German court bans circumcision of young boys

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

So I just clicked on the tag and noticed that there are a number of threads on this forum on this issue!

Religion aside, as an atheist with a wife of basically no fixed religion, and as a circumcised man who just this spring had both of his baby boys circumcised (incidentally, I sat in on the procedure for both of the little guys)... can someone outline the essential problem to me? One of the deciding factors for me was that if they just get it done now, it's over and won't be an issue.

On the other side, I'm starting to get worried that as they grow up into the world people are going to start going around, making it an issue! We ran into a guy putting on a one-man show about his penis and circumcision. What was clear to us? He had bigger issues than his circumcision...

Here is why it is an issue.

Would you, as a grown man , let anyone else make a decision about what you do with your penis? If the answer is yes, you need to realize you just made this choice for your children when they are adults. As an adult they will not get to make the decision of whether they would like part of their penis removed. Seeing as that part is a part of their body, it is a decision that should be theirs.

Maybe they would want the procedure, maybe they wouldn't, but you just removed that choice for them. Your not just making a choice for your child, your taking away an important choice from them as an adult.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

One of the deciding factors for me was that if they just get it done now, it's over and won't be an issue.

This just boggles my mind. What issue? What evidence were you considering as regards problems you thought this surgery might be needed to prevent?

You do realise that America is very very unusual among developed nations in having a lot of people who circumcise their sons for non-religious reasons? You have ample control populations to look at to see what the consequences of not doing it are. Britain - actually Europe in general, Australia, I suspect Canada, and I'm not really well up in this but I think lots of places.

What are the consequences of not carrying out routine infant circumcision? Why, none at all, as it happens. You might find the occasional individual with a problem that needs that particular surgery to solve, but we don't normally perform surgery on all babies just because a tiny minority might develop a problem in later life. As someone else said, we'd be taking out tonsils, and appendices, and even teeth. Maybe we should pull all their toenails out too, just in case someone might develop an ingrowning toenail in later life!

It's a simple verifiable fact that the vast majority of men who are not circumcised never develop "an issue" with this. While I appreciate you took what you believed to be the right decision at the time, I'm simply gobsmacked that any father would do such a thing to his son for what is in effect no reason.

Rolfe.

[Megalodon]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

...speaking as one of two parents who spent a lot of time thinking and grappling with the decision, I have to say that I somewhat resent being compared to an abuser.

No need for a comparison, you are an abuser. You compromised your children's physical integrity because it was done to you.

You researched the issue, and somehow came down to the conclusion that it would be better to amputate an important part of your kids' penises... For **** sake, you can't even claim ignorance...

Here's hoping there's no other abuse you want to pass down the family line...

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

In summary:

• no benefits
• some risks, complications including hemorrhage and infection; rarely death
• long term problems including sexual dysfunction

Exactly, plus the ethics of performing such a procedure on someone who is unable to consent.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

(incidentally, I sat in on the procedure for both of the little guys)... ...

Originally Posted by rustypouch

Exactly, plus the ethics of performing such a procedure on someone who is unable to consent.

Hey, he personally watched it done so it's all OK.

[Rolfe]

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Has any normal healthy baby ever died because he wasn't circumcised? No. We know that normal healthy babies have died as a direct consequence of the operation.
Has any adult man ever bitterly blamed his parents for not having him circumcised? If anyone has, I've yet to hear about it. We know there are many men who bitterly resent that they were mutilated in infancy.
What percentage of intact men later suffer medical problems that would have been prevented (I mean prevented, not just marginally reduced in frequency) by circumcision? Damn few, and for those that do, the operation is still available to treat them.

I would have thought that would have settled it. Woolly thinking about "just get it over with" as if it's something that would probably have to be done later in any case is absolutely jawdropping. "Be like Dad" is, too. I suppose explaining to son that Dad's parents lived in a different age and thought they were doing the right thing, but now we know there's no reason to mutilate baby boys so be glad you're intact, it too hard for some people?

I don't know why we aren't pulling out all babies' toenails while we're at it. Better get it over now and ingrowing toenails won't be an issue later on. And even better, he won't have to take the trouble to trim his toenails.

