Circumcision...why is it still legal?

[CaptainF]

Did I say circumcision alone would be the solution? No, I did not. There are, as in many real life situations, many other factors that affect the situation. Circumcision wouldn't be enough if you keep jabbing yourself with dirty needles or sleeping with a lot of other men.

Why shouldn't it help when sleeping with lots of men? I thought it was supposed to prevent STDs and HIV and all that bad stuff. Or is that claim wrong? Yes, it clearly is.

There is also the fact that condoms and safer sexual practices (monogamy, abstinence and other "lifestyle changes") are infinitely more cost effective (and effective in general) than circumcision and don't come with any of the horrific side-effects.

In any case, the literature on the biological effectiveness of male circumcision on preventing HIV transmission is solid.

No, actually it is far from solid. In many African countries, you are more likely to acquire HIV if you are circumcised. There is also the fact that the three "studies" on which the WHO is proclaiming circumcision to be a preventative measure against HIV have numerous methodological flaws, and the results are contradicted by real world data. The most obvious fact is that HIV transmission rates are much higher in the United States than in Europe, where circumcision is almost unheard of in the general population.

It is also important to note that the authors of these three "studies" have been associated with Vernon Quaintance (a recently arrested child pornographer in the UK), who heads the Gilgal Society, a website for circumcision fetishists, AKA people who are erotically stimulated by infant circumcision.

There are some really sick, disgusting, disturbed individuals out there promoting this falsehood of "medical circumcision".

As for your statistical claim regarding AIDS prevalence in the US vis-à-vis Africa, I'll look into it later once I get off work

Let me help you with that.

I somewhat need braces, but told my parents I wasn't getting them. I don't want metal between my teeth

For the record, I actually think forcing braces is worse, becuase the kid is actually aware of what's being put between his teeth, and some (Well, maybe just me) don't want it.

What if a baby doesn't want to be circumcised? Does that factor into your reasoning at all?

Is that actually what you want?

It seems like, more or less the circumcised people don't seem to mind, and the uncircumcised people seem to feel the need to pound in how abused they were. We don't care, or want to hear it.

You say that you don't care, or don't want to hear, yet here you are in this thread.

It's not just uncircumcised versus circumcised. The fact of the matter is that there are many men and boys out there who are very disturbed at being circumcised and would very much rather not have been circumcised. There are also lots of men out there who are speaking out about their botched circumcisions and the horrific complications they have experienced as a result of them.

Well, except Dawgphood...

What are you insinuating?

I don't mind a reasoned discussion, but it somewhat annoys me that some of the uncircmcised males in this thread feel the need to convince me I've been abused. Its actually a bit offensive.

Again with the false dichotomy of circumcised versus uncircumcised. Do you really think that every circumcised man out there today is happy with his condition? Really?

And no, I never said that parents intend to abuse their children when they choose to have them circumcised. I explicitly outlined this. What happens all too often, is the doctor misleads the parents with false information or neglects to mention the potential complications, or the fact that there is no medical reason to circumcise. And the infant experiences this circumcision as abuse, due to the extreme agony to which it is subjected.

Although the intent to abuse may not be there, circumcision itself is an abusive, brutal procedure. This is what you are failing to understand.

Are you even listening to yourself?

Yup. The problem is, you aren't listening to me.

Please find me a medical procedure which 100% of the people it was performed on reported they were happy with the procedure.

Please find me a medical procedure other than circumcision that has been claimed to cure as many "diseases", that has advocated for the amputation of normal bodily organs, and has operated without the informed consent of the patient upon which it is performed.

Impossible.

If you don't think people would remove an unnecessary body part

Your first mistake. The foreskin is NOT unnecessary. It serves many functions that are sexual, mechanical, and immunological in nature.

It is not a "spare tire" that one can choose to go with or without. It is essential penile tissue.

in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing (to clarify, in their view or if they perceive society to deem it more aesthetically pleasing), you're naive. For instance, do you shave your pubic hair? Or your face? Or do you cut the hair on the top of your head? If so, do you do so to make yourself what you perceive to be more aesthetically pleasing? That hair (in both places) serves a purpose - keeping your body warm. Does that mean they're necessary? Nope. Does that mean cutting, trimming, or shaving it to make yourself more aesthetically pleasing is wrong? Of course not.

