Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ? [Archive] - Page 7

Ivor the Engineer

7th August 2007, 03:37 PM

No offense to everyone who has posted before... but isn't it a bit silly to refer to circumcision as "mutilation", and frame the anti-circumcision position as being about "body integrity"?

No, it is an accurate description. The ethics of performing non-essential and practically irreversible plastic surgery on a non-consenting child is seen by most people as a breach of the child's human rights. That is until you call it "circumcision", then it is considered by some to be perfectly ethical for a physician to do it and parents to demand it.

It is a medical procedure with little risk, and apparent benefit.

The most significant risk reduction is for UTI's in infants. According to the research, about 98.9% of male infants never have a UTI in the first place. And circumcision provides a 1% absolute risk reduction. So for 1 infant to avoid a UTI, a 100 have to be circumcised. The complication rate of circumcision is estimated at 2%.

Circumcision causes pain. It has been demonstrated that infants' pain response is affected for weeks or months after being circumcised. They become sensitized to pain. The best pain relief is a ring block. This is not standard in the US, where physicians tend to use the not particularly effective Emla cream.

Then you have the recommendation from the AAP that all non-essential trauma should avoid interrupting breast feeding. No medical organization in the developed world recommends circumcision. It is an elective procedure.

And, really, if you have such a profound interest in and obsession with your genitals, and the genitals of others, I think that little flap of skin is the least of your problems.

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of a man's penis and acts as a roller-bearing to during intercourse and masturbation. That is why anti-masturbation physicians in history targeted it (and a girl's clitoris) for removal.

Circumcision has been around for thousands of years. No one is sure when or where it started. Its use in medicine in the developed world should be limited to physical problems, such as phimosis (tight foreskin).

In Africa it has been shown to provide partial protection (about a 60% risk reduction) for men against contracting HIV. I therefore accept that it is reasonable to offer it to men and parents for their infants, especially since the supply and willingness to use of condoms in Africa does not appear sufficient to control the spread of HIV.

Katana

7th August 2007, 03:38 PM

phimosis or paraphimosis is a medical condition for wich a circumcision is helpfull, this has absolutely nothing to do with the circumcision of all males...

It's like saying that all women should get a total mammectomy at birth to prevent a serious (and higher chance) of breast cancer. There is bottled milk isn't there?...

See?....

SYL :)

Right. This is why I said that "always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.

Ivor the Engineer

7th August 2007, 03:46 PM

Right. This is why I said that "always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.

By definition, cutting off normal, healthy and functional tissue is harmful.

What you are referring to is the statistical benefits for populations for UTI's and males with anatomical problems.

Diamond

7th August 2007, 03:47 PM

Am I the only person who thinks this thread could have been cut back drastically very early on, if only for the sake of taste and tradition?

Katana

7th August 2007, 03:48 PM

By definition, cutting off normal, healthy and functional tissue is harmful.

What you are referring to is the statistical benefits for populations for UTI's and males with anatomical problems.

No.

What I said was "always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.

SYLVESTER1592

7th August 2007, 03:51 PM

No, it is an accurate description. The ethics of performing non-essential and practically irreversible plastic surgery on a non-consenting child is seen by most people as a breach of the child's human rights. That is until you call it "circumcision", then it is considered by some to be perfectly ethical for a physician to do it and parents to demand it.

The most significant risk reduction is for UTI's in infants. According to the research, about 98.9% of male infants never have a UTI in the first place. And circumcision provides a 1% absolute risk reduction. So for 1 infant to avoid a UTI, a 100 have to be circumcised. The complication rate of circumcision is estimated at 2%.

Circumcision causes pain. It has been demonstrated that infants' pain response is affected for weeks or months after being circumcised. They become sensitized to pain. The best pain relief is a ring block. This is not standard in the US, where physicians tend to use the not particularly effective Emla cream.

Then you have the recommendation from the AAP that all non-essential trauma should avoid interrupting breast feeding. No medical organization in the developed world recommends circumcision. It is an elective procedure.

The foreskin is the most sensitive part of a man's penis and acts as a roller-bearing to during intercourse and masturbation. That is why anti-masturbation physicians in history targeted it (and a girl's clitoris) for removal.

Circumcision has been around for thousands of years. No one is sure when or where it started. Its use in medicine in the developed world should be limited to physical problems, such as phimosis (tight foreskin).

In Africa it has been shown to provide partial protection (about a 60% risk reduction) for men against contracting HIV. I therefore accept that it is reasonable to offer it to men and parents for their infants, especially since the supply and willingness to use of condoms in Africa does not appear sufficient to control the spread of HIV.
To consider:

NEJM 1988 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=3393182&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum): pro-circ , circumcision may reduce the incidence of HIV, ulcers on foreskin associated with HIV
International Journal of STD's and AIDS 1999 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10215123&ordinalpos=65&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum): "Recommending routine circumcision to prevent HIV is scientifically unfounded".

SYLVESTER1592

7th August 2007, 03:53 PM

Am I the only person who thinks this thread could have been cut back drastically very early on, if only for the sake of taste and tradition?
more then 1500 posts... ;)

I guess, that's correct.

SYL :)

kellyb

7th August 2007, 04:03 PM

To consider:

NEJM 1997: pro-circ , circumcision may reduce the incidence of HIV
International Journal of STD's and AIDS 1999 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=10215123&ordinalpos=65&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum): "Recommending routine circumcision to prevent HIV is scientifically unfounded".

I'm generally on your side with this, SYL...but your information is outdated on the HIV thing. The two new RTCs demonstrate that the HIV thing is real.

Skepticybe

7th August 2007, 04:06 PM

"Always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.

No.

What I said was "always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.
And you are unable or unwilling to back that up. What, are you just sniping? Maybe I should report you to a moderator :p

I have read every single post in this monstrous thread. Your assertion that sometimes the medically unnecessary circumcision of a baby boy is harmless is unfounded and contrary to most scientific information that has been posted in this thread. So far, no poster has countered the information showing that elective cosmetic circumcision always causes some harm.

Katana

7th August 2007, 04:09 PM

And you are unable or unwilling to back that up. What, are you just sniping? Maybe I should report you to a moderator :p

I have read every single post in this monstrous thread. Your assertion that sometimes the medically unnecessary circumcision of a baby boy is harmless is unfounded and contrary to most scientific information that has been posted in this thread. So far, no poster has countered the information showing that elective cosmetic circumcision always causes some harm.

The claim to which I was responding did not distinguish between elective and non-elective circumcision.

ETA: Oh, and :p to you, too. :p

SYLVESTER1592

7th August 2007, 04:11 PM

I'm generally on your side with this, SYL...but your information is outdated on the HIV thing. The two new RTCs demonstrate that the HIV thing is real.
I know (although I think it's the one in PLoS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16231970&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), that you mean), but I'm still looking for a good meta-analysis and the general idea that it's a decided debate is not quite true. Still the debate on this is continuing when you look at all the responses and comments linked to the abstract. The medical studies are not conclusive in the sense that there are many reports refuting the benefits. As a result a new meta-analysis at this time would most likely reject the presumed benefits. But I'm just guessing here. If you find a current meta-analysis, please post.

There are two more RTC's coming (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16231995&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus): one from Kenya and one from Uganda. Together all three trials will give a better idea if the first RTC is correct in their conclusions and recommendations

SYL :)

Katana

7th August 2007, 04:17 PM

I know, but I'm still looking for a good meta-analysis and the general idea that it's a decided debate is not quite true. The medical studies are not conclusive in the sense that there are many reports refuting the benefits. As a result a new meta-analysis at this time would most likely reject the presumed benefits. But I'm just guessing here. If you find a current meta-analysis, please post.

SYL :)

DISCLAIMER: COMPLETELY OFF SUBJECT

What's the significance of the 1592 in your name, Syl?

SYLVESTER1592

7th August 2007, 04:29 PM

DISCLAIMER: COMPLETELY OFF SUBJECT

What's the significance of the 1592 in your name, Syl?
Why? Off-topic, irrelevant question.

(Read my sig... BTW, why choose a name like Katana...)

SYL :)

Skepticybe

7th August 2007, 04:33 PM

The claim to which I was responding did not distinguish between elective and non-elective circumcision.
Let's see. What I said:
RIC causes harm to the baby each and every time.
Routine infant circumcision is elective, medically necessary circumcision is not. How is that not clear? I haven't seen anybody argue that circumcision shouldn't be performed when medically necessary.

But the procedure is not without harm even when medically necessary. I don't disagree that sometimes the benefits will be greater than the harm caused. The problem is that the harm of removing the foreskin is almost universally ignored by those defending medically unnecessary circumcision.

kellyb

7th August 2007, 04:56 PM

I know (although I think it's the one in PLoS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16231970&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), that you mean), but I'm still looking for a good meta-analysis and the general idea that it's a decided debate is not quite true. Still the debate on this is continuing when you look at all the responses and comments linked to the abstract. The medical studies are not conclusive in the sense that there are many reports refuting the benefits. As a result a new meta-analysis at this time would most likely reject the presumed benefits. But I'm just guessing here. If you find a current meta-analysis, please post.

There are two more RTC's coming (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16231995&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus): one from Kenya and one from Uganda. Together all three trials will give a better idea if the first RTC is correct in their conclusions and recommendations

SYL :)

No...I was talking about the Kenya and Uganda studies. They're in. They were stopped early and apparently rushed through peer review.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.html

SYLVESTER1592

7th August 2007, 05:02 PM

No...I was talking about the Kenya and Uganda studies. They're in. They were stopped early and apparently rushed through peer review.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.html
Thanks Kelly!

Great. I'll look them up and read them.

SYL :)

fls

7th August 2007, 05:20 PM

Am I the only person who thinks this thread could have been cut back drastically very early on, if only for the sake of taste and tradition?

Clever. :)

Linda

Katana

7th August 2007, 05:21 PM

Clever. :)

Linda

Crud.

Missed that.

Yep. Clever. :D

kellyb

7th August 2007, 05:42 PM

Doh!

I missed it, too.

kellyb

7th August 2007, 05:44 PM

Thanks Kelly!

Great. I'll look them up and read them.

SYL :)

I think there's one more that's still going to be coming in...the male to female transmission one.

robinson

7th August 2007, 10:22 PM

Ivor the Engineer

8th August 2007, 02:09 AM

No.

What I said was "always harmful" is an inaccurate description of circumcision.

Ok, I agree. If there is a medical problem presented that circumcision could be used to treat then it could be considered to be providing a benefit for that patient.

According to EBM, treatment of phimosis and paraphimosis would mean ~1% of males would be circumcised. So in the US that leaves ~59% of males being harmed for cultural reasons and unlikely to be realized prophylactic "benefits".

BTW, I missed adding in my summary that breastfeeding has shown a protective effect against UTI and that a large Canadian study estimated an NNT of 195 to prevent 1 case of UTI, giving a RR of 3.7.

Does anybody know if there is anything to the idea that a proportion of UTI's in infants may be occurring because of the hospital environment?

Thabiguy

8th August 2007, 03:05 AM

First the reasons for circumcision chronologically:
1. God wanted this from the Jews...

I'm fairly sure that never happened. :)

You probably meant to say that an ancient blood-drawing ritual practiced for unknown reasons by some people in the Middle East evolved into a tradition accompanied by a mythical tale of a covenant between the legendary figure of Abraham and a deity named Yahweh, and that this myth was eventually written down in what would later become the Torah and thus was canonized as an aspect of Judaism.

3point14

8th August 2007, 04:30 AM

If we can agree that circumcision isn't necessary, even if some (with whom I disagree) think it's desirable, isn’t there something a little more useful that all these physicians performing circumcision could be doing with their time?

(I would be more than prepared to accept the answer 'no' if it were justified. I'm very glad I still have my foreskin though. Can't imagine life without it!)

p.s. - q. What's the useless piece of skin at the end of a penis called?

a. A man. (One of my GF's favourite jokes, which worries me.)

NewtonTrino

8th August 2007, 11:37 AM

I personally think it's pretty telling that most guys that still have a foreskin want to keep it. I just don't understand why anyone would want to lop off a part of their body (religious insanity aside).

SYLVESTER1592

8th August 2007, 01:40 PM

I'm fairly sure that never happened. :)

You probably meant to say that an ancient blood-drawing ritual practiced for unknown reasons by some people in the Middle East evolved into a tradition accompanied by a mythical tale of a covenant between the legendary figure of Abraham and a deity named Yahweh, and that this myth was eventually written down in what would later become the Torah and thus was canonized as an aspect of Judaism.
I'm also pretty sure it never happened, but some people believed this mythical tale to be true, (even in this thread). I like your description better, but mine is easier to remember. :D

SYL :)

BlackCat

8th August 2007, 02:00 PM

In Africa it has been shown to provide partial protection (about a 60% risk reduction) for men against contracting HIV. I therefore accept that it is reasonable to offer it to men and parents for their infants, especially since the supply and willingness to use of condoms in Africa does not appear sufficient to control the spread of HIV.

No...I was talking about the Kenya and Uganda studies. They're in. They were stopped early and apparently rushed through peer review.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.html
Trying to educate myself here. I've tried to look at the HIV arguments very closely, but there still seems to be some things that I don't understand.

In studying Africa, it seems like three of their main problems with the spread of HIV seem to be: superstition, risky sexual practices (i.e. "dry sex" and other things related to superstition), and lack of condom use.

Although circumcision may confer some degree of protection, it is not guaranteed, and certainly not as good as other things, like routine condom use. Why are people advocating to apply widespread use of circumcision, when it seems like their money and time could be better spent educating them about superstitions, sexual practices, and regular condom use?

Also, isn't it a real phenomenon that people who think they're "safe" (such as when wearing helmets on a motorcycle, or seatbelts in a car) engage in riskier behavior, thereby negating some effects of that which protects them? If so, it would seem likely that circumcised males in Africa would do the same, correct?

Another thing, being circumcised in the US didn't seem to protect the millions who've contracted HIV or died from AIDS.

Again, I'm just trying to learn here. Although I am against RIC, that doesn't necessarily translate to other uses of circumcision.

ETA: One thing I think should be made clear here, is that even though circumcision may work in Africa, that does not mean it will work/should be implemented in the US. The US and Africa are completely different countries, with different cultures and economic levels. In the US, we have ways of dealing with HIV that has nothing to do with circumcision.

BlackCat

8th August 2007, 02:12 PM

Did anybody watch the videos I linked to? I found watching an actual circumcision to be far more educational than all the words in the world. And the comments from Doctors who changed their minds, and now refuse to do the procedure, based on their Medical experience, to be quite convincing.
I did, although I already agree with you. Actually, I tried, but couldn't watch the circumcision video because they're too horrible for me to watch. They upset me way too much. But the video about the Doctors who've changed their minds was very interesting, and I wish more Docs would follow suit. If you don't mind, I'd like to post my own video. It's basically a medical video, with medical terminology, on the structure and purpose of the prepuce (foreskin). It's pretty short, and very educational.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html

kellyb

8th August 2007, 02:20 PM

Trying to educate myself here. I've tried to look at the HIV arguments very closely, but there still seems to be some things that I don't understand.

In studying Africa, it seems like three of their main problems with the spread of HIV seem to be: superstition, risky sexual practices (i.e. "dry sex" and other things related to superstition), and lack of condom use.

Although circumcision may confer some degree of protection, it is not guaranteed, and certainly not as good as other things, like routine condom use. Why are people advocating to apply widespread use of circumcision, when it seems like their money and time could be better spent educating them about superstitions, sexual practices, and regular condom use?

Also, isn't it a real phenomenon that people who think they're "safe" (such as when wearing helmets on a motorcycle, or seatbelts in a car) engage in riskier behavior, thereby negating some effects of that which protects them? If so, it would seem likely that circumcised males in Africa would do the same, correct?

Another thing, being circumcised in the US didn't seem to protect the millions who've contracted HIV or died from AIDS.

Again, I'm just trying to learn here. Although I am against RIC, that doesn't necessarily translate to other uses of circumcision.

ETA: One thing I think should be made clear here, is that even though circumcision may work in Africa, that does not mean it will work/should be implemented in the US. The US and Africa are completely different countries, with different cultures and economic levels. In the US, we have ways of dealing with HIV that has nothing to do with circumcision.

I'm also trying to work all that out in my mind, as well.

I think offering it to older (over 16 or 18) males in HIV endemic areas for the purpose of reducing their chances of catching HIV seems reasonable.

fls

8th August 2007, 02:23 PM

Trying to educate myself here. I've tried to look at the HIV arguments very closely, but there still seems to be some things that I don't understand.

In studying Africa, it seems like three of their main problems with the spread of HIV seem to be: superstition, risky sexual practices (i.e. "dry sex" and other things related to superstition), and lack of condom use.

Although circumcision may confer some degree of protection, it is not guaranteed, and certainly not as good as other things, like routine condom use. Why are people advocating to apply widespread use of circumcision, when it seems like their money and time could be better spent educating them about superstitions, sexual practices, and regular condom use?

People are not advocating one or the other, but both. Studies have shown that even concerted efforts at educating people and providing free condoms does not lead to a high level of consistent condom use. In the RCT's testing circumcision, all study participants received intensive education efforts and a liberal supply of condoms. The percentage using condoms regularly improved, but was still only around 20 and 40 percent. It depends upon whether or not you think public policy should centre around realism or wishful thinking.

Also, isn't it a real phenomenon that people who think they're "safe" (such as when wearing helmets on a motorcycle, or seatbelts in a car) engage in riskier behavior, thereby negating some effects of that which protects them? If so, it would seem likely that circumcised males in Africa would do the same, correct?

That's called a "moral hazard". This effect was specifically studied in the circumcision RCT's in Africa and was not found to make a difference.

Another thing, being circumcised in the US didn't seem to protect the millions who've contracted HIV or died from AIDS.

There are many factors that influence whether or not someone contracts HIV or dies from AIDS. Circumcision has protected those in the US as well, but the absolute numbers are much smaller.

Again, I'm just trying to learn here. Although I am against RIC, that doesn't necessarily translate to other uses of circumcision.

Okay, but the research from Africa really should not be applied to recommendations for the US.

Linda

kellyb

8th August 2007, 02:52 PM

That's called a "moral hazard". This effect was specifically studied in the circumcision RCT's in Africa and was not found to make a difference.
I still don't think what was observed under the conditions of the trials is necessarily reliable as far as predicting what will happen in the "real world" goes. In fact, from what I recall, the newly circumcised men were slightly more inclined to wear condoms compared to the controls.

Loss Leader

8th August 2007, 03:22 PM

Everybody understands that the law grants you broad authority to act contrary to your child's best interest.

It most certainly does not. It grants me broad authority to act in a way you personally believe is contrary to my child's best interests. However, your personal beliefs are not currently the barometer by which courts measure these things.

The fact that you insist on doing it when he can't stop you indicates that you place his interests behind your own superstitions and your own need to feel adequate.

You have imputed to me a reason which I have never stated and which I catagorically deny.

I can confidently say that you are not giving serious consideration because you summarily dismiss all scientific information about the benefits of a foreskin as "anecdotal".

I have done no such thing. You stated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2838130#post2838130): "Finally, I can't help but notice that you are still ignoring the harm caused by loss of the sensitivity and function of the foreskin. You are depriving your sons of some of the pleasure of sex, and by extension life."

I answered that I had seen no study that showed a loss of "some of the pleasure of sex" due to circumcision. If you know of such a study, please post it. IIRC, there was a study that said the glans was less sensitive in circumcised people but it went on to say that this did not mean there was a decrease in sexual enjoyment.

Since there is no study that says that there is a decrease in sexual enjoyment, the stories posted here by members are anecdotes. I have my own anecdote. None of them are conclusive of anything. Thus, I reject your contention until you can show me real, solid, statistically significant evidence.

Given what the Jewish people have historically faced from official, legal oppression, you of all people should understand it is inexcusable to try to use this argument to justify the oppression of another.

No one is being oppressed.

All the lawyerly, legalistic arguments for "consent" don't change the fact that you are unnecessarily mutilating the genitals of a baby for your own enjoyment.

You keep saying it but repetition doesn't actually cause it to become true.

That baby is a person and is entitled to make that decision for himself, unless it is medically required.

That baby is eight days old and can make exactly zero decisions for himself.

Priceless coming from the one who seems to rely on repeated lawyerly, legalistic arguments to defend why it is morally acceptable to mutilate the genitals of a child for one's own enjoyment.[/QUOTE]

You realize this isn't true, right? Stuff someone else with straw. Unless you have some evidence that this is my true motivation, step off.

[QUOTE]Having a law that says it's ok to mutilate a baby's genitals for your own enjoyment doesn't make it OK to do so, no matter how many times you say it does.

That's not what the law says and that's not what I'm doing. Is your argument really so weak that you have to invent a position for me that's easier for you to defeat? Other posters on this thread have done very well arguing against my position while fully allowing that my motivations are exactly what I say they are.

Yes, you have. Whether intentional or not, you have given no meaningful consideration to the benefits of a foreskin.

Untrue. I have read all of the medical links in this thread very carefull and, in fact, have changed my mind on routine non-religious circumcision as a result.

I and others have posted links to plenty of sound, scientific information explaining the function and benefit of the foreskin, including properly conducted studies. You calling it "anecdotal" and declaring that concept defeated is the closest any of the pro-circs have come to addressing any of it.

No, what I called anecdotal was the claim that a foreskin improved sexual pleasure. If you have such a study, link to it.

I love how you frame this. You put the burden of proof on the people who are trying to preserve and protect.

The burden is on those who are trying to override the presumption that family and religious considerations trump public distate.

I love it!

I love it, too! What are we talking about!

But I guess I'd have to resort to such preposterous arguments too, if I was defending something as indefensible as an adult altering the genitals of a baby for the adult's enjoyment.

This is not my reason for circumcising my son. You have invented a position and assigned it to me. I reject it. Nyehhhhh!

Does this kind of illogic actually work with judges?

I assure you I am very good.

thinking just as a parent, shouldn't the standard be "has it been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is harmless?"

You seem to believe that I think circumcision is a neutral procedure. I do not. I believe circumcision confers benefits on my son - not medical but benefits nonetheless. The question is whether the harm outweighs the benefits. In my mind, it does not.

Come on, how can you be on a skeptic site and not see the problem with your logic? You have no foreskin, why would you expect to be able to know whether it would have been any better? Just as a man has no idea what sex feels like for a woman, you have no idea what difference a foreskin makes, except that you can hear what men with foreskin can describe and you can read the research studies on the topic.

I have seen no research on the loss of sexual pleasure caused by circumcision. If you have such research, please post it. Otherwise, you are right that I have no idea what sex feels like uncircumcised but the uncircumcised writers have no idea what sex feels like circumcised. And my anecdote is that it feels great. So all the anecdotes are a wash - they don't help or hurt either side of the debate. Bring me a properly conducted study regarding sexual pleasure and I will reconsider.

Very telling that you categorically dismiss all such information for no reason other than the challenge it poses.

Anecdotes provide no challenge whatsoever.

How much you currently enjoy sex has no bearing on whether it would (or would not) be better with a foreskin.

And how much uncircumcised men enjoy sex has no bearing on whether it would or would not be better without a foreskin. They have their own experiences, not evidence. I have my experiences. The score is tied 1-1 on the anecdote board. If you have some actual, statistically significant, properly controled evidence, I would be very happy to receive it.

Ivor the Engineer

8th August 2007, 03:26 PM

I still don't think what was observed under the conditions of the trials is necessarily reliable as far as predicting what will happen in the "real world" goes.

I agree. The best evidence available indicates that it should help, but the authors of the studies admit there are potential problems with rolling it out on a large scale and some relatively small changes in behaviour could wipe out any benefit circumcision offers.

fls

8th August 2007, 04:14 PM

I still don't think what was observed under the conditions of the trials is necessarily reliable as far as predicting what will happen in the "real world" goes. In fact, from what I recall, the newly circumcised men were slightly more inclined to wear condoms compared to the controls.

No. They were equivalent or slightly less likely to be regular condom users.

I agree that one cannot be certain of the future. It helps that the trial took place under real world conditions, but it is well-recognized that trial participants may act differently than non-trial participants. It also helps that the effect is strong. I previously calculated, in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=75534&highlight=circumcision), that even if all the circumcised men stopped using condoms, there would still be more HIV acquired in the uncircumcised men. It required an absolute difference in condom usage of 60 percent between uncircumcised and circumcised men to make the rate of HIV acquisition the same between the two groups.

Linda

kellyb

8th August 2007, 04:49 PM

No. They were equivalent or slightly less likely to be regular condom users.

:confused:

I looked it up again. From the Uganda trial:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607603134/fulltext

Consistent condom use during this interval was slightly higher in the intervention group than it was in the control group (table 6; p=0·11). Similarly, inconsistent condom use was higher in the intervention group than it was in the control group (table 6; p=0·0004). At the 12 and 24 months follow-up visits, the number of sexual partners, non-marital relationships, and condom use were much the same in the two groups

So initially the circumcised guys used condoms more frequently, but went back to "normal" later.

fls

8th August 2007, 08:32 PM

:confused:

I looked it up again. From the Uganda trial:

Consistent condom use during this interval was slightly higher in the intervention group than it was in the control group (table 6; p=0·11). Similarly, inconsistent condom use was higher in the intervention group than it was in the control group (table 6; p=0·0004). At the 12 and 24 months follow-up visits, the number of sexual partners, non-marital relationships, and condom use were much the same in the two groups

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607603134/fulltext

So initially the circumcised guys used condoms more frequently, but went back to "normal" later.

Your confusion comes from choosing to bold and underline a non-significant difference.

The only significant difference in condom usage was that during the first six months more circumcised men in the Uganda trial reported inconsistent or no condom usage.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

9th August 2007, 03:24 AM

There is this:

http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Conclusions: A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.

Whoops. Wrong result. Let's call it a "conundrum".

ETA: You can bet the pitch in Africa for male circumcision will be based on the Relative risk reduction (60%) rather than the absolute risk reduction (2%).

Ivor the Engineer

9th August 2007, 04:31 AM

http://www.ias2007.org/pag/Abstracts.aspx?SID=55&AID=3176

Objectives: Observations that reduced adult HIV prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa are correlated with levels of male circumcision have suggested that male circumcision could be used as a preventative measure against HIV infection. The exact benefits of this intervention are uncertain. Moreover if this is infeasible for the whole male population, which groups should be targeted?
Methods: A deterministic, compartmental mathematical model simulated observed levels of HIV prevalence under the complete range of current levels of circumcision. Increased male circumcision from 2007 was incorporated in this model and HIV prevalence in 2020 was simulated.
Results: Simulations predict that complete male circumcision in an average country could reduce HIV prevalence in 2020 from 8.3% to 5.3% and incidence from 13.5 seroconversions per thousand to 7.3 per thousand. The results were scaled in proportion if a lower level of circumcision was achieved. Also, targetting only 20 to 30 year old men or men with greater sexual activity produced the most cost-effective reduction in HIV prevalence, 2.0% and 1.1% respectively. These benefits are lessened with increasing sexual activity in men who have been circumcised, with complete negation of the intervention occuring once a lower bound of 40% of men increase their activity.
Conclusions: Male circumcision provides an effective intervention in sub-Saharan Africa to reduce HIV prevalence that is not vulnerable to lessening of effect through drug resistance or lack of availability of other prevention measures. Where it is not feasible to provide complete coverage, targeting young men or more sexually active men can still produce a significant reduction in HIV prevalence. However an intervention will fail if steps are not taken to prevent the majority of men increasing their sexual activity due to overestimation of circumcision´s benefits.

Ivor the Engineer

9th August 2007, 10:39 AM

Here's some news regarding male-to-female transmission:

http://health.howstuffworks.com/circum-aids-female.htm

Six months into a two-year study following 2,000 HIV-infected men and their uninfected female partners, the preliminary results are disturbing. At the start of the study, about half of the men underwent a circumcision procedure. The other half -- the control group -- did not. Looking at the data for just 125 of the couples in the study, it appears that women have twice the chance of contracting HIV from a circumcised partner. The six-month-mark data show that of the women whose HIV-positive partners had been circumcised, 16 percent had contracted HIV. Of the women whose partners had remained uncircumcised, seven percent had acquired the disease.