Rolfe.

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Has any normal healthy baby ever died because he wasn't circumcised? No. We know that normal healthy babies have died as a direct consequence of the operation.
Has any adult man ever bitterly blamed his parents for not having him circumcised? If anyone has, I've yet to hear about it. We know there are many men who bitterly resent that they were mutilated in infancy.
What percentage of intact men later suffer medical problems that would have been prevented (I mean prevented, not just marginally reduced in frequency) by circumcision? Damn few, and for those that do, the operation is still available to treat them.

I would have thought that would have settled it. Woolly thinking about "just get it over with" as if it's something that would probably have to be done later in any case is absolutely jawdropping. "Be like Dad" is, too. I suppose explaining to son that Dad's parents lived in a different age and thought they were doing the right thing, but now we know there's no reason to mutilate baby boys so be glad you're intact, it too hard for some people?

I don't know why we aren't pulling out all babies' toenails while we're at it. Better get it over now and ingrowing toenails won't be an issue later on. And even better, he won't have to take the trouble to trim his toenails.

Rolfe.

See i'll criticism his actions till the cows come home, a harmful action is a harmful action, and as such, as an example, should be criticized just as much as any other example.

What i won't do is attack the guy specifically about it. If it was something he could change, yeah, i would probably jump on the train some of the other posters are on, and insinuate he is abusive. But that level of being a knob about something should be reserved for situations in which something can be changed.

As it stands, it is nothing more than a fine example of how **** like this gets perpetuated. "Its just what gets done." , " My dad had it so so do i." , etc. It is an absolutely silly way to view body modification, and it shows how even one who is a fan of critical thinking an inquiry, can make a rather large mistake simply though wanting to "Go with the flow.".

[sadhatter]

Originally Posted by tsig

Hey, he personally watched it done so it's all OK.

I actually hear this a lot from parents. "But i stood by the whole time." as if via being there, they were somehow either mitigating the effects or suffering of the child, or physically feeling the pain ( sorry parents, you don't. This might sound nice on a get well card, but your not.) so they were not doing anything they wouldn't do themselves.

This would only convince me if the father was uncircumcised at the time, and chose to get one at the same time as the child. Even then, it wouldn't make it right, nor make the morality of the action any better, but at least then the whole implied "I went through just as much pain as they did." would have some weight behind it.

[Jimbo07]

I'm Canadian. I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary." Today in Canada it stands at being applied just under 50%. Overall, this may show a decrease, but still occurs in a significant portion of the population. These stats are from two M.D.s: our doctor and the performing doctor. A quick google search turns up some widely varying stats (and some from dubious sites).

The level of invective in this thread suggests to me that this isn't simply an academic discussion of human rights and the integrity of the person. It almost seems like a European/North American culture clash. Add in the mix the religious background and it's potentially explosive!

That's what I was interested in. I should have been more clear. I wasn't concerned about the academic arguments... I was curious about the passion!

[Rolfe]

I didn't know about Canada.

I'm a vet. We have to think about how to justify surgical mutilations we carry out on animals. We look at the harm, and there is always harm even if it's only an ear tag we're putting in, as opposed to the benefits. There is massive benefit to having animals individually identified by an ear tag, and little harm, so we allow it. But other things are coming increasingly under scrutiny. Far fewer lambs and calves (and almost no pigs) destined for slaughter are castrated than formerly. We stopped cutting horses' tails off a long time ago and we don't cut dogs' tails off any more.

In this context, I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to cut the prepuce off a newborn human boy, unless it was for religious reasons. I was gobsmacked when I discovered some people actually did this. Why? I can find no sensible reason at all. There seems to have been something of a campaign to promote the operation in the early 20th century, and it seems to have something to do with making it more difficult to masturbate. This boggles my mind.

Rolfe.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Has any normal healthy baby ever died because he wasn't circumcised? No. We know that normal healthy babies have died as a direct consequence of the operation.
Has any adult man ever bitterly blamed his parents for not having him circumcised? If anyone has, I've yet to hear about it. We know there are many men who bitterly resent that they were mutilated in infancy.
What percentage of intact men later suffer medical problems that would have been prevented (I mean prevented, not just marginally reduced in frequency) by circumcision? Damn few, and for those that do, the operation is still available to treat them.

