Rack over having someone cut into my Most Important Organ without anaesthetic.

I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration, plus its not really a harmful procedure.

1) The freedom to not have your junk mutilated against your will and without anaesthetic trumps anything that anyone might say about religious freedom.
2) It is, by definition, a form of harm.

I think it's a disgusting practice but I leave the choice to the parents.

You seem to be forgetting the one person whose choice matters most.

So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.

That sounds like a fair trade.

A more extreme example would be the Jehova's witnesses, who want to refuse their children blood even if they will die without it. What's your stance on that? Should that be legal just because a religion demands it?

I'd call Child Protective Services and ensure that the kids find new homes with parents who don't want to kill kids.

My sincerest apologies to any Witnesses in here.

circumcision isn't going to lead to death.

No, just horrible pain and the permanent inability to ever learn just how awesome sex can feel.

But ordinary circumcision does no real damage.

It is damage by its very nature.

For me personally, I'm glad I was circumcised, but would never choose to be circumcised. The pain would be too great.

I'm pretty sure that you're given anaesthetics if you get it done as an adult.

I think unless a given medical procedure has a high chance of harming the baby, it should be a parent's decision, regardless. So I do hold to the "Circumcision is fine" position anyway.

Did you miss the step where the baby loses a body part, accompanied by blood and screaming? That falls under the definition of "harm".

I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons. As I've said, I would support a ban on circumcising those that cannot consent. But an exception must be made for the Jews that are going to do it anyway so that it can be done as safely as possible.

I have a better idea. Make it illegal for everyone, and if they do it anyway, they get prison time.

Circumcision is not truly dangerous

You have a curious definition of "dangerous". Go out and ask a bunch people, "If something has a 100% chance of causing the loss of a body part and extreme pain, would you consider it dangerous?" I think you'll find that the people will disproportionately answer "yes".

millions of children have this happen to them each and every day, so what's the problem?

The problem is that millions of children have this happen to them each and every day.

True that it is a unnecessary in many regards (very few males actually have problems that circumcision claims to fix), but on the flipside, a problem that manifests itself that can only be cured by circumcision that appears in a person's later years can be even more painful to deal with.

Adults can get circumcised, you know. Problem solved.

No, I'm being serious, "reduces penile size and function"? That is the most ludicrous thing I have heard of for quite awhile.

I'm not sure about size, but there's definitely a loss of function if you consider sexual pleasure to be one of the functions of the penis.

it is a parent's decision to have their child circumcised, as the parents hold the most authority

No, the person to whom the penis belongs holds the most authority.

GhostWriter16

Apr 21, 2012, 08:52 PM

Circumcision harms the child by definition.

It causes pain and removes a more or less useless piece of skin. That's about it. Pain =/= harm.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 08:58 PM

It causes pain and removes a more or less useless piece of skin. That's about it. Pain =/= harm.

Please read all my previous posts. The foreskin is NOT a "useless piece of skin" anymore than your eyelids or lips.

And pain of the sort that circumcision involves (extreme) causes trauma which is immensely harmful.

Dawgphood001

Apr 21, 2012, 11:14 PM

Sorry Dawgphood001 I was completely serious. Of course I have talked to some people who were not circumcised that ran into issues that could only be resolved by circumcision. They definitely wished they had that surgery as an infant. Of course that number was 2 people so it cannot be used as a statistic.

What issues might these be, exactly? Phimosis?

Phimosis is falsely diagnosed all the time in the United States. Many doctors in The United States are ignorant of male anatomy and believe that a foreskin that hasn't retracted is experiencing phimosis. True phimosis occurs in less than 2% of intact males, and of those 2% nearly all of them respond to treatments that are far less severe than circumcision. (http://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/)

Truronian

Apr 22, 2012, 12:45 AM

Medical opinion on circumcision isn't mixed. No professional medical organization in the entire world currently recommends circumcision as a way to prevent or treat any disease. Simply put, there is no medical reason to circumcise male neonates.

Most medical associations have an official stance that circumcision has pros and cons and should be left up to the parents.

The American Urological Association recommend that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".

The American Academy of Family Physicians recommend that doctors "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." This statement is supported by the American Medical Association.

The story in the rest of the world is fairly similar, notable exceptions being the Royal Dutch Medical Association who come out firmly against circumcision and the WHO who recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV.

That's about as mixed as medical opinion comes, which is why I say leave it up to the doctors and the parents.

Furthermore, the foreskin is a highly specialized organ that serves many functions. (http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm) This isn't a "spurious" claim at all.

Spurious may be the wrong word, but your claim is certainly incorrect in some ways and contentious in others. Skin as a whole is an organ which I guess would make the foreskin a bit of an organ. It is certainly not essential; I'm sure a number of people on CFC can attest to that. As for the function of the foreskin, once again medical opinion is mixed. The wikipedia article is actually pretty good; I recommend reading it and some of the reference papers if you want get to get a broad view of the medical research rather than just that which foreskin.org has identified as being in agreement with its agenda.

holy king

Apr 22, 2012, 03:59 AM

metatron

Apr 22, 2012, 04:36 AM

Medical opinion on circumcision is mixed, but you are only acknowledging the anecdotes and viewpoints that affirm your stance Dawgphood. On top of that you are making spurious claims with little evidence (for example, claiming foreskin is 'an essential sensory organ'). I suspect most people sympathise with your reluctance to see such surgery performed on infants, but I don't see you winning anyone over with the severe and at times uninformed nature of your posts.
Camikaze and i both have made somewhat reasonable posts (Camikaze's were certainly superior to mine) in which we have offered measured and rational criticism of the practise itself or the arguments in its support.

The reaction of the pro circumcision camp was (except for PCH) virtually non-existant. Contre walked right past most of them even when quoted directy. He'd rather continue the personal line of argument with Dawgphood that he chose at the beginning of the thread and never stepped away from.

And you did the same by the way.
In my first post in this thread i asked you a rather simple question. Which you didn't answer so far. Nobody did, actually.
[...]but I don't see you winning anyone over with the severe and at times uninformed nature of your posts.
I'm sorry. I'm really at a loss here. We have tried "not severe" - Camikaze has also tried "very technical".
Reaction? Zero.

Let me be clear: I don't agree with every single one of Dawgphoods arguments. I none the less believe that he is in a very good position here.
That is if you guys ever show up to actually debate instead of just taking his most questionable arguments, mock them, and irgnore the rest (as well as other posters for that matter).
You have dropped first year sociology phrases like "cognitive dissonance"
That's a very valid concept in a science called "psychology". It's not that arcane at all really.
You have gone out of your way to belittle people who reacted with bemusement.
Psychology has another nifty "first year" concept that applies to the mode of debate in this thread.
A lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
The story in the rest of the world is fairly similar, notable exceptions being the Royal Dutch Medical Association who come out firmly against circumcision and the WHO who recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV.

That's about as mixed as medical opinion comes, which is why I say leave it up to the doctors and the parents.
There are arguments to be made about how some of those organisations may be fairly biased, particularly the WHO. Actually some of those have been made in this thread.

By the way, you really might want to answer my question here, since it is somewhat relevant to that point. I case you forgot (i suppose you did):

Why do you think, does the success (i.e. prevalence) of circumcision as a measure of public health differ so much between various parts of the christian world?
Are Europeans and Latin Americans simply anti-semites who don't care for the health of their sons? Or may it be that people in parts of the Anglosphere merely got carried away with early 20th century "moralist" nonsense and still can't admit the error?
I mean... it's not like this is killing people on a daily basis and is greatly undermining the nation as a whole, like prohibition did.
So there is rather little motivation to admit one was wrong.

Speaking of prohibition (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/09/The_Gennii_of_Intolerance_-_A_Dangerous_Ally.tif/lossy-page1-513px-The_Gennii_of_Intolerance_-_A_Dangerous_Ally.tif.jpg): It's amusing to see how the sexist views of first wave feminists, male disposability etc. play into this and how adept you guys are at ignoring that while you employ those very concepts as a means of ridiculing Dawgphood.

So i guess that would be my next question: Latent prudery and superstition (regarding masturbation) as well as sexism (male disposability) as well as plain and simple effort justification ("tradition") may play a lot into the individual parent's and physician's opinions, with medical considerations acting as a mere conscious or semi-conscious apology.
How relevant do you think are those factors?
How do you suppose we find out about that?
Given that one might believe these factors actually dominated and the medical considerations were by and large a farce, how much would you be inclined to prefer erring on the side of caution (base on your answer to the previous question)?
Spurious may be the wrong word, but your claim is certainly incorrect in some ways and contentious in others. Skin as a whole is an organ which I guess would make the foreskin a bit of an organ. It is certainly not essential; I'm sure a number of people on CFC can attest to that. As for the function of the foreskin, once again medical opinion is mixed. The wikipedia article is actually pretty good; I recommend reading it and some of the reference papers if you want get to get a broad view of the medical research rather than just that which foreskin.org has identified as being in agreement with its agenda.
Emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

Flying Pig

Apr 22, 2012, 04:45 AM

And pain of the sort that circumcision involves (extreme) causes trauma which is immensely harmful.

I've yet to observe that every Jewish man is walking around with PTSD

Truronian

Apr 22, 2012, 05:30 AM

metatron:

I don't consider myself pro-circumcision. I'm not particularly opposed to the idea of a law against it being carried out on infants, nor am I particularly for such a law. I defer to medical opinion on this, which as I've mentioned before seems decidedly mixed.

I haven't replied to you or Camikaze on this issue because I don't particularly disagree with anything you've said. I apologize for not responding to your direct question; I didn't see it. Having now read it I'm not quite sure what you're asking for... are you referring to circumcision's prevalence or it's success rate?

Emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin

I don't follow...?

How relevant do you think are those factors?

From my personal experience, not particularly relevant. Outside of my personal experience I suspect they have a much greater impact on parental opinion. Tradition is after all the primary motivator of circumcision amongst the religious.

How do you suppose we find out about that?

Do we need to?

Given that one might believe these factors actually dominated and the medical considerations were by and large a farce, how much would you be inclined to prefer erring on the side of caution (base on your answer to the previous question)?

I don't particularly care about the reasons that parents have for having a child circumcised. The only thing I think that needs to be considered is whether or not the procedure is beneficial. If it is beneficial for an individual child then who cares why parents get it done?

metatron

Apr 22, 2012, 06:14 AM

... are you referring to circumcision's prevalence or it's success rate?
The prevalence.
I find it very curious that the idea of circumcision other than for religions sake has gotten that much traction in some nations but not in others. That's even more curious considering the relative cultural similarities of many nations in the christian world in the relevant timeframe.
Anyone who claims health considerations were the primary motivation has to explain that.

My suspicion is, as i indicated, that the US (and to some degree other parts of the Anglosphere) going completely overboard with many early 20th century moralist causes is the key determinator of the different prevalence of circumcision.
I.e. it's a result of prudery and sexism.
So far no one has offered any better explanation for the difference, which shouldn't be that hard, since it's a somewhat speculative explanation.
I suspect that that is the case, cause there is no better, no less speculative explanation, and the above may very well be true...
...for nations as well as for many individual parents and physicians.
I don't particularly care about the reasons that parents have for having a child circumcised. The only thing I think that needs to be considered is whether or not the procedure is beneficial. If it is beneficial for an individual child then who cares why parents get it done?
The above changes the merit of virtually all of the medical considerations a lot; in my opinion the parents and physicians (and politicians' involved public health) intent is crucial.

If the health benefits - apart from being dubious and/or negligible - happen to be a mere byproduct of prudery and sexism, they loose a great deal of their validity.

Truronian

Apr 22, 2012, 06:25 AM

The prevalence.
I find it very curious that the idea of circumcision other than for religions sake has gotten that much traction in some nations but not in others. That's even more curious considering the relative cultural similarities of many nations in the christian world in the relevant timeframe.
Anyone who claims health considerations were the primary motivation has to explain that.

There is no consensus on the medical benefits of circumcision, I think that alone explains the disparity in how widespread it is in different countries. Government A listens to study A while government B listens to study B.

Winston Hughes

Apr 22, 2012, 07:22 AM

I'd never really thought about the issue before, but, if this thread is anything to go by, the anti-circumcision types have by far the better case. The arguments of those on the other side, defending infant circumcision, have been extremely weak by comparison. Many remind me of nothing more than those people who argue that parents should be allowed to beat their children because "it never did me any harm".

That said, Flying Pig's point about cultural resistance bears repeating. It's one thing to establish to the satisfaction of a neutral observer that a practice is immoral; it's another thing altogether to change the minds of millions who currently regard it as perfectly normal and desirable.