But there's a major caveat here: The researchers believe that the circumcised men may have had sex with their partner before their wound was fully healed. It takes about a month for a circumcision wound to heal, and while the couples were warned not to have intercourse until a doctor declared it safe -- and were counseled to always use condoms -- it appears that some of the couples didn't follow at least the condom recommendation. So the researchers are wondering if those couples didn't end up following "wait until it heals" recommendation, either. It's natural that having intercourse before the wound were fully healed would increase the risk of transmission. HIV is carried in blood, not just semen, and an unhealed wound on the tip of the penis is very likely to tear during sex.

Ivor the Engineer

9th August 2007, 10:57 AM

There's this too:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brewer2007/

Male and Female Circumcision Associated With Prevalent HIV Infection in Virgins and Adolescents in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania
DEVON D. BREWER, PHD, JOHN J. POTTERAT, BA, JOHN M. ROBERTS JR., PHD, AND STUART BRODY, PHD

PURPOSE: Remarkable proportions of self-reported virgins and adolescents in eastern and southern Africa are infected with HIV, yet non-sexual routes of transmission have not been systematically investigated in such persons. Many observers in this region have recognized the potential for HIV transmission through unhygienic circumcision procedures. We assessed the relation between male and female circumcision (genital cutting) and prevalent HIV infection in Kenyan, Lesothoan, and Tanzanian virgins and adolescents.

METHODS: We analyzed data from recent cross-sectional national probability sample surveys of adolescents and adults in households, focusing on populations in which circumcision was common and usually occurred in puberty or later.

RESULTS: Circumcised male and female virgins were substantially more likely to be HIV infected than uncircumcised virgins (Kenyan females: 3.2% vs. 1.4%, odds ratio [OR] Z 2.38; Kenyan males: 1.8% vs. 0%, OR undefined; Lesothoan males: 6.1% vs. 1.9%, OR 3.36; Tanzanian males: 2.9% vs. 1.0%, OR 2.99; weighted mean phi correlation Z0.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.11). Among adolescents, regardless of sexual experience, circumcision was just as strongly associated with prevalent HIV infection. However, uncircumcised adults were more likely to be HIV positive than circumcised adults. Self-reported sexual experience was independently related to HIV infection in adolescent Kenyan females, but was unrelated to HIV infection in adolescent Kenyan, Lesothoan, and Tanzanian males.

CONCLUSIONS: HIV transmission may occur through circumcision-related blood exposures in eastern and southern Africa.

ETA: And this (http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=77).

So it looks like circumcision for HIV prevention in Africa is not the panacea its proponents would like us to believe it is.

robinson

9th August 2007, 11:57 AM

Hey Cat, just watched the video you linked to http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html
Very scientific and informative.

I did, although I already agree with you. Actually, I tried, but couldn't watch the circumcision video because they're too horrible for me to watch.

Yeah, and after watching that medical video, it is even worse. One almost imagines only a monster could watch a child suffer in such extreme distress, and not be effected. I would guess anyone who insist on the right to remove half the skin on their kids penis wouldn't watch either or any of the linked videos. They might have to change their beliefs. And then they can't say, "I've seen no evidence to convince me...", because if they actually watch evidence, they can't say that anymore.

They upset me way too much.

Me too, me too. The Jewish ceremonial one was freaking me the F out actually. But at least they get the baby drunk first. It isn't the horror of the act so much as it was the rejoicing over it being done. Nightmarish.

But the video about the Doctors who've changed their minds was very interesting, and I wish more Docs would follow suit.

I wonder how many Jewish Doctors could, even if they wanted to?

I would bet money back when tonsils and adenoids were routinely removed, without much thought, that the same stupid reasoning was used. Most Doctors actually believed nature had made some kind of mistake, and it was best to cut off valuable living tissue, for the good of the child. Horrors. The Dark Ages are still with us.

ClintonHammond

9th August 2007, 12:07 PM

"only a monster could watch a child suffer in such extreme distress, and not be effected"
There are a couple in this thread.

"The Dark Ages are still with us."
Especially as represented by "The Religious"...

robinson

9th August 2007, 12:13 PM

It's hard to get a woo to change. Almost impossible.

kellyb

9th August 2007, 12:27 PM

One almost imagines only a monster could watch a child suffer in such extreme distress, and not be effected.
What about the folks that actually do it for a living?

Ivor the Engineer

9th August 2007, 12:40 PM

What about the folks that actually do it for a living?

Check out the second line on my sig.;)

I think most people have it in them to inflict pain on another individual, be it for the benefit or detriment of them. All they need is the right justification and perceptual filter for what it is they are doing.

BlackCat

9th August 2007, 02:51 PM

Hey Cat, just watched the video you linked to http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html
Very scientific and informative.
Thanks, I thought so, too. I think it would be impossible to watch that video and still say that the foreskin is "vestigial" or "useless."

Yeah, and after watching that medical video, it is even worse. One almost imagines only a monster could watch a child suffer in such extreme distress, and not be effected. I would guess anyone who insist on the right to remove half the skin on their kids penis wouldn't watch either or any of the linked videos. They might have to change their beliefs. And then they can't say, "I've seen no evidence to convince me...", because if they actually watch evidence, they can't say that anymore.
I know. I have watched circumcision videos before, but I just can't anymore. I don't know how people can watch them and not be affected. Oh, and what you said about having to change their mind is very true. It's easy to dismiss something when you close your mind to it, or ignore evidence of it.

I don't know if you saw Penn and Teller's BS about circumcision, but I think they had an actual video of a circumcision. And afterwards, someone on the video made some comment like, "oh, he's finally quieted down." To which Penn yells, "No! He's in *********** shock!" Then they cut back to the baby, and he is in shock! He's just staring into space with his eyes wide open. That was a very disturbing moment for me. Babies just don't act like that.

Me too, me too. The Jewish ceremonial one was freaking me the F out actually. But at least they get the baby drunk first. It isn't the horror of the act so much as it was the rejoicing over it being done. Nightmarish.
Reminds me of LL's pride.

I would bet money back when tonsils and adenoids were routinely removed, without much thought, that the same stupid reasoning was used. Most Doctors actually believed nature had made some kind of mistake, and it was best to cut off valuable living tissue, for the good of the child. Horrors. The Dark Ages are still with us.
Too true. The only thing that I can think of doing is bringing this issue up with family members and friends, particularly those who are planning to have children. Not everyone will listen, of course, sometimes just talking about it can make people think about something they wouldn't have thought about. For me, though, it seems like a difficult topic to bring up, because people just don't talk about circumcision. I wish I could think of a tactful way to bring it up.

BlackCat

9th August 2007, 02:58 PM

Check out the second line on my sig.;)

I think most people have it in them to inflict pain on another individual, be it for the benefit or detriment of them. All they need is the right justification and perceptual filter for what it is they are doing.
Isn't that what the Milgram experiment taught us? That a lot of people can do bad things, especially if an authority figure tells us to? (doctor = authority figure)

By the way, I love the studies you've posted. They've really made me think about widespread use of circumcision in Africa. I think it may not be as great or even as useful as people hope it will be.

Ivor the Engineer

9th August 2007, 03:33 PM

Isn't that what the Milgram experiment taught us? That a lot of people can do bad things, especially if an authority figure tells us to? (doctor = authority figure)

I don't think many parents even perceive circumcision as a "bad" thing. Quite the contrary; I think they see their child as disadvantaged by having a foreskin.

By the way, I love the studies you've posted. They've really made me think about widespread use of circumcision in Africa. I think it may not be as great or even as useful as people hope it will be.

It will be interesting to see what the WHO and UNAIDS recommends in the light of this new information. The Kenyan and other RCT's were well done but still not "real life".

I did find the conclusion the researchers of the female circumcision study came to to be rather amusing.:D

fls

9th August 2007, 03:52 PM

The only thing that I can think of doing is bringing this issue up with family members and friends, particularly those who are planning to have children. Not everyone will listen, of course, sometimes just talking about it can make people think about something they wouldn't have thought about. For me, though, it seems like a difficult topic to bring up, because people just don't talk about circumcision. I wish I could think of a tactful way to bring it up.

I think (without any evidence to back me up :)) that that has to accomplish something. Continuing to instill the idea that in many places it's not the norm, and that it's not just the radicals, but also the average parent, that doesn't see the need to have it done, should get some people to think about it (rather than being passive). I think the idea has a snowball effect and just needs to gain more momentum in the US. I worry that foaming-at-the-mouth reactions reinforce the idea that it's radical (rather than normal) to forego circumcision.

Linda

osmosis

9th August 2007, 08:16 PM

I am genuinely saddened that your family and others in your life must be infected by your filthy, worm-ridden ideology.

I'm sure others in my family will enjoy hearing that, especially the ones that fought Hitler's murder machine so you could be alive today to insult them. Alas, many of them did not make it home, and will not be hearing the good news.

On the other hand, when someone says that I live up to the negative stereotypes of Jews, the implication is that I am in some way lacking based on the very fact of my actions.

There, fixed it for you ;)

Now, you did call me deluded ... twice. But that was just impolite. It wasn't hateful.

hmm.. irony meter, or kitten.. I can't decide.. "OH NOES!!?!! IVE BIN CALLED RASCIST!!@!"

Gurdur

9th August 2007, 08:19 PM

Ah, osmosis back again after his little holiday? Goodness.

Ivor the Engineer

10th August 2007, 02:08 AM

I wonder how all those American men ended up being circumcised in the first place? There must have been a time when most American men were uncircumcised and were persuaded by somebody to have their child cut. Ah, yes - physicians told them it was a good idea.

Now that we know it is generally not a good idea, most physicians in the US appear to be rather reluctant to tell parents this. Talk about a profession dodging its responsibility. Perhaps they're worried about being sued by their victims former patients?

Normal Dude

10th August 2007, 03:04 AM

I owe a debt to my mother who refused to have me or my brothers circumcised in the face of much criticism.

osmosis

10th August 2007, 09:15 AM

Ah, osmosis back again after his little holiday? Goodness.

Yep, and I've got a wicked tan and brought tequila shooters for everyone.. well, almost everyone.

ps. who are you and why won't you go away.

Gurdur

10th August 2007, 09:18 AM

Yep, and I've got a wicked tan

Suuuuuure. Doing cyber-porridge is so healthy.

ps. who are you

I am whom I am.

and why won't you go away.

No need to be like that. :)

ClintonHammond

10th August 2007, 09:25 AM

"It's hard to get a woo to change."
For the same reasons that scientists shouldn't bother debating Creationists...

"What about the folks that actually do it for a living?"
... AND hide behind Religion and/or "Tradition" as if that somehow makes a deplorable action o.k....

"I owe a debt to my mother who refused..."
Kiss her on the cheek for me too would ya!

eir_de_scania

10th August 2007, 02:26 PM

Or maybe docs have read the evidence (provided earlier in the thread) about circumcision's potential benefits.
American doctors. The European are still not convinced.:boxedin:

kellyb

13th August 2007, 11:47 PM

Go Australia!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22227225-2862,00.html

CIRCUMCISION will be banned in Victorian public hospitals unless it is for medical reasons.

The State Government has ordered the ban, which starts next month, following medical advice that circumcision of baby boys was unnecessary.
Health Minister Daniel Andrews said circumcisions would be performed only when doctors were concerned about infection or disease.

"Nationally and overseas, doctors agree there is no medical benefit to routine circumcision, and studies show the complication rate is about 5 per cent," Mr Andrews said.

Blue Bubble

14th August 2007, 02:39 AM

Go Australia!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22227225-2862,00.html

Whoopeeee :)

:clap: :clap: :clap: Hopefully the start of a movement.

Note also:

The $2 million a year saved by the ban will be spent on urgent elective surgery.

Ivor the Engineer

14th August 2007, 03:00 AM

Go Australia!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22227225-2862,00.html

As BB said, hopefully this will give medical associations elsewhere in the world the confidence to actively discourage infant circumcision.

autumn1971

14th August 2007, 03:33 AM

Ivor the Engineer

14th August 2007, 05:05 AM

Re: The title of the OP

I am at least a little bit rational, and yes, I can defend the practice of non-medically indicated circumcision.

Brace yourselves, here goes: IT IS A COSMETIC DECISION MADE BY THE PARENTS.

Would you like to go anecdote to anecdote? I can cite dozens of women who are of the opinion that being circumcised is the only way to get a man to last long enough to satisfy them. I can also imagine others who would say the opposite. I do not claim to know the opinion of the infants themselves, but all evidence suggests that they are largely unaware of the arguments, pro and con, and are much more likely to be concerned with being fed and held.

…and not having (unnecessary) pain inflicted on them.

Why are you not going after the insidious practitioners of umbilical cord dissection, as the umbilical cord is just as much a part of an infant as the foreskin? In every other species, the baby has no doctor to dissect the umbilical cord, and does so on its own, when it seems the right time.

The umbilical cord, at some point, needs to be detached.

Oh, and by the way, the placenta is an organ of and for the infant. It is composed of tissues derived only from the infants genetic code. Did you get a signed consent form before you took the huge step of deciding for your infant that she or he did not need their placenta? Or are you one of the barbaric horde who have taken it upon themselves to decide for the infant that it no longer needs this vital and functional organ?

See above.

Cutting the umbilical cord and removing the placenta are not equivalent to circumcision for any educated, rational person.

Grow the hell up. We make decisions for our kids all the time that are infinitely more life-altering than deciding to remove a bit of tissue here or there. The foreskin is just a bit of tissue attached to the shaft of the penis, and it is obviously not vital, as ever increasing numbers of people don't have one.

I think you meant to say “ever decreasing numbers of people don’t have one.”:)

I would never imagine that I was in a position to tell a person to circumcise their child, as I would consider it to be the acme of arrogance. Likewise, I would not consider telling a parent to not pierce their child's ears, even though I think that it is just plain tacky.

You appear to think a child’s body is the property of its parents and to do with as they wish, so long as it doesn’t kill him (or her).

Circumcision is a cosmetic procedure. That's all.

Circumcision is not just a cosmetic procedure. Just because you want to believe that it is and repeat it over and over again does not make it true. Look at the FACTS: The prepuce has 20,000 nerves in it and has sensory and mechanical functionality during intercourse and masturbation.

How involved in the lives of everyone else on the planet do you intend to get? I would bet my last penny that if you took one moment to look at the actual problems in the world, circumcision would begin to seem almost... what's the word?...oh, yeah: IRRELEVANT.

Perhaps the West would have a stronger argument for stopping FGM if its proponents could not use our tolerance (or in your case enthusiasm) for the barbaric practice of infant circumcision against us?

It’s ironic how pro-circumcision people always whine about people interfering with their right to decide, while at the same time taking away another individual’s right to choose.

Loss Leader

14th August 2007, 07:00 AM

It’s ironic how pro-circumcision people always whine about people interfering with their right to decide, while at the same time taking away another individual’s right to choose.

No one is taking away anyone's right to choose anything.

ETA: I do not support the arguments made by Autumn except as regards the fact that the post touched briefly upon the general concept of substituted judgment.

Ivor the Engineer

14th August 2007, 07:06 AM

No one is taking away anyone's right to choose anything.

I know exactly what you mean by this. It is, however, a very narrow interpretation that only a lawyer would possibly claim as reasonable.

ETA: http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/drdilemma/consult/subjudg.htm

Substituted Judgement: The objective of substituted judgement is to respect the autonomy of the incompetent or incapacitated patient by, as far as possible, enforcing that patient’s own wishes regarding care permitted. This means that the person authorized to give consent on behalf of such a patient tries to determine what the patient would have wanted had he or she understood the circumstances under which treatment or procedures would be provided.

BlackKat

14th August 2007, 07:15 AM

...
ETA: I do not support the arguments made by Autumn except as regards the fact that the post touched briefly upon the general concept of substituted judgment.

I love the way Loss Leader likes to distance himself (as a religious/cultural circumciser) from the other people in the thread (and the majority of American circumcisers) who are cosmetic/cultural circumcisers (their culture holds circumcised penises as being more cosmetic).

My family is a combination of atheists/agnostics who grew up Catholic but moved away (or ran) from religion. Yet we celebrate Christmas and Easter as purely secular holidays because they still have cultural meaning to us even if their origin was religious. Not a perfect parallel I know.

So I'm a bit puzzled as to what makes a religious/cultural circumcision significantly different from a cosmetic/cultural circumcision. Is it more "meaningful" somehow?

Loss Leader

14th August 2007, 07:33 AM

I know exactly what you mean by this. It is, however, a very narrow interpretation that only a lawyer would possibly claim as reasonable.

See, Ivor, there's where you're wrong. Lawyers don't actually do much of anything on our own. We work for people. We get hired by clients to represent their interests.

When the law grows and evolves the way it does, it's not because lawyers want it to be that way. It is because our clients do.

And it's because hundreds and thousands of judges throughout history weighed all of the arguments, balanced all the equities and determined what was the fairest thing to do.

If at any time a civilization doesn't like what clients are attempting to get lawyers to do, they can simply have their elected officials overrule the entire mess and dictate the law. This has happened numerous times in history. Consider the labor laws of the first three decades of the last century. They exist because lawyers were doing too well at representing their corporate clients to protect the 80 hr. work week for 9 year-olds and such. The politicians had to step in on behalf of labor, at which time lawyers shrugged and found something else to do.

The laws of substituted judgment are not just some trick of "lawyer logic." They exist because clients paid us to argue for them over the last several hundred years, judges chose to find our arguments compelling and legislators agreed. Politicians didn't just leave well enough alone; the laws of substituted judgment were so clearly equitable that legislators codified them - wrote them right into the books.

So, don't tell me that "only a lawyer" would see the current system as reasonable. It is the way it is because you and your neighbors and all of the people who came before you wanted it to be.

Ivor the Engineer

14th August 2007, 08:06 AM

See, Ivor, there's where you're wrong. Lawyers don't actually do much of anything on our own. We work for people. We get hired by clients to represent their interests.

When the law grows and evolves the way it does, it's not because lawyers want it to be that way. It is because our clients do.

And it's because hundreds and thousands of judges throughout history weighed all of the arguments, balanced all the equities and determined what was the fairest thing to do.

If at any time a civilization doesn't like what clients are attempting to get lawyers to do, they can simply have their elected officials overrule the entire mess and dictate the law. This has happened numerous times in history. Consider the labor laws of the first three decades of the last century. They exist because lawyers were doing too well at representing their corporate clients to protect the 80 hr. work week for 9 year-olds and such. The politicians had to step in on behalf of labor, at which time lawyers shrugged and found something else to do.

The laws of substituted judgment are not just some trick of "lawyer logic." They exist because clients paid us to argue for them over the last several hundred years, judges chose to find our arguments compelling and legislators agreed. Politicians didn't just leave well enough alone; the laws of substituted judgment were so clearly equitable that legislators codified them - wrote them right into the books.

So, don't tell me that "only a lawyer" would see the current system as reasonable. It is the way it is because you and your neighbors and all of the people who came before you wanted it to be.

You have already said the reasons you are circumcising your son are:

1) So another Jewish parent can in the future
2) Because you are Jewish
3) A Rabbi told you to

So it doesn't sound like you've even considered what you son would want if he was capable. You abuse the concept of substituted judgment to impose your will; you claim what you want is what your son wants, rather than asking what your son would want if he were capable of choosing.

Perhaps your imagination is so limited by your environment and experiences you are unable to conceive of your son _not_ wanting to be circumcised?

Your behaviour is within the law but not in the spirit of it, i.e. a loophole - something that some (most?) lawyers excel at finding for their clients and in your case, yourself.

Loss Leader

14th August 2007, 09:35 AM

So it doesn't sound like you've even considered what you son would want if he was capable.

That's not the rule.

You abuse the concept of substituted judgment to impose your will;

No, I don't.

you claim what you want is what your son wants,

Yes, I do.

rather than asking what your son would want if he were capable of choosing.

That's not the rule.

Perhaps your imagination is so limited by your environment and experiences you are unable to conceive of your son _not_ wanting to be circumcised?

That's not the rule.

Your behaviour is within the law

Yes, it is.

but not in the spirit of it,

Yes, it is.

i.e. a loophole

There is no loophole.

- something that some (most?) lawyers excel at finding for their clients and in your case, yourself.

To the extent that you said that lawyers find loopholes for clients, that's not what lawyers do. To the extent you implied that I excel at being a lawyer, thanks.

BlackCat

14th August 2007, 11:10 AM

The foreskin is just a bit of tissue attached to the shaft of the penis, and it is obviously not vital...
This is a lie. If you knew about the structure of the foreskin, you would not say that.

Have you watched this video? http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html Please watch it if you haven't, with an open mind, realizing that these doctors might actually know more than you.

If you refuse to watch the video, then you are a woo, who refuses to consider evidence which might change your beliefs.

ClintonHammond

14th August 2007, 11:45 AM

Edited out personal attack.

CH, you are not to edit out moderator decisions. If you have a problem with what one of us has done, contact one of the Administrators. I have alerted them to your actions and await their review.

NewtonTrino

15th August 2007, 11:36 AM

I'm still amazed that people can justify cutting off body parts from unconsenting children that have no need of this surgery. This is yet another sign of how insane our world really is.

BlackCat

15th August 2007, 12:17 PM

I suspect that the only way that someone can see the evidence, and yet still practice and even openly support circumcision is probably avoidance of cognitive dissonance.

Basically, they themselves are circumcised. If they were to come out and condemn it, what would that mean for them? That circumcision is wrong, and they were wronged by it, and they're now permanently changed. Some people might feel violated or "half a man" just by acknowledging that circumcision is wrong. Because that's uncomfortable, and they don't want to feel uncomfortable, they can get rid of those feelings by insisting and arguing that circumcision is ok. If it's ok, then it was ok for them to be circumcised.

It's not rational or defensible. And it's really sad that people might think this way. You can't change the past, all you can do is change the future. It's not wrong to be circumcised and people shouldn't feel bad about being that way. What is wrong is perpetuating a practice because of emotional reasons.

If the pro-circs do respond to this, they'll probably say I'm wrong, and that's not how they think at all. Well, only they can know, but I'm skeptical of their self-analysis ability, if they can't even honestly question their own beliefs.

robinson

15th August 2007, 12:27 PM

Forgive me if this has been posted already.

* Do not be afraid to be the first to change and lead your parents, family and community into modern times! Your primary responsibility is to take care of your son, not to satisfy other people’s need for tradition. Your community will eventually see the light.

* What does tradition mean to you? Does it mean putting your son's welfare second? Do you blindly follow tradition even when it maims and mutilates?

* Do not be afraid to think for yourself. Circumcision is barbaric and you are a better parent for not mutilating your son’s penis.

* Do not be afraid to question tradition rather than blindly accepting it. Circumcision continues in our faith because of indoctrination, fear of change, and so-called tradition. Remember that our religious leaders are the products of this same indoctrination.

* If you were told to circumcise your daughter’s vulva, would you blindly obey? Or would you question the order and choose to protect your daughter? Shouldn’t we treat our boys with the same consideration and respect?

* Do not be afraid of divine punishment. God did not mandate circumcision. In the original version of the Torah, the book of J, circumcision is not even mentioned. Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. Even Rabbi Maimonides acknowledged this fact.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Loss Leader

15th August 2007, 05:55 PM

I'm still amazed that people can justify cutting off body parts from unconsenting children that have no need of this surgery. This is yet another sign of how insane our world really is.

They're not unconsenting, they're incapable of consent. There's a difference.

Loss Leader

15th August 2007, 05:58 PM

If the pro-circs do respond to this, they'll probably say I'm wrong, and that's not how they think at all.

You are wrong. That's not how I think at all.

Well, only they can know, but I'm skeptical of their self-analysis ability, if they can't even honestly question their own beliefs.

You've engaged in circular reasoning. You assume I cannot honestly question my own beliefs to conclude that I have poor self-analysis ability. Self-analysis and questioning oneself is the same thing. You've assumed I cannot question myself to conclude that I cannot question myself.

In fact, your assumption is unwarranted and is based on nothing other than your own personal beliefs.

Civilized Worm

15th August 2007, 06:30 PM

They're not unconsenting, they're incapable of consent. There's a difference.

So is it OK to mutilate the genitals of coma victims?

Loss Leader

15th August 2007, 07:18 PM

So is it OK to mutilate the genitals of coma victims?

It is under the following conditions: 1) the decision maker holds the medical proxy of the coma patient; 2) the procedure is in the patient's best interests.

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 02:43 AM

It is under the following conditions: 1) the decision maker holds the medical proxy of the coma patient; 2) the procedure is in the patient's best interests.

I think in the case of infant circumcision (2) should be restated as:

2) The procedure is unlikely to kill the patient and he will be unable to know what he has lost.

The reasons you have provided for circumcising your son are definitely not in his interests, they are for the benefit of others in your community.

You are forcing him to sacrifice his foreskin for your community and you hide behind the law of substituted judgment.

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 03:20 AM

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500357.html) is interesting.

MONDAY, March 5 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have discovered that cells in the mucosal lining of human genitalia produce a protein that "eats up" invading HIV -- possibly keeping the spread of the AIDS more contained than it might otherwise be.

Even more important, enhancing the activity of this protein, called Langerin, could be a potent new way to curtail the transmission of the virus that causes AIDS, the Dutch scientists added.

kellyb

16th August 2007, 11:28 AM

This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500357.html) is interesting.

I posted the abstract earlier in the thread, but I have no idea how to find it again...

ETA:
Hey....the "search this thread" feature in nifty...post 449 of this page:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2729871&highlight=Langerin#post2729871

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 11:34 AM

I posted the abstract earlier in the thread, but I have no idea how to find it again...

ETA:
Hey....the "search this thread" feature in nifty...post 449 of this page:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2729871&highlight=Langerin#post2729871

Here's the article in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm0307-245.html

Loss Leader

16th August 2007, 11:43 AM

I think in the case of infant circumcision (2) should be restated as:

2) The procedure is unlikely to kill the patient and he will be unable to know what he has lost.

That's not the rule.

The reasons you have provided for circumcising your son are in my opinion definitely not in his interests, in my opinion they are for the benefit of others in your community.

In my opinion, you are forcing him to sacrifice his foreskin for your community and in my opinion you hide behind the law of substituted judgment.

Fixed it for you.

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 11:56 AM

Not my opinion LL, your words:

You see, I circumcise my children for the Jewish people. I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. I have no fear of what God will do to me (or my children) and I have no fear of what other Jews might think of me. I live in terror that my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

Yeah, it really sounds like you have your son's wishes in mind:rolleyes:

robinson

16th August 2007, 11:56 AM

The reasons you have provided for circumcising your son are definitely not in his interests, they are for the benefit of others in your community.

You are forcing him to sacrifice his foreskin for your community and you hide behind the law of substituted judgment.

The reasons you have provided for circumcising your son are in my opinion definitely not in his interests, in my opinion they are for the benefit of others in your community.

In my opinion, you are forcing him to sacrifice his foreskin for your community and in my opinion you hide behind the law of substituted judgment.

Fixed it for you.

Editing another members post will get you banned from this forum, (unless you are a Mod). You can do it, just don't use the quote function, so someone could be confused. Make it clear it is your words, not another members, when you post.

I learned this the hard way.

kellyb

16th August 2007, 12:06 PM

Here's the article in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v13/n3/full/nm0307-245.html

Oh cool!
A free Nature fulltext!

kellyb

16th August 2007, 12:09 PM

Not my opinion LL, your words:

Yeah, it really sounds like you have your son's wishes in mind:rolleyes:

But the will of the religious-Borg-Hive-mind is the will of the unable-to-consent individual. According to the law. Or something.

:boggled:

Loss Leader

16th August 2007, 12:19 PM

Editing another members post will get you banned from this forum, (unless you are a Mod). You can do it, just don't use the quote function, so someone could be confused. Make it clear it is your words, not another members, when you post.