Again with the assumption that the foreskin is unnecessary, which is utterly false. the foreskin also cannot grow back, unlike hair.

Not to mention that all the cosmetic procedures you describe are almost entirely voluntary in nature; one chooses to cut his hair 99% of the time of their own volition (save for infancy). Circumcision performed upon infants is never a voluntary procedure; no one ever asks the infant if he would like to have part of his penis cut off.

You can have sex with a circumcised penis.

Shane Peterson couldn't. Neither could David Reimer. Neither can this guy. And those are just the tip of the iceberg.

And yes, some circumcised men can have sex, much like some circumcised women can have sex. However, if you suffer from severe skin ablations, chordee, skin bridges, buried penis, partial glans amputation, severe scarring, bent erections, impotence, premature ejaculation, pain during intercourse, keloid scarring, amongst many other horrific complications, having sex becomes awfully difficult, or simply not worth the effort.

Stop making a straw man out of me. I stated that it's not surprising that not many adults perform a medical procedure which is unnecessary, painful, and with a small amount of debatable benefits. Hell, I even said that if I wasn't circumcised as an infant, I would not get circumcised now.

So if you don't think you would choose it as an adult, why do you think it should be imposed on infants? Our bodies are one of the few things we truly own in our lives, along with our thoughts. Depriving a human of their body parts while in infancy is a flagrant violation of human rights.

How the hell is that "mak[ing] it sound like everyone must get circumcised at some point in their life"?

I dunno, if circumcision is so medically awesome and removes an "unnecessary" part of the body, why aren't the vast majority of the world's men rushing to get their preputial anatomy amputated?

Stop trying to be a moral crusader and actually read my posts. Don't just radicalize my statements so you can try and show everyone how barbaric and uncultured I am.

I consider circumcision on infants and children, or just coerced circumcision in general, to be grossly barbaric and uncultured.

Don't forget that the vast majority of the world's circumcised men live perfectly normal, happy lives without their foreskins.

And there are also a lot of circumcised women who also live "normal" lives.

But there are also lots of circumcised men and women who are very unhappy with not having a foreskin. And many of these men aren't merely the ones who experience botched procedures.

Well, here's the thing. I don't mind if you want to say "Its not ideal" or "They shouldn't do it" or whatever. That's an acceptable viewpoint. I don't really know if I'd do it to my kid or not. If it were illegal, I definitely wouldn't do it (Though I still would for a religious reason if I had a religious reason.)

Well that’s rather unintelligent. If it were illegal and you circ’d your kid, you’d be caught eventually.

I get offended when people imply my parents abused me, doubly so when its completely bizarre and senseless. I mean, worse to lose the foreskin than a finger? REALLY?

I don't know all the facts here, but I KNOW I wouldn't trade one of my fingers, even the ring finger, for my foreskin back.

First off, you aren't reading what I'm saying. I NEVER said that parents intentionally abuse their children through circumcision. What I said was that parents aren't given the facts of what circumcision really entails, and the fact that the infant experiences extreme agony. This extreme agony is perceived by the infant to be abusive in nature, even though the parents may have the best intentions of their infant son.

You got it?

Admit that your usage of the word "injury" was to describe an event that would cause any system in the body (such as a penis) to "lose its normal tissue and function;"

Yup.

Admit that your use of the word "injury" to describe circumcision could not be more universally ambiguous so as to pertain to any and every medical procedure causing injury;

The question at work here is whether the "injury" has a demonstrable medical benefit. Someone undergoing brain tumor removal may end up with holes in their skull, but if the tumor were to remain in their skull the consequences would be far more severe.

Admit that the removal of a brain tumor is an "injury" as described by you;

Admit that I did not compare circumcision and operation on a brain tumor in any way other than paralleling the two to both abide by the definition of "injury" as described by you;

Sure.

Admit that no response was given as to why the maxim "first, do no harm" (brought up by you) has no weight in your argument due to the reality that both operations are injuries and, therefore, cause harm and, therefore, should both be forbidden in their entirety due to your vehement adherence to this maxim;

The difference that you are completely failing to acknowledge is that removal of a tumor on the brain has proven benefits to the patient, where as circumcision of infants has NONE.