I would have thought that would have settled it. Woolly thinking about "just get it over with" as if it's something that would probably have to be done later in any case is absolutely jawdropping. "Be like Dad" is, too. I suppose explaining to son that Dad's parents lived in a different age and thought they were doing the right thing, but now we know there's no reason to mutilate baby boys so be glad you're intact, it too hard for some people?

I don't know why we aren't pulling out all babies' toenails while we're at it. Better get it over now and ingrowing toenails won't be an issue later on. And even better, he won't have to take the trouble to trim his toenails.

Rolfe.

I wonder what culture these guys live in where they always walk around with their penis hanging out so everyone can see and comment on it.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary."

But why? What reasons were being given? Necessary to prevent what?

Given that there are entire countries where nobody who isn't Jewish or Moslem circumcises their sons, where nobody would even think about it, and the men in these countries go through life blissfully unaffected by any dire consequences, how could any healthcare professional seriously take that attitude?

Like I said, it's almost exactly analogous to pulling out infants' toenails as "medically necessary" to save them the trouble of cutting the toenails in later life and prevent ingrowing toenails and onycholysis/onychodystrophy.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The level of invective in this thread suggests to me that this isn't simply an academic discussion of human rights and the integrity of the person. It almost seems like a European/North American culture clash. Add in the mix the religious background and it's potentially explosive!

That's what I was interested in. I should have been more clear. I wasn't concerned about the academic arguments... I was curious about the passion!

Ah, that's interesting. I find it is often the mark of someone who doesn't have any intellectual argument to present, to resort to accusing his opponents of being emotional about the subject. I've had it often, from homoeopaths to Lockerbie guilters. "What is it about this subject that drives you to such passion?" As if that's a killer argument. "Never mind if I'm actually wrong, you're wrong because you're taking the trouble to argue with me."

Why is anyone surprised that some people come over as quite passionate when the subject is cutting the prepuce off tiny babies? A "body modification" as someone put it, that they can't consent to and can't reverse in later life if they feel they'd rather have the body granted to them by millions of years of evolution.

It may be a culture clash, but there are plenty people in the USA advocating for the practice to be banned. I don't see anyone at all in Britain advocating for it to be instituted. And it seems that it's interesting to look at why the culture of mutilating baby boys took root in America, outwith the religious communities. It seems it was part of a zealous drive to stamp out the evil of masturbation. And it's being perpetuated partly through habit and misinformation, and partly because some people are making a tidy little income from it.

It's a human rights issue, fundamentally. It's quite common to find people passionate about human rights issues. Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

Rolfe.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

I'd think that for a lot of people, they would simply have to admit to being terrible parents.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Why is anyone surprised that some people come over as quite passionate when the subject is cutting the prepuce off tiny babies? A "body modification" as someone put it, that they can't consent to and can't reverse in later life if they feel they'd rather have the body granted to them by millions of years of evolution.

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

Quote:

It may be a culture clash, but there are plenty people in the USA advocating for the practice to be banned. I don't see anyone at all in Britain advocating for it to be instituted. And it seems that it's interesting to look at why the culture of mutilating baby boys took root in America, outwith the religious communities.

Once again, I'm not in "America." It's funny, because I often find myself arguing the European side of things to Americans (we Canadians being socialists and all )!

Quote:

It seems it was part of a zealous drive to stamp out the evil of masturbation. And it's being perpetuated partly through habit and misinformation, and partly because some people are making a tidy little income from it.

The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

... also, I don't know too many MDs making a tidy little profit off circumcisions around here.


The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.



It's a human rights issue, fundamentally. It's quite common to find people passionate about human rights issues. Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

Rolfe.[/quote]

[Jimbo07]

[quote=Jimbo07;8417010]Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.



Once again, I'm not in "America." It's funny, because I often find myself arguing the European side of things to Americans (we Canadians being socialists and all )!