Masada

Apr 22, 2012, 07:41 AM

Winston Hughes

Apr 22, 2012, 07:52 AM

metatron

Apr 22, 2012, 08:09 AM

Midgard Eagle

Apr 22, 2012, 08:59 AM

All I got out of this whole thread was something to the effect of "female genital mutilation is the same as circumcision"On a certain level, yes, it is. You can take a blade to female genitalia and do only "cosmetic damage", same way you can to a penis or, heck, to any other part of the body.

I imagine that if you're born and raised in an environment where circumsicion is common, it's easy for you to defend it on the grounds of traditionalism. For the rest of us, trust me, it's more difficult by far.

For the circumsicion supporters here: since this kind of cosmetic/tribal ritual surgery on infants is permittable in your eyes, what about other similar changes to infants' bodies? Cutting off ear-tips? Tattoos? Silicon breasts? Once you have said that one operation is fine, where do you draw the line?

Religious aspects of this seem to me to be irrelevant. Of course it is. Religions order a whole range of things, from wise life advice to downright disgusting principles we've long since abandoned. You can't look at laws, religions or traditions when deciding what's right or wrong -- otherwise we would still be stoning rape survivors in the streets, as per Deuteronomy.

G-Max

Apr 22, 2012, 10:21 AM

Pain =/= harm.

You'd probably be less likely to say that while actually experiencing severe pain.

(2.5 million Armenians died :rolleyes:)

I first read this as "2.5 million Americans died", which I found historically somewhat questionable. :lol:

GhostWriter16

Apr 22, 2012, 03:49 PM

Lillefix

Apr 22, 2012, 04:01 PM

Religious freedom is absolutely important here. Its one of the most treasured liberties.

Aren't we then violating the baby's religious freedom by circumcising it? Surely a baby can never be a believing Jew or Muslim.

And religious freedom is a silly liberty. It should be grouped with some other more general liberty.

GhostWriter16

Apr 22, 2012, 04:04 PM

And religious freedom is a silly liberty. It should be grouped with some other more general liberty.

Wait, what?

Not recognizing the sacred nature of religious liberty is the first step to persecution (Of ANY religion.)

useless

Apr 22, 2012, 04:07 PM

What of the bodily autonomy of the child? Why should that be violated to appease a deity the child itself does not believe in?

Lillefix

Apr 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

Wait, what?

Not recognizing the sacred nature of religious liberty is the first step to persecution (Of ANY religion.)

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression should be able to cover freedom of religion quite nicely imho, and at the same time it will prevent religion from gaining any additional liberties that the rest of us don't have. But that's off topic.

Traitorfish

Apr 22, 2012, 04:40 PM

Not recognizing the sacred nature of religious liberty is the first step to persecution (Of ANY religion.)
Do you approve of human sacrifice, y/n?

Leoreth

Apr 22, 2012, 04:51 PM

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression should be able to cover freedom of religion quite nicely imho, and at the same time it will prevent religion from gaining any additional liberties that the rest of us don't have.
This. Everything else is just special treatment.

GhostWriter16

Apr 22, 2012, 04:56 PM

Do you approve of human sacrifice, y/n?

Yes:p

In all seriousness, I'm not saying if one person believes in something they should automatically be allowed to do it. What I am saying is that we should be very careful to play with religious liberty only when it is imperative that we do so. I don't think screwing a major religion over like this is necessary in any way.

Traitorfish

Apr 22, 2012, 04:59 PM

No, I'm serious: do you or do you not think that I should be able to ritually kill unwilling victims if my religious beliefs demand it? I'm trying to establish an upper limit on your acceptance of religiously-motivated violence, and this seems like a good place to start.

GhostWriter16

Apr 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

OK... obviously not.

For the record, I do think non-Jewish parents should be allowed to do circumcision as well, so "Jewish religion demands it" is just an aside.

LucyDuke

Apr 22, 2012, 05:21 PM

Sex is also very painful for many circumcised men as well, who have had too much skin removed, who experience the effects of keratinization, or who suffer from penile skin bridges/adhesions.

I'll try to remember to PM you every time I post anything about a vagina so you can get your penis word in too.

Comparing them is useful because it helps Americans to see how all genital cutting is a terrible, painful cultural anomaly with the same justifications and rationales.

Seems to me like there was more agreement and less argument before that topic took over.

But you care a whole lot if Muslims and African tribal religions want to cut their infant daughters.

Why the sexism?

Chill bro.

I do not respect any sort of "religious freedom" to abuse your children. I am not sympathetic to Jews that want to amputate their sons.

Get it?

By that standard Lincoln was wrong to sign the Morril Anti-Bigamy Act, right?
Since, well, Mormons continued to "do it anyway" for almost a century*.

:huh:

*Note how i am being super-generous here in multiple ways.

No, that is not comparable.

As I've mentioned again and again, the AAP a few years ago briefly considered allowing FGM in this country for that same rationale: to do it as safely as possible.

We should not be accommodating human rights violations, even if they are in the name of a religion.

I don't give a damn about religion.

I would propose something like legal immunity for medical professionals that actually perform the procedure to a set of standards, while anyone contracting those services would still be criminally liable. Contracting services from non-medical-professionals would be an even more severe crime, on both parties' parts.

The point is not to accommodate child abuse. The point is that some people are going to do it anyway, and any law that treats it the same under any circumstances increases harm. That's not okay. It's not okay to subject any child to additional danger. The point is to incentivize safety even under prohibition. Unless you'd propose the maximum possible punishment for hiring a doctor to perform the medically ideal circumcision, then there's room to incentivize safety.

Virote_Considon

Apr 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

Sex was pretty darned painful before my circumcision but post-op I've had no problem. I would recommend circumcision to anyone.

Hygro

Apr 22, 2012, 06:32 PM

Sex was pretty darned painful before my circumcision but post-op I've had no problem. I would recommend circumcision to anyone.

But not for others, so.... making that decision yourself seems like a reasonable move to me!

Hygro

Apr 22, 2012, 11:58 PM

Religious freedom is absolutely important here. Its one of the most treasured liberties.

As I said, pain isn't harm. Harm means a permanent or long term injury. Granted, I'm sure circumcision is unpleasant, but I can't even remember it, and so don't care...

But it is personal, permanent, and lasting damage. Circumcision as an adult is probably not that big a deal either. It's cool you're cool with it, I'm glad you are and everyone else who is. But let's give every grown, cognizant man the opportunity to make that decision himself. If you're Jewish you're probably do it anyway, and if you don't, it's a great reason why we shouldn't do it to non-consenting babies.

Religious freedom is fine, it's great, but it's not a valid reason to make lasting removals of someone else's body parts without their permission.

Would you be OK with parents branding a child with hot iron, burning a scare of a big symbol on their bellies?

Camikaze

Apr 23, 2012, 12:14 AM

Religious freedom is absolutely important here. Its one of the most treasured liberties.
I addressed this earlier in the thread:
Does the right of parents to pass on their religion to their children take precedence over the right to bodily inviolability? It would seem to me that the latter right would be a limitation on the former right, rather than the other way around.

You're right though, that that makes it a tricky issue. But if you were conceding the medical benefit angle, and instead pinning the argument on parental religious rights, you'd necessarily be saying that religious tradition is a legal justification for what would otherwise be assault. And I don't think that should be the case. That's why I don't really think you can concede the medical benefit argument if you think circumcision should be allowed; medical benefit would seem the only sustainable justification (and to be clear, I don't purport to know enough about the issue to make a judgement on whether there is a medical benefit or not).

Not specifically at GhostWriter, an important thing to note is:
The point is not to accommodate child abuse. The point is that some people are going to do it anyway, and any law that treats it the same under any circumstances increases harm. That's not okay. It's not okay to subject any child to additional danger. The point is to incentivize safety even under prohibition. Unless you'd propose the maximum possible punishment for hiring a doctor to perform the medically ideal circumcision, then there's room to incentivize safety.
It's one thing to say that circumcision may not meet our standards for what a parent can consent to, but another to say that it would be practical to outlaw it. You may think that despite the practical limitations, it's still best to be ban it, but it's still a completely different consideration.

metatron

Apr 23, 2012, 12:42 AM

Wait, what?

Not recognizing the sacred nature of religious liberty is the first step to persecution (Of ANY religion.)
No it isn't.

Btw: You are effectively using religious liberty a both your premise, your thesis and as an argument.
No, that is not comparable.
Yes and no. I still think, what i wrote was true and relevant.
Both fit the standard significant to my argument.

In a "comparison" in the colloquial sense two things usually have to be alike in regard to more than one standard. Hence your scepticism.
None the less it is perfectly possible to make a comparison regarding only one standard.

It's perfectly possible for starters to compare apples and oranges as long as all you care about is that what you get is a fruit and somewhat sweet. In dietary considerations apples and oranges are being compared by cosmo-reading women as we speak...

useless

Apr 23, 2012, 02:09 AM

Also, why is religious liberty anymore important than say... the right not to be discriminated against? Or to have your body legislated against (and thus taking away bodily autonomy)

Masada

Apr 23, 2012, 02:21 AM

So you've not bothered reading most of the thread? What's your point here?

I read the thread. But all I could remember worth discussing was just how awful those examples were. I mean, it's like defending homosexuals on the grounds that the more of them there are, the closer the Rapture is and they are all to hell. The idea is good but the arguments used to defend it just aren't. Now, to use another example. I might agree with the aim of a thread to establish peace in the Middle East, but I'm not going to endorse it if that solution's methods include something minor like nuking Tel Aviv. (Hell in that case, I'd be forced to argue that the Israeli's would be justified in using their arsenal in a retaliatory strike, which would I assume end all hopes of peace).

What?
What?!

Godwin much?!

The OP minimized torture, man; which is distasteful. Hence the comparison. The Godwin wasn't intentional. Using different examples till yields the same result. "The Herero Genocide wasn't all that important because 2.5 million Armenians died" for instance.

rugbyLEAGUEfan

Apr 23, 2012, 02:25 AM

Wait, what?

the sacred nature of religious liberty

I accept the right to and respect for religious liberty .

But there ain't no way it qualifies as a sacred liberty considering that by definition , at best , only one of these religions is the right one .

Considering how many universally accepted liberties are threatened all over the world and subsequently heroically defended and fought for , I would say that to be at liberty to worship the wrong God is low on the priorities of those requiring defending .

metatron

Apr 23, 2012, 02:39 AM

All I got out of this whole thread was something to the effect of "female genital mutilation is the same as circumcision" which is on the same intellectual level as Holocaust minimization (2.5 million Armenians died :rolleyes:) in terms of own goal forms of argumentation. People are forgiven for ignoring these threads on those grounds alone. I certainly did.
emphasis added

You may be right about the OP.
Fine.
How does that entitle you to essentially compare everyone who offered any kind of criticism of male infant circumcision in this thread with Holocaust denialists.
How, for crying out loud, can you possibly believe you are doing either the victims of FGM or the victims of the Holocaust any kind of favor with such a statement?
And how can you possibly believe strawmaning people here in such a way can possibly be any sensible foundation for reasonable debate?
I read the thread. But all I could remember worth discussing was just how awful those examples were. I mean, it's like defending homosexuals on the grounds that the more of them there are, the closer the Rapture is and they are all to hell. The idea is good but the arguments used to defend it just aren't. Now, to use another example. I might agree with the aim of a thread to establish peace in the Middle East, but I'm not going to endorse it if that solution's methods include something minor like nuking Tel Aviv. (Hell in that case, I'd be forced to argue that the Israeli's would be justified in using their arsenal in a retaliatory strike, which would I assume end all hopes of peace).
Is there any straw left in Kansas...at all?

Hygro

Apr 23, 2012, 02:47 AM

Yo Masada it's not April Fool's.

Masada

Apr 23, 2012, 04:45 AM

How does that entitle you to essentially compare everyone who offered any kind of criticism of male infant circumcision in this thread with Holocaust denialists.

Saying all I got out of the entire thread was X, Y and Z is very different to saying all there was in the thread was X, Y and Z. And I'm afraid that X, Y and Z stuck because those were novel. I'm also kind of sure (and this might be wrong) that Cami had made all of those points in the previous thread. If he didn't, throw that into the mix of new things I took notice of.

Moreover, I never said that people criticizing 'male infant circumcision' are the same as Holocaust deniers. I did make the point that the OP was in effect trivializing torture and female genital mutilation and likened that form of argument to another common case of trivialization. I could have used different examples but I figured I'd just go with one I've seen in operation numerous times in OT and WT.

