Circumcision...why is it still legal?

[metatron]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[CaptainF]

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 ) 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):

Spoiler genital mutilation is torture :

Girl and boy, respectively.

Boys undergoing ritual circumcision in The Philippines

Kurdish girl being circumcised.

Sunaa circumcision on a girl in Indonesia.

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[CaptainF]

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.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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.

 

[CaptainF]

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]

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

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.

 

[CaptainF]

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

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]

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.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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.

 

[Atticus]

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 ) in terms of own goal forms of argumentation. People are forgiven for ignoring these threads on those grounds alone. I certainly did.

Moderator Action: If you're ignoring thread in the Chamber, please really ignore it. Declaring the ignoring in the threads amounts to nothing. If you want to express your disagreement, please try to add more argumentation.