I learned this the hard way.

Thank you for the reminder. I believe I followed the rule. My use of bold and italics as well as the common phrase "fixed it for you" made it clear that I had added the words as an editorial comment.

Anyone who cares to is free to complain.

Loss Leader

16th August 2007, 12:31 PM

Yeah, it really sounds like you have your son's wishes in mind:rolleyes:

I honestly don't know how else to clarify this:

I do NOT have my son's wishes in mind. I have my son's best interests in mind. Not only is that all that is required of me, but it's all that makes sense. Who honestly cares about the wishes of an eight day old?

I have a son who is two. He wished for breakfast this morning to have cookies. I know because he told me over and over, "Cookie!" I absolutely, completely and joyfully ignored his wishes. Instead, I fed him toast with cream cheese, strawberries and milk. I did so because I had his best interests in mind.

Get it right.

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 12:51 PM

I honestly don't know how else to clarify this:

I do NOT have my son's wishes in mind. I have my son's best interests in mind. Not only is that all that is required of me, but it's all that makes sense. Who honestly cares about the wishes of an eight day old?

I have a son who is two. He wished for breakfast this morning to have cookies. I know because he told me over and over, "Cookie!" I absolutely, completely and joyfully ignored his wishes. Instead, I fed him toast with cream cheese, strawberries and milk. I did so because I had his best interests in mind.

Get it right.

It's cute the way you try to trivialize ritual child abuse by using ridiculous examples such as the one above. Presumably you did not hold your son down on the kitchen table and ram the food in his mouth?

Anyhow, care to address what you actually wrote?

You see, I circumcise my children for the Jewish people. I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. I have no fear of what God will do to me (or my children) and I have no fear of what other Jews might think of me. I live in terror that my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/drdilemma...lt/subjudg.htm

Substituted Judgment: The objective of substituted judgment is to respect the autonomy of the incompetent or incapacitated patient by, as far as possible, enforcing that patient’s own wishes regarding care permitted. This means that the person authorized to give consent on behalf of such a patient tries to determine what the patient would have wanted had he or she understood the circumstances under which treatment or procedures would be provided.

Loss Leader

16th August 2007, 01:13 PM

It's cute the way you try to trivialize ritual child abuse by using ridiculous examples such as the one above.

It's cute the way you are incapable of learning no matter how many times information is presented to you. Now that we got that out of the way:

Presumably you did not hold your son down on the kitchen table and ram the food in his mouth?

In fact, I have forceably rammed food into my son's mouth despite his vehement protestations. He won't try new things and would be eating nothing but banana yogurt if I hadn't.

Recently, my wife and I were required to force him to swallow antibiotics. The thrashing, screaming, spitting and crying were most unpleasant. Actually, he cried harder and about five times longer twice a day when we gave him his antibiotics than when he was circumcised.

Anyhow, care to address what you actually wrote?You see, I circumcise my children for the Jewish people. I do it to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. I have no fear of what God will do to me (or my children) and I have no fear of what other Jews might think of me. I live in terror that my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

Sure. It is in my son's best interests for me to circumcise my children for the Jewish people. It is in his best interests to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. It is in his best interests to avoid a world where my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/drdilemma...lt/subjudg.htmSubstituted Judgment: The objective of substituted judgment is to respect the autonomy of the incompetent or incapacitated patient by, as far as possible, enforcing that patient’s own wishes regarding care permitted. This means that the person authorized to give consent on behalf of such a patient tries to determine what the patient would have wanted had he or she understood the circumstances under which treatment or procedures would be provided.

This link did not work.

However, it is quite clear that the paragraph you quoted is only vaguely right. It only has meaning or aplicability when discussing substituted judgment for a person who had previously been competent. It is true, to the limited extent that it is, only when considering the best interests of an adult later rendered incompetent.

Children, on the other hand, have never been competent. There was never a period where they expressed their wishes after fully weighing the risks and benefits of a procedure. For this reason, the paragraph you quoted is utterly and completely without meaning when applied to children. It is not the rule and no amount of hand waiving by you can make it so.

robinson

16th August 2007, 01:45 PM

Who honestly cares about the wishes of an eight day old?

I think we have found the problem here.

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 01:48 PM

<snip>
In fact, I have forceably rammed food into my son's mouth despite his vehement protestations. He won't try new things and would be eating nothing but banana yogurt if I hadn't.

And if he really didn't like it he could spit it out. Or do you hold his nose and mouth shut and force him to swallow?

Recently, my wife and I were required to force him to swallow antibiotics. The thrashing, screaming, spitting and crying were most unpleasant. Actually, he cried harder and about five times longer twice a day when we gave him his antibiotics than when he was circumcised.

Presumably there was a medical need for him having antibiotics, so this is yet another ridiculous example.

Sure. It is in my son's best interests for me to circumcise my children for the Jewish people. It is in his best interests to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity. It is in his best interests to avoid a world where my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

Please explain how mutilating your son's genitals and inflicting pain on him for "the Jewish people" is in his interests. (Reading your twisted logic is quite entertaining.)

However, it is quite clear that the paragraph you quoted is only vaguely right. It only has meaning or aplicability when discussing substituted judgment for a person who had previously been competent. It is true, to the limited extent that it is, only when considering the best interests of an adult later rendered incompetent.

Children, on the other hand, have never been competent. There was never a period where they expressed their wishes after fully weighing the risks and benefits of a procedure. For this reason, the paragraph you quoted is utterly and completely without meaning when applied to children. It is not the rule and no amount of hand waiving by you can make it so.

It is only without meaning for you and people like you who wish to inflict pain and suffering on children for ritual or cultural reasons. Most humane people understand it perfectly.

Loss Leader

16th August 2007, 02:32 PM

It is only without meaning for you and people like you who wish to inflict pain and suffering on children for ritual or cultural reasons. Most humane people understand it perfectly.

You are wrong.

It's not surprising, you're engaging in an ends-oriented analysis. You want the answer to come out a certain way so you are backwards-engineering a rule that will get you to your answer.

However, your rule leaves a mess in just about every other area where decision-making for children is involved.

Courts have long concluded that it is impossible to know what a child would want if he were competent. This is true no matter what the issue is: whether to have a medical procedure, what to eat for breakfast, which parent to live with after a divorce, etc.

Courts are not in the habit of consulting tarrot cards or navel gazing. They do not simply guess about things that cannot under any circumstance ever be known.

Thus, the rules regarding how to make decisions for children are necessarily different than those regarding how to make decisions for once-competent adults. In the case of an adult rendered incompetent, it is in fact possible to find out what he would have wanted. One mearly consults his worlds and actions when he was competent. This cannot be done for children.

Thus, the rules regarding decision-making for children involve weighing their best interests. In no case does one ever consider the possible wishes of the child when he one day becomes competent.

I am very sorry you do not like this. But this is not just the rule for people who like circumcision with "most humane people" thinking differently. This is the only rule there ever has been and the only one that makes sense. In Family Courts all across the nation today, it was this rule that judges used to conclude what visitation rights one parent should have. And that is just one of the many, many issues that are determined in this manner.

Try, please, to comprehend this. It's actually a very simple concept.

kellyb

16th August 2007, 02:34 PM

And if he really didn't like it he could spit it out. Or do you hold his nose and mouth shut and force him to swallow?
Off topic, but you'd think ramming new food down a child's mouth would give them negative associations with trying new food?

It is only without meaning for you and people like you who wish to inflict pain and suffering on children for ritual or cultural reasons. Most humane people understand it perfectly.

I certainly understood exactly what you were saying. :)

robinson

16th August 2007, 02:37 PM

In no case does one ever consider the possible wishes of the child when he one day becomes competent.

The problem has become very clear.

fls

16th August 2007, 03:12 PM

You are wrong.

It's not surprising, you're engaging in an ends-oriented analysis. You want the answer to come out a certain way so you are backwards-engineering a rule that will get you to your answer.

However, your rule leaves a mess in just about every other area where decision-making for children is involved.

Courts have long concluded that it is impossible to know what a child would want if he were competent. This is true no matter what the issue is: whether to have a medical procedure, what to eat for breakfast, which parent to live with after a divorce, etc.

Courts are not in the habit of consulting tarrot cards or navel gazing. They do not simply guess about things that cannot under any circumstance ever be known.

Thus, the rules regarding how to make decisions for children are necessarily different than those regarding how to make decisions for once-competent adults. In the case of an adult rendered incompetent, it is in fact possible to find out what he would have wanted. One mearly consults his worlds and actions when he was competent. This cannot be done for children.

Thus, the rules regarding decision-making for children involve weighing their best interests. In no case does one ever consider the possible wishes of the child when he one day becomes competent.

I am very sorry you do not like this. But this is not just the rule for people who like circumcision with "most humane people" thinking differently. This is the only rule there ever has been and the only one that makes sense. In Family Courts all across the nation today, it was this rule that judges used to conclude what visitation rights one parent should have. And that is just one of the many, many issues that are determined in this manner.

Try, please, to comprehend this. It's actually a very simple concept.

I'm used to dealing with incompetent adults (I'm an internist, not a pediatrician). Your explanation makes the distinction clear and illuminates a number of issues for me. Thank you.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

16th August 2007, 03:35 PM

You are wrong.

It's not surprising, you're engaging in an ends-oriented analysis. You want the answer to come out a certain way so you are backwards-engineering a rule that will get you to your answer.

And of course the people who came up with the current rules did not have an interest in maintaining the status quo:rolleyes:

However, your rule leaves a mess in just about every other area where decision-making for children is involved.

How so? My only "rule" is that children will be protected from physical cruelty and mutilation of their body unless it provides (or is likely to provide) a significant medical benefit.

I know, I know, I'm a mean SOB.

Courts have long concluded that it is impossible to know what a child would want if he were competent. This is true no matter what the issue is: whether to have a medical procedure, what to eat for breakfast, which parent to live with after a divorce, etc.

Don't US courts ask the child(ren) which parent they would like to live with? Or is it just which parent has the best lawyer in the States "wins" the custody of the children?

Courts are not in the habit of consulting tarrot cards or navel gazing. They do not simply guess about things that cannot under any circumstance ever be known.

Yes they can. How many animals wish to have pain inflicted on them?

Thus, the rules regarding how to make decisions for children are necessarily different than those regarding how to make decisions for once-competent adults. In the case of an adult rendered incompetent, it is in fact possible to find out what he would have wanted. One mearly consults his worlds and actions when he was competent. This cannot be done for children.

You know when your child is screaming in pain and distress while his foreskin is being ripped from his glans? That means HE DOESN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Most parents pick up on that signal pretty early on. Perhaps you were too busy adjusting the focus on your camera or scoffing a sandwich to notice?

Thus, the rules regarding decision-making for children involve weighing their best interests. In no case does one ever consider the possible wishes of the child when he one day becomes competent.

Obviously not when you are a deluded (3rd time, I believe;)) follower of a barbaric religion you don't.

I am very sorry you do not like this. But this is not just the rule for people who like circumcision with "most humane people" thinking differently. This is the only rule there ever has been and the only one that makes sense. In Family Courts all across the nation today, it was this rule that judges used to conclude what visitation rights one parent should have. And that is just one of the many, many issues that are determined in this manner.

I think you'll find that Family Courts are attempting to get the input of children wherever possible before making a decision. Or at least they are in the UK.

Try, please, to comprehend this. It's actually a very simple concept.

I get it alright. It is a "concept" that allows you to continue mutilating children in the name of God.

Loss Leader

16th August 2007, 04:53 PM

And of course the people who came up with the current rules did not have an interest in maintaining the status quo.

The people who came up with the current rules are judges who have no interest in the outcome whatsoever.

How so? My only "rule" is that children will be protected from physical cruelty and mutilation of their body unless it provides (or is likely to provide) a significant medical benefit.

That's not what you said. What you said, sarcastically, was:
Yeah, it really sounds like you have your son's wishes in mind
And then you quoted an article you found:
The objective of substituted judgment is to respect the autonomy of the incompetent or incapacitated patient by, as far as possible, enforcing that patient’s own wishes regarding care permitted.

So, you have attempted to promulgate a rule. You have argued that the wishes of eight day-olds should be considered when making decisions about them. In fact, you assume this rule again when you, quite coldly, write in the same post where you claim it's not the rule you want:

You know when your child is screaming in pain and distress while his foreskin is being ripped from his glans? That means HE DOESN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN.

So, you have argued again and again that you think the wishes of eight day olds should be considered when making decisions about their care.

The truth is that this is, of course, ridiculous. My son screamed harder at being held down than during the actual circumcision. And he screamed much, much harder when we were giving him his antibiotics last week. His wishes are one possible indicator but are not and never should be the only barometer of what is in his best interests.

I know, I know, I'm a mean SOB.

Well, I'd say you are so attached to your issue that you will deny logic in order to preserve your opinion.

Don't US courts ask the child(ren) which parent they would like to live with?

If the child is old enough (around 11 or older), the courts may do so. However, the child's wishes are only one possible indicator of what is in the child's best interests. Plenty of children who suffer emotional, physical and even sexual abuse are absolutely devastated at the thought of being removed from their parents. Their wishes are, rightly, disregarded.

Or is it just which parent has the best lawyer in the States "wins" the custody of the children?

Canadian and US law are not significantly different on this issue.

You know when your child is screaming in pain and distress while his foreskin is being ripped from his glans? That means HE DOESN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN. Most parents pick up on that signal pretty early on. Perhaps you were too busy adjusting the focus on your camera or scoffing a sandwich to notice?

1. I think you mean "scarfing" a sandwich. I didn't look disaprovingly at a sandwich.
2. We didn't have sandwiches at my first son's bris.
3. My eight day old son's wishes were of interest to me only insofar as they may have provided me some clues as to what was in his best interests. However, like every parent on the planet, I disregarded them when I judged that his best interests required something else.

Obviously not when you are a deluded (3rd time, I believe;)) follower of a barbaric religion you don't.

What I am (quite patiently) explaining to you has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It is a simple and general rule designed to produce the best results for parents, children and society at large over a wide range of issues and circumstances.

I think you'll find that Family Courts are attempting to get the input of children wherever possible before making a decision.

I think you'll find that as a family law attorney with over ten years of experience in the courts of the State of New York that I do not give a rat's ass about your poorly informed lay opinion of what you believe courts are doing.

Ivor the Engineer

17th August 2007, 03:05 AM

The people who came up with the current rules are judges who have no interest in the outcome whatsoever.

You really do believe this don’t you? How many of those judges were circumcised or had circumcised their children do you think?

So, you have attempted to promulgate a rule. You have argued that the wishes of eight day-olds should be considered when making decisions about them. In fact, you assume this rule again when you, quite coldly, write in the same post where you claim it's not the rule you want:

What I have argued for is blindingly obvious to people with an ounce of common sense. All humans find the experience of pain noxious and unless there is a significant objective benefit it should not be inflicted on them. Also there's the fact that very few men volunteer to have their foreskin removed when they have the opportunity to, thus is it reasonable to assume that a newborn would feel the same way.

So, you have argued again and again that you think the wishes of eight day olds should be considered when making decisions about their care.

Unless it is obvious that the physical mutilation and pain being inflicted are going to provide them with significant medical benefits then the default position should be to make the act illegal and wait until they can provide informed consent. They can have their foreskin removed in the future if they choose. You can't put it back once it’s gone.

The truth is that this is, of course, ridiculous. My son screamed harder at being held down than during the actual circumcision. And he screamed much, much harder when we were giving him his antibiotics last week. His wishes are one possible indicator but are not and never should be the only barometer of what is in his best interests.

It is not ridiculous and I have not argued otherwise. That is why I have said when there are clear medical benefits the inflicting of (necessary) pain is acceptable, but should still be minimised.

BTW, I’m hoping most people reading the first part of your last paragraph will realize how barbaric your chosen religion is. (Wrong word, I know; you had little choice.)

Well, I'd say you are so attached to your issue that you will deny logic in order to preserve your opinion.

This from a man whose actions are determined by what his Rabbi tells him:rolleyes:

No, my point of view on this issue is perfectly consistent. It is you who needs special exceptions, or a law so wide-open to abuse you could drive a truck through it so you can keep hurting and mutilating children in the name of God.

If the child is old enough (around 11 or older), the courts may do so. However, the child's wishes are only one possible indicator of what is in the child's best interests. Plenty of children who suffer emotional, physical and even sexual abuse are absolutely devastated at the thought of being removed from their parents. Their wishes are, rightly, disregarded.

No, they are not ‘disregarded’, they are weighed in to the decision.

Canadian and US law are not significantly different on this issue.

<--------- For a lawyer you’re not very observant.

1. I think you mean "scarfing" a sandwich. I didn't look disaprovingly at a sandwich.

No, I meant what I wrote. Apparently you are not aware of the common alternative meanings of the word ‘scoffing’.

2. We didn't have sandwiches at my first son's bris.

So you were too busy with your camera to bother about his screams?

3. My eight day old son's wishes were of interest to me only insofar as they may have provided me some clues as to what was in his best interests. However, like every parent on the planet, I disregarded them when I judged that his best interests required something else.

No, I’d say your behaviour towards children makes you a member of quite a, ahem, select bunch of parents in the developed world.

What I am (quite patiently) explaining to you has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It is a simple and general rule designed to produce the best results for parents, children and society at large over a wide range of issues and circumstances.

It is a convenient rule that part-time child abusers can hide behind.

I think you'll find that as a family law attorney with over ten years of experience in the courts of the State of New York that I do not give a rat's ass about your poorly informed lay opinion of what you believe courts are doing.

There you go again. You think I’m trying to reach or change you. I'm not. I came to the conclusion long ago that you will never admit your actions are inhumane. However, your posts have been quite useful in demonstrating to others reading how cruel and thoughtless your treatment of children is.

Hopefully they will want to put some distance between your views on appropriate child rearing and their own.

17th August 2007, 08:19 AM

Ivor, your rampant emotionalism has clouded your judgement. Loss Leader, your stubbornness has clouded yours. I suggest both of you step back and take a breath, before this thread gains the attention of the Civility Patrol.

Ivor, I can understand well your own points. However, Loss Leader is right on the legal issue. And until society as a whole determines that circumcision is child abuse - and it's certainly no more child abuse than ear piercing or removal of webbing from toes - your over-emotional reaction to what can be and often is a safe and painless procedure resulting in no long term hazard will remain out of line. Legally, a parent does have the right to choose circumcision for their children. Legally, a parent has the right to choose ear piercing. Legally, a parent could choose cosmetic surgery for their child. Nose reductions, facial restructurings, the whole nine yards. Legally, it's happened for years, and there's very little impetus to change those laws. If it's your opinion that the more enlightened cultures of Europe are working to outlaw the barbarism of a parent choosing elective cosmetic surgery for their child, and that this is a good thing, so be it. But it is your opinion, and nothing more. From an American standpoint, such efforts instead sound like attempting to remove a parent's inherent rights to make choices for their children. And it's nothing new, mind you. Even in the U.S. we suffer from more and more laws designed to cripple the practice of responsible parenting. Children can sue their parents for disciplinary measures, including groundings and restrictions. Children over here have WON lawsuits against their parents over having been grounded from outings with friends, or grounded from proms, etc. And our so-called experts have been no help, advising parents to let children choose what to wear, what to eat, what to watch, when to sleep, and so on and so forth.

It is my observation that as the rights of parents to control their children have diminished, so too has society as a whole diminished in quality and value. Granted, the issue of circumcision isn't one that's going to cause the collapse of modern civilization, but it's just one straw in a large bale, growing over the ages.

Circumcised men who feel they have been wronged by circumcision are in the vast minority, and chances are, until that minority grows significantly, circumcision will remain a normal practice. Anti-circs seem to think that this acceptance of our condition is some form of cognitive dissociation; the truth is, that whether they like this fact or not, circumcised men lead perfectly happy, healthy, and normal sex lives, unimpeded by having been circumcised. There's nothing to miss. There's nothing to be upset about. And that simple fact bothers the anti-circ crowd to no end.

Well, whatever happens, happens. I've done my damage, and chances are that these are the last children I'll have for a while anyway. But my kids will grow up knowing that nothing wrong was done to them, and they'll be able to decide for their own children. Maybe by then we'll have the gene therapy necessary to remove the foreskin from the gene code entirely. What a glorious future that will be!

Koshy

17th August 2007, 11:20 AM

I like how you people keep comparing it to removing webbing in toes, or big growths on the face, or whatever other stupid comparisons youve came up with.

Youre cutting off a part of your child, that will have no effect on them, until they are adults, youre sucker punching your children with your wishes. This pertains to, especially, the cosmetic issue, lets go over it.

Its a cosmetic issue, affecting your children in and area noone will see, except you and the fellow youve paid to cut up their penis. A cosmetic change that strictly applies to your idea of beauty, a cosmetic change that permanently alters the sexual function and appearance of another person. The only reason its done at infancy is because infants cant protest, other than crying for their parents, which seem to all be swept up in a haze of "look like daddy" "cleanliness" "my child is an object that belongs to me."

Circumcision is clearly a sexually motivated act. How is it that of all the things that are wrong with children when their born, just naturally of course, its the genitals. My girl needs her vagina made clean, my boy needs a clean penis, right. Your child needs a parent that will protect them from this sort of thing.

The alteration of the genitals isnt for any benefit of the child, its purely for the parent, subjugation, control, conformity.

Edit: Yeah also Z, how bout you go ask around to regular folk and see if they even know what a circumcision is. My mother didnt, my grandmother didnt. My dad did, which is a story to itself.

The various people Ive talked to generally reply with something weird. "They cut off the tip and pull the skin down." "If we didnt cut it off it would have grown together." "They dont use any clamp." "Babies have to have it done." Yeah, quit using people's ignorance of the procedure to advocate it. The few people that Ive told what it is, and sent information, with the exclusion of my family that refuses to believe theyve damaged me, all now know that the "procedure" is wrong, and have told at least to me that they wont have any future children done.

Find some statistics if you can, maybe from circlist, the ever popular reference for the procirc camp.

BlackCat

17th August 2007, 01:43 PM

It is my observation that as the rights of parents to control their children have diminished, so too has society as a whole diminished in quality and value.
Evidence?

Granted, the issue of circumcision isn't one that's going to cause the collapse of modern civilization, but it's just one straw in a large bale, growing over the ages.
I'm sure that the FGM Act was just the first nail in the coffin of civilization. Are you then saying that it should be repealed on the basis of parental rights?

Circumcised men who feel they have been wronged by circumcision are in the vast minority, and chances are, until that minority grows significantly, circumcision will remain a normal practice.
Sure sucks when you've been irreparably harmed because of a cosmetic procedure. I don't mean self-image, I mean inability to have sex, inability to enjoy sex, painful sex, or to never have the chance to have sex, because they're dead. I know it didn't happen to you, or your relatives, so it's easily minimized, but the fact remains that people are harmed by this unnecessary procedure.

Anti-circs seem to think that this acceptance of our condition is some form of cognitive dissociation; the truth is, that whether they like this fact or not, circumcised men lead perfectly happy, healthy, and normal sex lives, unimpeded by having been circumcised. <snip> And that simple fact bothers the anti-circ crowd to no end.
Oh I know, and no, it doesn't "bother me to no end." In fact, that's great if some people aren't bothered by it. I'm glad that they can live with themselves. On the other hand, you should notice that I never said all men are dissatisfied, I said some.

Well, whatever happens, happens. I've done my damage, and chances are that these are the last children I'll have for a while anyway. But my kids will grow up knowing that nothing wrong was done to them, and they'll be able to decide for their own children. Maybe by then we'll have the gene therapy necessary to remove the foreskin from the gene code entirely. What a glorious future that will be!
So what's your evidence that circumcision should be practiced?

And, why can't circumcision wait until the child can decide for himself?

17th August 2007, 02:37 PM

Evidence?

As I said, my own observations. 35 years of living, watching parents hamstringed in many areas, and in turn, watching people grow up without respect, discipline, decency, etc.

I'm sure that the FGM Act was just the first nail in the coffin of civilization. Are you then saying that it should be repealed on the basis of parental rights?

I'm against FGM in general, as to the best of my knowledge, the majority of those who practice it actually remove or damage the clitoris significantly. IFF this practice were limited in scope as circumcision, I might be for it. But that would also mean demonstrating that removal of the equivalent bit left the female equally as functional and capable of enjoyment as removal of the foreskin does for men.

If we were discussing MGM as in the removal of the head of the penis, castration, etc. then I would be against that. But we're not. We're talking about a procedure which, if done correctly, does not impact the future adult male whatsoever.

Sure sucks when you've been irreparably harmed because of a cosmetic procedure. I don't mean self-image, I mean inability to have sex, inability to enjoy sex, painful sex, or to never have the chance to have sex, because they're dead. I know it didn't happen to you, or your relatives, so it's easily minimized, but the fact remains that people are harmed by this unnecessary procedure.

No. People are harmed by the procedure being done incorrectly. I'm against ANY incompetent surgery or doctors. Hundreds of people have died from botched appendectomies... are you saying we should not perform this surgery either? Some people are harmed from the removal of their wisdom teeth - so does that make their removal a barbaric and dangerous practice?

Or perhaps you'd care to show the records of circumcisions done properly which resulted in the inability to have sex, enjoy sex, have painless sex, etc? I doubt you'll find any.

No, circumcisions are not done properly in many parts of the world. And those practicioners should be stopped. I for one do not think that the Jews should be leaving circumcisions up to their religious practicioners, either. Nor should circumcision be done by witch doctors in Africa, or shamen on the reservations, or any other unskilled and unequipped individuals.

Oh I know, and no, it doesn't "bother me to no end." In fact, that's great if some people aren't bothered by it. I'm glad that they can live with themselves. On the other hand, you should notice that I never said all men are dissatisfied, I said some.

Indeed - few.

So what's your evidence that circumcision should be practiced?

50% reduction in the spread of HIV is good enough for me. As for any other evidence, I've presented what I have, as have others. NONE of that is good enough for some of you, and that's fine. Further discussion is irrelevant, then, isn't it?

And, why can't circumcision wait until the child can decide for himself?

Because a parent is more likely to make a good judgement than a child. Is that same child guaranteed to practice only safe sex until such time as he has his circumcision done? Further, quicker recovery times, less chance of complications, the pain - if any - is quickly forgotten (forever, no less), etc. All very good reasons to do it in infancy. Plus, adolescent males might well fear such a procedure for no more complicated reason than they think of it as 'slicing the penis'. Certainly, I'd be apprehensive about having such a procedure done as an adult - I'd much rather the procedure be done to me at a time when I'd be certain to forget all about it.

And what age can a child 'decide for himself'? When is the child going to be mature enough to properly weigh the benefits versus the risks, and come to a rational judgement? Heck, some people with decades of life behind them can't make rational judgements for anything. And someone who isn't mature enough to rationally decide whether or not to become circumcised is also not mature enough to rationally avoid unsafe sex.

Really, though, I think this thread has gone its course, many times over. The anticirc crowd are unswayed by ANY arguments, whatsoever. They prefer to see this as a horrible, bloody, painful mutilation of the penis, with nothing but sorrow, pain, and suffering for the life of the adult. They show videos and images of circumcisions being done incorrectly, using archaic techniques and without anesthesia. They appeal to the emotions by deliberately using evocative language and misrepresenting modern circumcision methods. They quote-mine a few doctors who have concerns about circumcision in general. They make strange attempts to compare removal of the foreskin to removal of the entire clitoris. They scream for the non-existant rights of infants to make decisions that they absolutely cannot make, and would gleefully prevent any parent from making such decisions for the infant.

Yes, I find it regrettable that some people have suffered at the hands of incompetent practioners who botched the circumcision procedure, used antiquated techniques and no pain relief, and left their victims mutilated and impaired. Such a horror, really, that medical incompetence exists anywhere in the world today. But I feel just fine with the modern practice of circumcision, having witnessed five of them in person, and seeing no distress on my sons' faces nor in their few quiet sobs. The results are excellent, handsome, hygenic, and I'm reasonably sure fully functional. And having lived my life as a circumcised male, I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that each of them will have as full and pleasurable a sex life as I have had, and mine is nothing to complain about, for certain.