How, for crying out loud, can you possibly believe you are doing either the victims of FGM or the victims of the Holocaust any kind of favor with such a statement?

You seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't have called someone out trivializing female genital mutilation and torture?

Is there any straw left in Kansas...at all?

You've just straw-manned me the whole way through that post.

Yo Masada it's not April Fool's.

Yeah, it is. Mine never ends.

metatron

Apr 23, 2012, 04:57 AM

stuff

So a simple qualifier like "All I got" entitles you write the most vitriolic nonsense?
So we are all allowed to troll each other in the most vile ways possible as long as we preface that with some mostly rhethorical qualifier?

Traitorfish

Apr 23, 2012, 05:33 AM

OK... obviously not.
Ok, so you set an upper limit before actual murder. What about ritualised mutilation? For example, what if someone possessed the sincere religious belief that after committing such-and-such sin, it was necessary to cut their child's hand off?

Masada

Apr 23, 2012, 06:19 AM

So a simple qualifier like "All I got" entitles you write the most vitriolic nonsense?
So we are all allowed to troll each other in the most vile ways possible as long as we preface that with some mostly rhethorical qualifier?

How is it trolling to point out when the OP is minimizing significant and sensitive issues in service to something he alone seems to have an irrational hang-up over? (The whole circumcision as torture thing is as you've acknowledged problematic and unique to the OP).

LucyDuke

Apr 23, 2012, 04:08 PM

In a "comparison" in the colloquial sense two things usually have to be alike in regard to more than one standard. Hence your scepticism.
None the less it is perfectly possible to make a comparison regarding only one standard.

It's perfectly possible for starters to compare apples and oranges as long as all you care about is that what you get is a fruit and somewhat sweet. In dietary considerations apples and oranges are being compared by cosmo-reading women as we speak...

Did you read the rest of that post? Where I explained the reasoning? Please explain how that is comparable to Morril Act.

Dawgphood001

Apr 23, 2012, 04:47 PM

Most medical associations have an official stance that circumcision has pros and cons and should be left up to the parents.

The American Urological Association recommend that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".

The American Academy of Family Physicians recommend that doctors "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." This statement is supported by the American Medical Association.

The story in the rest of the world is fairly similar, notable exceptions being the Royal Dutch Medical Association who come out firmly against circumcision and the WHO who recommend circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV.

That's about as mixed as medical opinion comes, which is why I say leave it up to the doctors and the parents.

So, you're citing only American medical associations, none of which say that circumcision should be recommended as a medical benefit because the data do not indicate a clear benefit.

The studies promoting HIV prevention in Africa are a canard. In many African countries you are more likely to obtain HIV if you are circumcised, and it should be noted that when HIV first appeared in the United States back in the 1980's, 90% of all men were circumcised.

Unfortunately, significant bias appears in American circumcision "research" which violates the Hippocratic Oath which states to "first, do no harm". In no other field of medical research is a perfectly normal part of the body demonized and advocated for amputation. Doctors are first supposed to preserve the entire body, foreskin included, and not amputate tissue off of babies who are perfectly healthy.

Doctors are also very unethical in letting this choice be made by the parents. Since when do trained medical professionals not take informed consent from the patient of the procedure (the infant), and let lay people (the parents) make decisions like this that will have lasting ramnifications?

Since circumcision became all the vogue.

Spurious may be the wrong word, but your claim is certainly incorrect in some ways and contentious in others. Skin as a whole is an organ which I guess would make the foreskin a bit of an organ. It is certainly not essential; I'm sure a number of people on CFC can attest to that.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states that the foreskin protects the glans, and that "the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis. The effects of circumcision on sexual sensation however are not clear, with reports of both enhanced and diminished sexual pleasure following the procedure in adults and little awareness of advantage or disadvantage in those circumcised in infancy."[19] The Royal Dutch Medical Association states that many sexologists view the foreskin as "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role ‘in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation’."[20]

Taylor et al. (1996) described the foreskin in detail, documenting a ridged band of mucosal tissue. They stated: "This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa."[2] In 1999, Cold and Taylor stated: "The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function."[21] Boyle et al. (2002) state that "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males."[22] The AAP noted that the work of Taylor et al. (1996) "suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin."[23]

As for the function of the foreskin, once again medical opinion is mixed.

Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells et al., the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.[9]

The wikipedia article is actually pretty good; I recommend reading it and some of the reference papers if you want get to get a broad view of the medical research rather than just that which foreskin.org has identified as being in agreement with its agenda.

Given that the wikipedia article is edited regularly by a known fetishist of circumcision who is not a medical doctor, the sources in there should be taken with a grain of salt.

I've yet to observe that every Jewish man is walking around with PTSD

Trauma can be hidden via denial and repression.

I don't particularly care about the reasons that parents have for having a child circumcised. The only thing I think that needs to be considered is whether or not the procedure is beneficial. If it is beneficial for an individual child then who cares why parents get it done?

There is no indication by any medical association in the world of any proven benefit, at all.

In that regard, medical opinion isn't mixed. There are no benefits that can be definitively assigned to circumcising male neonates.

Disadvantages, however, are numerous.

There is no consensus on the medical benefits of circumcision, I think that alone explains the disparity in how widespread it is in different countries. Government A listens to study A while government B listens to study B.

The United States engages in much denial regarding the subject, and many doctors are extremely biased in favor of genital cutting, because they themselves were cut.

Circumcision is a sort of trauma that repeats itself through the generations.

I'll try to remember to PM you every time I post anything about a vagina so you can get your penis word in too.

Nah, just PM me when you stop belittling the serious problems experienced by circumcised males.

Chill bro.

I do not respect any sort of "religious freedom" to abuse your children. I am not sympathetic to Jews that want to amputate their sons.

Get it?

Then why did you say "I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons"?

I don't give a damn about religion.

I would propose something like legal immunity for medical professionals that actually perform the procedure to a set of standards, while anyone contracting those services would still be criminally liable. Contracting services from non-medical-professionals would be an even more severe crime, on both parties' parts.

That's the interesting part: there is no established "standard" for circumcision. No two circumcisions are alike. That's why some men experience fewer issues, and other men experience tremendous suffering.

Humans are imperfect, and make mistakes. Especially when wielding cutting instruments on infants.

The point is not to accommodate child abuse. The point is that some people are going to do it anyway, and any law that treats it the same under any circumstances increases harm.

Female genital mutilators are going to do it anyway as well, yet that is totally illegal in the United States.

Therefore, under the 14th Amendment, it must also be totally illegal to cut male genitals. No exceptions.

That's not okay. It's not okay to subject any child to additional danger.

Circumcision is a danger that male children are routinely subjected to in hospitals.

A hospital does not make dangerous things safe.

The point is to incentivize safety even under prohibition. Unless you'd propose the maximum possible punishment for hiring a doctor to perform the medically ideal circumcision, then there's room to incentivize safety.

I would most like to incentivize human rights by imprisoning, fining and revoking the medical licenses of people who cut genitals of infants non consensually.

Sex was pretty darned painful before my circumcision but post-op I've had no problem. I would recommend circumcision to anyone.

That was your choice as an adult.

Also, what was the condition of your foreskin? Was it retracted as a child?

I read the thread. But all I could remember worth discussing was just how awful those examples were. I mean, it's like defending homosexuals on the grounds that the more of them there are, the closer the Rapture is and they are all to hell. The idea is good but the arguments used to defend it just aren't. Now, to use another example. I might agree with the aim of a thread to establish peace in the Middle East, but I'm not going to endorse it if that solution's methods include something minor like nuking Tel Aviv. (Hell in that case, I'd be forced to argue that the Israeli's would be justified in using their arsenal in a retaliatory strike, which would I assume end all hopes of peace).

The OP minimized torture, man; which is distasteful. Hence the comparison. The Godwin wasn't intentional. Using different examples till yields the same result. "The Herero Genocide wasn't all that important because 2.5 million Armenians died" for instance.

Saying all I got out of the entire thread was X, Y and Z is very different to saying all there was in the thread was X, Y and Z. And I'm afraid that X, Y and Z stuck because those were novel. I'm also kind of sure (and this might be wrong) that Cami had made all of those points in the previous thread. If he didn't, throw that into the mix of new things I took notice of.

Moreover, I never said that people criticizing 'male infant circumcision' are the same as Holocaust deniers. I did make the point that the OP was in effect trivializing torture and female genital mutilation and likened that form of argument to another common case of trivialization. I could have used different examples but I figured I'd just go with one I've seen in operation numerous times in OT and WT.

You seem to be suggesting that I shouldn't have called someone out trivializing female genital mutilation and torture?

You've just straw-manned me the whole way through that post.

Yeah, it is. Mine never ends.

How is it trolling to point out when the OP is minimizing significant and sensitive issues in service to something he alone seems to have an irrational hang-up over? (The whole circumcision as torture thing is as you've acknowledged problematic and unique to the OP).

All I got out of this whole thread was something to the effect of "female genital mutilation is the same as circumcision" which is on the same intellectual level as Holocaust minimization (2.5 million Armenians died :rolleyes:) in terms of own goal forms of argumentation. People are forgiven for ignoring these threads on those grounds alone. I certainly did.

You have not read the thread at all, and are not arguing anything, instead choosing to belittle me with your ill-advised rants. I have never belittled female genital mutilation in this thread, and the suggestion that I am belittling victims of torture is especially ludicrous. YOU are the one making ridiculous arguments by likening me to a holocaust denier.

Genital mutilation of infants and children IS torture under any definition, no matter what gender the mutilation is inflicted upon.

The infant is restrained by people stronger than him/her against their will.

The infant is cut without anaesthesia with a sharp object.

The infant invariably experiences extreme pain and loss of erogenous tissue.

Pictures tell a thousand words, and these pictures are quite disturbing (though not graphic):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VHYmERQZuP8/TfTA8ULpBpI/AAAAAAAAADU/vH4lZ0P46fE/s1600/one+and+the+same.bmp
Girl and boy, respectively.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hpTObdXX5LE/Tf2tM8zL7KI/AAAAAAAAAD4/USPtq21Dajk/s1600/manila.jpg
Boys undergoing ritual circumcision in The Philippines

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3tPR-C5J0sc/TfTEK7pM2-I/AAAAAAAAADk/xlygWYzMn7k/s1600/kurdish+girl.bmp
Kurdish girl being circumcised.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X-61fLdMaoI/TfTCBCuyxvI/AAAAAAAAADc/tevxQtwdeEE/s1600/FGM2.JPG
Sunaa circumcision on a girl in Indonesia.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s8B0Pc9sciM/TfTBuJUAo4I/AAAAAAAAADY/QRVrEgtELqM/s1600/jakarta+notice+the+mother.jpg
Ritual circumcision on a boy, also in Indonesia.

So, I suggest that YOU are the one minimizing the suffering of these people, by saying that male circumcision isn't torture. All genital mutilations are torture.

GhostWriter16

Apr 23, 2012, 04:47 PM

Ok, so you set an upper limit before actual murder. What about ritualised mutilation? For example, what if someone possessed the sincere religious belief that after committing such-and-such sin, it was necessary to cut their child's hand off?

Still illegal.

However, before its asked, I have no problem with spanking as discipline, religiously-motivated or not.

Circumcision isn't quite at either of those extremes (spanking being pretty clearly not harmful and cutting off a hand obviously harmful) but circumcision isn't really a bad thing inherently. Its never been a problem for me.

Traitorfish

Apr 23, 2012, 05:43 PM

Well, I honestly didn't make the connection to spanking, so we'll leave that to the side. Let's focus on the comparison between the hand-cutting and circumcision: you make a moral distinction because the former is "harmful", while the latter is not. How are you defining "harm", in this case?

GhostWriter16

Apr 23, 2012, 06:00 PM

Actual, substantial negative effect. Circumcision may have some minor negative effects, but it also has health benefits so it seems to balance out. That's different than cutting off a hand, which greatly restricts ones' life and has no benefits.

Can I assume you're simply trying to get me to define my position, rather than actually saying circumcision = cutting off a hand?

Dawgphood001

Apr 23, 2012, 06:03 PM

Actual, substantial negative effect. Circumcision may have some minor negative effects, but it also has health benefits so it seems to balance out. That's different than cutting off a hand, which greatly restricts ones' life and has no benefits.

Can I assume you're simply trying to get me to define my position, rather than actually saying circumcision = cutting off a hand?

Circumcision has NO concrete, proven health benefits, at all.

Try a different argument.