The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

... also, I don't know too many MDs making a tidy little profit off circumcisions around here.


The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

Quote:

Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

Are there those? Not religious and passionate about it? A decision is not passion...

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I'm Canadian. I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary."

It's ironic, I think, that all the evidence that suggests medical benefits of circumcision post-dates the timescale in which that generation was circumcised. It's a perfect example of a post facto justification; doctors had been carrying out circumcisions for many years and claiming medical necessity with no reason before they actually tried to justify the decision.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I wasn't concerned about the academic arguments... I was curious about the passion!

Circumcision is carried out, in the majority of cases it seems, for no reason whatsoever. Why shouldn't people feel passionately opposed to healthy tissue being permanently removed from babies who have no say in the matter, just because their parents had the same thing done to them?

Now, what I'm curious about is, why would anybody carry out such a practice in the first place? Jimbo, you're clearly a caring father who has his children's interests at heart, so I'd like to know more about why you chose to have this done. You've said that "if they just get it done now, it's over and won't be an issue," but that's not an argument for getting it done, it's just an argument about when to get it done. What were the reasons that led you to decide to have the circumcisions done at all?

Dave

[Orphia Nay]

And would those arguments lead you have another boy, should you have one, done?

[brazenlilraisin]

I sincerely hope he wouldn't be dissuaded by a bunch of irrational extremists. Circumcision = mutilation sure sounds a lot like meat = murder to me....

[Megalodon]

If the meat is that of human infants, then in all possibility it is murder.

It's funny that you find the people that put forth the medical evidence and ethical arguments to be the "irrational extremists", and get so easily put off by someone calling mutilation the non-consensual amputation of a healthy, useful part of someone's anatomy... guess what, that's exactly what the word is for...

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I sincerely hope he wouldn't be dissuaded by a bunch of irrational extremists. Circumcision = mutilation sure sounds a lot like meat = murder to me....

People against slicing healthy flesh off a baby's genitals are extremists?

Where on earth are you coming from?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin

I sincerely hope he wouldn't be dissuaded by a bunch of irrational extremists. Circumcision = mutilation sure sounds a lot like meat = murder to me....

A classic form of medieval punishment was cutting off an ear, which I think nobody would regard as anything other than mutilation. Healthy tissue was removed which it was known would not grow back. The appearance of the head was irreversibly changed. However, only a very minor loss of function resulted, as the inner ear was not damaged and the eardrum continued to function; people with ears removed were not deaf. The big differences, as far as I can see, between cutting off an ear and cutting off a foreskin are the fact that the foreskin isn't generally seen, because it's covered by clothing (which casts a poor light on the "he'll look like his dad" reasoning), and the fact that circumcision is not generally seen as a form of punishment. Neither of these differences seems sufficient, to me, to invalidate the term "mutilation". I agree that it's a very small mutilation, but "not very wrong" =/= "right".

Dave

[Rolfe]

I think the pulling out of toenails analogy is probably the most valid. Some people do need to have their toenails pulled out in later life because of medical problems - including a friend of mine, so I know what it looks like. The end result is quite acceptable, and her feet don't look gross.

Supposing a society decided, say 80 years ago, to pull out the toenails of all babies in order to protect against ingrowing toenalis and onycholysis and so on in later life. After all, they're too young to remember it, and the pain only lasts a fairly short time, and only a very few infants will develop serious complications from the operation. Toenail-less feet function pretty much OK. Mostly. So better just get it done now and then it won't be an issue.

People start defending their toenail-less condition. Look how hygienic it is! I don't need to bother with all this toenail trimming and I'm not going to get toenail fungus. What's not to like? And if I don't have it done to my kids, they'll get a complex because their feet don't look like Dad's!

And people in countries that never took up the toenail removal procedure sit back in amazement and consider the low incidence of ingrowing toenails and oncholysis, and consider that these things are easily treated in the cases where they do occur, and wonder how on earth a society can justify ripping the toenails out of newborn babies.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

No, it really doesn't. It just lets their body do what millions of years of evolution left it able to do, in the most optimum way possible.