Admit that I did not discuss the topic of consent and that any argument about the topic emanates from your reasoning (not mine);

Admit that I defined circumcision as an "injury" and that any other argument directed to me concerning circumcision was instead attacking ideas that I had not endorsed;

The issue of consent is a very important one that cannot be discounted. It is dehumanizing and unethical in the extreme to perform severe, painful surgical operations (circumcision) on someone who is incapable of giving reasoned, informed consent, such as an adult.

Admit that attempting to attack a stance rooted in religion with purely logical reasoning is futile;

Not at all. People attack one stance rooted in religion and culture (female genital mutilation) all the time. Surely not a futile effort?

Admit that at least some forms of evidence used in defending your claim are exaggerated and are not universal, as you may otherwise suggest;

No.

Admit that social stigmas associated with circumcision are also extremely prevalent;

Irrelevant.

Admit that, however correct your argument may happen to be, the execution of your claim (to allow civil and/or criminal punishment for circumcision) is virtually impossible in the majority of countries in which circumcision is practiced, due to reasons that cannot be professed logically;

I don't see what you're getting at here. We should ignore battery and assault on unconsenting minors (infant male circumcision) simply because it's "not logical"?

A very weak argument.

Admit that, however correct your argument may happen to be, the execution of your claim (to allow civil and/or criminal punishment for circumcision) remains farfetched and extreme in developed countries in which circumcision is practiced, due to the fact that advanced medical procedure undermines your argument in certain areas.

"Advanced medical procedure" can't prevent infants from dying or sustaining horrifying life-long complications in many instances, so it doesn't undermine my argument at all.

Admit these things and refrain from the utilization of poor logic, and I'll agree with your idea.

My logic isn't "poor". My logic has always been that the foreskin is an essential, normal part of human (and mammalian) male anatomy and that to remove it from infants without their consent is unethical and unnecessary at best, torturous and a gross human rights violation at worst.

By contrast, the "logic" of those who would try to normalize amputation of healthy genital tissue is far more twisted than can be explained succinctly.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why shouldn't it help when sleeping with lots of men?

Same principle that playing the lottery over and over again leads to an increased chance of getting a prize. Basic probability.

No, actually it is far from solid.

Hmm, you are right. Looking at various meta-analyses on PubMed, almost all of them bemoan the lack of randomized controlled trials. That book on AIDS I read has some explaining to do. Time to scrutinize the studies there further.

EDIT: Mostly observational studies. RCTs mentioned were ended early, apparently due to effectiveness of circumcision. I'd really like a convincing meta-analysis though, so I guess my position would be to wait for further studies. I presume your position here is to apply the precautionary principle. In any case, there are other tools for fighting HIV such as encouraging fidelity and condoms. But the problem with those tools is adherence and proper behavior.

And one more thing: could we stick to discussing the science and statistics? I do not respond well to smear tactics or other emotional pleas. Thanks.

 

[Zack]

nec·es·sar·y
   [nes-uh-ser-ee]
adjective
1.
being essential, indispensable, or requisite

I'm not arguing with a brick wall any longer. You're acting like a conservative arguing about abortion.

 

[Akkon888]

Your first mistake. The foreskin is NOT unnecessary. It serves many functions that are sexual, mechanical, and immunological in nature.

It is not a "spare tire" that one can choose to go with or without. It is essential penile tissue.

Admit that at least some forms of evidence used in defending your claim are exaggerated and are not universal, as you may otherwise suggest;

No.

1. The entire reproductive system is inessential for regular, everyday human function.
2. Even within the reproductive system, the foreskin has such a minor purpose that people can, and do, live without it for their lives unimpaired.

At best, this is an exaggeration.

The question at work here is whether the "injury" has a demonstrable medical benefit. Someone undergoing brain tumor removal may end up with holes in their skull, but if the tumor were to remain in their skull the consequences would be far more severe.

...

The difference that you are completely failing to acknowledge is that removal of a tumor on the brain has proven benefits to the patient, where as circumcision of infants has NONE.

Injury is harm. "First, do no harm." Yes, one surgery can help more than another. This doesn't change the fact that both are injuries and, therefore, cause harm. Either give up your stance that the quote "First, do no harm" is inapplicable at the moment, or redefine the words "injury" and "harm."

The issue of consent is a very important one that cannot be discounted. It is dehumanizing and unethical in the extreme to perform severe, painful surgical operations (circumcision) on someone who is incapable of giving reasoned, informed consent, such as an adult.

I can agree to that.

Not at all. People attack one stance rooted in religion and culture (female genital mutilation) all the time. Surely not a futile effort?