SiLL

Apr 23, 2012, 06:23 PM

Not recognizing the sacred nature of religious liberty is the first step to persecution (Of ANY religion.)
I guess so, but by no means must this step be followed by further steps towards such an end.
Religious freedom is - technically - a quit superfluous freedom. All you generally do in a religion can be conveniently covered by other freedoms and those things that aren't covered usually are neither by religious freedom.
Yet, historic reasons have brought forth a unique kind of freedom to protect religions and instinctively people rightfully assume a special kind of freedom which hides behind this "sacred" right. No wonder generations later after the fact people get confused when not really finding anything. Other than maybe circumcision that is. Shall freedom of religion serve a sacred and unique purpose after all?

Traitorfish

Apr 23, 2012, 06:24 PM

Actual, substantial negative effect. Circumcision may have some minor negative effects, but it also has health benefits so it seems to balance out. That's different than cutting off a hand, which greatly restricts ones' life and has no benefits.
So you would have no particular objection to me walking up to you and giving your a sharp slap across the face, because it won't have any "substantial negative effects"?

Can I assume you're simply trying to get me to define my position, rather than actually saying circumcision = cutting off a hand?
Yeah, I'm not suggesting any direct equivalence, I'm just wondering chopping hacking one bit of somebody's body off without their consent is cool, and not another bit.

GhostWriter16

Apr 23, 2012, 06:57 PM

So you would have no particular objection to me walking up to you and giving your a sharp slap across the face, because it won't have any "substantial negative effects"?

I'd have no problem with you doing so to a chiuld as a form of discipline...

(And no, I'm not advocating circumcision as discipline, but the exact principles differ there:p)

Yeah, I'm not suggesting any direct equivalence, I'm just wondering chopping hacking one bit of somebody's body off without their consent is cool, and not another bit.

One bit is substantially more useful than the other...

Also, I know we talk about "If a religion did this" but there's a difference between a theoretical religion doing something, and a religion that has millions, if not tens of millions, of followers doing it.

Not saying more people = more OK, but I don't see circumcision being as accepted as it is if it were actually awful. And again, my quality of life is not in any way inhibited by it:)

Traitorfish

Apr 23, 2012, 07:07 PM

I'd have no problem with you doing so to a chiuld as a form of discipline...
I don't mean to a child or for discipline, I mean to you, and just because it seems like a good idea to me at the time.

One bit is substantially more useful than the other...
So if a person is right-handed, it's less immoral to cut off the left-hand than the right? Bizarre as that distinction sounds, it does seem to be implicit in your logic.

Also, I know we talk about "If a religion did this" but there's a difference between a theoretical religion doing something, and a religion that has millions, if not tens of millions, of followers doing it.

Not saying more people = more OK, but I don't see circumcision being as accepted as it is if it were actually awful.
Why? People were okay with all sorts of heinous crap for centuries. Just look at the slave trade. Popularity isn't any indication of anything.

GhostWriter16

Apr 23, 2012, 07:35 PM

I don't mean to a child or for discipline, I mean to you, and just because it seems like a good idea to me at the time.

Well, I don't think I should be able to just circumcise you either... my child is a bit different.

So if a person is right-handed, it's less immoral to cut off the left-hand than the right? Bizarre as that distinction sounds, it does seem to be implicit in your logic.

If that went into your intent at all, sure, but its obviously extremely immoral either way. Circumcision is a much more moderate thing, either way.

Why? People were okay with all sorts of heinous crap for centuries. Just look at the slave trade. Popularity isn't any indication of anything.

Fair point.

Dawgphood001

Apr 23, 2012, 07:38 PM

Well, I don't think I should be able to just circumcise you either... my child is a bit different.

It isn't different because you do not own your hypothetical child's penis/genitals, therefore you have no right to make a decision that will permanently affect them.

GhostWriter16

Apr 23, 2012, 07:45 PM

It isn't different because you do not own your hypothetical child's penis/genitals, therefore you have no right to make a decision that will permanently affect them.

Honestly, I bet within that kid's lifetime we'll have a way to fix that:p

Besides the fact, you are deliberately ignoring the fairly moderate effect of not having a foreskin, and the possible benefits.

Completely ignoring.

Honestly, while I endorse it being fully legal, I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. Would I do it on my kid? I don't know. I don't know the facts 100%. But I don't have a religious obligation to do it either. I'm a Christian in the New Covenant. Circumcision isn't commanded anymore. If it were, I'd do it in a heartbeat, regardless of the law.

Dawgphood001

Apr 23, 2012, 07:52 PM

Honestly, I bet within that kid's lifetime we'll have a way to fix that:p

Wat

Besides the fact, you are deliberately ignoring the fairly moderate effect of not having a foreskin, and the possible benefits.

What does this even mean, "fairly moderate effect"? The foreskin is a natural part of human anatomy, and there are no proven benefits to not having one. This is the opinion of every professional medical association in the world.

Give me one concrete, proven benefit provided by cutting off foreskins of infants. None of this "possible" benefits nonsense.

We should not be altering children's bodies permanently without their permission on the basis of "possible benefits".

Completely ignoring.

Yes, you are completely ignoring the dangers, complications and ramifications of circumcision on infants.

Honestly, while I endorse it being fully legal, I'm not sure how I feel about it myself. Would I do it on my kid? I don't know. I don't know the facts 100%. But I don't have a religious obligation to do it either. I'm a Christian in the New Covenant. Circumcision isn't commanded anymore. If it were, I'd do it in a heartbeat, regardless of the law.

So, you're a fanatic who cares nothing for human rights.

Also, it should be noted that many Jews are choosing the Brit Shalom as a way of welcoming new children into the world instead of the Brit Milah which involves circumcision.

The notion that religions cannot change is ludicrous. Jews are beginning to see the wisdom of letting their male children keep all of their body parts.

It's unfortunate that you aren't that wise.

innonimatu

Apr 23, 2012, 08:16 PM

Religious freedom is - technically - a quit superfluous freedom. All you generally do in a religion can be conveniently covered by other freedoms and those things that aren't covered usually are neither by religious freedom.
Yet, historic reasons have brought forth a unique kind of freedom to protect religions and instinctively people rightfully assume a special kind of freedom which hides behind this "sacred" right. No wonder generations later after the fact people get confused when not really finding anything. Other than maybe circumcision that is. Shall freedom of religion serve a sacred and unique purpose after all?

Yes, it's true that religious freedom still enjoys a special status that it should not need. And that often gets exposed and ridiculed when someone decided to make up a new religion just to get some special exemption: I think there was a guy somewhere who made up one with the single rule of having to wear a saucer pan on his head, just to get the privilege of having his head covered on an id photo ?

But freedom of religion's special status is also an old thing in human history. Possibly because religion always shared the same roots with civil law: morality and tradition. We can find the old debate of which is more important in works as old as Sophocles' Antigone, and we have no better answers to the issue now than we did then.

Personally, I favor an elastic approach (and this is where having many different nations in the world is a plus): do not punish those willing to go to extra trouble to cling to tradition they view as religious obligations, but do not let them get away with continuing to do it easily either. In this context, I'd say: let jewish parents who really want to mutilate their baby sons take them to some other country sympathetic to it to do it, and afterwards do not try to prosecute a crime which was not anyway committed in your jurisdiction. But if you're going to make medically unnecessary circumcision of infants a crime, then enforce that over everyone acting within your borders, regardless of religious excuses. And I'd apply the same standard to female circumcision too.
Over time those positions more respectful to the victims should gain ground across borders and extend the ban until the practice dies out. If or where it doesn't die out it'll be because a majority of people are not willing to end it, and that will must be respected, disagreeable though it may seem. The alternative, invading the place to enforce the ban there, would be worse.

It's too bad that "international courts", "international law", supra-national legislation, and a web of international treaties on lots of stuff are ever-more fashionable. It makes this kind of approach impossible for a range of issues.

SiLL

Apr 23, 2012, 09:40 PM

Yes, it's true that religious freedom still enjoys a special status that it should not need. And that often gets exposed and ridiculed when someone decided to make up a new religion just to get some special exemption: I think there was a guy somewhere who made up one with the single rule of having to wear a saucer pan on his head, just to get the privilege of having his head covered on an id photo ?

Yep, Austria, we had a thread on it.

But let me ask you all a simple question regarding circumcision: Who gives a damn? Does it influence sex life? Yeah. This little peace of skin seems sexually potent beyond doubt. In a crucial way? Come on. Doesn't seem so at all. The most profound effect seems to be that you can bone longer. Kind of win.
Something is cut off you when you are an infant and it.. it.. hurts? Jeez wait until you get your first teeth you whiny chicken.

I don't want to say that there is not a debate to be had about circumcision, but maybe at first we should agree that whatever the result, it didn't really matter to begin with.
But yeah, 150 posts late. :mischief:

Atticus

Apr 23, 2012, 11:13 PM

Akkon888

Apr 23, 2012, 11:37 PM

A hospital does not make dangerous things safe.

Eliminating the religious aspect from an issue that inherently concerns religion, does not make the issue itself any more logically based.

Masada

Apr 24, 2012, 02:04 AM

Genital mutilation of infants and children IS torture under any definition, no matter what gender the mutilation is inflicted upon.

The infliction of pain is not the same thing as torture (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm). Suggesting that it is minimizes and trivializes the experiences of torture victims just to allow YOU to score a cheap point. That's disgusting and is on the same intellectual level as juxtaposing the Holocaust Herero Genocide against something like the Armenian Genocide. I'd also suggest that kind of rhetoric isn't needed and I've proffered some examples of where it can take an otherwise acceptable argument and 'own-goal' it. I'm also far from unique in pointing out how ridiculous these particular arguments are either (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11436552&postcount=36).

YOU are the one making ridiculous arguments by likening me to a holocaust denier.

Holocaust Minimizer. And it isn't in the least bit ridiculous (see above). Moreover, claiming that infant circumcision is the same thing as using a power drill to 'pump' someone for information is the height of ridiculousness.

Masada

Apr 24, 2012, 03:57 AM

So, I suggest that YOU are the one minimizing the suffering of these people, by saying that male circumcision isn't torture. All genital mutilations are torture.

Hamza Al Khatib, aged 13. His injuries go something like this: smashed jaw, two smashed kneecaps, flesh covered in burns - electrical and cigarette - and whip marks. Post-mortem, I believe, he had been castrated. His crime? Protesting. I can't even post what he looked like at the end of it because of how graphic it is. I can post what he looked like before it. I'm hoping it might drive the point home if the United Nations can't (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm).

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/5/31/201153110103720734_8.jpg

Traitorfish

Apr 24, 2012, 08:13 AM

Well, I don't think I should be able to just circumcise you either... my child is a bit different.
How so?

If that went into your intent at all, sure, but its obviously extremely immoral either way. Circumcision is a much more moderate thing, either way.
If it's a question of intent, then the actual consequences don't enter into it, so if I believe as firmly and as sincerely that my kid is better off without his hand as a Jewish parents believes his kid is better off without his foreskin, I cannot be said to have committed a more immoral act.

El_Machinae

Apr 24, 2012, 09:55 AM

warpus

Apr 24, 2012, 10:43 AM

My opinion is that infant male circumcision doesn't really matter, but that it makes an excellent test case against which to test your political beliefs and morals. It really is a mutilation, but just not a very serious one; it's also got a LOT of history that makes it interesting. I have more concern regarding coerced teenage circumcision, honestly.

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel.

I approach the subject as someone who grew up in a place where circumcision just wasn't done, so.. it does still feel as weird to me as chopping off infants' earlobes. I understand it's a long standing tradition and what not, but still can't really separate it from the "you want to do what to his penis?" thought that enters my mind whenever the subject comes up

LucyDuke

Apr 24, 2012, 07:53 PM

Then why did you say "I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons"?

I phrased it carelessly. Then I clarified. I meant that the religious defense doesn't have any weight with me. I'm sorry I wasn't precise enough the first time.

Nah, just PM me when you stop belittling the serious problems experienced by circumcised males.

That's the interesting part: there is no established "standard" for circumcision. No two circumcisions are alike. That's why some men experience fewer issues, and other men experience tremendous suffering.

Humans are imperfect, and make mistakes. Especially when wielding cutting instruments on infants.

Female genital mutilators are going to do it anyway as well, yet that is totally illegal in the United States.

Therefore, under the 14th Amendment, it must also be totally illegal to cut male genitals. No exceptions.

Circumcision is a danger that male children are routinely subjected to in hospitals.

A hospital does not make dangerous things safe.

I would most like to incentivize human rights by imprisoning, fining and revoking the medical licenses of people who cut genitals of infants non consensually.

Yeah, you're more interested in lecturing about ideals than reducing harm. Good luck with your crusade, I'm sure there are some people who'll respond positively to being preached at.