Yes, we do have to make choices for our kids. And vaccination is not 100% safe. It's a risk/benefit analysis. The benefits of vaccination have been well rehearsed and I think we know what they are. In contrast the "benefits" of circumcision are pretty much illusory. That's what making a choice is all about. Weighing up the risks and benefits in an evidence-based manner, not just falling in with some ill-founded mantra.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Once again, I'm not in "America." It's funny, because I often find myself arguing the European side of things to Americans (we Canadians being socialists and all )!

Yes, I did realise that, but I was commenting on the situation in America.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

It is interesting. The word is that as a deterrent, it doesn't work. But it seems some people were so keen to find something that might work, they promoted it anyway. It does seem to make is slightly more difficult, from what most people say.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

... also, I don't know too many MDs making a tidy little profit off circumcisions around here.

The NHS refused to do the procedure unless there was a medical indication for it. I wonder why your healthcare system coughs up for it?

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

I think people do get quite worked up about healthy organs being surgically removed from small children for no discernibly good reason. I can understand it. Men who feel very resentful in later life that this was donw to them without their consent can also get worked up about it and I can see why.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

It's a human rights issue, fundamentally. It's quite common to find people passionate about human rights issues. Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

I think a lot of them are. But it's a different issue. Maiming a child because you believe this is a necessary sacrifice to enter him into the covenant of Abraham is an entirely different issue from "well we just thought we'd get it done and then it wouldn't be an issue later on".

Rolfe.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Supposing a society decided, say 80 years ago, to pull out the toenails of all babies in order to protect against ingrowing toenalis and onycholysis and so on in later life.

This bit is the only part of the analogy I have an issue with. I would phrase it more like, "Supposing a religious sect decided, say 4000 years ago, to pull out the toenails of all babies, society had decided, say 80 years ago, to do the same to protect children from the evils of playing football, and then somebody had hit on the justification qute recently that the practice protected against ingrowing toenails and onycholysis and so on in later life." Your justification for pulling out babies' toenails is actually a lot better reasoned than the justification for circumcision, in that it isn't an obvious ex post facto justification.

Dave

[Rolfe]

Yes, I agree. I was over-simplifying.

Rolfe.

[jdp]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

I'm Canadian. I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary." Today in Canada it stands at being applied just under 50%. Overall, this may show a decrease, but still occurs in a significant portion of the population. These stats are from two M.D.s: our doctor and the performing doctor. A quick google search turns up some widely varying stats (and some from dubious sites)

It was my impression that in Canada, the rate is largely dependent on where you live with all places in decline. Coastal regions already have very low rates some interior regions much higher with Alberta the only province that still covers the procedure. Out of curiosity, which part of Canada are you in?

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I didn't know about Canada.

The Canadians were almost as big on this as the Americans but they've been curbing the practice starting in the late 80s or so. It's one of those things though that is difficult to stamp out. Both Australia and New Zealand also practiced circumcision in significant numbers. New Zealand has essentially eliminated it and Australia rates have be stubbornly stuck at around 15% overall for the last 10 or 15 years. In both cases, which is what led to the success, doctors took a strong stance against it. US, and to a degree Canadian, doctors are less willing to put their foot down. Some doctors in the US and Canada even still encourage it.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But why? What reasons were being given? Necessary to prevent what?

Given that there are entire countries where nobody who isn't Jewish or Moslem circumcises their sons, where nobody would even think about it, and the men in these countries go through life blissfully unaffected by any dire consequences, how could any healthcare professional seriously take that attitude?

That is the million Dollar, Loonie, Pound? , question. And if anyone has insite on that I'd love to hear and perhaps explore it.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

This is really a poor analogy though. There is a chasm of difference between vaccination and circumcision. I've asked this in the other thread, and haven't gotten a meaninful response. What is it about circumcision that makes it a rational, even a lawful, choice for a parent to make for their child? Similar body modifications like tattoos, ritual scaring, and perhaps even branding, some of which I would argue are less damaging and less risky, would not be permitted. So why do circumcision get a pass?

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

Well, this was the original justification and you can see how well that went. I suspect the efficacy in other areas are similar.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

How and in what context did you meet this individual?