My opinion is that circumcision should be mandatory, on the basis of the reduction of the spread of HIV alone; but that all circumcisions should be done using the most up-to-date methods, equipment, and pain relief available. My opinion is that it is inherently the right of the parent to decide whether or not to have circumcision done, just as it is inherently the right to decide whether or not a child will have pierced ears, a tattoo, cosmetic reconstructive surgery, haircuts, makeup, personal clothing choices, dietary choices, etc.

Should society so change that circumcision becomes equated with child abuse, so be it. I find that to be an unlikely change to occur, but it could happen. But at the moment, there's no pressure to change my opinions, and no evidence that doing so would in any way benefit anyone involved, so I'll hold my opinion for now.

Certainly no one on THIS thread has given me any reason to reconsider that opinion.

But please, carry on with the emotional outcries, the strawman arguments, the appeals to outdated procedure and medical incompetence in general. Carry on ignoring the vast majority of circumcised men who are quite pleased with their willies. Carry on focusing on the minority that feel wronged or damaged or ashamed. Insult me, insult my opinions, desperately try to make false analogies to mutilations and castrations. Perhaps you can sway a few less rational fence-sitters to your point of view. Congratulations, if you do. Condolences, if you don't. But I believe that, once more, the only rational act left to me on this thread is to bow out, unsubscribe, and let the 'debate' rage on unimpeded.

Good day.

Ivor the Engineer

17th August 2007, 04:27 PM

As I said, my own observations. 35 years of living, watching parents hamstringed in many areas, and in turn, watching people grow up without respect, discipline, decency, etc.

And all of that has absolutely nothing to do with circumcision.

I'm against FGM in general, as to the best of my knowledge, the majority of those who practice it actually remove or damage the clitoris significantly. IFF this practice were limited in scope as circumcision, I might be for it. But that would also mean demonstrating that removal of the equivalent bit left the female equally as functional and capable of enjoyment as removal of the foreskin does for men.

Why perform unnecessary medical procedures?

If we were discussing MGM as in the removal of the head of the penis, castration, etc. then I would be against that. But we're not. We're talking about a procedure which, if done correctly, does not impact the future adult male whatsoever.

Outright lie. A large amount of highly sensitive and functional tissue is removed. Not that you have any idea what that may feel like.

No. People are harmed by the procedure being done incorrectly. I'm against ANY incompetent surgery or doctors. Hundreds of people have died from botched appendectomies... are you saying we should not perform this surgery either? Some people are harmed from the removal of their wisdom teeth - so does that make their removal a barbaric and dangerous practice?

Cosmetic surgery performed on a non-consenting individual, other than that to correct a deformity, is unethical.

Prophylactic surgery performed for an unlikely to be realised benefit on a non-consenting individual is unethical.

Or perhaps you'd care to show the records of circumcisions done properly which resulted in the inability to have sex, enjoy sex, have painless sex, etc? I doubt you'll find any.

If an individual has never known what sex feels like with a normal penis they probably don’t know that they have had their enjoyment reduced.

No, circumcisions are not done properly in many parts of the world. And those practicioners should be stopped. I for one do not think that the Jews should be leaving circumcisions up to their religious practicioners, either. Nor should circumcision be done by witch doctors in Africa, or shamen on the reservations, or any other unskilled and unequipped individuals.

Of course not. When someone wearing a white coat abuses a child you think it's medicine.

Indeed - few.

So as long as the victims of abuse think it’s “normal” it isn’t abuse?

50% reduction in the spread of HIV is good enough for me. As for any other evidence, I've presented what I have, as have others. NONE of that is good enough for some of you, and that's fine. Further discussion is irrelevant, then, isn't it?

Another lie. Circumcision does not reduce the spread of HIV by 50%. Circumcision provides a 50% risk reduction for an individual contracting HIV per vaginal sexual encounter. And that has only been demonstrated in an area of the world with high incidence of HIV, where it is spread mainly by heterosexual intercourse.

Because a parent is more likely to make a good judgement than a child.

“Good” is in eye of the beholder.

Is that same child guaranteed to practice only safe sex until such time as he has his circumcision done?

No. Is circumcision guaranteed to protect him?

Further, quicker recovery times, less chance of complications, the pain - if any - is quickly forgotten (forever, no less), etc. All very good reasons to do it in infancy.

Again with the “pain – if any” comment. CIRCUMCISION IS PAINFUL. The pain is not “quickly” forgotten.

Plus, adolescent males might well fear such a procedure for no more complicated reason than they think of it as 'slicing the penis'. Certainly, I'd be apprehensive about having such a procedure done as an adult - I'd much rather the procedure be done to me at a time when I'd be certain to forget all about it.

They might not want it done because they like their penis the way it is.

And what age can a child 'decide for himself'? When is the child going to be mature enough to properly weigh the benefits versus the risks, and come to a rational judgement? Heck, some people with decades of life behind them can't make rational judgements for anything. And someone who isn't mature enough to rationally decide whether or not to become circumcised is also not mature enough to rationally avoid unsafe sex.

Circumcision does not stop someone contracting HIV or other STD’s.

Really, though, I think this thread has gone its course, many times over. The anticirc crowd are unswayed by ANY arguments, whatsoever. They prefer to see this as a horrible, bloody, painful mutilation of the penis, with nothing but sorrow, pain, and suffering for the life of the adult. They show videos and images of circumcisions being done incorrectly, using archaic techniques and without anesthesia. They appeal to the emotions by deliberately using evocative language and misrepresenting modern circumcision methods. They quote-mine a few doctors who have concerns about circumcision in general. They make strange attempts to compare removal of the foreskin to removal of the entire clitoris. They scream for the non-existant rights of infants to make decisions that they absolutely cannot make, and would gleefully prevent any parent from making such decisions for the infant.

Yet more lies.

Yes, I find it regrettable that some people have suffered at the hands of incompetent practioners who botched the circumcision procedure, used antiquated techniques and no pain relief, and left their victims mutilated and impaired. Such a horror, really, that medical incompetence exists anywhere in the world today. But I feel just fine with the modern practice of circumcision, having witnessed five of them in person, and seeing no distress on my sons' faces nor in their few quiet sobs. The results are excellent, handsome, hygenic, and I'm reasonably sure fully functional. And having lived my life as a circumcised male, I'm certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that each of them will have as full and pleasurable a sex life as I have had, and mine is nothing to complain about, for certain.

...and some more lies.

My opinion is that circumcision should be mandatory, on the basis of the reduction of the spread of HIV alone; but that all circumcisions should be done using the most up-to-date methods, equipment, and pain relief available. My opinion is that it is inherently the right of the parent to decide whether or not to have circumcision done, just as it is inherently the right to decide whether or not a child will have pierced ears, a tattoo, cosmetic reconstructive surgery, haircuts, makeup, personal clothing choices, dietary choices, etc.

A nice demonstration of how extreme your opinions are. Mandatory circumcision indeed.

Should society so change that circumcision becomes equated with child abuse, so be it. I find that to be an unlikely change to occur, but it could happen. But at the moment, there's no pressure to change my opinions, and no evidence that doing so would in any way benefit anyone involved, so I'll hold my opinion for now.

You do that.

Certainly no one on THIS thread has given me any reason to reconsider that opinion.

But you weren’t even trying.

But please, carry on with the emotional outcries, the strawman arguments, the appeals to outdated procedure and medical incompetence in general. Carry on ignoring the vast majority of circumcised men who are quite pleased with their willies. Carry on focusing on the minority that feel wronged or damaged or ashamed. Insult me, insult my opinions, desperately try to make false analogies to mutilations and castrations. Perhaps you can sway a few less rational fence-sitters to your point of view. Congratulations, if you do. Condolences, if you don't. But I believe that, once more, the only rational act left to me on this thread is to bow out, unsubscribe, and let the 'debate' rage on unimpeded.

Good day.

And you finish off with another load of lies.

Tell me Z, are you and Kleinman related?

Loss Leader

17th August 2007, 05:06 PM

If an individual has never known what sex feels like with a normal penis they probably don’t know that they have had their enjoyment reduced.

And if an individual has never known what sex feels like with a circumcised penis, they probably don't know that they have had their enjoyment reduced.

There is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable other than personal anexdotes from both sides about how much they like sex.

Just because it may seem to you that circumcision would reduce sexual enjoyment does not mean that it's necessarily true. And, in fact, there is no scientific evidence that it is true - just anecdotes.

kellyb

17th August 2007, 05:18 PM

There is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable other than personal anexdotes from both sides about how much they like sex.

I think there's a difference between "conflicting evidence" and "no evidence".

NewtonTrino

17th August 2007, 05:26 PM

fls

17th August 2007, 05:31 PM

I don't mean self-image, I mean inability to have sex, inability to enjoy sex, painful sex, or to never have the chance to have sex, because they're dead.

The problem with the dead baby argument is that there are dead babies on both sides.

Just thought you'd want to know.

Linda

kellyb

17th August 2007, 05:38 PM

Also lack of evidence should certainly come down in favor of the anti-circ camp because when performing a procedure of this kind it has to be shown that it doesn't cause any harm. The default position (e.g. how you are born) has to be overridden by evidence, not the other way around.

Studying sexually related issues is extremely difficult which means the pro-circ crowd has a very high mountain to climb.

But technically, there is lots of evidence that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, and decreases sensation. There is also evidence that it doesn't, though. And I'm talking about scientific studies, not anecdotes.

But there actually isn't any evidence that circumcised penises are more sensitive than intact ones. So in my opinion, pooling the results has to swing in favor of intact being more sensitive, since all the studies that find a difference find the difference of intact as the more sensitive.

For it to be a total draw, you'd need some studies that show that circumcised penises are more sensitive than intact ones. And that evidence doesn't exist.

Loss Leader

17th August 2007, 06:59 PM

Also lack of evidence should certainly come down in favor of the anti-circ camp because when performing a procedure of this kind it has to be shown that it doesn't cause any harm. The default position (e.g. how you are born) has to be overridden by evidence, not the other way around.

Studying sexually related issues is extremely difficult which means the pro-circ crowd has a very high mountain to climb.

Oh, you're quite wrong. When preforming a procedure of this kind, it has to be show to be in the child's best interests. That's more difficult than just showing it doesn't cause any harm.

Where we part ways is that most all of the reasons it is in a child's best interests are discounted by you and your fellow foreskinners as having no value whatsoever. Unfortunately for you, just about everyone who isn't you disagrees.

kellyb

17th August 2007, 07:26 PM

"Australia, the foreskinner country."

osmosis

18th August 2007, 12:06 AM

When preforming a procedure of this kind, it has to be show to be in the child's best interests. That's more difficult than just showing it doesn't cause any harm.

Actually, it's easier, as you yourself have demonstrated: simply CLAIM it is in the child's best interests. How do we know? Because you believe it, and for some strange reason you presume to speak on behalf of your infant (who cannot speak) in more areas than you're ethically entitled to. You believe so strongly that you say things like "his religion" -- how can your infant son, who cannot read a book or have a conversation, have a religion?

your fellow foreskinners

The way you use that it almost sounds derogatory. Antiforeskinnic!

Morrigan

18th August 2007, 12:10 AM

Damn, this thread keeps going. Lots of catching up to do...

The last thing my son said to me today was, "cow, moo." And I can say with perfect confidence that, unlike the last thing you said to me, it wasn't antisemitic.
When will you stop being a drama queen?

You are a hate-monger and antisemite of the worst stripe. *absurdly hysterical outburst edited*
I see. Nevermind.

In my case, I believe the world is better off with Jews than without them.

Assuming here that Jews = people who follow Judaism and not the ethnic group... why? And how can you sincerely claim that abandoning circumcision will spell the end of Judaism with a straight face?

As the forces of assimilation are relentless, I believe it is my duty to continue the traditions of Judaism. This is not necessarily because I believe in God but because if I do not practice Judaism, it might make it harder for the next person to do so. I never want to hear the argument made to my neighbor, "Well, Loss Leader didn't circumcise his kid and he's Jewish, so you shouldn't circumcise yours" or "Why don't you eat pork? Loss Leader eats pork and he's just as Jewish as you are."

I hope that clears things up.

Not even remotely, to a rational mind at least. In fact, it makes no sense whatsoever. I hope you can at least admit that you are being 100% irrational and blind in your faith. And thus one can't help but wonder why you are on a Skeptics' forum.

Since your decision isn't based on objective evidence, is there anything that would convince you to change your mind about circumcision and would make you no longer want to practice it? Anything at all?

If his rabbi said so, he'd follow. Gotta love sheep.

Loss Leader

18th August 2007, 06:40 AM

And how can you sincerely claim that abandoning circumcision will spell the end of Judaism with a straight face?

Well, I practice.

Ivor the Engineer

18th August 2007, 07:08 AM

And if an individual has never known what sex feels like with a circumcised penis, they probably don't know that they have had their enjoyment reduced.

They haven't "had" anything reduced. They have been given the chance to decide for them self how they would like their penis to look and feel.

There is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable other than personal anexdotes from both sides about how much they like sex.

Yes, there is (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17155977&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):

Kim D, Pang MG.
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively study, using a questionnaire, the sexuality of men circumcised as adults compared to uncircumcised men, and to compare their sex lives before and after circumcision. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. As the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory does not specifically address the quality of sex life, questions were added to compare sexual and masturbatory pleasure before and after circumcision. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision. CONCLUSION: There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

PMID: 17155977 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

So most men in this study had worse sexual satisfaction.

Just because it may seem to you that circumcision would reduce sexual enjoyment does not mean that it's necessarily true. And, in fact, there is no scientific evidence that it is true - just anecdotes.

There is evidence that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17378847&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):

Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, Van Howe RS.
HIV/AIDS researcher, San Francisco, CA, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, and to compare the two populations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Adult male volunteers with no history of penile pathology or diabetes were evaluated with a Semmes-Weinstein monofilament touch-test to map the fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis. Circumcised and uncircumcised men were compared using mixed models for repeated data, controlling for age, type of underwear worn, time since last ejaculation, ethnicity, country of birth, and level of education. RESULTS: The glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity. There were significant differences in pressure thresholds by location on the penis (P < 0.001). The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis was the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision had lower pressure thresholds than the ventral scar of the circumcised penis. CONCLUSIONS: The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. 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 the most sensitive parts of the penis.

PMID: 17378847 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The pro-circ. crowd like to make definitive statements about how little circumcision hurts, or how little circumcision effects sexual sensation, but alas, reality does not back up these assertions.

Morrigan

18th August 2007, 10:54 AM

Well, I practice.

Evasion noted.

kellyb

18th August 2007, 02:22 PM

There is evidence that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17378847&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum):

The pro-circ. crowd like to make definitive statements about how little circumcision hurts, or how little circumcision effects sexual sensation, but alas, reality does not back up these assertions.

So where's the evidence that circumcised penises are more sensitive than intact ones?
Anyone ever seen any of that?
I've seen a couple of "there is no difference" studies, but never a finding in favor of circumcised penises being more sensitive.

Koshy

18th August 2007, 02:42 PM

So where's the evidence that circumcised penises are more sensitive than intact ones?
Anyone ever seen any of that?
I've seen a couple of "there is no difference" studies, but never a finding in favor of circumcised penises being more sensitive.

Its a bit silly, and obviously something invented to make circumcised persons, or circumcisers feel better.

It is impossible that sensation isnt reduced, sensitive tissue is eradicated, there is nothing of it to take in feeling. You cant feel from a hand thats no longer attached to your body, why does it make sense in this case to say you can.

kellyb

18th August 2007, 02:51 PM

Its a bit silly, and obviously something invented to make circumcised persons, or circumcisers feel better.

It is impossible that sensation isnt reduced, sensitive tissue is eradicated, there is nothing of it to take in feeling. You cant feel from a hand thats no longer attached to your body, why does it make sense in this case to say you can.

It is silly. The pro-circ folks just like to make a big deal about the occasional study finding no difference, as though perhaps it's just random chance that causes the other ones to find that sensitivity is reduced. (or fraud, or something.)
But if that were the case, you'd have studies here and there finding that circed penises have greater sensitivity, you'd think.

But I agree...it's not terribly biologically plausible that removing significant parts of the penis doesn't reduce sensitivity.

Civilized Worm

18th August 2007, 03:19 PM

This may well have been asked already but Loss Leader, what are your thoughts on female circumcision?

osmosis

18th August 2007, 03:37 PM

This may well have been asked already but Loss Leader, what are your thoughts on female circumcision?

Oh, he doesn't care. It's not a Jewish issue, why should it concern him?

BlackCat

18th August 2007, 06:57 PM

The problem with the dead baby argument is that there are dead babies on both sides.

Just thought you'd want to know.

Linda
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but are you saying that babies have died because they weren't circumcised? (Genuinely curious, not flippant.)

What do you mean?

kellyb

18th August 2007, 07:07 PM

Maybe I'm being obtuse, but are you saying that babies have died because they weren't circumcised? (Genuinely curious, not flippant.)

What do you mean?

Because there's a higher rate of UTIs in intact male infants...some of them must develop fatal bacterial infections every once in a blue moon.

BlackCat

18th August 2007, 07:33 PM

So where's the evidence that circumcised penises are more sensitive than intact ones?
Anyone ever seen any of that?
I've seen a couple of "there is no difference" studies, but never a finding in favor of circumcised penises being more sensitive.
I'd like to see studies like that, too.

I've been meaning to bring this up. I have problems with accepting some of these studies that show "no difference" between circed and intact. Not because I doubt people's self-reporting, but because on the studies that I've looked at (earlier in the thread), many of the men circed as an adult reported better sex lives and an overall satisfaction with the procedure. But, if you look carefully, most of the men had the procedure because of some medical problem, likely phimosis. Well, since phimosis prevents retraction of the foreskin and is likely very painful, I'm not surprised that removing the foreskin would be helpful, and the people would report being satisfied, since they can now have sex without problems. (Note that phimosis happens rarely in intact men.)

Also, I would say the sample is biased (although it probably can't be helped). It seems like most of the men in the sample were people who had a medical problem significant enough to seek help for it. Well, that's pretty biased right there, because it's not a random sampling of all men, only men with significant problems. I do recognize that those are some the few men whom we can study, because they're choosing to be circed as an adult, but the inherent bias should be noted.

Finally, when they test sensitivity it bothers me that they neglect testing the foreskin. I know, how can they test the foreskin in circed men? To me, it's like cutting off two fingers on your left hand, then testing whether the remaining three can still feel anything. Well, of course they can, but the main point is that those two fingers that added to feeling are still missing, but we neglect studying it, and report that those with a full hand, and those with two fingers missing still feel the same with the equivalent remaining fingers. It's not an exact comparision.

Just thinking; feel free to dissect.

BlackCat

18th August 2007, 07:37 PM

Because there's a higher rate of UTIs in intact male infants...some of them must develop fatal bacterial infections every once in a blue moon.
Oh, right, thanks for the info, I forgot about UTIs.

Ivor the Engineer

19th August 2007, 04:09 PM

“recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents”

American Physicians should hang their heads in shame.

Civilized Worm

19th August 2007, 04:39 PM

Plenty of children who suffer emotional, physical and even sexual abuse are absolutely devastated at the thought of being removed from their parents. Their wishes are, rightly, disregarded.

Physical abuse like genital mutilation?

What I am (quite patiently) explaining to you has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. It is a simple and general rule designed to produce the best results for parents, children and society at large over a wide range of issues and circumstances.

Hold on, you're not citing religious beliefs to justify it? What secular reason could you possibly have for cutting off a healthy foreskin?

Civilized Worm

19th August 2007, 04:46 PM

Sure. It is in my son's best interests for me to circumcise my children for the Jewish people. It is in his best interests to maintain unity, cohesiveness and identity among my ethnicity.

So it's in your son's interest for you to circumcise him for other people? Zuh?

And I suggest that everyone try reading that quote aloud but replacing "jewish" with "aryan".

It is in his best interests to avoid a world where my refusal to circumcise my children or participate in other religious obligations will make it any harder for other Jews to do so.

This is the same kind of argument muslims use to defend their treatment of women: if you object to it you're a bigot.

At least a grown woman can choose wether or not she wears a veil.

NewtonTrino

20th August 2007, 10:01 AM

So it's in your son's interest for you to circumcise him for other people? Zuh?

And I suggest that everyone try reading that quote aloud but replacing "jewish" with "aryan".

This is the same kind of argument muslims use to defend their treatment of women: if you object to it you're a bigot.

At least a grown woman can choose wether or not she wears a veil.

Of course grown women cannot choose this in many societies, they are forced by law to wear the veil. Just as the law allows people here to mutilate infants.

It's funny how LL keeps bringing up the fact that it's legal for him to do this as some sort of justification. Legal != good. Just because society agrees or disagrees with a particular thing doesn't make it a good idea.

robinson

20th August 2007, 10:16 AM

"Parents should not be allowed to make this decision. It should not be up to parental consent. If somebody wants to get a circumcision, let them do it when they're an adult. Seriously. It should be stopped, it should be against the law. It’s as barbaric as what goes on in Africa. There is no reason for circumcision, PERIOD!

And I’ll tell you what it is. Most men want their sons to look like themselves. So this keeps going. It keeps going on and on and on. It is so barbaric. And they are saying now people are starting to take a second look at this. And they say that they believe in the future it will be more common to see uncircumcised men in gym class because people are really starting to wake up to this. It is probably the biggest form of child abuse going on in this country right now.

I tell you, if I had a son, I would never allow him to be circumcised. Never! Never! NEVER ALLOW IT! NEVER!

And these Jews who are doing it are wrong, and the goyem [non-Jews] that are doing it are wrong. Everyone’s wrong.

It is wrong. Stop the practice NOW! IMMEDIATELY!

Class action suit against doctors. This is the only way you’ll get them to stop ... no matter who gives consent. Parents have no right to say. PARENTS ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS. They don’t think things through. They all just go along.

[To a mohel about the Bible] I’m telling you, Sir, this is a BARBARIC process. And everyone has been so BRAINWASHED. I don’t think a book is bad if it tells you not to kill someone. But a book is bad if it’s telling you to mutilate young boys and to cut off their penises ... That’s bad. You’re in the business of mutilating young boys, Sir. And I think you should be arrested!"

July 27, 1998

Howard Stern, from his Radio Broadcast

osmosis

20th August 2007, 10:26 AM

I bet a class action suit would succeed in the US. Boy, will I be pointing and laughing if and when that finally happens.

BlackCat

20th August 2007, 11:19 AM

Class action suit against doctors. This is the only way you’ll get them to stop ... no matter who gives consent. Parents have no right to say. PARENTS ARE OUT OF THEIR MINDS. They don’t think things through. They all just go along.
Yes, I think this is one way to make this practice end. There have been lawsuits before, but they always get settled out of court, so no case law has ever been set.

You touch on a very important point, parents don't think things through, and just go along with it. This is because they are socialized to think it's normal and never question their beliefs later. (That sounds familiar.)

“recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents”
American Physicians should hang their heads in shame.
I'm surprised no one has used the 14th Amendment to either overturn the FGM Act, or to add boys to it. The FGM Act is inherently sexist, and does not afford boys the same protection as girls.

There's another way it could end: insurance companies not paying for it anymore. I think that's how it's ended in the UK. I've seen studies that show when medicaid stops paying for it (implemented in several states) circumcision rates plummet. Seems like people do it when it's free, but as soon as they have to pony up the money for it ... I guess their son's foreskin really is worth something.

I just thought of something. Aren't hospitals getting paid twice for circumcision? Once by the insurance/parents, for cutting it off, then another time for selling it to companies who use it for research and skin grafts.

Obsequious

21st August 2007, 08:36 AM

Darat

21st August 2007, 09:01 AM

I have a question for persons on both sides of the issue: What do you think would be required for you to change your mind? A certain type of study and/or finding? A personal experience (of what kind)? A line of reasoning? Something else? A combination of factors?

The legality isn't really at issue in my question unless a change in the law/policy would be a factor in changing your opinion, as well.

I think if you look the people who have argued against circumcision have never argued against circumcision that is medically indicated so I think it is safe to assume that if there was some significant medical reason to routinely circumcise all males there would be no objection. What is being objected to is the genital mutilation that is being inflicted on male children for non-medical reasons.

Koshy

21st August 2007, 11:03 AM

Likewise to the above post, Im sure noone would have a problem with removing any other part of a baby if it gave "significant" medical benefit.

Detect: Sarcasm.

Ivor the Engineer

21st August 2007, 11:23 AM

I have a question for persons on both sides of the issue: What do you think would be required for you to change your mind? A certain type of study and/or finding? A personal experience (of what kind)? A line of reasoning? Something else? A combination of factors?

The legality isn't really at issue in my question unless a change in the law/policy would be a factor in changing your opinion, as well.

Like all other surgery, a medical indication to perform it. E.g., to correct an anatomical deformity, or to avoid a likely future problem.

But after 150 years of failing to find some for healthy children, I don't hold out much hope any will be found.

What I really want is for physicians in the US to start saying to parents: "We recommend against circumcision unless there is a medical indication to perform it."

I can dream, can't I?

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 12:00 PM

I appologize for not responding to your post earlier, Ivor.

I stated, "There is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable other than personal anexdotes from both sides about how much they like sex." You responded:

Yes, there is

And you then cited two studies. I have to say that I am a little suprised. One of the studies is irrelevant to the question and the other actually supports my point of view.

For the first study, you state:

There is evidence that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17378847&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

indeed, this study concludes: "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis." This is hardly surprising as our expectation would be that exposing what had been a protected surface would desensitize it.

I couldn't read the entire paper because I guess you need a subscription. But I did notice that the paper says absolutely nothing about sexual enjoyment. My point was that there is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable. This study does not address that. Considering the vast number of circumcised males in the world, one would think there could be a way to collect this data.

Now, I realize that you are inviting me to conclude that a less sensitive glans necessarily means less enjoyable sex, however I do not accept your invitation. There is no reason why this would necessarily be true. The infant brain - pre-programmed but not yet pre-wired to enjoy sex - may well just assign the sexual enjoyment function to the remaining area on the circumcised glans with no loss of enjoyment at all. I knew a girl whose brain has transfered some of her sexual enjoyment to the soles of her feet.

This study is irrelevant to the point.

Your second study is relevant, but not in the way you'd like. This study concludes that, "There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

Now, I will dispense with pointing out that this study, bizarrely, comes from the Department of Physics and Astronomy. It is, after all, either good science or it is not.

However, can you pick out the one word in the study's conclusion that most hurts your point? I will bold it: "... indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function ..."

This was a study only of men who were circumcised after the age of 20. No individuals circumcised as infants were included.

Moreover, there is no necessary reason why these findings would translate to people circumcised as infants. Nerve damage in adults occurs after the brain has assigned certain nerves the job of sexual stimulation while it is possible that infant circumcision occurs before these nerves have been assigned a sexual function. And we can feel confident in this because there is no large-scale reporting of sexual dissatisfaction among individuals circumcised as infants.

Once again, if you claim that infant circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, all you have to do is measure the effect. Just provide evidence for your conclusion.

Instead, you have provided evidence for mine:

You and your fellow foreskinners here have been arguing for pages and pages that parents should allow their children to decide for themselves whether to get circumcised when they become adults. You and others here have claimed that I cannot know what my son would want and I should let him decide for himself before irreversibly cutting off healthy tissue. You and others have claimed that I am invading my son's bodily integrity "against his will" by circumcising him as an infant.

Now, however, you have given me an answer. I cannot wait until my child is an adult because I have scientific evidence that adult circumcision will negatively affect his sexual enjoyment. I must, for the benefit of my son, circumcise him as an infant so that he does not have to suffer a loss of sexual enjoyment. If my son, as an adult, wants to be circumcised as part of the Jewish tradition but is faced with a loss of sexual satisfaction, he will clearly be upset that I did not circumcise him at a time when no such side-effects would occur.