Midgard Eagle

Apr 25, 2012, 05:49 AM

May I ask something?
Several of you have been bringing freedom of religion into the disucssion. As far as I can see, however, have told us how you feel this supports your view.

Freedom of religion is your right to exercise your religion as you see fit in the company of likeminded people. I don't see how it allows you to circumsice infants. If you want to get circumsiced yourself, fine, get it done when you turn 18. I frankly do not see how you think you should have the right to do it to non-consenting infants, however. The "it's my religion" defense is just worthless here.

Dawgphood001

Apr 27, 2012, 04:58 PM

But let me ask you all a simple question regarding circumcision: Who gives a damn? Does it influence sex life? Yeah. This little peace of skin seems sexually potent beyond doubt. In a crucial way? Come on. Doesn't seem so at all. The most profound effect seems to be that you can bone longer. Kind of win.

The foreskin, as I already demonstrated earlier, is the center of male erogenous sensation. The most sensitive part of a circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral side, where the frenulum would normally be. Sexual dysfunction is a frequent byproduct. Studies have shown that circumcised men are far more likely to suffer from impotence, premature ejaculation and an inability to reach orgasm.

Still sound like "win" to you?

Something is cut off you when you are an infant and it.. it.. hurts? Jeez wait until you get your first teeth you whiny chicken.

How people can be so dehumanizing and callous towards infants...blows my mind, really. The right of people to decide what to do with their own body and the dignity afforded to them through this choice mean nothing to you, apparently.

I don't want to say that there is not a debate to be had about circumcision, but maybe at first we should agree that whatever the result, it didn't really matter to begin with.

If it doesn't matter, why do it?

Your own logic is contradicting you.

And yes, it most certainly does matter. Dead babies matter. Sexual dysfunction matters. Psychological trauma and immense physical pain most certainly do matter.

The infliction of pain is not the same thing as torture (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm).

Looking on that link of yours seems to counter act your argument:

or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

The discrimination aspect is key. Circumcision in the United States is sexist discrimination toward men and boys of the most dehumanizing variety, and it is inflicted by people acting in an official capacity.

Suggesting that it is minimizes and trivializes the experiences of torture victims just to allow YOU to score a cheap point.

And what of the victims of circumcision that you are disregarding? Hm?

I've never attempted to belittle the victims of torture on this thread. On the contrary, you have done everything in your power to belittle male genital mutilation which is a cheap shot against all the victims of this terrible practice.

That's disgusting and is on the same intellectual level as juxtaposing the Holocaust Herero Genocide against something like the Armenian Genocide.

So...call me stupid all you want (you certainly already have) but those two genocides seem quite similar to me, at least in principle.

I'd also suggest that kind of rhetoric isn't needed and I've proffered some examples of where it can take an otherwise acceptable argument and 'own-goal' it.

I'd say the type of rhetoric that isn't needed is the "just a little snip" "minimal pain" and "no big deal" nonsense that has been repeated over and over in this thread.

I'm also far from unique in pointing out how ridiculous these particular arguments are either (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11436552&postcount=36).

So you're basing your argument on popularity of opinion. Solid.

Holocaust Minimizer. And it isn't in the least bit ridiculous (see above).

It is absolutely ridiculous. I never once brought up the holocaust.

Moreover, claiming that infant circumcision is the same thing as using a power drill to 'pump' someone for information is the height of ridiculousness.

Extreme pain inflicted on unconsenting individuals that leaves a lifetime of physical wounding and psychological complications, and can lead to death.

Same in principle, don't you think?

Hamza Al Khatib, aged 13. His injuries go something like this: smashed jaw, two smashed kneecaps, flesh covered in burns - electrical and cigarette - and whip marks. Post-mortem, I believe, he had been castrated. His crime? Protesting. I can't even post what he looked like at the end of it because of how graphic it is. I can post what he looked like before it. I'm hoping it might drive the point home if the United Nations can't (http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm).

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/5/31/201153110103720734_8.jpg

Yes. A very sad story. Doesn't distract at all from my point.

My opinion is that infant male circumcision doesn't really matter, but that it makes an excellent test case against which to test your political beliefs and morals. It really is a mutilation, but just not a very serious one; it's also got a LOT of history that makes it interesting.

So, how is a non-medical mutilation of an infant inflicted by someone claiming to be acting in a medical capacity not a deadly serious thing?

It flies in the face of established medical ethics. It is harm, by definition, inflicted by someone who has taken an oath to "first, do no harm".

That's not serious? That doesn't matter?

Please explain.

I have more concern regarding coerced teenage circumcision, honestly.

Why is that?

Infants are also "coerced" into circumcision.

In the pursuit of fairness, I think that an adult should be able to sue their guardians if they resent having been cut as an infant.

What sort of utility does this serve? The damage is done, the trauma is inflicted, and getting a lump sum of money from your parents won't give you your foreskin back.

The really fair thing to do would be to respect the genitals of all infants at birth, male or female.

I phrased it carelessly. Then I clarified. I meant that the religious defense doesn't have any weight with me. I'm sorry I wasn't precise enough the first time.

Accepted.

Yeah, you're more interested in lecturing about ideals than reducing harm.

I've shown to you quite clearly that having circumcisions done in a hospital doesn't "reduce harm" at all, since circumcision is bodily harm in and of itself, and because serious complications and deaths occur in hospital circumcisions all the time.

I've also mentioned to you many times how the AAP back in 2010 wanted to have female circumcisions done in hospitals for your exact same argument: to "reduce harm". They even agreed that such procedures would be far less extensive than male circumcision. But of course this proposal was strongly rejected as it should have been, because we respect infant baby girls' bodies.

If that's the case, why can't we respect infant baby boys' bodies? I say drop the knife and walk away. Cut a child for no medical reason and you go to jail for a very long time.

In that regard, I'm very much interested in reducing harm.

Good luck with your crusade, I'm sure there are some people who'll respond positively to being preached at.

I'm simply trying to discuss this issue, and I'm laying out my opinions as such, like you. This is called a discussion.:rolleyes:

El_Machinae

Apr 27, 2012, 05:02 PM

Dawgphood001

Apr 27, 2012, 06:24 PM

Because it really doesn't matter all that much (and certainly isn't (on average) as traumatizing as getting it done as a teenager). I chalk it up in the same category as getting an ear piercing on a baby. I think it's an interesting test case

So, could you explain to me how male genital mutilation doesn't matter but female genital mutilation does?

At least when teenagers are circumcised in the U.S. and Canada they are given anesthesia. This isn't the case with infants. In that case, it's probably more traumatic than when done as a teenager.

And I'm confused by your logic of circumcision being equivalent to ear piercing. If that's the case, than ear piercing should be considered more substantial than "ritual nicking" of girls which the AAP briefly considered approving. If you think ear piercing and circumcision are both insignificant and are equivalent in nature, do you think that we should allow female ritual nicking since that clearly "doesn't matter" as well?

GhostWriter16

Apr 27, 2012, 06:34 PM

Because it really doesn't matter all that much (and certainly isn't (on average) as traumatizing as getting it done as a teenager). I chalk it up in the same category as getting an ear piercing on a baby. I think it's an interesting test case

I'd be OK with an ear piercing as well, has about the same level of effect...

So, could you explain to me how male genital mutilation doesn't matter but female genital mutilation does?

At least when teenagers are circumcised in the U.S. and Canada they are given anesthesia. This isn't the case with infants. In that case, it's probably more traumatic than when done as a teenager.

And I'm confused by your logic of circumcision being equivalent to ear piercing. If that's the case, than ear piercing should be considered more substantial than "ritual nicking" of girls which the AAP briefly considered approving. If you think ear piercing and circumcision are both insignificant and are equivalent in nature, do you think that we should allow female ritual nicking since that clearly "doesn't matter" as well?

Why not just support anesthetic then, rather than opposing any legal circumcision? Some of us might actually take your side...

Lillefix

Apr 27, 2012, 06:41 PM

I'd be OK with an ear piercing as well, has about the same level of effect...

And let's give them a tattoo when we're at it.

Quackers

Apr 27, 2012, 06:49 PM

The important thing to note about circumsicion is that the medical establishment cannot conclusively say whether removing the foreskin causes a reduction in pleasure or not. Therefore any responsible parent should lean on the side of caution (and the facts) and decide against it. Once you make the decison to remove it, it's gone forever and your never going to get it back. And for what? Disregarding the Jewish reason, "health" is a poor one. If your capable of breathing you should be able to wash your junk in the shower...

GhostWriter16

Apr 27, 2012, 06:52 PM

El_Machinae

Apr 27, 2012, 07:22 PM

So, could you explain to me how male genital mutilation doesn't matter but female genital mutilation does?

Different tissues

At least when teenagers are circumcised in the U.S. and Canada they are given anesthesia. This isn't the case with infants. In that case, it's probably more traumatic than when done as a teenager.

Not IMO. The expectation, social pressure, anticipation, etc. only happen to the teens. Yeah, there might be a relative difference in pain, but there's a cognitive element to the teenage circumcision that's not present in the infant.

It's kinda like why Slapsgiving is worse than getting your leg broken.

Rashiminos

Apr 30, 2012, 11:51 AM

Not IMO. The expectation, social pressure, anticipation, etc. only happen to the teens. Yeah, there might be a relative difference in pain, but there's a cognitive element to the teenage circumcision that's not present in the infant.

That cognitive element was allowed to develop rather than shorn at the outset. It's still a partial lobotomy for either party.

GhostWriter16

Apr 30, 2012, 01:33 PM

The discrimination aspect is key. Circumcision in the United States is sexist discrimination toward men and boys of the most dehumanizing variety, and it is inflicted by people acting in an official capacity.

:lol:

I'm definitely pro-circumcision now:p (And male.)

Hygro

Apr 30, 2012, 11:20 PM

:lol:

I'm definitely pro-circumcision now:p (And male.)

It's never good to take one position simply because one member of those taking another position happens to annoy you.

rugbyLEAGUEfan

May 01, 2012, 12:09 AM

It's never good to take one position simply because one member of those taking another position happens to annoy you.

I absolutley , completely , 100% agree .And let's not forget the far more common adopting one position because another member taking that position you happen to like :p

Dawgphood001

May 01, 2012, 01:04 AM

I'd be OK with an ear piercing as well, has about the same level of effect...

Do tell, when was the last time you saw an ear piercing remove 12-15 square inches of skin? Not to mention 20,000 nerve endings, with risk of causing death?

That's right...you haven't.

Why not just support anesthetic then, rather than opposing any legal circumcision? Some of us might actually take your side...

In all circumcisions anesthesia doesn't take away all the pain, and it doesn't take it away long enough to prevent the baby from feeling pain. A circumcised baby boy will have an open wound on his penis festering in a dirty diaper for a few weeks afterward, putting him at risk of UTIs and meatal stenosis.

Anesthesia is also risky to use on infants due to their developing brain.

Lastly, and most importantly, anesthesia doesn't make something so inherently unethical as infant circumcision ethical. The baby is still denied the human right to decide what to do with his whole body.

The important thing to note about circumsicion is that the medical establishment cannot conclusively say whether removing the foreskin causes a reduction in pleasure or not. Therefore any responsible parent should lean on the side of caution (and the facts) and decide against it. Once you make the decison to remove it, it's gone forever and your never going to get it back. And for what? Disregarding the Jewish reason, "health" is a poor one. If your capable of breathing you should be able to wash your junk in the shower...

It has long been known both in the medical field and amongst the world's religions/cultures that circumcision is detrimental to male sexuality. That's why it was adopted by the Jews, and why it was introduced into Britain/The United States: to prevent and reduce the pleasure from masturbation.

Different tissues

Not really.

The prepuce organs are functionally the same in both men and women. Different, yes, but totally analogous and similar in their functions.

Not IMO. The expectation, social pressure, anticipation, etc. only happen to the teens. Yeah, there might be a relative difference in pain, but there's a cognitive element to the teenage circumcision that's not present in the infant.

What about the cognitive element that is present in the infant? The infant has no idea why this extreme pain is being inflicted on him, only that he has no choice but to experience it. There have been studies demonstrating a sort of infant PTSD as a result of circumcision when later receiving vaccines (here (http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/)). There are also serious potential consequences for mother-infant interaction which include an inability to breastfeed, infant irritability and a disrupted bonding process.

Coerced teenage/child circumcision is also terrible, but infant circumcision is really just as bad.