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by jdp

I think catsmate1 got it mostly right. I would probably quibble slightly on the 'no benefits' because I think that this is a question for an individual and their specific context.

Well no demonstrable medical benefits.

Originally Posted by jdp

I'd probably change that to non-therapuetic but the long and short of it is that for an infant or child there is simply no reason for circumcision for the large majority of individual boys.

Yes,

Originally Posted by jdp

It's no more an issue then wondering if you'll have to pull teeth or perform any other type of therapeutic procedure on them. Some small number may need circumcision later in life but that number is very small, just like some small number need an appendix or tonsils removed.

This is an interesting comparison; proponents of circumcision claim medical benefits but don't seem to support routine appendectomy.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

Vaccination has definite benefits. Circumcision does not.

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

Perhaps because men are becoming more open and more vocal? And there are some who are pushing for routine infant circumcision in Africa as a HIV preventative, despite the evidence.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Yes, it is reflective of the level of critical thinking that goes on.

Above, we discussed some of the most common justifications that people (in the States, mostly) use. While I appreciate that this thread has mostly stuck to a rational discussion real medical issues, don't think for a second that is representative of the thinking that is applied in the US, which most usually boils down to cultural issues - effectively, "Everyone else is doing it" (I find that odd, since parents basically invented the line about how if all your friends are doing it, that doesn't mean you should, but then again, we know that is lip service, because parents are the worst when it comes to superficial conforming). I came to realize a long time ago that it is completely a cultural phenomenon, and post hoc attempts at medical justifications are simply that - post hoc justification, and not the reason it is done.

Long ago, I started a circumcision thread, not trying to start anything, but because I was flabbergasted when I heard someone say, "We investigated the issue, and concluded there was no reason to do it, but no reason not to, so we did it." I was FLOORED because I couldn't comprehend it. The person concluded there was no reason to do it, but did it anyway? Since when do we do medical procedures for no reason? Remember, I'm not the one saying there was no reason to do it, the other person did, so don't tell me about reasons it should be done. The person did it despite admitting there was no reason to.

What other medical procedure would we do without having a reason to do it? It doesn't matter that there is no reason not to, we just don't run around doing medical procedures for no reason.

But that's what people will do with circumcision.

You won't encounter that in Europe, because the culture doesn't drive circumcision to take place.

[Jimbo07]

The insults here are completely unproductive, and I admit I've been playing a role in it. I've basically put forward that grown men who are up in arms about this must have some kind of underlying (mental health/family/relationship) issue. For this, I am sorry, and will henceforth try to refrain from either stating or implying this. Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

...

The interesting thing about the decision making process is that if something is a slam-dunk, there's really no decision to be made. We feel this way about immunization.

With circumcision, had it been clearly abusive, forbidden by law, a cultural taboo, and shunned by our MDs, we would not have had it done. On the other hand, if it were clearly medically necessary, there would be little controversy. On the whole, for a number of factors, including some debated here and some not, we decided that it was the right decision to make for our little guys.

Like pgwenthold, I've been flabbergasted. Not by an excuse, but by the way these threads have taken off! If one comes from a jurisdiction where it's never been pushed, I can see someone asking, "why start?" If, like us, you come from somewhere where it's been more common, you ask, "what's the bother?"

Some of the arguments I've seen against circumcision are decidedly unscientific, such as:

i) Would you want someone to touch your penis? - An obvious appeal to my emotions
ii) The sex is better. - Really? Care to show how a randomized, controlled trial could even be conducted, much less whether one exists?
iii) It's against evolution. - A poor analogy, granted, but vaccinations render it a moot question. Humans obviously do things which are "against evolution." I don't buy this argument in GMO food discussions, and I don't here.
iv) You're a (insert insult here) - Seriously?
v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

The better arguments are:

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.
b) That, at heart, not having one's foreskin removed is a fundamental human right.

The better counter-arguments are:

c) There is some cultural weight to it (culture cannot be discounted entirely, as we have to live somewhere)
d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

The decision making process for conscientious people involves weighing a) through d) (and others, although some private reasons may be brought under d).