Because of this study that you have quoted, I can finally answer that there is a medical reason why circumcision must be done on my children long before they are capable of making the decision for themselves.

Thank you for your help with this issue.

NewtonTrino

21st August 2007, 12:29 PM

Now, however, you have given me an answer. I cannot wait until my child is an adult because I have scientific evidence that adult circumcision will negatively affect his sexual enjoyment. I must, for the benefit of my son, circumcise him as an infant so that he does not have to suffer a loss of sexual enjoyment. If my son, as an adult, wants to be circumcised as part of the Jewish tradition but is faced with a loss of sexual satisfaction, he will clearly be upset that I did not circumcise him at a time when no such side-effects would occur.

Because of this study that you have quoted, I can finally answer that there is a medical reason why circumcision must be done on my children long before they are capable of making the decision for themselves.

Thank you for your help with this issue.

OMFG you have to be kidding me. There is nothing in the study which says that the loss only occurs if you are circumcised as an adult. It would be reasonable to assume the loss occurs in both situations (although I would agree they only TESTED the one case).

LL, here's a question. If the above were shown to be universally true (e.g. any cutting causes a reduction in pleasure) would you be willing to not circumcise, or would the religious element still overrule that?

I would agree that it's more likely that someone circumcised as a child would be more likely to not notice what they have lost as they have nothing to compare to as the adults do.

This study is a solid argument against circumcision IMHO and to say that it magically doesn't apply to children is ridiculous until something contradicts it in children. I think designing a study to test this would be very difficult which is one of the reasons we don't have definitive proof that circumcision is harmful. Or more accurately why we don't have definitive proof that it causes harm.

As a side note isn't it obvious to everyone that this is about sexual control? Human society has struggled with issues of sexuality since the beginning of civilisation. Make no mistake this isn't about a compact with god, it's about the holy men controlling you.

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 01:35 PM

OMFG you have to be kidding me. There is nothing in the study which says that the loss only occurs if you are circumcised as an adult.

You're right. The study only measured people circumcised as adults.

It would be reasonable to assume the loss occurs in both situations (although I would agree they only TESTED the one case).

No, this would not be reasonable. Only one circumstance was tested, meanwhile there is no wholesale reporting of sexual dissatisfaction among people circumcised as infants. The assumption that this study applies to infant circumcision is unwarranted.

LL, here's a question. If the above were shown to be universally true (e.g. any cutting causes a reduction in pleasure) would you be willing to not circumcise, or would the religious element still overrule that?

A showing of a significant physical disfunction would cause me to rethink circumcision. Indeed, I have already been convinced by your arguments that infant circumcision for nonreligious reasons should not be routine.

I would agree that it's more likely that someone circumcised as a child would be more likely to not notice what they have lost as they have nothing to compare to as the adults do.

Not notice? I think it's more than that. I think if you handed out a survey to all men that said, "How much do you enjoy sex?" the scores from circumcised and uncircumcised men would be identical. What then is the difference between not noticing an effect and there being no effect to notice?

This study is a solid argument against circumcision IMHO and to say that it magically doesn't apply to children is ridiculous until something contradicts it in children.

I didn't say that it "magically" doesn't apply to children. I said that it doesn't apply to infant circumcision. They didn't measure infant circumcision; there's nothing magical about it.

It turns out that the recipe I have for tiramisu "magically" doesn't apply to a flourless chocolate torte.

I think designing a study to test this would be very difficult which is one of the reasons we don't have definitive proof that circumcision is harmful. Or more accurately why we don't have definitive proof that it causes harm.

Excelent. Call me when you do.

As a side note isn't it obvious to everyone that this is about sexual control?

Not to me.

Ivor the Engineer

21st August 2007, 02:15 PM

I appologize for not responding to your post earlier, Ivor.

I stated, "There is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable other than personal anexdotes from both sides about how much they like sex." You responded:

And you then cited two studies. I have to say that I am a little suprised. One of the studies is irrelevant to the question and the other actually supports my point of view.

For the first study, you state:

There is evidence that circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17378847&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

indeed, this study concludes: "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis." This is hardly surprising as our expectation would be that exposing what had been a protected surface would desensitize it.

I couldn't read the entire paper because I guess you need a subscription. But I did notice that the paper says absolutely nothing about sexual enjoyment. My point was that there is no evidence that circumcision makes sex less enjoyable. This study does not address that. Considering the vast number of circumcised males in the world, one would think there could be a way to collect this data.

Now, I realize that you are inviting me to conclude that a less sensitive glans necessarily means less enjoyable sex, however I do not accept your invitation. There is no reason why this would necessarily be true. The infant brain - pre-programmed but not yet pre-wired to enjoy sex - may well just assign the sexual enjoyment function to the remaining area on the circumcised glans with no loss of enjoyment at all. I knew a girl whose brain has transfered some of her sexual enjoyment to the soles of her feet.

This study is irrelevant to the point.

Your second study is relevant, but not in the way you'd like. This study concludes that, "There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

Now, I will dispense with pointing out that this study, bizarrely, comes from the Department of Physics and Astronomy. It is, after all, either good science or it is not.

However, can you pick out the one word in the study's conclusion that most hurts your point? I will bold it: "... indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function ..."

This was a study only of men who were circumcised after the age of 20. No individuals circumcised as infants were included.

Moreover, there is no necessary reason why these findings would translate to people circumcised as infants. Nerve damage in adults occurs after the brain has assigned certain nerves the job of sexual stimulation while it is possible that infant circumcision occurs before these nerves have been assigned a sexual function. And we can feel confident in this because there is no large-scale reporting of sexual dissatisfaction among individuals circumcised as infants.

Once again, if you claim that infant circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, all you have to do is measure the effect. Just provide evidence for your conclusion.

Instead, you have provided evidence for mine:

You and your fellow foreskinners here have been arguing for pages and pages that parents should allow their children to decide for themselves whether to get circumcised when they become adults. You and others here have claimed that I cannot know what my son would want and I should let him decide for himself before irreversibly cutting off healthy tissue. You and others have claimed that I am invading my son's bodily integrity "against his will" by circumcising him as an infant.

Now, however, you have given me an answer. I cannot wait until my child is an adult because I have scientific evidence that adult circumcision will negatively affect his sexual enjoyment. I must, for the benefit of my son, circumcise him as an infant so that he does not have to suffer a loss of sexual enjoyment. If my son, as an adult, wants to be circumcised as part of the Jewish tradition but is faced with a loss of sexual satisfaction, he will clearly be upset that I did not circumcise him at a time when no such side-effects would occur.

Because of this study that you have quoted, I can finally answer that there is a medical reason why circumcision must be done on my children long before they are capable of making the decision for themselves.

Thank you for your help with this issue.

Nice try, LL.;) You are aware there is a paper that has used the argument you have just presented (somatosensory remapping) to justify FGM, aren't you?

Alas, this happens in adults too, so your unsubstantiated claim that the sensitivity would be lost in adults but not in infants is incorrect.

Even if this were the case, the type of sensory nerves in the foreskin are different to that in the glans. So you can have some vague idea about what amazing sensations you are missing out on, the difference in sensation is similar to that experienced between rubbing a finger on the palm of your hand (foreskin-type nerves) to that experienced by rubbing the back of your hand (glans-type nerves).

Go on - try it now.

Quite a difference, isn't there?

Then you have the mechanical function of the foreskin, which IMO, was probably the biggest problem (and disappointment) for the circumcised men in the study.

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 02:23 PM

Nice try, LL.;) You are aware there is a paper that has used the argument you have just presented (somatosensory remapping) to justify FGM, aren't you?

Alas, this happens in adults too, so your unsubstantiated claim that the sensitivity would be lost in adults but not in infants is incorrect.

...

Then you have the mechanical function of the foreskin, which IMO, was probably the biggest problem (and disappointment) for the circumcised men in the study.

Terrific. Then you should have no problem presenting me a peer-reviewed study that concludes that infant circumcision decreases sexual satisfaction.

I will just wait here while you do that.

fls

21st August 2007, 02:55 PM

Now, I realize that you are inviting me to conclude that a less sensitive glans necessarily means less enjoyable sex, however I do not accept your invitation. There is no reason why this would necessarily be true. The infant brain - pre-programmed but not yet pre-wired to enjoy sex - may well just assign the sexual enjoyment function to the remaining area on the circumcised glans with no loss of enjoyment at all. I knew a girl whose brain has transfered some of her sexual enjoyment to the soles of her feet.

This study (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?journalCode=jsm), referenced earlier by Skeptigirl, would seem to support your point.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

21st August 2007, 02:57 PM

Terrific. Then you should have no problem presenting me a peer-reviewed study that concludes that infant circumcision decreases sexual satisfaction.

I will just wait here while you do that.

From the evidence provided, a reasonable person would infer that the change in sensation and mechanical function caused by circumcision is most probably going to be deleterious to the enjoyment of sex, just as we infer FGM is. E.g., most men in the study found it harder to masturbate after being circumcised.

Please answer these two questions:

Did you run your finger across back and palm of your hand?

Did you notice the difference in sensation?

Ivor the Engineer

21st August 2007, 03:01 PM

This study (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?journalCode=jsm), referenced earlier by Skeptigirl, would seem to support your point.

Linda

They did not measure the sensitivity of the foreskin in that study.

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 03:11 PM

From the evidence provided, a reasonable person would infer that the change in sensation and mechanical function caused by circumcision is most probably going to be deleterious to the enjoyment of sex, just as we infer FGM is. E.g., most men in the study found it harder to masturbate after being circumcised.

No, I'm sorry but that is not a reasonable inference. It is an understandable inference but it is not logically necessary or warranted. The fact is that there is a huge population of circumcised men today and there has been throughout history. Evidence of sexual disfunction should be easy to measure. These people should be having sex less, taking longer to masturbate, having fewer children, reporting impotency more, or something that somehow shows that there is a sexual difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. But the numbers just simply are not there.

The fact that you think that it is logical that decreased sensitivity means decreased pleasure might be relevant if the evidence didn't disagree with you. There may be reason to suspect decreased sexual pleasure, but our suspicions have yielded no evidence.

Burning items makes them weigh less. This leads the reasonable person to suspect that burning things removes some substance from them - perhaps phlogiston. It was a very reasonable hypothesis. Testing for phlogiston, however, was unsuccessful. There is no evidence that such a substance exists.

So, as I said, I will wait here while you prove that your reasonable suspicions about sexual pleasure are borne out by the evidence.

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 03:12 PM

This study (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?journalCode=jsm), referenced earlier by Skeptigirl, would seem to support your point.

Linda

Thank you. I remembered having seen it before but I couldn't find it.

Ivor the Engineer

21st August 2007, 03:29 PM

No, I'm sorry but that is not a reasonable inference. It is an understandable inference but it is not logically necessary or warranted. The fact is that there is a huge population of circumcised men today and there has been throughout history. Evidence of sexual disfunction should be easy to measure. These people should be having sex less, taking longer to masturbate, having fewer children, reporting impotency more, or something that somehow shows that there is a sexual difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men. But the numbers just simply are not there.

The fact that you think that it is logical that decreased sensitivity means decreased pleasure might be relevant if the evidence didn't disagree with you. There may be reason to suspect decreased sexual pleasure, but our suspicions have yielded no evidence.

Burning items makes them weigh less. This leads the reasonable person to suspect that burning things removes some substance from them - perhaps phlogiston. It was a very reasonable hypothesis. Testing for phlogiston, however, was unsuccessful. There is no evidence that such a substance exists.

So, as I said, I will wait here while you prove that your reasonable suspicions about sexual pleasure are borne out by the evidence.

Try this (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/) (read the numbered references):

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

Ivor the Engineer

21st August 2007, 04:07 PM

Thank you. I remembered having seen it before but I couldn't find it.

I wouldn't thank Linda. That study does not test the sensitivity of the prepuce. In fact it supports my argument.

(And Linda is only (thought she was) helping you because she's mad at me for calling her an apologist for child abuse. The enemy of my enemy and all that;))

An amusing aside: The only comment in my (American, 2nd edition, 2006) anatomy book about the prepuce is "Removed in the procedure of circumcision.":)

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 05:34 PM

Try this (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/) (read the numbered references):

It's obviously a very detailed piece with many references. I appologize if it takes me some time to work through but I promise to examine it carefully. The main article appears to have an editorial bias but I am only interested in the science that it cites.

I hope for my sake that you have not posted this link before because I have taken pride in reading and considering all of the appropriate scientific literature that has been produced at least since I joined the thread.

Koshy

21st August 2007, 06:12 PM

Well LossLeader, you should look up something called confirmation bias. As it pertains to the shutdown of reasoning centers of the brain when confronted with something you dont like.

All your justifications fall through, so you just make up some nonsensical argument and call it true.

Flesh is being eradicated, along with nervous tissue. But of course it would be stupid to say that any sensitivity is lost, its not a common sense issue. I suppose if I were to scrape off a portion of your retina youde go ahead and tell me that you could see better, or at least your enjoyment of seeing things had increased.

There is no reason for the mutilation of your children, or any children. You give nonsensical reasons, very much in line with advocates of Female Genital Mutilation, which for some reason is just naturally wrong. By the way everyone, FGM doesnt leave a female incapable of orgasm, unless youre referring to some type that destroys the nerves in the walls of the vagina, which as I understand it are just as capable of causing orgasm, though generating slightly different sensations. Nor does it destroy the capability of the female to have children. Its just "something thats done" for the sake of the girl, the community, and her future husband.

It is obvious to anyone that bothers to consider the issue that circumcision is just as much a mutilation as female genital cutting, the fact that some seem to be desensitized to it isnt a deciding factor.

Also for whoever was referring to the prepuce of animals rather frequently, Z perhaps, the exposed genitalia become necrotic and can cause quite serious problems in a number of creatures, dogs for example. So its not simply a sleeve to keep it warm, which by the way, I recommend that the fellows here lucky enough to have parents that decided to let them keep all of their penis should pull back the foreskin and attempt to do anything without the glans becoming extremely irritated, but should also bear in mind that there is of course no difference in sensitivity in their and nonintact penises. Due to my interesting situation I have experience with this.

Apologies if this is hardish to understand, Id be glad to rephrase any of it if someone would like. Wrote in a bit of a rush.

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 06:30 PM

Flesh is being eradicated, along with nervous tissue. But of course it would be stupid to say that any sensitivity is lost, its not a common sense issue.

I have not and would not argue that it is "stupid to say that any sensitivity is lost." What I have said is that I have not seen evidence of a decrease in sexual enjoyment for people circumcised as infamts. The fact that some sensitivity is lost is only a reason to suspect that sexual enjoyment is decreased. So far (at least before ItE's last article), I have not seen that suspicion borne out in the evidence.

As regards confirmation bias, I would suggest that you nose around your home for a bit and locate a mirror.

Koshy

21st August 2007, 08:35 PM

As regards confirmation bias, I would suggest that you nose around your home for a bit and locate a mirror.

I have a mirror, I have evaluated my side for holes. I have asked questions from the pro camp, none of them hold water. There is no medical basis, there is no benefit, there is only rights violation and mutilation.

Your current argument that pleasure isnt lost is speculative at best, as Ive seen surveys that swing both ways, leaving only the ethical and medical considerations. If its not ethical to cut off a female's labia its not ethical to cut off a male's foreskin, unless medically indicated, which it isnt. It is an act of mutilation, it is an insult in the greatest form. To leave wounded but functional, even your Jewish theologians admit that the removal of the foreskin in its current incarnation, not the ancient tip snip, is damaging to the sexuality of the male.

Ill ask again, why is it only the genitals of infants that are broken at birth and need fixed? Is there any correlation between sexual taboo and the subsequent loathing of self that relates to the practice?

I will also present this scenario.

If a man were working in a railyard when suddenly a boxcar moved and ended up crushing his arm, and was subsequently moved to a hospital to have the damage repaired. Over the course of the procedures that would be associated with repairing an injury of that sort it becomes apparent that the arm will have to be removed, and so is removed.

Would you expect the man to then hate all procedures seeking to repair damaged arms? Would you expect him to feel violated? Would you expect the man to be able to go into a hospital without feeling sick from knowing that doctors are out to save people's injured arms?

No.

The difference, as was expressed at some point, is that where as the doctor was repairing an injury caused by presumably accident, circumcision is the deliberate damaging of a healthy, functional, worthwhile, and enjoyable body part. There is no reason to cut it off, excluding of course the idiotic weak reasons like peer pressure and fashion. In the instance of circumcision there is harm being done deliberately, ordered by the parent.

Edit: Yes yes here comes your reply. "There is no harm." Then you wont mind laying on your side and letting me remove 15 or so square inches of skin from your abdomen will you?

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 08:54 PM

Your current argument that pleasure isnt lost is speculative at best

I have not argued that pleasure isn't lost. I have argued that there is no reliable evidence that pleasure is lost.

Koshy

21st August 2007, 08:57 PM

Ohh ok, thanks for sidestepping my entire post.

So you dont believe that pleasure isnt lost?..... or that it is?....

So why exactly are you even talking?

Loss Leader

21st August 2007, 09:40 PM

Ohh ok, thanks for sidestepping my entire post.

Sorry. I'll take another look at it.

There is no medical basis, there is no benefit, there is only rights violation and mutilation.

Just because you have assigned the familial and religious benefit a value of zero doesn't mean that there is no benefit. It only means that you don't believe the family and religious benefits to have value.

Your current argument that pleasure isnt lost is speculative at best, as Ive seen surveys that swing both ways, leaving only the ethical and medical considerations. If its not ethical to cut off a female's labia its not ethical to cut off a male's foreskin, unless medically indicated, which it isnt. It is an act of mutilation, it is an insult in the greatest form. To leave wounded but functional,

You've sort of descended into hysteria here. In any case, you present no evidence, just opinion. There is nothing for me to answer.

even your Jewish theologians admit that the removal of the foreskin in its current incarnation, not the ancient tip snip, is damaging to the sexuality of the male.

If you have a cite for this assertion, I would be glad to review it. However, the religious leaders I trust all advise circumcision.

Ill ask again, why is it only the genitals of infants that are broken at birth and need fixed? Is there any correlation between sexual taboo and the subsequent loathing of self that relates to the practice?

These questions contain so many unwarranted assumptions that I cannot respond to them. I deny your implied assertions that I believe the genitals of infants are broken and need to be fixed, that I loath myself and that my assumed self-loathing has anything to do with my desire to circumcise my sons.

I will also present this scenario.

Hit me.

If a man were working in a railyard when suddenly a boxcar moved and ended up crushing his arm, and was subsequently moved to a hospital to have the damage repaired. Over the course of the procedures that would be associated with repairing an injury of that sort it becomes apparent that the arm will have to be removed, and so is removed.

Would you expect the man to then hate all procedures seeking to repair damaged arms? Would you expect him to feel violated? Would you expect the man to be able to go into a hospital without feeling sick from knowing that doctors are out to save people's injured arms?

No.

I cannot fathom what you mean by this story. I have read it several times and its meaning, if any, is utterly opaque to me. I am not saying that I disagree with it; I am saying that I do not even comprehend it.

The difference, as was expressed at some point, is that where as the doctor was repairing an injury caused by presumably accident, circumcision is the deliberate damaging of a healthy, functional, worthwhile, and enjoyable body part. There is no reason to cut it off, excluding of course the idiotic weak reasons like peer pressure and fashion. In the instance of circumcision there is harm being done deliberately, ordered by the parent.

I do not understand how any of this follows from your story. Towards the middle of the paragraph, you just start making assertions about circumcision which, for what its worth, I deny.

Edit: Yes yes here comes your reply. "There is no harm."

I have never argued that circumcision causes no harm. I have only argued that, when the harms and benefits are added up, allowing Jews to circumcise their children causes more good than harm.

Then you wont mind laying on your side and letting me remove 15 or so square inches of skin from your abdomen will you?

I would mind for the following three reasons:

1. I am not incompetent to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure; and
2. You are not my next of kin and do not hold my health care proxy; and
3. Absent more evidence, it does not seem that removing 15 square inches of skin from my abdomen would be in my best interests.

Of course, were I to have a particularly virulent form of skin cancer and be in a coma and you were my wife (as I'm sure you'd look great in her clothes), perhaps I would not mind having the proposed procedure.

Koshy

21st August 2007, 10:10 PM

Sorry. I'll take another look at it.

1. Just because you have assigned the familial and religious benefit a value of zero doesn't mean that there is no benefit. It only means that you don't believe the family and religious benefits to have value.

2. You've sort of descended into hysteria here. In any case, you present no evidence, just opinion. There is nothing for me to answer.

3. If you have a cite for this assertion, I would be glad to review it. However, the religious leaders I trust all advise circumcision.

4. These questions contain so many unwarranted assumptions that I cannot respond to them. I deny your implied assertions that I believe the genitals of infants are broken and need to be fixed, that I loath myself and that my assumed self-loathing has anything to do with my desire to circumcise my sons.

Hit me.

5. I cannot fathom what you mean by this story. I have read it several times and its meaning, if any, is utterly opaque to me. I am not saying that I disagree with it; I am saying that I do not even comprehend it.

6.I do not understand how any of this follows from your story. Towards the middle of the paragraph, you just start making assertions about circumcision which, for what its worth, I deny.

7. I have never argued that circumcision causes no harm. I have only argued that, when the harms and benefits are added up, allowing Jews to circumcise their children causes more good than harm.

8. I would mind for the following three reasons:

1. I am not incompetent to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure; and
2. You are not my next of kin and do not hold my health care proxy; and
3. Absent more evidence, it does not seem that removing 15 square inches of skin from my abdomen would be in my best interests.

Of course, were I to have a particularly virulent form of skin cancer and be in a coma and you were my wife (as I'm sure you'd look great in her clothes), perhaps I would not mind having the proposed procedure.

Lets start with 8, for fun. So youre somehow saying that removing a part of you for no reason is wrong?

7. Nice excuse to hide behind.

6. Well you already admitted that you couldnt understand the story, so further commentary is rather pointless.

5. Im saying, that the opposition from circumcised males, where it exists, stems from the fact that the harm they are victim to wasnt accidental. Highlighting, through an example, (why noone understands these examples...) that you wouldnt expect resentment from someone who lost their arm through a medical procedure that was trying to save a part of them, vs circumcision which is solely designed to damage. This was mostly aimed at the less religiously oriented defendees of circumcision, such as Z. The fact that some men have lost their ability to enjoy sex, were it for a reason, wouldnt be so appalling. "Im sorry son, I think the circumcised penis looks better, thats why youle never be able to enjoy sex... sorry."

4. If you could actually analyze your religion for truth rather than just blind belief. Again this was aimed more at a more rational reasoning for circumcision, other than "ohh that fellow up in the sky, who is himself male, for God needs gender(always a fun thought) told me I need to cut off this part of my son, despite the fact that the current radical procedure, resulting as a punishment for restorers of old, of removing the entire foreskin wasnt even the original practice."

3. The citation is available elsewhere in the thread, the old Jewish fellow citing effects for circumcision, as well as a small host of others. Dont feel like looking it up right now, maybe later.

2. Ive descended into hysteria, lets analyze whose advocating cutting off a functional part of their son's penis because a man in the sky told them to.
There is reasoning there, I should have kept it more sterile I suppose. Is it or is it not ethical to cut off a female's labia for no reason? Yes? No? If not why is it ethical to cut off a male's foreskin?

1. Explain to me what benefit to the baby the circumcision has. Since the benefits wouldnt primarily affect you, in the form of not being criticized by your Jewish friends. What is the family value of damaging your baby for other people?

Your people know the nondamaging effects of circumcision well, what with the clause for allowing exemption of other children if already some in the family have died from the procedure.

In terms of family, dont misunderstand. I am an advocate for family. I wish family units were stronger. I wish that you didnt need to mutilate your baby to feel that you have a strong family.
I am for religious observation and activity, so long as it doesnt harm anyone else or impede their rights, religion has a positive effect on many people's lives.

osmosis

23rd August 2007, 10:33 AM

1. I am not incompetent to weigh the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure;

Well, not for your own body you're not. For someone else's body, though..

2. You are not my next of kin and do not hold my health care proxy;

Irrelevant. Yet another evasion.

3. Absent more evidence, it does not seem that removing 15 square inches of skin from my abdomen would be in my best interests.

Wow, total shift of the burden of proof there. In this case, there has to be evidence of benefit to do it, but in the case of your child's foreskin, there has to be evidence of harm not to do it.

Why the double standard?

NewtonTrino

23rd August 2007, 07:18 PM

answer: woo woo

Stimpson J. Cat

24th August 2007, 05:55 AM

fls

24th August 2007, 08:15 AM

I really do not get some of the arguments being attempted here.

To me the question is really simple:

Should parents be allowed to have performed on their babies potentially dangerous surgical procedures which significantly alter the natural functions of their baby's body, if the procedure is not medically necessitated?

The use of the qualifier "potentially dangerous" is probably redundant. Almost anything that can be done is potentially dangerous, so the issue is more appropriately a weighing of benefit and harm.

It has not been established that circumcision does or does not "significantly" alter natural functions when performed in an infant.

The WHO definition of "health", which guides physicians and other health-care providers when determining medical necessity, includes mental and social well-being.

Anybody who answers this question with a "no" should be opposed to non-medically necessitated circumcision. If they are not opposed to it, then they either do not understand what circumcision actually does, or they contradicting themselves.

If by medical necessity you are only referring to physical well-being, then you need to persuade all involved that mental and social well-being are not an important component of health, I think.

Apparently Loss Leader answers this question with a "yes". I regard this as an example of an extremely immoral position on his part. Apparently others here do as well. He clearly does not.

It is fairly clear to me that many people misunderstand his position. I suspect that it is the desire to find his position "extremely immoral" that prevents understanding.

Any discussion of to what degree sensitivity is lost, or whether the person will "know what they're missing", or how painful it is, is really not relevant to the issue. If you answer "no" to my above question, then none of these issues matter because it is still wrong even if it is totally painless and no loss of sensation occurs.

Then why did you include the qualifier "significantly alter the natural functions"?

If your answer to my above question is "yes" then nothing more really needs to be said. You have already established that you think that parents should be allowed to harm their children. What more need be said?

Yes, it has been well-established, on this thread, that the fallacy of "begging the question" is considered a reasonable method of arguing against circumcision. I have no idea why, though.

Appeals to religious tradition are complete non-starters. If your religion said brand your baby on the ass with the star of David, doing so would land you in prison. But objectively speaking, that is far less dangerous than circumcision, and would have zero affect on how your body functions.

Branding is another traditional way of indicating commitment to a group. Since laws reflect culture, I doubt it would have been perceived as a criminal act as an established tradition. As far as I know, cultures that include branding or tattooing of children do not form laws against the activity.

Tell me that you're going to brand your baby to defend your people's right to continue doing so, and I tell you that you are child-abusing scum. How is circumcision any better?

Dr. Stupid

I think it is also well-established here that some people think name-calling is a reasonable response. I am undecided on the issue, myself.

Linda

Koshy

24th August 2007, 08:50 AM

It is fairly clear to me that many people misunderstand his position. I suspect that it is the desire to find his position "extremely immoral" that prevents understanding.
Linda

In the same way I have an innate "desire" to say that rape is immoral, its really not, I just have such a strong desire that I make up arguments as to why rape is wrong.

Ivor the Engineer

24th August 2007, 08:54 AM

The WHO definition of "health", which guides physicians and other health-care providers when determining medical necessity, includes mental and social well-being.

<snip>

Linda

...and yet physicians in the US will not modify an infant female's genitals, no matter how minor the requested mutilation, even if it means she is likely to suffer social and mental harm by being left intact.

This hasn't always the case though, it's just that removing a girl's clitoris didn't catch on in the US, even with physicians promoting it.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 09:03 AM

Should parents be allowed to have performed on their babies potentially dangerous surgical procedures which significantly alter the natural functions of their baby's body, if the procedure is not medically necessitated?

Anybody who answers this question with a "no" should be opposed to non-medically necessitated circumcision.