By the way, you still haven't answered my question regarding ear piercing. If you believe male genital cutting is no worse than ear piercing, should we allow female genital cutting given that the AAP considers some forms of it less extensive than male genital cutting and therefore, according to your logic, less extensive than ear piercing?

It's kinda like why Slapsgiving is worse than getting your leg broken.

:confused:

:lol:

I'm definitely pro-circumcision now:p (And male.)

You've put forth nothing in this thread of any substance whatsoever, so your immaturity isn't at all surprising.

I suggest you watch a video of infant male genital cutting as it typically happens in the U.S. before deciding if you really want to become "pro-circumcision".

Tycho

May 01, 2012, 06:45 PM

Hey Dawg, you wouldn't happen to have any primary personal reason for this would you?

GhostWriter16

May 01, 2012, 06:49 PM

You've put forth nothing in this thread of any substance whatsoever, so your immaturity isn't at all surprising.

I suggest you watch a video of infant male genital cutting as it typically happens in the U.S. before deciding if you really want to become "pro-circumcision".

Dawg, it would be one thing if nobody agreed with you (You could just say they were ignoring your side) but when people are actually agreeing with you, and still taking issue with the hyperbolic nature of your posts, you should probably at least consider the possibility. I know I can frequently ignore those who are totally on the other side as me, (Granted, I LISTEN but I may not see the substance in their arguments, whether it exists or not) but if someone who basically agrees with me calls me out, I generally find that they were right.

I should say I was joking in that post above. Obviously somebody arguing against circumcision isn't going to make me want to allow it, especially if other posters in thread are arguing the same thing in a more reasonable manner in the same thread. What I AM saying is that I am already pro-circumcision and your posts are so extreme its hard for me to even want to consider them.

JtheJackal

May 02, 2012, 07:36 AM

As someone who is circumcised I am quite confused at why anyone would want to not be as it sounds like nothing but a hassle to be uncircumcised.

People against circumcision have made arguments that really make no sense to me, since the arguments against it are circumstantial at best.

Traitorfish

May 02, 2012, 07:45 AM

In what sense is "don't chop bits off people without their permission" circumstantial? :confused:

warpus

May 02, 2012, 10:13 AM

As someone who is circumcised I am quite confused at why anyone would want to not be as it sounds like nothing but a hassle to be uncircumcised.

All those nerve endings that circumcision gets rid of make sex and masturbation more pleasurable.

I will be providing an on-site demonstration behind the 7-11 at 11pm

(Plus chopping off body parts has never sat well with me. Darwin has designed us with foreskins for a reason)

JtheJackal

May 02, 2012, 11:26 AM

In what sense is "don't chop bits off people without their permission" circumstantial? :confused:

Yes that thought process is not circumstantial. I mean arguments why its bad sound more psuedoscientific than based in reality.

All those nerve endings that circumcision gets rid of make sex and masturbation more pleasurable.

I've seen people claim sex is better circumcised. Too late for me to test it anyone here want to?

El_Machinae

May 02, 2012, 11:51 AM

Farm Boy

May 02, 2012, 12:18 PM

I think the issue is that it sheathes nerve endings and protects them. So assuming circumcision actually does decrease the sensitivity of some nerves by leaving them without their raincoat while they bump about the world, it might make you last a bit longer on average during the act. Wait, no wonder women prefer... nevermind. They could always just not have sex with 6 second college boys too I guess.

Tycho

May 02, 2012, 03:49 PM

Do tell, when was the last time you saw an ear piercing remove 12-15 square inches of skin? Not to mention 20,000 nerve endings, with risk of causing death?

That's right...you haven't.

Stats or get out.

If circumcision causes death in large amounts, then obviously we would stop doing it.

Since there have not been a terribly large amount of directly related to deaths dealing with the issues of circumcision, such a point is invalid to make.

Most of the people in the world are circumcised, doesn't seem like a problem to them for the most part.

Flying Pig

May 02, 2012, 03:52 PM

Most of the people in the world are circumcised, doesn't seem like a problem to them for the most part.

[citation needed]!

Tycho

May 02, 2012, 04:40 PM

[citation needed]!

As a fairly common procedure, in much of the world, it is quite common (specifically the Western world and whatnot).

Hygro

May 02, 2012, 04:47 PM

As a fairly common procedure, in much of the world, it is quite common (specifically the Western world and whatnot).

*Checks location*

It's not that common where most of the people of the Western world live, aka Europe.

Zelig

May 02, 2012, 05:29 PM

:lol:

I'm definitely pro-circumcision now:p (And male.)

You should really consider labeling your political ideology based on the collection of your individual beliefs, rather than choosing beliefs based on their ideological label.

As a fairly common procedure, in much of the world, it is quite common (specifically the Western world and whatnot).

I'm too lazy to look up stats (there's a wiki article on prevalence), but IIRC the only countries of note where the overwhelming majority are circumcised are South Korea, the United States and Israel.

El_Machinae

May 03, 2012, 06:18 AM

I'm not entirely sure those nerve endings are dead (though I don't really know). It seems like they could easily reform lower down. I can assure all that I've never thought of my 'circumcised' sex as being worse than the uncut.

PUBMED seems to agree with me, but I only spent 10 min looking. In principle, I agree with anti-circ people: it's an improper thing to do. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's worse to not get your kid braces if they need them, for example.

holy king

May 03, 2012, 06:34 AM

Most of the people in the world are circumcised, doesn't seem like a problem to them for the most part.

that's quite an outlandish claim, given that WHO estimates 30% of the world's MEN are circumsised, which would translate to about 15% of the world's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

rugbyLEAGUEfan

May 03, 2012, 06:38 AM

that's quite an outlandish claim, given that WHO estimates 30% of the world's MEN are circumsised, which would translate to about 15% of the world's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

Actually , for the claim to be true , ALL men would need to be circumsised (assuming we are discussing male circumcision)

holy king

May 03, 2012, 06:40 AM

not quite, but almost.

The CIA estimates that the current world wide sex ratio at birth is 107 boys to 100 girls.[3] In 2010, the global sex ratio was 986 females per 1,000 males and trended to reduce to 984 in 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio

rugbyLEAGUEfan

May 03, 2012, 06:43 AM

CIA....lol

warpus

May 03, 2012, 08:51 AM

I'm not entirely sure those nerve endings are dead (though I don't really know). It seems like they could easily reform lower down. I can assure all that I've never thought of my 'circumcised' sex as being worse than the uncut.

Not sure if it's better or worse, but in the end you have less stuff down there that is sensitive - in the sense that a bit of it is cut off.

As a fairly common procedure, in much of the world, it is quite common (specifically the Western world and whatnot).

As far as I know it's only common in the U.S., Canada, Australia, muslim countries, and Israel.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Coun try_Level.png/800px-Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Coun try_Level.png

So you are totally wrong about most of that, especially the "specifically the western world". The west is where the practice is least common.

holy king

May 03, 2012, 11:18 AM

actually, in latin america it's least common, followed by the west (including europe and the united states of canada... that IS the west, right?).

in fact, it's only really common in muslim countries, jewish countries and for some freak reason the usa and canada.

Truronian

May 03, 2012, 01:10 PM

Not sure if it's better or worse, but in the end you have less stuff down there that is sensitive - in the sense that a bit of it is cut off.

I can't see it making a difference. If nerve mass was a bodily metric of any value then we'd have some hypersensual tall people floating around.

strijder20

May 03, 2012, 01:29 PM

I don't get how this still is allowed. Let the infants decide - yes, that's impossible, so let them decide when they are adults.
Am I allowed to cut off the fingers of my children?

say1988

May 03, 2012, 02:47 PM

in fact, it's only really common in muslim countries, jewish countries and for some freak reason the usa and canada.
It isn't even that common in Canada. Different estimates range from 10% to 30% of men circumcised. Australia is at about 60%, but the rate of circumcision has significantly declined. Outside of those and the US, the main countries doing it for non-relgious reasons (i.e. not Israel or Islamic countries) are the Phillipines and South Korea which are driven by US cultural influence.

Zack

May 03, 2012, 05:02 PM

Am I allowed to cut off the fingers of my children?
No, but you are allowed to make absurd analogies - a right I applaud you for exercising.

GhostWriter16

May 03, 2012, 06:51 PM

No, but you are allowed to make absurd analogies - a right I applaud you for exercising.

:lol::goodjob:

Zack wins the thread by derailing a stupid comparison AND backing freedom of speech at the same time:)

Quackers

May 03, 2012, 06:56 PM

What do you think about the removal of the foreskin for religious reasons?

I think in this case, the religious freedom of the parents is trumped by the bodily freedom of the baby.
Despite the literature, i can imagine life without a foreskin and it wouldn't be as good:P

timtofly

May 03, 2012, 07:56 PM

I think in this case, the religious freedom of the parents is trumped by the bodily freedom of the baby.
Despite the literature, i can imagine life without a foreskin and it wouldn't be as good:P

Is that because you lack imagination or experience?

Quackers

May 03, 2012, 08:07 PM

rugbyLEAGUEfan

May 04, 2012, 02:30 AM

I'm quite certain I have a healthy grasp of both.
According to the Wikipedia page concerning sexual pleasure + foreskin, it is quite inconclusive, yet i tend to side with the "it leads to less pleasure" then the "pleasure is indifferent in either direction". We're born with it after all:P

There is another possibility that at least needs consideration .

IF , and that's a big IF , women do prefer circumcised men , at what point does the increase in volume of hot chicks wooed as a consequence of a more aesthetically pleasing penis outweigh the pleasure derived from having sex with the average ones , albeit achieving greater sensitivity?

Valka , Lucy et al.....please forgive me . It's a question , not a reflection of me as a pig.

SS-18 ICBM

May 04, 2012, 08:23 AM

Circumcision seems to be assisting in stemming the tide of AIDS in Africa. Of course, that's not a problem here in the West.

Farm Boy

May 04, 2012, 08:56 AM

There is another possibility that at least needs consideration .

IF , and that's a big IF , women do prefer circumcised men , at what point does the increase in volume of hot chicks wooed as a consequence of a more aesthetically pleasing penis outweigh the pleasure derived from having sex with the average ones , albeit achieving greater sensitivity?

Valka , Lucy et al.....please forgive me . It's a question , not a reflection of me as a pig.

Not really sure the aesthetics should be a major consideration. Once somebody is ready for business the physical appearance should be near identical regardless of foreskin status. About the only consideration I can think would be on topic for female enjoyment might be that circumcision might might decrease the likely hood of being a half-minute man if it is indeed effective at desensitization.

strijder20

May 04, 2012, 10:28 AM

No, but you are allowed to make absurd analogies - a right I applaud you for exercising.

Thank you for not starting to swear for what apparently is a stupid analogy. Now about why it is stupid.

'Fingers' might have been a bit too extreme; but saying that the part of the foreskin is completely useless is wrong too. If I recall this correctly, people who got circumcised have a reduced sensitivity while having sex - which is probably a change for the worse. So, a part of their life just got worse. Not having fingers makes parts of your life worse too.

El_Machinae

May 04, 2012, 12:32 PM

There're really no complaints regarding sensitivity. While a 'theoretical case' might be made, it doesn't seem to be true 'in practice'.

strijder20

May 04, 2012, 12:39 PM

There're really no complaints regarding sensitivity. While a 'theoretical case' might be made, it doesn't seem to be true 'in practice'.

Ah, thanks. In that case, my point is invalid indeed.
(Although I wonder how they make such comparisons : circumcised people usually have been so for their entire lives, and detecting nerve activity isn't everything)

El_Machinae

May 04, 2012, 02:07 PM

Well, direct surveying, I think.

"Sir, please give your (A) opinion on sex and (B) whether you're circumcised"

We find that, despite the answer to B, the answer to A is "Wheeeee!"

Zack

May 04, 2012, 03:07 PM

'Fingers' might have been a bit too extreme; but saying that the part of the foreskin is completely useless is wrong too. If I recall this correctly, people who got circumcised have a reduced sensitivity while having sex - which is probably a change for the worse. So, a part of their life just got worse. Not having fingers makes parts of your life worse too.
First of all, circumcision doesn't make your life worse. If anything, it makes it slightly better (although there is a miniscule risk of serious damage being done, and the exact benefits besides aesthetics are debatable and/or trivial).

Secondly, does a large part of American society view having fingers as icky? Is a foreskin necessary for many basic tasks?

Farm Boy

May 04, 2012, 03:21 PM

Is a foreskin necessary for many basic tasks?

Depends on what sort of weekend you are having?

Zack

May 04, 2012, 03:29 PM

Depends on what sort of weekend you are having?
Are you seriously implying that having a foreskin is just as necessary for sex as fingers are for basic tasks such as typing on a keyboard or brushing your teeth?