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

All surgery, even the most routine, carries a non-zero risk. People have died on the table having their tonsils removed. And even the best MD in the world can't guarantee zero chance of complications or even death during a circumcision.

[Rasmus]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

I for one won't.

Intentionally hurting your child for no good reason makes you a bad parent. It is child abuse, whether the law has caught on or not.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

The insults here are completely unproductive, and I admit I've been playing a role in it. I've basically put forward that grown men who are up in arms about this must have some kind of underlying (mental health/family/relationship) issue. For this, I am sorry, and will henceforth try to refrain from either stating or implying this. Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

...

The interesting thing about the decision making process is that if something is a slam-dunk, there's really no decision to be made. We feel this way about immunization.

With circumcision, had it been clearly abusive, forbidden by law, a cultural taboo, and shunned by our MDs, we would not have had it done. On the other hand, if it were clearly medically necessary, there would be little controversy. On the whole, for a number of factors, including some debated here and some not, we decided that it was the right decision to make for our little guys.

Like pgwenthold, I've been flabbergasted. Not by an excuse, but by the way these threads have taken off! If one comes from a jurisdiction where it's never been pushed, I can see someone asking, "why start?" If, like us, you come from somewhere where it's been more common, you ask, "what's the bother?"

Some of the arguments I've seen against circumcision are decidedly unscientific, such as:

i) Would you want someone to touch your penis? - An obvious appeal to my emotions
ii) The sex is better. - Really? Care to show how a randomized, controlled trial could even be conducted, much less whether one exists?
iii) It's against evolution. - A poor analogy, granted, but vaccinations render it a moot question. Humans obviously do things which are "against evolution." I don't buy this argument in GMO food discussions, and I don't here.
iv) You're a (insert insult here) - Seriously?
v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

The better arguments are:

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.
b) That, at heart, not having one's foreskin removed is a fundamental human right.

The better counter-arguments are:

c) There is some cultural weight to it (culture cannot be discounted entirely, as we have to live somewhere)
d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

The decision making process for conscientious people involves weighing a) through d) (and others, although some private reasons may be brought under d).

What culture do you live in where you show your penis?

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by Ryokan

I've met many young girls who thought some sort of lubrication was required for boys to masturbate, because it's often referred to in American movies. They're surprised that this doesn't apply to Norwegian boys, and that they can just grab it and have their fun without any form of preparation..

Uhm, so can American boys. I'm surprised anyone could think otherwise.

[Ryokan]

Originally Posted by zeggman

Uhm, so can American boys. I'm surprised anyone could think otherwise.

Not as easily, and from what I understand most prefer to use lubrication. I can't even imagine rubbing my dry and exposed penis head for pleasure. Ouch.

(And if you contend that no one uses it, then I'm curious to know where all those lubrication/masturbation jokes in American moves come from.)

ETA: Googling 'lubrication for masturbation' gives the impression that it's very common, but that you can do without.

[Ryokan]

Well, it's not the strangest thing I've googled, I guess.. I found this interesting article on masturbation and lubrication that talks about both cut and uncut penises.

http://www.jackinworld.com/technique...cs/lubrication

Other sites I read also indicates that the success of 'dry' masturbation when you're circumcised depends on how much of the foreskin remains. If you've lost too much of it, you can't.

This short thread on a relevant forum, though anecdotal, talks a bit about it.

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by tsig

What culture do you live in where you show your penis?

You know what's funny? I wondered that about both sides. Are boys really comparing them in locker rooms?

Anyway, sorry for touching a nerve about all this here (and again, I brought a lot of it on myself, I admit). It wasn't my intent to hijack this thread. It's been done over and over. Back to the decision...

[Rolfe]

From where I'm sitting, you seem to have got that nerve-touching bit the wrong way round....

Rolfe.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Re: "Look like Daddy", boy and adult penises have always looked different, AFAIK.

[Safe-Keeper]

Quote:

Not as easily, and from what I understand most prefer to use lubrication. I can't even imagine rubbing my dry and exposed penis head for pleasure. Ouch.

I suppose circumcised penis heads have thicker skin than ours. Makes sense to me, at least.