Your question contains the following assumptions:

1. Circumcision is potentially dangerous
2. Circumcision alters the natural functions of a baby's body
3. Such alteration is significant
4. medical necessity is the only valid reason to circumcise a child

What you have done is carefully frame the question in such a way as to make your desired answer more reasonable. It is logically identical to asking people in a political survey: "Do you believe the US should abandon the Iraqi people even if it means that the ensuing chaos will cause thousands of unnecessary deaths?"

Any yes or no answer has the effect of agreeing with your assumptions.

I do not agree with your assumptions (except assumption 1 which is true of everything on earth from brain surgery to buttering toast).

Either ask a question that makes no judgments or just admit that you are too biased to care about any position other than your own. I don't really care which you do.

Ivor the Engineer

24th August 2007, 09:09 AM

<snip>

Branding is another traditional way of indicating commitment to a group. Since laws reflect culture, I doubt it would have been perceived as a criminal act as an established tradition. As far as I know, cultures that include branding or tattooing of children do not form laws against the activity.

Linda

Hmmm. Not so long ago, weren't slavery, a man raping his wife and the beating of disobedient children legal too?

Which intolerant racists made those acts illegal?

robinson

24th August 2007, 09:44 AM

You can still beat disobedient children.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 10:05 AM

Hmmm. Not so long ago, weren't slavery, a man raping his wife and the beating of disobedient children legal too?

Which intolerant racists made those acts illegal?

For the eleven kabillionth time:

Both slavery and rape involve one person imposing his will on another competent adult. In the case of slavery at least, the individual imposing his will is not the next of kin holding the medical proxy for the slave. And it would be difficult to argue that either slavery or rape are in the best interests of the oppressed individuals.

So, here you have listed two instances that are so completely unlike circumcision as to be worthless comparisons.

The fact that you have not comprehended this after repeated explanation is ... troubling.

fls

24th August 2007, 10:14 AM

In the same way I have an innate "desire" to say that rape is immoral, its really not, I just have such a strong desire that I make up arguments as to why rape is wrong.

I don't really know, since I don't recall any posts from you on that topic. But I do see the same sort of responses in discussions on date rape when someone makes the suggestion that a woman consenting while under the influence of alcohol does not necessarily make it rape. Arguments supporting that idea also sometimes end up characterized as "extremely immoral".

Linda

NewtonTrino

24th August 2007, 10:19 AM

For the eleven kabillionth time:

Both slavery and rape involve one person imposing his will on another competent adult. In the case of slavery at least, the individual imposing his will is not the next of kin holding the medical proxy for the slave. And it would be difficult to argue that either slavery or rape are in the best interests of the oppressed individuals.

So, here you have listed two instances that are so completely unlike circumcision as to be worthless comparisons.

The fact that you have not comprehended this after repeated explanation is ... troubling.

What kind of weird explanation of rape and slavery is that? There have never been child slaves? Children have never been raped? Children have never been raped by their parents? Children have never been raped by their parents for purported religious reasons? I call BS.

Actually circumcision and FGM are both closely related to if not included in the definition of rape. Circumcision and FGM are both about power over the individual and specifically sexual power. I don't get how you cannot see this. You basically admit as much when you talk about doing this for the good of the group, not the good of your son. Somehow you have it intermixed in your mind that what's good for the group is good for him when there is nothing that implies that at all. If it's truly important to him he can get circumcised anytime during this life, why the hurry to do it when he cannot tell you in his own words that he wants it? The only explanation I can come up with is that you've been brainwashed by your religiion...

robinson

24th August 2007, 10:32 AM

During traditional circumcision, the
mohel may perform metsitsah, a sucking on
the circumcised bleeding penis. This ritual
is described as an integral part of the
circumcision ritual from its earliest reli-
gious description, and is considered to be
obligatory. Therein lies the difficulty in
persuading mohalim to eliminate metsitsah
from the circumcision ritual. A possible
explanation behind the ritual is that suck-
ing the blood demonstrates that a proce-
dure has been performed. Another modern
explanation is that the mohel applies
natural anticoagulants and antibacterial
agents to the open wound. However, we
believe this is a source of infection rather
than an effective protective measure.
Several cases of transmission of infec-tious
diseases during ritual circumcision
have been documented. In 1999, HSV
infection of the penis was described in
two infants who underwent ritual circumcision
including metsitsah [4]. Neither patient
had a parent with a previous herpes
infection. The first infant presented 4 days
after circumcision with an erythematous,
swollen penis and a purulent discharge
from the glans. The second infant
presented 3 days after circumcision with a
similar picture. Viral culture grew HSV-I
from skin lesions of both infants. Recurrent
cutaneous lesions appeared in the genital
area several months later. Both circumcisions
were performed by the same mohel,
who denied a history of oral herpes
infection [4]. However, excretion of the
HSV in the saliva of seropositive asymptomatic
subjects is a proven phenomenon
[5], and HSV can be cultured from the
pharynx of 1±2% of asymptomatic seropositive
individuals.

Other infectious diseases transmitted
during ritual circumcision (and metsitsah)
are syphilis and tuberculosis [4]. The risk of
infection is bi-directional; the mohel also
risks being infected by blood-borne pathogens
from the neonate, including hepatitis
and human immunodeficiency virus.

http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar03dec-14.pdf

Warning! Images in the linked document may be disturbing. Circumcised infant with herpes infection.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 11:01 AM

What kind of weird explanation of rape and slavery is that?

Circumcision is a procedure in the best interests of a child performed by parents who hold the medical proxy for their incompetent child.

Neither slavery nor rape meets this definition so neither is sufficiently like circumcision to be of any use as a comparison.

There have never been child slaves? Children have never been raped? Children have never been raped by their parents? Children have never been raped by their parents for purported religious reasons? I call BS.

What are you calling BS on? Child slaves are not enslaved for their own good by a person who holds their medical proxy. Children are not raped in their own best interests. And when some parents might try to claim some sort of religious reason for rape, no courts have ever agreed. None of these are anything like circumcision.

Actually circumcision and FGM are both closely related to if not included in the definition of rape.

Please explain exactly what aspect of circumcision constitutes sexual intercourse. source (http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/rape.html)

The answer is: none. You are engaging in unwarranted hysterics.

Circumcision and FGM are both about power over the individual and specifically sexual power.

No, circumcision is not. I deny this. If it is true, please cite specific sources other than your own personal feelings.

If it's truly important to him he can get circumcised anytime during this life, why the hurry to do it when he cannot tell you in his own words that he wants it?

There is an excellent reason to hurry. This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17155977&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) makes it clear that adults who were circumcised over the age of twenty suffered "a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

So, there is harm in waiting for my child to be old enough to make the decision for himself. If I were to wait until he was an adult, this medical study indicated that circumcision would adversely affect his sexual function. I love my son far, far too much to force his to make this kind of choice. The harm to him in waiting until adulthood is far greater than the harm to him of circumcision as a newborn.

My thanks to Ivor for finding this study.

Koshy

24th August 2007, 11:38 AM

(Broadish response to the new topics.)

Why you even continue to comment on this topic is a matter of curiosity Loss.

If you dont agree with it, its hysterics. You can remove flesh from your child, but noone can touch you, which would seem to imply your child wouldnt want to have flesh removed from him, as you dont from yourself.

I love how you say its in the best interest for the incompetent child, implying what, that the child will never be competent to decide if they want it or not?

Id like to point out on the issue of slavery that slaves were indeed enslaved for their own good, or that was one of the rationales used anyway. Christians enslaving heathens were saving their souls, just as youre saving your son's soul by mutilating him.

"There is an excellent reason to hurry. This study makes it clear that adults who were circumcised over the age of twenty suffered "a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings."

So, there is harm in waiting for my child to be old enough to make the decision for himself. If I were to wait until he was an adult, this medical study indicated that circumcision would adversely affect his sexual function. I love my son far, far too much to force his to make this kind of choice. The harm to him in waiting until adulthood is far greater than the harm to him of circumcision as a newborn."

That is pretty frankly, moronic. Youre worried about him becoming sexually damaged.... so you sexually damage him, good logic there.

"Both slavery and rape involve one person imposing his will on another competent adult. In the case of slavery at least, the individual imposing his will is not the next of kin holding the medical proxy for the slave. And it would be difficult to argue that either slavery or rape are in the best interests of the oppressed individuals."

Right, the reasoning, as above, is the same youre using. God told them to, or at least they used God, cause he so readily speaks for himself, to justify what they wanted.

Heres a site, it purports itself to be Jewish, it is an older article, but your mandate to cut your baby's penis is slightly older ay ;). http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/jnews90.htm

Id also like to comment on your lack of response to the issue of modern Jewish circumcision not being the original practice. I, as well as others, would have a much harder time arguing against the cutting off of the protruding tip of the foreskin, vs removing the majority of skin from your son's penis, which come to think of it, isnt even what God told you to do... hmm.

(Always surrounded by noisy people, apologies again for any poorly articulated thoughts. Also, Linda, that was a bit of sarcasm in the last post, Rape is immoral and wrong in any situation, as is circumcision. Its not a desire of mine to see it one way or another, it is the way it is. Also, you seem to have an attitude of "its ok so long as its not done to me." Would you like to have had your labia, or more, removed when you were defenseless, by your defenders?)

fls

24th August 2007, 12:05 PM

Also, Linda, that was a bit of sarcasm in the last post,

Yes. One of the ways to respond to sarcasm is to take it seriously. Sarcasm often depends upon an assumed consensus, and exposing that assumption can stimulate insight.

Or not.

Rape is immoral and wrong in any situation, as is circumcision. Its not a desire of mine to see it one way or another, it is the way it is.

The question isn't whether or not rape is immoral (an issue on which there is consensus). It's whether or not a particular act constitutes rape.

The question isn't whether or not physical abuse of children is immoral, it's whether or not circumcision constitutes an act of physical abuse. As do many others here, you are beg the question. You assume the answer in your argument.

Also, you seem to have an attitude of "its ok so long as its not done to me."

Where on earth did you get that idea? It's pretty much the opposite of the way that I think. I'm all about symmetry.

Would you like to have had your labia, or more, removed when you were defenseless, by your defenders?)

If those involved sincerely had my best interests at heart, yes.

Linda

Koshy

24th August 2007, 12:05 PM

Since youre being a bit silly about the definition of rape by the way, here you go. (Not you Linda.)

Rape. N.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

But, to Linda. If they had your best interests at heart? So, if you educated yourself later in life, and found out that you had a valuable part of you removed for no reason at all, other than lack of will to research / superstition, youde be ok with it? Not to mention learning that it was probably sold to some biocorp to make skin grafts... Etc.

One of my many problems with it, as well as other mutilations, is that the entire time, anyone of my supposed defenders could have said no, could have went and researched the topic, and consequently saved me alot of agony. Of course noone did, if that was the case I probably wouldnt be in this topic, because I wouldnt have had reason to research why I was deformed. Likewise, had I found ANY reason for it to be done, not only to me but the majority of people in my area, then I also probably wouldnt be in this topic.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 12:08 PM

You can remove flesh from your child, but noone can touch you, which would seem to imply your child wouldnt want to have flesh removed from him, as you dont from yourself.

I do not know why you say, "No one can touch you." I don't know to what you are referring. As to whether my eight day old son would or would not want to be circumcised, the matter is of no consequence.

I love how you say its in the best interest for the incompetent child, implying what, that the child will never be competent to decide if they want it or not?

I have never implied that my child will never be competent. I don't know what I've said that would lead you to infer it.

Id like to point out on the issue of slavery that slaves were indeed enslaved for their own good, or that was one of the rationales used anyway. Christians enslaving heathens were saving their souls, just as youre saving your son's soul by mutilating him.

Great. So of the three prongs of the test for substituted judgment, let's give it to the slaveholders and say that slavery was in the best interests of the slaves. Now you just have to satisfy the other two prongs: that the slaves were incompetent to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed procedure and that the slaveholders were the next of kin and natural medical proxies for the slaves.

Can you do that with slavery?

Because I can when it comes to circumcising my child.

That is pretty frankly, moronic. Youre worried about him becoming sexually damaged.... so you sexually damage him, good logic there.

There is no evidence that infant circumcision negatively affects sexual performance or pleasure. So, in fact, I have exercised good logic and I thank you for recognizing such.

Right, the reasoning, as above, is the same youre using. God told them to, or at least they used God, cause he so readily speaks for himself, to justify what they wanted.

Once again, slavery and rape to not satisfy the prongs of the test for substituted judgment that the individuals be incompetent and that the decision-makers be the family of the individual. They are also not in the individual's best interests. So, the fact that they believe God told them to does not make them analagous to circumcision.

Heres a site, it purports itself to be Jewish, it is an older article, but your mandate to cut your baby's penis is slightly older ay ;). http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/jnews90.htm

Um, okay.

Id also like to comment on your lack of response to the issue of modern Jewish circumcision not being the original practice. I, as well as others, would have a much harder time arguing against the cutting off of the protruding tip of the foreskin, vs removing the majority of skin from your son's penis, which come to think of it, isnt even what God told you to do... hmm.

The religious authorities I trust recommend circumcision in its current form.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 12:10 PM

Koshy

24th August 2007, 12:45 PM

Were you to have posted a picture of a kitten, you could not have contributed to this debate less.

I seem to recall a certain Jewish fellow, adamant about mutilating his sons, saying that rape refers only to intercourse.

With your religious bias anything can be said. Yes, the various peoples enslaved over the years have always been viewed as inferior, and unable to make proper choices or lives anyway, so they might as well be enslaved. So yes, they are incompetent.

While youre using your faith as an excuse for whatever you want, were all brothers in God, Jesus, Beelzebub, or whatever deity/faith system you want to employ. So, Ill just use an outrageous argument to refute your outrageous argument. Im your next of Kin, cause God made me and you, our father is the Lord, making me your sibling in faith, yes? Why not. (Happy time fun faith mode.)

Theres no evidence that circumcision effects sex? How many studies do you need to look over. Positively, negatively, neutrally. Tell me how removing a part of the body that can be used for a variety of sexual purposes doesnt effect sex? How is that possible? Remembering that sex is something people do other than to produce babies, an uncircumcised person is physically(avoiding the fun sensation issue) capable of doing more than a circumcised person. Your view is physically impossible and therefore wrong.

As for the article, I suppose I should have thrown some background in for that. When you say your religious advisers you seem to imply some sort of unity among them, the existence of the site proves otherwise. The article voices a concern, though as I said it is a bit old. But also as I said, your mandate for circumcision predates it by a few thousand years. (As a slight aside, its always been a curious matter for me, how science must be updated in light of new evidence and people frequently look back at old scientific ideals with a bit of amusement, somehow religion, having been written when the entire race was largely ignorant of everything, never needs to be updated or rethought.)

In its current form... I trust then that youve inquired about it? I doubt you have but rather work off a broad "Jews do it" ideology, without bothering to consider its origins, or much else.

As I said a few posts back, dont misunderstand about my position on faith or family. I support both, so long as theyre not harming other people. Babies and children are people, much as everyone likes to deny it. Making in my view, any abuse such as this all the more heinous.

NewtonTrino

24th August 2007, 12:48 PM

If those involved sincerely had my best interests at heart, yes.

Linda

So if my religion told me that it was good to rape my child every night before bed otherwise the boogyman would get him that would be ok?

I personally don't want people to take action based on "my best interests". I want them to get it right!

The do-gooders in this world have already caused enough harm don't you think?

And Loss Leader, you are either being purposefully obtuse, or you are just completely and utterly brainwashed. The way you are twisting the study to make it sound like circumcising your child is good makes me sick.

FACT: Circumcision causes decrease in sexual function when done at any age.

Can I prove it? No I cannot. However the study you are referencing is certainly a good indicator that I am correct.

Will it ever be proven? I believe so. To me it's obvious on the face of it, but then again I wasn't mutilated.

Maybe we'll come back to this thread over the decades as more evidence accumulates. I don't see it turning out good for the mutilators and rapists. History has and will continue to judge those that are participants.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 01:22 PM

FACT: Circumcision causes decrease in sexual function when done at any age.

Can I prove it? No I cannot.

:wackybiglaugh:

fls

24th August 2007, 01:33 PM

So if my religion told me that it was good to rape my child every night before bed otherwise the boogyman would get him that would be ok?

Honestly, why the aversion to making a considered and thoughtful response to what I say?

I personally don't want people to take action based on "my best interests". I want them to get it right!

The do-gooders in this world have already caused enough harm don't you think?

How do you distinguish between the two?

And Loss Leader, you are either being purposefully obtuse, or you are just completely and utterly brainwashed. The way you are twisting the study to make it sound like circumcising your child is good makes me sick.

His sense of humour is perhaps a bit wicked.

FACT: Circumcision causes decrease in sexual function when done at any age.

Can I prove it? No I cannot. However the study you are referencing is certainly a good indicator that I am correct.

Will it ever be proven? I believe so. To me it's obvious on the face of it, but then again I wasn't mutilated.

I think the problem with making these kinds of statements is that, on the face, they appear patently false. The billions of men who have functioned just fine without a foreskin, and their sexual partners, are apt to look at that statement and go "huh?" I think if you tried really hard, you could find a way to answer this question. And maybe even discover, in a manner that was valid, quantifiable differences to the benefit of the uncircumcised state. However, it is clear that the sexual experience does not depend upon an absolute amount of sensitivity, or that most men are hovering around some sort of minimal threshold, barely able to make it over the top.

And the excuse that I am looking for a salve to my conscience does not apply, since I am not responsible for the "mutilation" of anyone.

Maybe we'll come back to this thread over the decades as more evidence accumulates. I don't see it turning out good for the mutilators and rapists. History has and will continue to judge those that are participants.

Exactly. Won't we feel foolish trying to justify our support of that black period in history when children were forced to participate in a public education system.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

24th August 2007, 01:35 PM

The question isn't whether or not physical abuse of children is immoral, it's whether or not circumcision constitutes an act of physical abuse. As do many others here, you are beg the question. You assume the answer in your argument.

How about these (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:physical+abuse&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title):

This one seems to fit quite well: The non-accidental injury to a child.

If those involved sincerely had my best interests at heart, yes.

Linda

So you're ok with this (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3426091) going on then, too?

The relative who called police said an exorcism had also been attempted Thursday.

"The purpose was to release demons from this very young child," said Sgt. Joel Tranter.

Officers arrived at the house Saturday and entered when they heard screaming coming from a bedroom, Tranter said.

A bed had been pushed up against the door; the officers pushed it open a few inches and saw Marquez choking his bloodied granddaughter, who was crying in pain and gasping, Tranter said.

A bloody, naked 19-year-old woman who police later determined to be Marquez's daughter and the girl's mother was in the room, chanting "something that was religious in nature," Tranter said.

I mean, the adults really believed it was in the best interests of the child, so that made it ok.

Koshy

24th August 2007, 01:36 PM

:wackybiglaugh:

Yeah, thats almost as funny as mutilating your child.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 01:42 PM

Yeah, thats almost as funny as mutilating your child.

Hey, at least at my child's genital mutilation there's cake.

Koshy

24th August 2007, 01:46 PM

Hey, at least at my child's genital mutilation there's cake.

No reasonable argument will sway you, and as I said a while back your presence at all in this topic is very fun.

Ill just throw out the morbid hope that your son has some bad complications, or grows up to hate you. Then you can still be right.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 01:49 PM

So you're ok with this (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3426091) going on then, too?

Oh honestly, Ivor. You've been one of the most careful and reasonable foreskinners here but that was just plain silly.

You know for a fact that the test of whether something is in a child's best interests must pass basic social muster. You know exorcisms that involve choking three year-olds don't. And you know that, so far, circumcision does.

Furthermore, you know that circumcision is a generalized and widespread religious practice whereas exorcisms involving choking are neither generalized nor widespread.

I'm glad to engage in a reasonable discussion but that exorcism comparison was goofy at best.

(Also, I don't know if you noticed but the person who died wasn't the child. The grandfather died after being accosted by the police.)

Koshy

24th August 2007, 01:55 PM

Oh honestly, Ivor. You've been one of the most careful and reasonable foreskinners here but that was just plain silly.

You know for a fact that the test of whether something is in a child's best interests must pass basic social muster. You know exorcisms that involve choking three year-olds don't. And you know that, so far, circumcision does.

Furthermore, you know that circumcision is a generalized and widespread religious practice whereas exorcisms involving choking are neither generalized nor widespread.

I'm glad to engage in a reasonable discussion but that exorcism comparison was goofy at best.

(Also, I don't know if you noticed but the person who died wasn't the child. The grandfather died after being accosted by the police.)

Yeah, following a religious ideal in order to treat them "to their best interest." Thats just highlarious. Whereas me doing the exact some thing with my child is a lawfully sanctioned and endorsed procedure.

I suppose that this sort of thing was never endorsed in history right? Excorcisms(among quite a few other religious relics) have never been practiced with any seriousness.

Loss Leader

24th August 2007, 02:11 PM

Ill just throw out the morbid hope that your son has some bad complications, or grows up to hate you. Then you can still be right.

Let me be very clear that you have just wished physical pain and suffering on my unborn son - a boy who has done nothing to you and who is innocent in every regard.

I just want to understand that you believe that it would be just and fair if my mistaken beliefs about circumcision were rewarded with medical complications and anguish in a person who does not share my beliefs and who has never offended you in any way.

The way you think I should be punished is for someone who is not me to be injured.

Have I correctly encapsulated your views?

I am disgusted beyond my ability to express or your ability to comprehend. Whereas I undertake my actions because I believe them to be in my son's best interests, your hopes have nothing to do with his interests at all. They are punitive and pusillanimous. Wishing ill on an infant makes you perhaps the sickest, sorriest, stupidest individual whom I have ever had the unfortunate occassion to meet.

I hope your filthy, hateful attitude towards infants is discovered long before you are ever entrusted with the care of one.

And, for the sake of everyone around you, I hope you are as ineffectual at realizing your ugly aspirations as you are at defending them.

Do not bother replying except to explain that your improvident comments are regretted by you.

NewtonTrino

24th August 2007, 02:24 PM

Honestly, why the aversion to making a considered and thoughtful response to what I say?

How do you distinguish between the two?

Linda

It's called science!

No Aversion expressed because my response was a serious analogy. You see I'm attacking the JUSTIFICATION not the act itself. The justification for raping the child every night is the same as the justification for circumcision. That justification is CONTROL. The parent may not realise this. It's clear for example that LL is not in control of his own faculties as they have been subverted by a religious meme. If he was a native to Africa we could easily be having this conversation about how his daughter needs to have her clit cut off otherwise their culture would die. No difference see? This is the part you guys aren't getting. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation, in this case the analogy is very apt because the reasoning is identical. It's my daughter and *I* know whats in her best interest SO THERE and it's LEGAL so therefore it's right (at least LL uses this a lot in his arguments).

If I hear another legal argument I'm going to throw up. This has nothing to do with the law, we are talking about whether or not it's moral. I fully realize that LL has the law on his side. That isn't the point and it certainly doesn't make it right. Our morals are obviously different... which is funny considering how often religious types bleet on about how you can only be moral with god in the picture.

Circumcision is evil and anyone that knowingly takes part has my disdain. Then again I pretty much feel the same way about religion in general so it's not a very exclusive club.

Koshy

24th August 2007, 02:34 PM

fls

24th August 2007, 03:06 PM

It's called science!

You made the statement that you considered people acting on the basis of "my best interests" would come to a different outcome than "get it right!" I asked how you would distinguish between the two (how can you tell if the product of their consideration was the result of them acting in my best interests or the result of them getting it right). Is "science" meant to answer that particular question? If so, how?

No Aversion expressed because my response was a serious analogy. You see I'm attacking the JUSTIFICATION not the act itself. The justification for raping the child every night is the same as the justification for circumcision. That justification is CONTROL. The parent may not realise this. It's clear for example that LL is not in control of his own faculties as they have been subverted by a religious meme. If he was a native to Africa we could easily be having this conversation about how his daughter needs to have her clit cut off otherwise their culture would die. No difference see? This is the part you guys aren't getting. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation, in this case the analogy is very apt because the reasoning is identical. It's my daughter and *I* know whats in her best interest SO THERE and it's LEGAL so therefore it's right (at least LL uses this a lot in his arguments).

As has been discussed numerous times in this thread, what we do on behalf of or to others has to pass several tests in order to be justifiable. While parents are charged with the primary interest in their children, there is also a societal interest in the protection of their members. Raping a child would fail society's test. And society's tests are represented by laws, which is why legal arguments are relevant to this issue.

Removal of the clitoris also fails society's test. Partly because the nature of the procedure is more physically damaging, and partly because the decision is far more coercive.

So essentially you are right. The argument rests on whether or not the action passes the tests that you mentioned. However, your analogies were flawed since they would not pass the same tests.

If I hear another legal argument I'm going to throw up. This has nothing to do with the law, we are talking about whether or not it's moral. I fully realize that LL has the law on his side. That isn't the point and it certainly doesn't make it right. Our morals are obviously different... which is funny considering how often religious types bleet on about how you can only be moral with god in the picture.

Circumcision is evil and anyone that knowingly takes part has my disdain. Then again I pretty much feel the same way about religion in general so it's not a very exclusive club.

You recognize that different people have different morals. Is disdain for those who happen to have morals different from your own unavoidable? Do you see some way for this disdain to be absolute rather than relative?

Linda

Koshy

24th August 2007, 03:15 PM

As has been discussed numerous times in this thread, what we do on behalf of or to others has to pass several tests in order to be justifiable. While parents are charged with the primary interest in their children, there is also a societal interest in the protection of their members. Raping a child would fail society's test. And society's tests are represented by laws, which is why legal arguments are relevant to this issue.

Removal of the clitoris also fails society's test. Partly because the nature of the procedure is more physically damaging, and partly because the decision is far more coercive.

Linda

Of course, what determines justifiability is subject to change as well. I think one of the main reasons its still seen as justifiable relates to the large portion of men here that are. Which understandably results in a bias.

Also that the huge amount of money that could be lost if the medical community just came out and declared it damaging, what with lawsuits and all.

I think in connection to removal of the clitoris, this just being based on my readings and such, that the abolishment of female mutilation in this country has to to with sexism essentially. Somehow people think that females are more innocent/vulnerable, and therefore more worthy of protection than males, who should be rough and tumble, etc.

Ivor the Engineer

24th August 2007, 03:48 PM

Oh honestly, Ivor. You've been one of the most careful and reasonable foreskinners here but that was just plain silly.

You know for a fact that the test of whether something is in a child's best interests must pass basic social muster. You know exorcisms that involve choking three year-olds don't. And you know that, so far, circumcision does.

Furthermore, you know that circumcision is a generalized and widespread religious practice whereas exorcisms involving choking are neither generalized nor widespread.

I'm glad to engage in a reasonable discussion but that exorcism comparison was goofy at best.

(Also, I don't know if you noticed but the person who died wasn't the child. The grandfather died after being accosted by the police.)

I suggest you use your google-fu and look at how widespread and socially acceptable exorcism of children is. Jews and Muslims don't have the monopoly on barbaric cultural and religious rituals performed on a child for its own "benefit", you know;)

Most exorcisms involve some pain being inflicted on the child to force the demon out. How is that so different to what Jews and Muslims do to their children during circumcision?

BTW, I hope the birth of your second son goes well for both him and his mother and his circumcision is as quick and as pain free as possible.

Ivor the Engineer

24th August 2007, 04:25 PM

Removal of the clitoris also fails society's test. Partly because the nature of the procedure is more physically damaging, and partly because the decision is far more coercive.

Rubbish! You just don't like the idea of girls being hurt in this way because you have a clitoris and can empathize, whereas you have no idea what sensations men have from their foreskins, thus you discount their loss.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abs/

Objective To examine the association between female genital cutting and frequency of sexual and gynaecological symptoms among a cohort of cut versus uncut women in Edo State of Nigeria.

Design Cross sectional study.

Setting Women attending family planning and antenatal clinics at three hospitals in Edo State, South–south Nigeria.