A futile effort in Pakistan and other such countries where freedom of speech is threatened and where the act of circumcision is unlikely to be banned anyway due to a homogenous population that clamors for it.

Admit that social stigmas associated with circumcision are also extremely prevalent;

Irrelevant.

If the issue of consent is important, the socio-ethical sphere regarding this topic is also important; hence, the issue must be discussed.

I don't see what you're getting at here. We should ignore battery and assault on unconsenting minors (infant male circumcision) simply because it's "not logical"?

A very weak argument.

Referring to the aspect of religion prevalent in many modern societies. Religion does not follow traditional rules of logic.

"Advanced medical procedure" can't prevent infants from dying or sustaining horrifying life-long complications in many instances, so it doesn't undermine my argument at all.

Advanced medical procedure does prevent infants from dying and does prevent infants from receiving complications. Surely there are a few outliers, but the reality is that technological breakthroughs allow virtually zero deaths (ex. outliers) in circumcision. Fewer deaths in performing a practice, means less controversy about said practice; developed nations experience less controversy about the topic with reference to health risks, and therefore the strength of your argument is reduced here.

My logic isn't "poor". My logic has always been that the foreskin is an essential, normal part of human (and mammalian) male anatomy and that to remove it from infants without their consent is unethical and unnecessary at best, torturous and a gross human rights violation at worst.

By contrast, the "logic" of those who would try to normalize amputation of healthy genital tissue is far more twisted than can be explained succinctly.

The sentence that starts with "My logic..." is your claim. You use logic to back it up. Your claim is quite strong, but your negligence toward the fact that the issue is multifaceted and cannot be explained solely through concrete logic, is what alienates people from accepting your argument.

 

[Zack]

Dawgphood, my main issue with your argument is that you are making a huge deal out of something very minor. You are going to great lengths to exaggerate and sensationalize this minor issue in an attempt to try and convince yourself and others that you're some sort of great moral hero fighting for an extremely important ethical issue, when in fact you come across as an angry man with an arrogant, holier-than-thou, condescending "I'm better than you" attitude.

EDIT:

Instead of simply taking the entirely reasonable stance that infant circumcision should be banned because such an unnecessary procedure should be the choice of the party it is performed on, you take the far more radical and absurd stance of "CIRCUMCISION IS EVIL TORTURE AND IT KILLS BABIES AND GIVES THEM HERPES AND IT'S WORSE THAN LOSING FINGERS".

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm not arguing with a brick wall any longer. You're acting like a conservative arguing about abortion.

Now that's funny, considering my castration anxiety theory.

 

[koshej613]

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/160989/jewish/Why-do-we-have-a-Circumcision.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/artic...sh/The-Contrast-Between-Isaac-and-Ishmael.htm
Also, Chanukkah is a good example of those, who tried to stop Jews from circumcision, so that you know it...

 

[holy king]

well, your god certainly didnt stop hitler so why would he stop anyone from banning circumcision?

 

[warpus]

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.

It's nerve endings, it makes a difference. I heard it makes it easier to masturbate too (the foreskin moves up and down, up and down), but I wouldn't know about that

It probably doesn't make a large difference, but in the end I'm happy that no parts of me were chopped off, except my umbilical cord, which was kinda a must

 

[Gigaz]

http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16056370,00.html

Strange that noone noticed it here.
The state court of Cologne has ruled that circumcision on males that are too young to consent is an act of bodily harm that is not protected by freedom of religion.
The doctor that performed the circumcision was cleared from all charges because the legal situation was too unclear for him.

Even though the judgement is extremely controversial, this does in fact outlaw male circumcision for religious reasons in Germany because doctors can now know that the operation may be unlawful.

 

[Lillefix]

Look at the Tavern. Three pages and still going strong.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=466751

 

[metatron]

Strange that noone noticed it here.

Sure i did. But i didn't feel like digging out the thread...

The state court of Cologne

The literal translation may be misleading: It's a local court.
Landgericht =/= Oberlandesgericht.

this does in fact outlaw male circumcision for religious reasons in Germany because doctors can now know that the operation may be unlawful.

Well, that's possible, but it's somewhat debatable.
Other courts offering contrary rulings is highly likely. But sure, the Verbotsirrtum is somewhat diminished in the future...

Edit: Yeah.. also what Lillefix said...