Farm Boy

May 04, 2012, 03:30 PM

Not for sex. Nope.

say1988

May 04, 2012, 03:57 PM

the exact benefits besides aesthetics are debatable
You are saying that circumscision is objectively and unquestionably better aesthetically?

Zack

May 04, 2012, 04:19 PM

You are saying that circumscision is objectively and unquestionably better aesthetically?

Of course not. Aesthetics is largely subjective.

say1988

May 04, 2012, 06:53 PM

GhostWriter16

May 04, 2012, 06:58 PM

First of all, circumcision doesn't make your life worse. If anything, it makes it slightly better (although there is a miniscule risk of serious damage being done, and the exact benefits besides aesthetics are debatable and/or trivial).

Secondly, does a large part of American society view having fingers as icky? Is a foreskin necessary for many basic tasks?

Yeah, I don't think he meant aesthetics are an objective benefit, I think he simply wished to push that to the side to discuss other benefits, although I could be misinterpreting...

Akkon888

May 04, 2012, 07:08 PM

There's also the fact that circumcision is by definition an injury to the penis, since it deprives the penis of normal tissue and function.

But you cannot make this encompass a universal definition of injury with only this statement.

A malignant brain tumor is of course very harmful to a person. The removal of it is classified as an injury; the boring of two holes into the skull and the removal of said tumor is bound to become an injury, since it deprives the neurological system of its normal tissue and function. If our goal is to "first, do no harm," we would fail this goal while performing virtually every surgery that may have any potential benefit, since surgery implies the "injury" you define.

Of course, we need to weigh the pros and cons of each operation, but do not make blanket statements that serve no purpose in arguing a position without creating fallacies in logic due to ambiguity.

Zack

May 04, 2012, 08:33 PM

Then why did you say they aren't debatable?

The benefits of neonatal circumcision don't have much more support than the drawbacks (excluding complications during the operation, which are a fact and do occur). There are some cases where it is beneficial, but from my understanding these are pretty uncommon and can be treated as the arise.

Yeah, I don't think he meant aesthetics are an objective benefit, I think he simply wished to push that to the side to discuss other benefits, although I could be misinterpreting...
What Dommy said. Is your need for petty arguments over semantics sufficiently satisfied now?

Hygro

May 04, 2012, 08:44 PM

Not sure if it's better or worse, but in the end you have less stuff down there that is sensitive - in the sense that a bit of it is cut off.

As far as I know it's only common in the U.S., Canada, Australia, muslim countries, and Israel.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/79/Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Coun try_Level.png/800px-Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Coun try_Level.png

So you are totally wrong about most of that, especially the "specifically the western world". The west is where the practice is least common.

Kind of looks like the maps of who still practices the death penalty :scan:

There is another possibility that at least needs consideration .

IF , and that's a big IF , women do prefer circumcised men , at what point does the increase in volume of hot chicks wooed as a consequence of a more aesthetically pleasing penis outweigh the pleasure derived from having sex with the average ones , albeit achieving greater sensitivity?

As you are already alluding, it's a silly premise to begin with.

There's a reason there's something called "ribbed for her pleasure". :cowboy:

SS-18 ICBM

May 05, 2012, 05:10 AM

If I recall this correctly, people who got circumcised have a reduced sensitivity while having sex

I'm just wondering how the hell those studies were designed. How do you even measure it and control for the many factors that could affect it?

Farm Boy

May 05, 2012, 08:46 AM

Median time from start to ejaculation? Crude, but possibly effective if the pool was large enough.

joey blogger

May 05, 2012, 09:04 AM

just wanted to raise a couple of points

1. Hygiene - I live in developed country and have bathed nearly every day of my well over 30 years of life (im sure im not the only one). We can trust you to wipe your ass ok but clean your dick well i guess that might be to difficult for little johnny? most issues with the foreskin and they are not common can easily treated without cuting easily treated.

2. HIV STD once again I live in a developed Country and have been educated in the dangers.
If I am going to sleep with someone I wear a condom always no exceptions. When I entered into a relationship I got tested to be sure and so did my partner then no more condoms. They wernt needed. By the way getting cut does not protect you from HIV or STD it is alledged to reduce the risks. So where is the benefit if to make 99.9% sure of not catching HIV or STD I have to wear a condom anyway or be in a responsible relationship.

3. To look like Dad. I dont really recall ever seeing my dads penis. perhaps this is not normal. In the Developed Country I live in there are between 10-20% cut most of which are done as babies. Generally you will feel out of place in the school locker if you are cut. The larger majority of new fathers these days are not cut and are therefore not cutting their boys.

4. My mother did not circumcise me as a baby and Im very thankful that she didnt. Whilst some parents were pondering as to whether they should "get their boy done" my mother did not and instead she gave me the gift if choice. I would also like to mention that very few and I mean very few men of adult age choose to get cut. That should speak for itself

If you dont bath and dont have protected or responsible sex then perhaps you should be cut. If as a parent you feel that your not up to the task of educating or cleaning your child perhaps passing on the gift of choice is beyond you.

Zack

May 05, 2012, 11:17 AM

I can't really comprehend much of what you're saying, but @ this:

I would also like to mention that very few and I mean very few men of adult age choose to get cut. That should speak for itself
Because it's an unnecessary, painful procedure with a few trivial benefits, obviously. I'm glad I was circumcised as a baby - I have no recollection whatsoever of any pain or trauma associated with it. However, that wouldn't be true if I waited until now, in which case I would likely not get circumcised.

An interesting tidbit is that uncircumcised men are always the ones saying circumcision is "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture," while circumcised men generally shrug their shoulders and say "I don't mind it, and if anything I actually prefer it."

Lillefix

May 05, 2012, 11:26 AM

An interesting tidbit is that uncircumcised men are always the ones saying circumcision is "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture," while circumcised men generally shrug their shoulders and say "I don't mind it, and if anything I actually prefer it."

I would conclude from that tidbit, that neither side knows what their talking about.

joey blogger

May 05, 2012, 06:26 PM

Well I didnt say anything about abuse, for me it is about having the choice. Generally circumcised men shrug their sholderds because they have no choice. As far as your comment about prefering it how do you really know if you were circumcised as a baby? I can pull back my foreskin and have a very similar experience to you but you on the other hand?

Zack

May 05, 2012, 06:39 PM

Well I didnt say anything about abuse
Read the OP.

I can pull back my foreskin and have a very similar experience to you
And I can plug my fingers in my ears, but I still don't really have any idea what it's truly like to be deaf.

Hygro

May 06, 2012, 02:32 AM

:crazyeye: Zack, that was pretty easy to comprehend. Every so called benefit is unnecessary.

Also, the deaf analogy was not actually analogous.

joey blogger

May 06, 2012, 08:47 AM

What I really want to say is thank you to the generation before mine that chose to question the thinking of others. That was such a turning point say 1960-70. The begining of where we are today (microprocessor and cell/mobile). Eventually I think it will be illegal to circ you kid. Religion or not. It will be but a byproduct of how concious we have become.

Zack

May 06, 2012, 09:54 AM

:crazyeye: Zack, that was pretty easy to comprehend.
I was referring to the poor grammar and broken English.

Hygro

May 07, 2012, 12:41 AM

It was completely readable, no need to be dismissive

joey blogger

May 07, 2012, 06:09 AM

I was actually very drunk when I posted (both times) so I am not surprised there where gramical errors.

Grisu

May 07, 2012, 07:26 AM

I would also like to mention that very few and I mean very few men of adult age choose to get cut. That should speak for itself
I guess I'm one of these 'very few men' then, though in my case I had it done for medical reasons (phimosis), but I have to say the procedure certainly isn't that painful..there are a few days of discomfort immediately after the operation but that's about it.

That said, I still wouldn't have my hypothetical son cut and would prefer to leave the chocie up to him, but I don't think that some parents having their son cut is that big of a deal.

Dawgphood001

May 07, 2012, 11:58 AM

Hey Dawg, you wouldn't happen to have any primary personal reason for this would you?

What are you insinuating?

Dawg, it would be one thing if nobody agreed with you (You could just say they were ignoring your side) but when people are actually agreeing with you, and still taking issue with the hyperbolic nature of your posts, you should probably at least consider the possibility. I know I can frequently ignore those who are totally on the other side as me, (Granted, I LISTEN but I may not see the substance in their arguments, whether it exists or not) but if someone who basically agrees with me calls me out, I generally find that they were right.

I don't see what you're saying. Should I modify my opinions to be more like yours?

I should say I was joking in that post above. Obviously somebody arguing against circumcision isn't going to make me want to allow it, especially if other posters in thread are arguing the same thing in a more reasonable manner in the same thread. What I AM saying is that I am already pro-circumcision and your posts are so extreme its hard for me to even want to consider them.

You haven't pointed out any specifics of why my posts are supposedly extreme, you've just whined incessantly about them. I've shown you with credible scientific research why Circumcision is abusive and detrimental, and all you're responded with is jokes and accusations.

Put up, or shut up.

Yes that thought process is not circumstantial. I mean arguments why its bad sound more psuedoscientific than based in reality.

What is pseudoscientific about people dying or losing their penis or losing all their penile function due to this completely unnecessary procedure?

These arguments only seem pseudoscientific because you aren't familiar with the real science.

I've seen people claim sex is better circumcised. Too late for me to test it anyone here want to?

Some people already have. (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/)

Impotence and sexual dysfunction. The nerves in the foreskin apparently provide an impulse to aid erection. Circumcision has long been associated with an increased incidence of impotence. Glover (1929) reported a case.2 Winkelmann (1959) suggested impotence as a possibility,6 as did Foley (1966).10 Stinson (1973) reported five cases.13 Palmer & Link (1979) reported two cases.14 More recently, additional evidence of sexual dysfunction after circumcision has emerged. Coursey et al. reported that the degradation in sexual function after circumcision is equivalent to the degradation experienced after anterior urethroplasty.47 Fink et al. reported statistically significant degradation in sexual function.49 A survey carried out in South Korea found that circumcised men reported painful erections, and diminished sexual pleasure, and a few reported curvature of the penis upon erection.48 Shen et al. (2004), in a study carried out in China, reported erectile dysfunction in 28.4 percent of the men in the study after circumcision, and 'weakened erectile confidence' in 34.7 percent.59

Premature ejaculation. Lakshmanan & Prakash (1980) report that the foreskin impinges against the corona glandis during coitus.15 The foreskin, therefore, tends to protect the corona glandis from direct stimulation by the vagina of the female partner during coitus. The corona is the most highly innervated part of the glans penis.19 Zwang argues that removal of the foreskin allows direct stimulation of the corona glandis and this may cause premature ejaculation in some males.32 O'Hara & O'Hara (1999) report more premature ejaculation in circumcised male partners.41 The presence of the foreskin, therefore, may make it easier to avoid premature ejaculation, while its absence would make it more difficult to avoid premature ejaculation. Masood et al. report that circumcision is more likely to worsen premature ejaculation than improve it.64 The Australian Study of Health and Relationships found that "26% of circumcised men but 22% of uncircumcised men reported reaching orgasm too quickly for at least one month in the previous year."65 Kim & Pang (2006) reported decreased ejaculation latency time in circumcised men but the decrease was not considered statistically significant.66

Inability to ejaculate or delayed ejaculation. While some circumcised males may suffer from a tendency toward premature ejaculation, others find that they have great difficulty in ejaculating.50 The nerves in the foreskin and ridged band are stimulated by stretching,18 57 amongst other movements. If those nerves are not present, Money (1983) argues that excision of these stretch receptors by circumcision may make ejaculation take longer.18. Some circumcised males may have to resort to prolonged and aggressive thrusting to achieve orgasm.40 49 Shen et al. (2004) reported that 32.6 percent of the men in his study reported prolonged intercourse after circumcision.59 Senkul et al. (2004) reported an appreciable increase in ejaculatory latency time (time to ejaculate).60 Thorvaldsen & Meyhoff (2005) reported that circumcised males have more difficulty with ejaculation and orgasm.63 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that circumcised men have more difficulty with masturbation.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 65 percent of circumcised men in their study reported increased ejaculation time in their study.69

Loss of sexual pleasure. Denniston reported that some circumcised men would not have the operation again because of loss of sexual pleasure.61 Kim & Pang (2006) reported that 48 percent of Korean men in a survey experienced loss of mastubatory pleasure after circumcision as compared with 8 percent that experienced increased pleasure and 8 percent reported improved sexual life, but 20 percent reported worsened sexual life.66 Solinis & Yiannaki reported that 16 percent of the men in their study reported a better sex life after circumcision but 35 percent reported a worsened sex life.69

Sexual behaviour. The alteration to the sexual organ causes many circumcised males to change their sexual behavior. Foley reported that circumcised males are more likely to masturbate.10 Hooykaas et al. (1991) reported that immigrant (mostly circumcised) males have a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior with prostitutes as compared with Dutch (mostly normal intact) males.23 The U. S. National Health and Social Life Survey found that circumcised males have a "more elaborated" set of sexual practices, including more masturbation, and more heterosexual oral sex.30 The British National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (2000) reported that circumcised males were more likely to report having a homosexual partner and more likely to have partners from abroad as compared with normal intact males.56 Circumcised men are significantly less likely to use condoms.38 50 Many men in the Solinis and Yiannaki study reported decreased sex life after circumcision.69

Value to female partners. The foreskin has long been known to be valuable to the female partner.8 16 The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to the female.41 45 55 Women are more likely to experience vaginal dryness during sex with a circumcised partner.24 28 62 The unnatural dryness may make coitus painful and result in abrasions.28 41 50 The vaginal dryness may be mistakenly attributed to female arousal disorder.55 62 O'Hara & O'Hara report that the female partner is less likely to experience orgasm when the foreskin is not present and more likely to experience orgasm or even multiple orgasms when the foreskin is present.41

Recent studies. Solinis & Yiannaki (2007) found that 46 percent of men in their study reported a worsened sex life for their partner while 33 percent reported that that their partner's sex life had improved.69 Frisch et al. (2011) studied the effects of circumcision among Danish people and reported:

"Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."70

I'm not entirely sure those nerve endings are dead (though I don't really know). It seems like they could easily reform lower down. I can assure all that I've never thought of my 'circumcised' sex as being worse than the uncut.