Population 1836 healthy premenopausal women.

Methods The sample included 1836 women. Information about type of female genital cutting was based on medical exams while a structured questionnaire was used to elicit information on the women's socio-demographic characteristics, their ages of first menstruation (menarche), first intercourse, marriage and pregnancy, sexual history and experiences of symptoms of reproductive tract infections. Associations between female genital cutting and these correlates of sexual and gynaecologic morbidity were analysed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox models.

Main outcome measures Frequency of self-reported orgasm achieved during sexual intercourse and symptoms of reproductive tract infections.

Results Forty-five percent were circumcised and 71% had type 1, while 24% had type 2 female genital cutting. No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in the frequency of reports of sexual intercourse in the preceding week or month, the frequency of reports of early arousal during intercourse and the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse. There was also no difference between cut and uncut women in their reported ages of menarche, first intercourse or first marriage in the multivariate models controlling for the effects of socio-economic factors. In contrast, cut women were 1.25 times more likely to get pregnant at a given age than uncut women. Uncut women were significantly more likely to report that the clitoris is the most sexually sensitive part of their body (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.26–0.47), while cut women were more likely to report that their breasts are their most sexually sensitive body parts (OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.51–2.42). Cut women were significantly more likely than uncut women to report having lower abdominal pain (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.11–2.14), yellow bad-smelling vaginal discharge (OR = 2.81, 95% CI = 1.54–5.09), white vaginal discharge (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.09–2.49) and genital ulcers (OR = 4.38, 95% CI = 1.13–17.00).

Conclusion Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings. However, female genital cutting may predispose women to adverse sexuality outcomes including early pregnancy and reproductive tract infections. Therefore, female genital cutting cannot be justified by arguments that suggest that it reduces sexual activity in women and prevents adverse outcomes of sexuality.

I bet if it was being performed by trained doctors in hygenic conditions then FGM could achieve a complication rate similar to male circumcision.

kellyb

24th August 2007, 04:31 PM

I bet if it was being performed by trained doctors in hygenic conditions then FGM could achieve a complication rate similar to male circumcision.

And tweeked over time to create or discover some obsure health benefit.

Koshy

24th August 2007, 06:51 PM

Let me be very clear that you have just wished physical pain and suffering on my unborn son - a boy who has done nothing to you and who is innocent in every regard.

I just want to understand that you believe that it would be just and fair if my mistaken beliefs about circumcision were rewarded with medical complications and anguish in a person who does not share my beliefs and who has never offended you in any way.

The way you think I should be punished is for someone who is not me to be injured.

Have I correctly encapsulated your views?

I am disgusted beyond my ability to express or your ability to comprehend. Whereas I undertake my actions because I believe them to be in my son's best interests, your hopes have nothing to do with his interests at all. They are punitive and pusillanimous. Wishing ill on an infant makes you perhaps the sickest, sorriest, stupidest individual whom I have ever had the unfortunate occassion to meet.

I was reading over this again and I couldnt help but come back to it.

Just and fair, you certainly seem to think so, according to your referencing the law so frequently. I think a great many things that happen are unjust, including your happy little tradition, my feelings of justice dont make much difference though. I think itd be an effective lesson, it was with me ;).

Yes indeed, a boy who is innocent in every regard, correct. And defenseless I might add.

Yes a boy who doesnt believe what you believe, yet youre forcing on him. Youve said before that he believes what you believe yes? Or something to that effect. Self refuting.

Also, you may be disgusted with my comment, likewise however, I am disgusted with your adherence to this practice, at least Im not taking a knife to him. Remembering also that if he does hate you, or if he does have complications, or worse, it will be your fault, not mine. If he does, the practice is more likely to stop with him, at least for any family he may have.

The wishing ill comment is funny to me.

As I said, no reasonable argument. Judaism is a fascinating religion, aside from the genital mutilation, but itl end, or be reduced to residual levels, eventually anyway I would expect. Needless torture.

And finally, I hope you swell with pride, as would be expected, upon gazing at his injured member. Hopefully he will put on a good show for the rest in attendance as well. Take heart that hes at least unlikely to develop complications.

Id explain my feelings further, but youre unlikely to listen, youre in a rationality based discussion with an irrational base to your belief.

Stimpson J. Cat

24th August 2007, 08:36 PM

fls,

The use of the qualifier "potentially dangerous" is probably redundant. Almost anything that can be done is potentially dangerous, so the issue is more appropriately a weighing of benefit and harm.
If it is redundant, that is only because all surgical procedures involve some degree of risk. As for the weighing of benefit and harm, that is really the point of the question. The question already specifies that the procedure is not medically necessary. The whole issue is whether or not it is ok for parents to have their child permanently surgically altered when such alteration is not medically needed.

It has not been established that circumcision does or does not "significantly" alter natural functions when performed in an infant.
This is, of course, complete nonsense. It is trivially obvious that circumcision significantly alters the natural functioning of the penis.

The WHO definition of "health", which guides physicians and other health-care providers when determining medical necessity, includes mental and social well-being.
Are you saying that it would be ok for doctors to brand babies at birth if that is what their parents insist their culture requires?

Anybody who answers this question with a "no" should be opposed to non-medically necessitated circumcision. If they are not opposed to it, then they either do not understand what circumcision actually does, or they contradicting themselves.
If by medical necessity you are only referring to physical well-being, then you need to persuade all involved that mental and social well-being are not an important component of health, I think.
Not in this sense, of course they are not. Permanently altering a healthy child's body for the sake of social conformity is not morally acceptable.

Apparently Loss Leader answers this question with a "yes". I regard this as an example of an extremely immoral position on his part. Apparently others here do as well. He clearly does not.
It is fairly clear to me that many people misunderstand his position. I suspect that it is the desire to find his position "extremely immoral" that prevents understanding.
I do not "desire" to find his position extremely immoral. I simply do. And I would wager that if he were insisting on his right to brand his child, rather than amputate part of his child's penis, that you would find it immoral as well.

Any discussion of to what degree sensitivity is lost, or whether the person will "know what they're missing", or how painful it is, is really not relevant to the issue. If you answer "no" to my above question, then none of these issues matter because it is still wrong even if it is totally painless and no loss of sensation occurs.
Then why did you include the qualifier "significantly alter the natural functions"?
Because those specific questions are not the issue. The issue is whether it is acceptable to permanently alter the body of a healthy child.

If your answer to my above question is "yes" then nothing more really needs to be said. You have already established that you think that parents should be allowed to harm their children. What more need be said?
Yes, it has been well-established, on this thread, that the fallacy of "begging the question" is considered a reasonable method of arguing against circumcision. I have no idea why, though.
How is this begging the question? If surgically removing a healthy, functional part of their body does not constitute harm, then what does it take?

Appeals to religious tradition are complete non-starters. If your religion said brand your baby on the ass with the star of David, doing so would land you in prison. But objectively speaking, that is far less dangerous than circumcision, and would have zero affect on how your body functions.
Branding is another traditional way of indicating commitment to a group. Since laws reflect culture, I doubt it would have been perceived as a criminal act as an established tradition. As far as I know, cultures that include branding or tattooing of children do not form laws against the activity.
Is it acceptable in our society? If you think that it should not be, then you are a hypocrite.

Loss Leader,

Your question contains the following assumptions:

1. Circumcision is potentially dangerous
This is not an assumption. It is a demonstrable fact which has been repeatedly pointed out in this thread.

2. Circumcision alters the natural functions of a baby's body
Again, not an assumption. I am circumcised. As a result my penis functions differently than it would if I were not. Masturbation is different. Sexual intercourse is different. Again, the issue of to what degree sensitivity is reduced, or whether I would ever know the difference, is utterly irrelevant. The bottom line is that it is different. The natural function has been altered.

3. Such alteration is significant
No assumption here either. The difference is significant for any reasonable definition of "significant".

4. medical necessity is the only valid reason to circumcise a child
That's not an assumption. That is what the question is asking. If you answer "no", then you are effectively answering that medical necessity would be the only valid reason to circumcise a child.

What you have done is carefully frame the question in such a way as to make your desired answer more reasonable.
There is nothing "careful" about it. It is a very simple, and very general question. Is it acceptable to surgically alter a healthy child's body? I say it is not, and cannot imagine how one could reasonably argue that it is.

It is logically identical to asking people in a political survey: "Do you believe the US should abandon the Iraqi people even if it means that the ensuing chaos will cause thousands of unnecessary deaths?"
It is nothing like that. My question did not even mention circumcision, for one thing. It is a very general question which should be very easy to answer. The only reason you do not like it is because you know that you cannot justify your answer.

Any yes or no answer has the effect of agreeing with your assumptions.
I did not make any assumptions.

I do not agree with your assumptions (except assumption 1 which is true of everything on earth from brain surgery to buttering toast).
Don't be ridiculous. Cutting off living tissue with lots of nerves and blood-vassals in it is always dangerous. To compare that to buttering toast is simply idiotic.

Either ask a question that makes no judgments or just admit that you are too biased to care about any position other than your own. I don't really care which you do.
I am biased against child abuse. That much I will admit. I just would like to know how you can possibly argue that circumcision is not child abuse without giving parents free reign to do all sorts of things to their children which you would consider to be abusive.

Be honest here. If somebody from some culture you never heard of was insisting that he should be able to brand his children (based on cultural tradition), would you support his right to do so? What about if he wanted to remove part of his daughter's clitoris? Or remove the right pinky toe of his child's foot?

Where exactly does it become abuse? What criteria do you use for deciding that even cultural tradition does not justify the procedure?

By the arguments you have been presenting, you should be able to do literally anything you want to your child, as long as you personally believe it to be in his best interest (whatever that means). Clearly at some point you have to acknowledge that your child has rights. You seem to be arguing that your child has no rights at all, and that instead you have all the rights pertaining to your child's well-being.

Dr. Stupid

Thabiguy

25th August 2007, 02:24 AM

fls

25th August 2007, 05:23 AM

If it is redundant, that is only because all surgical procedures involve some degree of risk.

I was referring to the trade-offs in all that we do as parents - from buttering the toast to sending our children to school. That you scoff at some of these suggestions I suspect makes my point - the examples are trivial because the weighing of benefit/harm is trivial (or assumed to be).

As for the weighing of benefit and harm, that is really the point of the question. The question already specifies that the procedure is not medically necessary. The whole issue is whether or not it is ok for parents to have their child permanently surgically altered when such alteration is not medically needed.

Yes, that is the question. We permanently alter our children in other ways without medical necessity (teaching them a language, piercing ears, braces), so it is clear that medical necessity alone is not the basis for our decisions. I think that part of the reason it has been proposed that medical necessity alone should be the basis for this decision is because we are used to associating surgical procedures with medical necessity. If physicians were removed from the equation, I think the discussion wouldn't focus on medical necessity, but rather the issues you bring up later about social conformity.

This is, of course, complete nonsense. It is trivially obvious that circumcision significantly alters the natural functioning of the penis.

Is it not also trivially obvious that circumcised men use their penis for the exact same things as non-circumcised men?

Are you saying that it would be ok for doctors to brand babies at birth if that is what their parents insist their culture requires?

Yes and no - meaning that there are several issues involved. Generally, physicans shouldn't and don't involve themselves (professionally) in cultural issues (the numerous exceptions aren't relevant to my point, I think). Historically, there are several reasons that physicians are involved in circumcision, but it represents an odd-man-out in the field of medicine. Similarly, branding would be an odd-man-out and one could say "no" for that reason. The "yes" is for whether or not it could be considered acceptable for parents to brand their child. I will elaborate on that later.

Not in this sense, of course they are not. Permanently altering a healthy child's body for the sake of social conformity is not morally acceptable.

But it must be very clear to you, that a vast number of people do not share this view. They see value for themselves and for their children in social conformity. And it is easy for us to be complacent about the issue when non-conformity does not affect our livelihood, but it may be a different situation for others.

I do not "desire" to find his position extremely immoral. I simply do.

Those two things are the same to me. This is how it appears. You have a sense that it is immoral, rather arriving at it through a chain of logical reasoning. Which is why it is easier for you to declare it immoral, rather than present a considered argument as to why it is immoral. I think this is what we all do, but your "I simply do" does not give some sort of absolute priority.

And I would wager that if he were insisting on his right to brand his child, rather than amputate part of his child's penis, that you would find it immoral as well.

I find both acts equally immoral, in the sense that I would not choose them for my children, and I would be moved to action against others, especially if the reasons for the act were trivial or without significance. In the case of circumcision, Loss Leader's reasons are obviously not trivial or without significance, but I suspect that is not the case for most parents in the US who are having their boys circumcised. This means that I attempt to persuade wherever I can make a difference. And I happen to think that name-calling is an ineffective means of persuasion in this circumstance. But I don't have proof that I'm right about that, and I'm willing to consider arguments to the contrary.

I also recognize that my sense of the relative importance of physical integrity is a product of my own personality and upbringing. Which means I should step lightly when judging others who are different. I think under most circumstances I would condemn him if he wanted to brand his child, but I can conceive of circumstances where I would consider it acceptable.

Because those specific questions are not the issue. The issue is whether it is acceptable to permanently alter the body of a healthy child.

And it should be clear by now that there is not an absolute answer to that issue?

How is this begging the question? If surgically removing a healthy, functional part of their body does not constitute harm, then what does it take?

This takes us back to the original question of weighing benefit/harm, rather than simply recognizing the presence of harm. When asking whether or not a weighing of benefit/harm can favour benefit, characterizing the act as harmful assumes that the weighing of benefit/harm favours harm. You are assuming the answer as part of your argument that the answer should be assumed.

Is it acceptable in our society? If you think that it should not be, then you are a hypocrite.

How so? I think that under most circumstances, both are unacceptable.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

25th August 2007, 06:57 AM

The wonderful irony in LL's and Linda's argument is that while accusing people such as myself as discriminating against religious and cultural groups, the reason for LL circumcising his son is so the majority in his community will not discriminate against a minority (of one).

I.e. Circumcision is an act performed out of fear of discrimination.

Most western societies have long decided that discrimination is wrong and an individual should not be penalized for say, being gay, or female, or non-white. Those individuals and groups that do discriminate against them can be prosecuted.

So how can Jewish people get away with discriminating against uncircumcised men, who wish to follow what amounts to a belief system, based on a almost entirely hidden physical attribute? Especially when the fundamental rules of the club have already been subverted or ignored. E.g., Jews marring non-Jews and stoning blasphemers.

Should hotels be able to have signs that say “No Gays”? Funnily enough there were some B&B owners in the UK complaining that the recent change in the law to stop them doing just this very thing. Can you guess what their excuse was?

Their religion!

Exactly the same argument could be used for offering to bleach black kids white and "cure" gay people.

So Linda’s “logic” is inconsistent.

Stimpson J. Cat

25th August 2007, 07:43 AM

fls,

Yes, that is the question. We permanently alter our children in other ways without medical necessity (teaching them a language, piercing ears, braces), so it is clear that medical necessity alone is not the basis for our decisions.
None of these are examples of causing physical damage to a healthy body.

That is what we are talking about here. Any way you cut it, circumcision involves inflicting injury on your child.

This is, of course, complete nonsense. It is trivially obvious that circumcision significantly alters the natural functioning of the penis.
Is it not also trivially obvious that circumcised men use their penis for the exact same things as non-circumcised men?
What does that have to do with it? I never said that they didn't. What I said is that the natural function is changed.

Are you saying that it would be ok for doctors to brand babies at birth if that is what their parents insist their culture requires?
Yes and no - meaning that there are several issues involved. Generally, physicans shouldn't and don't involve themselves (professionally) in cultural issues (the numerous exceptions aren't relevant to my point, I think). Historically, there are several reasons that physicians are involved in circumcision, but it represents an odd-man-out in the field of medicine. Similarly, branding would be an odd-man-out and one could say "no" for that reason. The "yes" is for whether or not it could be considered acceptable for parents to brand their child. I will elaborate on that later.
This completely evades the point. The point I am making is that the only reason that circumcision is considered OK, but other procedures which are both less risky and less harmful are not, is because it is a common practice which we are all used to.

Either it's ok for a parent to inflict injury on their child for the sake of cultural tradition, or it's not. Which is it?

Not in this sense, of course they are not. Permanently altering a healthy child's body for the sake of social conformity is not morally acceptable.
But it must be very clear to you, that a vast number of people do not share this view. They see value for themselves and for their children in social conformity.
Quite clear. Those people should answer "yes" to my question. I consider them to be immoral. That's pretty much all there is to it. A vast number of people think that it is ok to treat women as property, or to enslave people of what they consider to be "inferior" races, or to murder people who do not believe in their mythology. So what? I'm still going to stand up and say that I think that what they are doing is wrong.

And it is easy for us to be complacent about the issue when non-conformity does not affect our livelihood, but it may be a different situation for others.
I am not complacent about it. I just do not consider it to be justification for child abuse.

I do not "desire" to find his position extremely immoral. I simply do.
Those two things are the same to me. This is how it appears. You have a sense that it is immoral, rather arriving at it through a chain of logical reasoning. Which is why it is easier for you to declare it immoral, rather than present a considered argument as to why it is immoral. I think this is what we all do, but your "I simply do" does not give some sort of absolute priority.
I presented my chain of reasoning. I even did so in such a way as to make it clear that the only way you can logically avoid reaching the same conclusion I have, is to also consider it acceptable to do things which the vast majority of people who practice circumcision do not consider to be morally ok.

If you honestly think that it is generally ok to permanently injure your baby for the sake of cultural tradition, then we really have nothing further to discuss. Our values are simply too different for any sort of agreement to be possible. But if you don't think that this is generally ok, then we have something to discuss. Namely, why you think it is ok in this case, but not in others.

Because those specific questions are not the issue. The issue is whether it is acceptable to permanently alter the body of a healthy child.
And it should be clear by now that there is not an absolute answer to that issue?
Then the issue is what degree of harm is acceptable for the sake of cultural tradition. That's exactly why I brought up the branding issue. That is clearly a lesser degree of harm than circumcision, but most supporters of the right to circumcise would consider branding to be child abuse.

Just to be clear, I am not an "absolute morality" guy. I am not trying to argue that circumcision, or harming children, or anything else, is "objectively wrong". I was attempting to make two points:

1) That all of this discussion about what degree sensation is reduced, or whether the child will ever notice the difference, or how much it hurts, is completely missing the point.

2) That one cannot simultaneously insist that circumcision is OK, but that inflicting other types of injuries (of equal or lesser severity) for the sake of cultural tradition is not ok, without being hypocritical.

Either cultural tradition can justify the degree of injury involved in circumcision, or it cannot. Either way, the current status quo in the US and Europe is unnacceptable, because we are either allowing child abuse when we allow circumcision, or we are denying parent's rights to injure their children when we declare activities which are not-so-common cultural traditions to be child abuse.

The fact of the matter is that if a parent in america has his newborn child branded, he's going to be charged with a crime. And if he tries to claim as his defense that his cultural tradition requires it, that is not going to float.

More generally speaking, since cultural tradition is just a specific example of the parent placing a high enough value on something to justify injuring his child, the issue goes beyond that. Why limit it to cultural or religious tradition? Either the parent should be able to decide that their personal values justify inflicting this degree of injury on their child, or they should not. Why should we give special consideration the values that a parent uses to justify injuring their child, just because they are religiously or culturally motivated?

Dr. Stupid

Georg

25th August 2007, 09:10 AM

I would like to ask Loss Leader a question that I haven't seen asked in this thread and that I can't figure out the answer to.

My question to Loss Leader is this: if circumcision was illegal in your country, yet it was still recommended by your religious leaders, would you have your son circumcised or not?

Already answered:

The day my religious practices are deemed criminal is the day I join the revolution.

ETA: I´d see that as a "Yes."

Koshy

25th August 2007, 10:08 AM

Already answered:

ETA: I´d see that as a "Yes."

Ive already picketed the criminalization of virgin sacrifice, also feeding babies to hippos, slashing old people's tires, and reading in submarines. All part of my obscenely stupid religion.

fls

25th August 2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
None of these are examples of causing physical damage to a healthy body.

That is what we are talking about here. Any way you cut it, circumcision involves inflicting injury on your child.

They are all examples of permanent, physical alterations, like circumcision. The question (which you are again begging) is whether they constitute "damage".

What does that have to do with it? I never said that they didn't. What I said is that the natural function is changed.

What is the function of the penis? How is this function different in the circumcised man?

This completely evades the point. The point I am making is that the only reason that circumcision is considered OK, but other procedures which are both less risky and less harmful are not, is because it is a common practice which we are all used to.

I agree with that. I was sorta trying to divide the argument into its component parts in order to make that point (i.e. bringing up the issue of culture).

Either it's ok for a parent to inflict injury on their child for the sake of cultural tradition, or it's not. Which is it?

I recognize that there is a large grey area where there is variation in what someone would perceive as an "injury", or as a sufficient injury to warrant intervention. I trust that I can make this judgment for myself. I also trust that I can make this judgment for those I have under my care. But I do not trust that I can make this judgment for others.

Quite clear. Those people should answer "yes" to my question. I consider them to be immoral. That's pretty much all there is to it.

Yes, I understand that.

A vast number of people think that it is ok to treat women as property, or to enslave people of what they consider to be "inferior" races, or to murder people who do not believe in their mythology. So what? I'm still going to stand up and say that I think that what they are doing is wrong.

Those examples are different from what I am talking about, though. The only thing (at present) I consider an absolute is symmetry, and they could all fail on that basis (examples - role reversal, the veil of ignorance).

I am not complacent about it. I just do not consider it to be justification for child abuse.

Again, you are begging the question by calling it abuse. Under different circumstances, non-conformity may be life-threatening. Choosing non-conformity then could be arguably seen as abuse.

I presented my chain of reasoning. I even did so in such a way as to make it clear that the only way you can logically avoid reaching the same conclusion I have, is to also consider it acceptable to do things which the vast majority of people who practice circumcision do not consider to be morally ok.

You attempted to present a chain of reasoning, but my purpose in going through it point by point was to show where it was broken. I think the reason that you see your argument as compelling and I don’t (remember, I already agree with your contention that circumcision should not generally be performed), is that it appears you did not use the argument to come to the view that you hold, but that you constructed the argument to support a view that you already hold. Of course, this is arguably the source of all rationalizations.

If you honestly think that it is generally ok to permanently injure your baby for the sake of cultural tradition, then we really have nothing further to discuss. Our values are simply too different for any sort of agreement to be possible. But if you don't think that this is generally ok, then we have something to discuss. Namely, why you think it is ok in this case, but not in others.

As I have stated several times, I don’t think it is generally okay to permanently injure my baby. I also suspect most parents of circumcised boys would say the same, but because they do not have an identical perception of what is injurious. And I don’t trust that my judgment should be substituted for their judgment when it comes to their own interest.

Then the issue is what degree of harm is acceptable for the sake of cultural tradition. That's exactly why I brought up the branding issue. That is clearly a lesser degree of harm than circumcision, but most supporters of the right to circumcise would consider branding to be child abuse.

Yes, I think you would find consensus on whether branding was injurious among North American culture.

Just to be clear, I am not an "absolute morality" guy. I am not trying to argue that circumcision, or harming children, or anything else, is "objectively wrong". I was attempting to make two points:

1) That all of this discussion about what degree sensation is reduced, or whether the child will ever notice the difference, or how much it hurts, is completely missing the point.

I would agree with that in the sense that even if it makes no difference, that does not automatically make it okay.

2) That one cannot simultaneously insist that circumcision is OK, but that inflicting other types of injuries (of equal or lesser severity) for the sake of cultural tradition is not ok, without being hypocritical.

Assuming that you are talking about weighing the benefit of cultural tradition, I agree with that as well.

Either cultural tradition can justify the degree of injury involved in circumcision, or it cannot. Either way, the current status quo in the US and Europe is unnacceptable, because we are either allowing child abuse when we allow circumcision, or we are denying parent's rights to injure their children when we declare activities which are not-so-common cultural traditions to be child abuse.

The fact of the matter is that if a parent in america has his newborn child branded, he's going to be charged with a crime. And if he tries to claim as his defense that his cultural tradition requires it, that is not going to float.

I think one could argue that the value of the cultural tradition is much reduced when practiced outside of the culture (and that accounts for the imbalance). However, I agree that there is an imbalance on this issue that I think is based on what we are used to. Which is why (I think) this idea is also undergoing change – not toward finding more cultural traditions acceptable, but toward finding circumcision less acceptable.

More generally speaking, since cultural tradition is just a specific example of the parent placing a high enough value on something to justify injuring his child, the issue goes beyond that. Why limit it to cultural or religious tradition? Either the parent should be able to decide that their personal values justify inflicting this degree of injury on their child, or they should not. Why should we give special consideration the values that a parent uses to justify injuring their child, just because they are religiously or culturally motivated?

Dr. Stupid

It seems to me that the bulk (all?) of our values are religiously or culturally motivated. Rather than the exception, you may be referring to the rule.

Linda

Koshy

25th August 2007, 02:03 PM

It seems to me that the bulk (all?) of our values are religiously or culturally motivated. Rather than the exception, you may be referring to the rule.
Linda

So you would deny that there is a certain set of rights that every person should be guaranteed?

The fun thing about cultural subjectivism is that if its right, then your culture is wrong as are your reasonings(thus making your assertation that its right in fact wrong), if you assume all your morals are just based on whats pumped into you from your religion and surroundings then all cultures are right and the values of all of them are just as valid(invalid) as yours. Including things like institutionalized rape, abuse, genocides, whatever.

Some things simply are right. No person wants to be strapped down and have parts of them cut off for no reason, or someone elses perverted analysis of what protection is. In this day and age I would think that everyone could respect that another person is ANOTHER PERSON, with the same sense of self importance as you. There is no reason not to wait until the person can make the decision as an adult, other than wanting to just force it on them when theyre children and cant protect themselves.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 02:03 PM

This thread could be made into a TV movie, maybe for Lifetime(the Chick Channel), starring Sally Field.

Anyone? Anyone?

Koshy

25th August 2007, 02:26 PM

This thread could be made into a TV movie, maybe for Lifetime(the Chick Channel), starring Sally Field.

Anyone? Anyone?

So long as they show a bunch of shrieking babies with bloody penises Im all over it.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 02:28 PM

So long as they show a bunch of shrieking babies with bloody penises Im all over it.
I think you're more likely to be "all over" that To Catch a Predator show... :eek:

Koshy

25th August 2007, 02:35 PM

I think you're more likely to be "all over" that To Catch a Predator show... :eek:

Thats a funny comment, considering the institutionalized nature of infant circumcision in this country. Nothing wrong with a baby boy bleeding from his penis. Ask anyone.

fls

25th August 2007, 02:57 PM

So you would deny that there is a certain set of rights that every person should be guaranteed?

I'm suggesting that it is useful to recognize the origins of our ideas.

The fun thing about cultural subjectivism is that if its right, then your culture is wrong as are your reasonings(thus making your assertation that its right in fact wrong), if you assume all your morals are just based on whats pumped into you from your religion and surroundings then all cultures are right and the values of all of them are just as valid(invalid) as yours. Including things like institutionalized rape, abuse, genocides, whatever.

Even following the idea of variation in individual morals (based on whatever)institutionalized rape, abuse, genocides, whatever, can clearly be recognized as wrong because they violate the idea of protection of individual rights. I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by the fact that this very simple, very basic principle has had to be pointed out so many times in this thread already.

Some things simply are right. No person wants to be strapped down and have parts of them cut off for no reason, or someone elses perverted analysis of what protection is. In this day and age I would think that everyone could respect that another person is ANOTHER PERSON, with the same sense of self importance as you. There is no reason not to wait until the person can make the decision as an adult, other than wanting to just force it on them when theyre children and cant protect themselves.

Yes, you have made it clear that you are unwilling to consider any perspective but your own. Your attitude is why I consider the protection of the right of individuals to self-determination very important.

Linda

Koshy

25th August 2007, 03:26 PM

I'm suggesting that it is useful to recognize the origins of our ideas.