I know of no such way that nerves can "reform" elsewhere. Nerve endings do not grow back.

If you currently enjoy your sex life as a circumcised man, that's great!:) I'm not trying to belittle you. However, what you must realize is that you are somewhat lucky. Many circumcised men are not happy with their sex life and function and are angry that something so important has been taken away from them at birth without their consent.

Circumcision is a very extensive procedure that removes the vast majority of pleasurable nerve endings from the penis, and for many men this results in difficulty obtaining erection, premature ejaculation, anorgasmia, pain during sex, bent-erections, excessive scarring, skin adhesions, partial glans amputation, and countless other complications.

I think the issue is that it sheathes nerve endings and protects them. So assuming circumcision actually does decrease the sensitivity of some nerves by leaving them without their raincoat while they bump about the world, it might make you last a bit longer on average during the act. Wait, no wonder women prefer... nevermind. They could always just not have sex with 6 second college boys too I guess.

The foreskin doesn't "sheath" nerve endings, the foreskin itself contains the nerve endings. The glans penis itself is far from being the most erogenous, nerve-laden part of the penis. The foreskin is by far.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-int.jpg
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-cut.jpg
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-key.jpg

Stats or get out.

I've already provided the stats earlier in the thread, you just haven't looked at them for whatever reason.

But since you asked so nicely: (http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm)

* Circumcision denudes: Depending on the amount of skin cut off, circumcision robs a male of as much as 80 percent or more of his penile skin. Depending on the foreskin's length, cutting it off makes the penis as much as 25 percent or more shorter. Careful anatomical investigations have shown that circumcision cuts off more than 3 feet of veins, arteries, and capillaries, 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings.[31]The foreskin's muscles, glands, mucous membrane, and epithelial tissue are destroyed, as well.

If circumcision causes death in large amounts, then obviously we would stop doing it.

Why? Circumcision is after all very profitable for the doctors and cosmetic companies that benefit from purloined erogenous tissue.

Deaths are also very often concealed from the public, and attributed to secondary causes, such as attributing the death of an infant to an "infection" without mentioning that the infection was the direct result of circumcision.

Deaths happen frequently (http://www.cirp.org/library/death/)

Some babies die of complications of circumcision.1 There has been a need to assemble information concerning death from complications of circumcision in one convenient location. This page is designed to fill that need.

Deaths occur secondary to loss of blood or systemic infection from the circumcision wound.

A few deaths are reported in the medical literature. Other medical literature discusses the frequency of those deaths. A few deaths are reported in the popular press.

There is reason to believe that many deaths from circumcision are attributed to other causes. For example, if a baby were to die of meningitis that was contracted through the circumcision wound, the death may be attributed to meningitis while ignoring the fact that the baby would not have had meningitis if he had not been circumcised.

Circumcision originated before the dawn of history. There was no knowledge of sanitation or the need for a sterile operating environment. Jews have traditionally performed circumcision on the eighth day after birth for many thousands of years. The medical literature was still reporting numerous deaths from ritual circumcision in the early twentieth century.2, 3 There must have been vast numbers of babies who died under those conditions through the centuries. Jewish law allows parents who have had three sons die from circumcision to leave the fourth son intact.6

Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary7 non-therapeutic8 operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.9 Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one may be seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision.

Several doctors have given estimates of the number of deaths that occur each year. Douglas Gairdner reported 16-19 actual deaths a year in England and Wales from neonatal circumcisions in the 1940s.10 Sydney Gellis believed that "there are more deaths from complications of circumcision than from cancer of the penis.11 There are various figures for the number of deaths from penile cancer ranging from 200 to 480 deaths per year. Robert Baker estimated 229 deaths per year from circumcision in the United States.12

Since there have not been a terribly large amount of directly related to deaths dealing with the issues of circumcision, such a point is invalid to make.

It is never invalid to bring up deaths as a result of a procedure that is completely unnecessary from a medical standpoint and performed without the consent of the patient.

You got it?

Most of the people in the world are circumcised, doesn't seem like a problem to them for the most part.

And here is where you are completely wrong. Anywhere from 70-80 percent of the world's men are intact and suffer no ill-effects as a result of having their foreskin.

Whereas there are many men who suffer the ill-effects of infant circumcision, some of which we do not yet understand.

PUBMED seems to agree with me, but I only spent 10 min looking. In principle, I agree with anti-circ people: it's an improper thing to do. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. In the grand scheme of things, I think it's worse to not get your kid braces if they need them, for example.

Why do you keep making these ridiculous comparisons? Orthodontic braces don't involve massive genital surgery and actually provide some measure of medical benefit, unlike circumcision which has no medical benefits at all, only detriments.

At least if you don't get a kid braces, he won't run the risk of dying or losing his genitals. Whereas if you choose to circumcise...

I can't see it making a difference. If nerve mass was a bodily metric of any value then we'd have some hypersensual tall people floating around.

Cutting off nerves reduces sensation. This is pretty common sense.

And yes, it does make a difference.

No, but you are allowed to make absurd analogies - a right I applaud you for exercising.

Not an absurd analogy at all. Fingers and the foreskin both contain Meissner's corpuscles, the most delicate and perceptive type of nerve endings. The foreskin contains more of them (~20,000) than any other part of the body, so it could be argued that cutting off the foreskin is worse than cutting off a finger.

:lol::goodjob:

Zack wins the thread by derailing a stupid comparison AND backing freedom of speech at the same time:)

Meanwhile, you derail the thread with more of your juvenile humor.

You're not helping your case.

Circumcision seems to be assisting in stemming the tide of AIDS in Africa. Of course, that's not a problem here in the West.

The claim that circumcision will solve the problem of AIDS in Africa is pure and utter nonsense, especially when it was proven that circumcision didn't solve AIDS in our country at all. Certain parts of the United States have as bad a problem with HIV/AIDS as some parts of Africa, and we have one of the highest circumcision rates in the world.

There're really no complaints regarding sensitivity. While a 'theoretical case' might be made, it doesn't seem to be true 'in practice'.

It is true in practice as well, it's just that circumcised men are often scared to disclose their dissatisfaction with a practice that is so commonplace and so tacitly accepted in our society.

Check out The Global Survey of Circumcision Harm (http://www.circumcisionharm.org/index.htm) and other resources to see what unhappy men are saying.

Thank you for not starting to swear for what apparently is a stupid analogy. Now about why it is stupid.

'Fingers' might have been a bit too extreme; but saying that the part of the foreskin is completely useless is wrong too. If I recall this correctly, people who got circumcised have a reduced sensitivity while having sex - which is probably a change for the worse. So, a part of their life just got worse. Not having fingers makes parts of your life worse too.

Exactly right.

Well, direct surveying, I think.

"Sir, please give your (A) opinion on sex and (B) whether you're circumcised"

We find that, despite the answer to B, the answer to A is "Wheeeee!"

As already discussed, this isn't the case at all. Some circumcised men enjoy sex, you are right, just as many women who have had their clitoris, clitoral hood and labia amputated also enjoy sex. Circumcision of either gender also probably doesn't do much to dull the libido. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean that millions of people aren't suffering detriment as a result.

First of all, circumcision doesn't make your life worse. If anything, it makes it slightly better (although there is a miniscule risk of serious damage being done, and the exact benefits besides aesthetics are debatable and/or trivial).

Circumcision has made life worse for a lot of people.

Psychological issues can be serious and life-long (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/)

It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision (Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).

Even if the psychological sequelae of circumcision do not coalesce into a formal diagnosis of PTSD, it is possible that there may be long-lasting effects on a man's life, particularly in psychologically sensitive individuals with comorbidity factors (cf. Mezey & Robbins, 2001). Presumably responding to their current interpretation and feelings, many circumcised men who have recognised the loss of a highly erogenous, irreplaceable part of their penis have reported long-lasting emotional suffering, grief, anxiety, and depression, and a sense of personal vulnerability (Hammond, 1997, 1999). Avoidance or obsessive preoccupation with such a loss, along with anger, can be difficult to reconcile for some men depending on their particular personality (Bigelow, 1995; Maguire, 1998; van der Kolk, 1989). Emotional numbing, avoidance of the topic of circumcision, and anger are potential long-term psychological consequences of the circumcision trauma (Bigelow, 1995; Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Boyle & Bensley, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Goldman, 1997, 1999). In extreme cases, there might be aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour (Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Bradley, Oliver, & Chernick, 1998; Jacobson et al., 1987; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998).

Secondly, does a large part of American society view having fingers as icky?

Why should this matter at all? Many societies view the labia and clitoral hood as "icky", yet no one in this country considers allowing such people to mutilate their infant daughters.

Is a foreskin necessary for many basic tasks?

If you have sex, yes.

But you cannot make this encompass a universal definition of injury with only this statement.

A malignant brain tumor is of course very harmful to a person. The removal of it is classified as an injury; the boring of two holes into the skull and the removal of said tumor is bound to become an injury, since it deprives the neurological system of its normal tissue and function. If our goal is to "first, do no harm," we would fail this goal while performing virtually every surgery that may have any potential benefit, since surgery implies the "injury" you define.

The difference in removing brain tumors and circumcising infants couldn't be more obvious.

Removal of a brain tumor is performed on an adult that can consent to the procedure, and will result in a demonstrated benefit to the patient since they will no longer have to endure a tumor in their skull.

Routine infant circumcision involves highly invasive removal of erogenous tissue in an extremely painful process that the patient has not consented to. It also provides no demonstrated medical benefit to the patient at all. In short, it is an unnecessary amputation, or mutilation.

Sounds like an injury to me.

Of course, we need to weigh the pros and cons of each operation, but do not make blanket statements that serve no purpose in arguing a position without creating fallacies in logic due to ambiguity.

It's already been well established that there are no "pros" to circumcision of infants, only "cons".

I can't really comprehend much of what you're saying, but @ this:

Because it's an unnecessary, painful procedure with a few trivial benefits, obviously. I'm glad I was circumcised as a baby - I have no recollection whatsoever of any pain or trauma associated with it. However, that wouldn't be true if I waited until now, in which case I would likely not get circumcised.

You make it sound like everyone must get circumcised at some point in their life, which simply isn't the case. If you weren't circumcised at birth, the likelihood of circumcision being necessary for you later in life is miniscule at best.

Don't forget that the vast majority of the world's men live perfectly normal, happy lives with their foreskins, and to them cutting off their foreskin seems as outlandish as cutting off part of their ear, their lips or their eyelids.

An interesting tidbit is that uncircumcised men are always the ones saying circumcision is "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture," while circumcised men generally shrug their shoulders and say "I don't mind it, and if anything I actually prefer it."

This is wrong. Circumcised men who are educated about normal penile anatomy and know what they have lost are indeed very unhappy.

Denial is a huge part of circumcision, and many circumcised men employ it extensively, especially if they are unaware of natural penile anatomy.