Even following the idea of variation in individual morals (based on whatever)institutionalized rape, abuse, genocides, whatever, can clearly be recognized as wrong because they violate the idea of protection of individual rights. I have to admit that I am dumbfounded by the fact that this very simple, very basic principle has had to be pointed out so many times in this thread already.

Yes, you have made it clear that you are unwilling to consider any perspective but your own. Your attitude is why I consider the protection of the right of individuals to self-determination very important.

Linda

You know Linda, I like you, but you never really seem to say much.

The origins of our ideas.... Ok, lets discuss the origin of our ideas. Can I stab you? Yes no? Why not? Where did that idea come from?

How does cutting off part of a baby's genitals not violate their rights? Does cutting off a finger? 2 fingers? 17 fingers? How much or what do you have to cut off for it to violate someones rights? And where does this idea originate?

I said, that if you believe that everything is subjective, then sure, youre right. However, that being said, if I say that you are wrong, I am right, because its all subjective. You have a self refuting argument, if everyone is right, noone is right.

I consider other people's perspectives. And I honestly have no idea what youre talking about with your self determination line. Self determination to what end? Ive self determined that I have no idea what youre going on about.
It seems like you just said the exact same thing I said, but put me down for saying it.

Darth Rotor

25th August 2007, 03:32 PM

Thats a funny comment, considering the institutionalized nature of infant circumcision in this country. Nothing wrong with a baby boy bleeding from his penis. Ask anyone.
Nothing wrong with a C-section either, ask anyone.

Not all C-sections are required, though some are. They are a routine procedure nonetheless. Some are elective. A slightly larger impact on a person in terms of the seriousness of surgery.

Do I get up in arms about people having C-sections electively? (As my sister in law did)

No.

Why?

Choice. Loss Leader's point about who is the medical authority for a child is dead on, since not all persons get their sons circumcised for religious reasons. Indeed, my son cannot have much of any medical procedure done on him, of any sort, without my consent. Wart removal? Needs my consent. Surgery on his wrist? Needs my consent. With the responsibility comes authority.

When making the decision, LL has a ritual to deal with, but he also has a simple Risk Management matrix to fill out, which includes a harm, likelihood of harm, and benefit, cost, and other factors to consider. Some data has been shown here that indicates later in life circ's may raise risk. That's a factor in the decision.

I have watched this argument run on now for some pages, and find that your emotional attachment to anti circumcision position irrational, not rational, yet you and others, to include the less foamy and a bit more rational Ivor, assert that circumcision is irrational. Irony seems to have arrived.

As a custom, it is has certainly grown from curious roots, but as a non Jew who, for whatever reason, had parents who listened to the medical advice of the time (late 1950's) and had all three of their sons circumcised -- Dad wasn't -- I can offer you evidence of my own that

Sex feels great
Function is all go
My penis works correctly
I have no memory whatever of pain, hell, I have no memory whatever of anything before I was one. My first waking memory, since I have been pondering memory in junior high, was between the ages of one and two on the bottom bunk bed in an apartment where I shared a room with my older brother. I mention this because twenty or so years ago, I was in a discussion with a woman who claimed that boys who are clipped remember the pain and are scarred for life by it.

Nope, not this data point.

My penis has been a feel good center for me since my first erection

If there is some slight decrease in sensitivity I'd never know. I do know how wonderful the sensations are, and thank you, they are just fine.

I find that if you stick your nose into someone else's business, you'll rarely see them respond as politely to you as LL did.

For that, his polite responses to you, you mixed in your manufactured sense of outrage and offered him a vile insult, virtually a curse, upon his yet to be born son.

The game is over, and you are the loser.

Do you kiss your mom with that mouth?

DR

Koshy

25th August 2007, 03:37 PM

Nothing wrong with a C-section either, ask anyone.

Not all C-sections are required, though some are. They are a routine procedure nonetheless. Some are elective. A slightly larger impact on a person in terms of the seriousness of surgery.

Do I get up in arms about people having C-sections electively? (As my sister in law did)

No.

Why?

Choice. Loss Leader's point about who is the medical authority for a child is dead on, since not all persons get their sons circumcised for religious reasons. Indeed, my son cannot have much of any medical procedure done on him, of any sort, without my consent. Wart removal? Needs my consent. Surgery on his wrist? Needs my consent. With the responsibility comes authority.

When making the decision, LL has a ritual to deal with, but he also has a simple Risk Management matrix to fill out, which includes a harm, likelihood of harm, and benefit, cost, and other factors to consider. Some data has been shown here that indicates later in life circ's may raise risk. That's a factor in the decision.

I have watched this argument run on now for some pages, and find that your emotional attachment to anti circumcision position irrational, not rational, yet you and others, to include the less foamy and a bit more rational Ivor, assert that circumcision is irrational. Irony seems to have arrived.

As a custom, it is has certainly grown from curious roots, but as a non Jew who, for whatever reason, had parents who listened to the medical advice of the time (late 1950's) and had all three of their sons circumcised -- Dad wasn't -- I can offer you evidence of my own that

Sex feels great
Function is all go

[...] Life is good, women like my penis, blah blah blah [...]

DR

Edit in italics.

Thanks for your inaccurate example and anecdote, Ill file that right in my garbage can.

Darth Rotor

25th August 2007, 03:44 PM

Thanks for your inaccurate example and anecdote, Ill file that right in my garbage can.
The anecdote is very accurate, due to the proximity and first hand observation. :cool:

I am sure that the elements of my post that you file will be in good company with your manners.

Absent your emotional rot, there was a lot of excellent discussion in this thread. Kudos to all.

DR

Koshy

25th August 2007, 03:53 PM

The anecdote is very accurate, due to the proximity and first hand observation. :cool:

I am sure that the elements of my post that you file will be in good company with your manners.

Absent your emotional rot, there was a lot of excellent discussion in this thread. Kudos to all.

DR

An anecdote is inaccurate by its very nature Im afraid.

The elements of your post (the entire thing) will go right next to all the other nonsense produced I have to deal with.

By the way, inability for you to form a rational argument in support of circumcision is no evidence of emotional involvement on my part. Every one of the pro camp cries emotional involvement in lieu of any really substantive argument.

Darth Rotor

25th August 2007, 04:08 PM

An anecdote is inaccurate by its very nature Im afraid.
Sorry, it's accuracy is not in question. Its applicability to the general may be.

It has far more going for it than your rwords, in that is has something of substance: evidence. Granted, it is a single datum, but it is a datum, not a load of emotive bollocks, hot air, and assumption.
The elements of your post (the entire thing) will go right next to all the other nonsense produced I have to deal with.
You don't have to deal with it.
By the way, inability for you to form a rational argument in support of circumcision is no evidence of emotional involvement on my part. Every one of the pro camp cries emotional involvement in lieu of any really substantive argument.
I am not offering an argument, nor have I time to waste on one. Forty three pages of this thread suffice for that. :) I don't need your opinion to make a decision. My intent was to agree with LL about elective medical procedures, since he is correct on that, to poke you since you are being a prick, and to offer a datum, rather than what you offer, which is bile and hot air. If you have a son, and choose to leave him with a turtle neck, good on ya. It's your choice.

Cheers

DR

Koshy

25th August 2007, 04:14 PM

Sorry, it's accuracy is not inquestion. Its applicability to the general may be.

It has far more going for it than your rubbish. It has something good going for it: evidence. Granted, it is a single datum, but it is a datum, not a load of emotive bollocks, hot air, and assumption.

You don't have to deal with it.

I am not offering an argument, nor have I time to waste on one. I don't need your opinion to make a decision. My intent was to agree with LL about elective medical procedures, since he is correct on that, to poke you since you are being a prick, and to offer a datum, rather than what you offer, which is bile and hot air. If you have a son, and choose to leave him with a turtle neck, good on ya. It's your choice.

Cheers

DR

Yes, your story clearly wasnt meant to apply in blanket fashion to all circumcised men. You just came it to say that you were very happy with it, and heavily imply that everyone else is, via your sexcapade nonsense.

The point is that its not my choice. It is my choice to have him vaccinated, or to feed him bananas, not to cut off part of his penis to make it conform to my ideals of beauty, since the medical argument has been flattened.

You fly into the topic, dont really contribute anything other than your fun little anecdote, are clearly emotionally embroiled yourself, since youre lacking your "turtle neck" as you like to call it, and call all my reasonings emotive bollocks.

About me being a prick, Im not here to impress you Mr.Rotor. Find me offensive, find me wonderful, its no skin off my nose (other areas maybe), the issue still exists.

Youre not making an argument, youre just here to press buttons and be a nuisance, as you said yourself. And no, I dont have to deal with it, I can just go become uncircumcised anytime I want.... ohh wait. Good point, thanks.

fls

25th August 2007, 04:43 PM

You know Linda, I like you, but you never really seem to say much.

I find it difficult to translate the way that I think (spatial rather than verbal) into language. I continue to make the attempt, however. Believe me, it frustrates me more than you. ;)

The origins of our ideas.... Ok, lets discuss the origin of our ideas. Can I stab you? Yes no? Why not? Where did that idea come from?

It depends. You may stab me in preparation for the removal of my inflamed appendix, but not just to hurt me. You seem to be indicating it is up to me to decide? I think that idea originated most strongly with The Enlightenment (but I am by no means an expert).

How does cutting off part of a baby's genitals not violate their rights?

When it is done with their consent.

Does cutting off a finger? 2 fingers? 17 fingers? How much or what do you have to cut off for it to violate someones rights? And where does this idea originate?

Rather than a specific number, I think it depends upon the source of the decision. Again this seems to be part of the ideas promoted through liberalism during The Enlightenment and beyond.

I said, that if you believe that everything is subjective, then sure, youre right. However, that being said, if I say that you are wrong, I am right, because its all subjective. You have a self refuting argument, if everyone is right, noone is right.

Yes, it precludes the assumption of an absolute.

I consider other people's perspectives. And I honestly have no idea what youre talking about with your self determination line. Self determination to what end? Ive self determined that I have no idea what youre going on about.
It seems like you just said the exact same thing I said, but put me down for saying it.

Self-determination in the sense of "determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion".

I did say the same thing as you. I simply confined the application to myself.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

25th August 2007, 04:49 PM

What is the function of the penis? How is this function different in the circumcised man?

What is the function of the vagina? How is this function different in a circumcised woman?

Those examples are different from what I am talking about, though. The only thing (at present) I consider an absolute is symmetry, and they could all fail on that basis (examples - role reversal, the veil of ignorance).

Great minds must (sometimes) think alike then. That’s the conclusion I’ve come to, too. All you can achieve as far as ethics is concerned is to be consistent.

ETA: So instead of condemning FGM, you should be trying to promote safer and less invasive practice of it, otherwise you're just imposing your will on the cultures that think it's important.

Koshy

25th August 2007, 04:55 PM

It depends. You may stab me in preparation for the removal of my inflamed appendix, but not just to hurt me. You seem to be indicating it is up to me to decide? I think that idea originated most strongly with The Enlightenment (but I am by no means an expert).

When it is done with their consent.

Yes, it precludes the assumption of an absolute.

Self-determination in the sense of "determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion".

I did say the same thing as you. I simply confined the application to myself.

Linda

Lets say Im stabbing you because I think the scar will look cute.

I think people had feelings about being stabbed pre-enlightenment.

Babies cant consent.

Please explain, precludes the assumption of the absolute?

Self determination is violated in infant genital mutilation. I dont understand how you can confine it to yourself. Only you have the right to determine what happens to you? Again, this sounds like the "good so long as its not to me" ideology.

I apologize for my responses to you, Im not quite understanding what youre saying completely.

JanisChambers

25th August 2007, 05:00 PM

Would you also support adults being free to having limbs chopped off ? This situation (a man requesting that his arm be removed, even though there was nothing wrong with the arm) happened fairly recently in this country (UK), and, as far as I remember, the request was refused.

In any case, do you think that such an adult who requests that he be circumcised could be deemed a rational thinker ?

If someone wanted to cut off one of their limbs or even add one, it really has nothing to do with me, a very moot point IMO. As long as it doesn't effect others I think people should have the freedom to do whatever they want, and may I repeat *As long as it doesn't effect others*

JanisChambers

25th August 2007, 05:06 PM

fls

25th August 2007, 06:03 PM

Lets say Im stabbing you because I think the scar will look cute.

The example seems unchanged - it still doesn't depend upon what you think.

I think people had feelings about being stabbed pre-enlightenment.

I think so too, however that isn't what I said. I was referring to the idea of who has authority over decisions. And I did not mean to imply that no one had these ideas before.

Babies cant consent.

What is your solution?

Please explain, precludes the assumption of the absolute?

If you recognize the subjective nature of judgments, it means that there isn't an absolute standard against which right and wrong can be measured.

Self determination is violated in infant genital mutilation.

Who should have primary responsibility for an infant's interests?

I dont understand how you can confine it to yourself.

I don't want someone else to overrule what I think is best for me or my child without good reason*.

Only you have the right to determine what happens to you? Again, this sounds like the "good so long as its not to me" ideology.

I think that should apply to everyone and that you are not responsible for my son's interests.

Linda

*Can be re-iterated if necessary.

fls

25th August 2007, 06:07 PM

I have a great idea! Why don't we just making a study of if this really is a useful procedure or not, also keeping in mind current standards of medical knowledge and sanitation. If it really is dangerous for us to keep our foreskin then fine, let's just get to the proof of or proof against. If it turns out to be a merely cosmetic thing and has no medical basis, then a child should not be subjected to it (it's almost equivalent to giving your baby a "Prince Charels")

I don't think that there is much medical controversy over this, though. So I'm not sure a study of the necessary size and length would be useful.

What's a "Prince Charels (Charles?)"?

Linda

BlackKat

25th August 2007, 06:13 PM

I have a great idea! Why don't we just making a study of if this really is a useful procedure or not, also keeping in mind current standards of medical knowledge and sanitation. If it really is dangerous for us to keep our foreskin then fine, let's just get to the proof of or proof against. If it turns out to be a merely cosmetic thing and has no medical basis, then a child should not be subjected to it (it's almost equivalent to giving your baby a "Prince Charels")

I believe you meant to say Prince Albert.

Such studies have been done. Read the whole thread.

Medical reasons are only a small part of the picture though. Culture is more of a factor. Again, read the whole thread. Try to keep the thread from just running in circles if you can.

Koshy

25th August 2007, 09:21 PM

1.The example seems unchanged - it still doesn't depend upon what you think.

2.I think so too, however that isn't what I said. I was referring to the idea of who has authority over decisions. And I did not mean to imply that no one had these ideas before.

3.What is your solution?

4.If you recognize the subjective nature of judgments, it means that there isn't an absolute standard against which right and wrong can be measured.

5.Who should have primary responsibility for an infant's interests?

6.I don't want someone else to overrule what I think is best for me or my child without good reason*.

7.I think that should apply to everyone and that you are not responsible for my son's interests.

Linda

*Can be re-iterated if necessary.

1. Ok, so I can stab you, and you wouldnt care. Good.

2. Authority over decisions = origin of ideals?

3. Not cutting parts off your baby's genitals? Edit: let me put this in here, because I know common sense has went out the window. WITHOUT MEDICAL INDICATION. Now noone can say "What about medical indication?"

4. No, but there is a set of rights, seeing as we live in a some sort of society which has a set of rules.

5. The parent should have primary interest over the child yes. Why do you want that to extend to permanent modifications to genitals for no benefit that cant be gained by doing the procedure later, other than the supposed UTI benefit. Should I, being the parent, be able to tattoo my baby? Or do some other branding action? Why is circumcision different? Why can I cut his penis, but not her clitoris?

6. Without good reason... Give me a good reason. Also, you sub divided this response for no discernible reason. Id say violating a baby's right to bodily integrity is a good reason, a baby IS a person. Let me branch for a moment, I disagree with docking dog's ears, but its a dog, it is effectively property, is a human property in the same way?

7. You think it should apply to everyone, with the exclusion of infants, gotcha. Infants not being a part of everyone.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 09:26 PM

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 09:31 PM

BTW, the correct answer to the earlier trivia question was "Not Without My Foreskin"...

Koshy

25th August 2007, 09:32 PM

kellyb

25th August 2007, 10:27 PM

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 10:30 PM

Oh come on, Joe. You know Darat, the admin of this forum, is one of the "anti-circumcision" crowd, too.

It's a human rights issue to many people.

Just because you disagree doesn't make it woo.It has very little to do with whether or not I disagree, and mostly to do with the way they frame the issue. Hell, they could even be right. But, from where I'm sitting, they would be "right for the wrong reasons", if you can dig it.

Koshy

25th August 2007, 10:33 PM

It has very little to do with whether or not I disagree, and mostly to do with the way they frame the issue. Hell, they could even be right. But, from where I'm sitting, they would be "right for the wrong reasons", if you can dig it.

Which of course you wont elaborate on.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 10:37 PM

Which of course you wont elaborate on.

Which part would you like me to elaborate on?

Koshy

25th August 2007, 10:42 PM

Which part would you like me to elaborate on?

Well, how exactly is the argument against illogical, dishonest, etc?

Also explain what you mean by right for the wrong reasons.

I understand people's attitudes regarding traditional practices and the like, however I absolutely cannot see how its possible that the opinion exists that circumcision is ok, but doing anything to your daughter is bad.

Why is protection extended to females and not males, taking into consideration the benefits and detriments of both male and female genital mutilation.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 10:56 PM

Well, how exactly is the argument against illogical, dishonest, etc?

Also explain what you mean by right for the wrong reasons.

I understand people's attitudes regarding traditional practices and the like, however I absolutely cannot see how its possible that the opinion exists that circumcision is ok, but doing anything to your daughter is bad.

Why is protection extended to females and not males, taking into consideration the benefits and detriments of both male and female genital mutilation.Let's take your post as an example, shall we? First off, the phrase "genital mutilation" eliminates any possibility of rational discussion with you. Once you've got your heart set on that, no evidence can sway you, no reasoning can temper your view. You have predetermined that anyone who disagrees with you is promoting child abuse. So, what else is there to discuss logically, when you've defined the debate in such a way that no one can disagree with you without you seeing them as a monster?

Secondly, equating circumcision, which is a generally accepted medical procedure, with "anything to your daughter", also seems rather illogical, and also designed to frame the debate in such a way that no argument will ever be acceptable to you. Also, comparing a medical procedure to someone cutting a girl's clitoris out with a piece of glass is 100%, blatantly, ruthlessly dishonest. I assume you don't mean "clitoral hood removal", which actually can IMPROVE sexual response in women?

Third, you assume a cultural bias in everyone, even if they have none. I, for instance, have nothing much that could be described as a specific "culture" that would give me a position for or against circumcision. I have no tradition to look to, in order to judge the situation.

Fourth, you seem willing to give lip service to the idea of "benefits and detriments", but it seems rather dishonest when, in the same sentence, you use the phrase "genital mutilation."

And, the phrase "right for the wrong reasons" means that the position is based on emotionalism and illogical processes, and is only correct accidentally. For instance, you could correctly "predict" the next presidential election based on astrology or numerology or a coin toss, and have the "why" of it completely wrong.

Lithrael

25th August 2007, 11:09 PM

Clearly, we can add the anti-circumcision crowd to the list that includes creationists, 9-11 and JFK conspiracy theorists, anti-global warming kooks, the probed-by-E.T. folks, and all the other fringe believers in various and sundry nonsense. The illogic, dishonesty, resistance to evidence, additional dishonesty, and blatant obsession all point to the same "scratch" on their mental DVD.
Just because it's the sort of issue that inspires some of the people arguing about it to get emotional doesn't mean it's a nonissue if you're not plumb crazy.

I know it's just another anecdote, but as a small woman (5'2 and petite), I personally have trouble with painful intercourse and minor UTIs when I have sex with circumcized men, no matter how gentle they are or how much lubrication is used. I don't have any problems when I have sex with uncircumcized men, because there's much less friction against the areas that get irritated. I know I'm part of a small minority (heh) but weighed against the benefits of circumcision, this is a pretty huge negative mark. It's frustrating enough that I never want to have kids, because I don't want to pass down this stupid little pelvis, that makes it impossible to simply enjoy vanilla sex with my sweetheart. There's been entire years where we just did without because it wasn't worth it. Thank goodness I'm good with my mouth. :p

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 11:14 PM

Just because it's the sort of issue that inspires some of the people arguing about it to get emotional doesn't mean it's a nonissue if you're not plumb crazy.

I know it's just another anecdote, but as a small woman (5'2 and petite), I personally have trouble with painful intercourse and minor UTIs when I have sex with circumcized men, no matter how gentle they are or how much lubrication is used. I don't have any problems when I have sex with uncircumcized men, because there's much less friction against the areas that get irritated. I know I'm part of a small minority (heh) but weighed against the benefits of circumcision, this is a pretty huge negative mark. It's frustrating enough that I never want to have kids, because I don't want to pass down this stupid little pelvis, that makes it impossible to simply enjoy vanilla sex with my sweetheart. There's been entire years where we just did without because it wasn't worth it. Thank goodness I'm good with my mouth. :pWAY, WAY too much information!

ETA: That problem is with your anatomy, not the guy's anatomy. And, which one of you swings the flogger?

Koshy

25th August 2007, 11:15 PM

Let's take your post as an example, shall we? First off, the phrase "genital mutilation" eliminates any possibility of rational discussion with you. Once you've got your heart set on that, no evidence can sway you, no reasoning can temper your view. You have predetermined that anyone who disagrees with you is promoting child abuse. So, what else is there to discuss logically, when you've defined the debate in such a way that no one can disagree with you without you seeing them as a monster?

Secondly, equating circumcision, which is a generally accepted medical procedure, with "anything to your daughter", also seems rather illogical, and also designed to frame the debate in such a way that no argument will ever be acceptable to you. Also, comparing a medical procedure to someone cutting a girl's clitoris out with a piece of glass is 100%, blatantly, ruthlessly dishonest. I assume you don't mean "clitoral hood removal", which actually can IMPROVE sexual response in women?

Third, you assume a cultural bias in everyone, even if they have none. I, for instance, have nothing much that could be described as a specific "culture" that would give me a position for or against circumcision. I have no tradition to look to, in order to judge the situation.

Fourth, you seem willing to give lip service to the idea of "benefits and detriments", but it seems rather dishonest when, in the same sentence, you use the phrase "genital mutilation."

And, the phrase "right for the wrong reasons" means that the position is based on emotionalism and illogical processes, and is only correct accidentally. For instance, you could correctly "predict" the next presidential election based on astrology or numerology or a coin toss, and have the "why" of it completely wrong.

Substitute the word mutilation for genital cutting, so that were more politically correct.

There are benefits to genital cutting, both for males and females.

Also, for female genital cutting lets assume its done in a hospital with a trained and professional doctor, instead of your emotionally charged assumption of broken glass. Lets consider the male circumcisions conducted with a piece of broken glass too, working under your model.

Was there not a study describing the foreskin as the most sensitive portion of the penis? The vagina is still perfectly able to function missing a clitoris, labia, or number of other things. Function including orgasm.

And no, Ive not predetermined that anyone who disagrees is immediately wrong. I, along with pretty much everyone in the thread, has said that medically indicated circumcision is fine. So, provided that you gave a scenario involving the occurrence of something that would medically indicate circumcision I would most likely agree with you, save that the argument doesnt involve the medical necessity of fitting in in the locker room.

Clitoral hood removal, do you then consider it ethical because it improves sexual relations, working under the assumption that it does?

Ive not predetermined that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, Im still waiting on an argument thats based on something meaningful, and no, I dont consider social conformity or the marginal benefits granted to be meaningful. Give me something outside of that that validates the practice, and Ill be nice and quiet, I do think youle have a hard time producing something decent however.

To cover the HIV issue before you say something about it, as has been said previously by others in this thread, it would be ethically irresponsible to consider genital cutting on females to reduce HIV. Also, my view on the matter, if you do something enough, regardless of risk, eventually youre going to encounter the statistically reduced element. Like increasing the number of barrels in a revolver from 6 to 12, still one bullet, but perhaps you have to try a few more times to find it.

Ill wait to see if the suggestion of circumcision in Africa is taken seriously/implemented and if it has the effect that its supposed to. Till then, I await, happily receptive of any argument based on reality, that justifies the practice of genital cutting on infants.

Koshy

25th August 2007, 11:18 PM

WAY, WAY too much information!

ETA: That problem is with your anatomy, not the guy's anatomy. And, which one of you swings the flogger?

God forbid someone disagree with you and presents a little anecdote just like you did.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 11:22 PM

Koshy

25th August 2007, 11:22 PM

Just because it's the sort of issue that inspires some of the people arguing about it to get emotional doesn't mean it's a nonissue if you're not plumb crazy.

I know it's just another anecdote, but as a small woman (5'2 and petite), I personally have trouble with painful intercourse and minor UTIs when I have sex with circumcized men, no matter how gentle they are or how much lubrication is used. I don't have any problems when I have sex with uncircumcized men, because there's much less friction against the areas that get irritated. I know I'm part of a small minority (heh) but weighed against the benefits of circumcision, this is a pretty huge negative mark. It's frustrating enough that I never want to have kids, because I don't want to pass down this stupid little pelvis, that makes it impossible to simply enjoy vanilla sex with my sweetheart. There's been entire years where we just did without because it wasn't worth it. Thank goodness I'm good with my mouth. :p

Based on my reading, as well as personal experience, via talking to women whove had both, Ive heard the same thing a number of times.

Dont mind the prudish attitude, your description was pretty clean in fact.

Lithrael

25th August 2007, 11:26 PM

WAY, WAY too much information!

ETA: That problem is with your anatomy, not the guy's anatomy. And, which one of you swings the flogger?

Oh, I agree the problem is with my anatomy, but it would not be a problem if he was uncircumcised. That's the whole point. Thanks for your sympathy, by the way.

JoeEllison

25th August 2007, 11:29 PM

Oh, I agree the problem is with my anatomy, but it would not be a problem if he was uncircumcised. That's the whole point. Thanks for your sympathy, by the way.Sorry, I don't do online sympathy very well. I do :grouphug5 and :cheerleader5 pretty well, though.

The point I was making is that your anatomy wouldn't make a penis enlargement into a form of "mutilation" either... cripes, I hate to discuss your genitals this way. I'm not your doctor! :p

Koshy

25th August 2007, 11:34 PM

*yawn*

More of the same rehash that you've been posting since the beginning. Heck, if these great minds can't sway you, I doubt I can. All I can do is note the phenomenon, and move on. Because, really, the ridiculousness of your posts points to an unflappable position.

Before I go, let's look at something fairly silly in that last post of yours:

Clearly, the implication you are making is that the penis is somehow not able to function perfectly without a foreskin, "function including orgasm". Several thousand years of Jewish men impregnating their wives pretty much negates that idea, as well as the idea that uncircumcised men are somehow automatically "mutilated".

Here's a crazy idea for you, just as a "what the hell". Check on adult circumcision, and see how many of those men feel "mutilated" afterwards, or have lost some pleasure or sensation. Really, it is the best way for you to prove your case.

Check out your idea and tell me why a man circumcised at birth cant comment on loss of sensation.

The penis can function, the penis can function with the glans cut off, the penis can function in all arrays of impaired state. Your comment is unconvincing. There have been several studies of men circumcised as adults, the majority report reduced pleasure but increased satisfaction as I understand it.

As for feeling mutilated, find me a study of the number of people who even know what circumcision actually is, cause Ive encountered a fair number that dont really have a clue. Never have I or anyone else said that circumcised penises couldnt impregnate someone. Thats not the argument though now is it. Function is reduced.

Tell me how my posts are ridiculous. Ive remained pretty cool in the majority of them, aside from having a tendency to use what is I guess colorful language, while you prefer more politically correct content.

Please dodge the female question some more. It makes you appear educated. Is it ethical to genitally cut females? Would hood removal be ethical because it supposedly increases pleasure?

Likewise, I can say youre unflappable and pointless to talk with as well, like I just did.

Eta: I dont expect a response.