NationStates Jolt Archive

Yeah, a mass exodus is soooo much more likely than people just doing it anyway, outside of hospitals.

Again, new arguments would be nice. Yes, yes, it's all gonna chase you out of the country. Forgive me if I don't particularly worry about the threatened emmigration of any group doing so on the threat of a new law protecting the rights of others.

Uh, wait, I mean, please, oh, please don't take off on us. It's a totally credible threat. I'm terrified.

Except you completely ignored Mirkana's point that it does not deal only with 'new laws protecting the rights of others' but is also deals with a law that would specifically make it impossible for Jews and Muslims to practice their religion.

All you've done here is pretend that he is arguing that Jews will leave because they can't infringe on the rights of others, when Mirkana is actually saying that they would leave because it would be impossible to stay and still be a Jew.

Yeah, a mass exodus is soooo much more likely than people just doing it anyway, outside of hospitals.

I expect most reasonable Jews would emigrate rather than risk the life of the son and risk getting put in jail.

I expect most reasonable Jews would emigrate rather than risk the life of the son and risk getting put in jail.

...risk the life of the son?

Do you not realise that religious circumcisions generally don't take place in hospitals? Mass deaths? Um....no.

Do you not realise that religious circumcisions generally don't take place in hospitals? Mass deaths? Um....no.

Ok good point. Still, I don't think the Jews are the sort of people who like to break the law, I believe they would rather live somewhere where practising their religion is not illegal and does not have to be done secretly.

Excuse me a second, Rabbi.
Chris, we're having a family bris.
My nephew's brising. We're about to bris. Can this not wait?

I like how you verb.

Ok good point. Still, I don't think the Jews are the sort of people who like to break the law, I believe they would rather live somewhere where practising their religion is not illegal and does not have to be done secretly.

And I get accused of sweeping generalisations? :rolleyes:

Couldn't you argue that allowing male circumcision but not female when done in a hospital with the same level of safety is promoting one religious practice over another? It seems like the simple fact we allow one and not the other is violating religious freedom by judging the value of one's practices as compared to the other.

The problem here is whether to argue that both should be banned or that both should be allowed. I would guess that allowing both would go ever better in court through that argument than banning both.


Most of those families will probably leave anyway. Their daughters almost certainly will, if they want to find a nice Jewish boy to marry (and not an uncircumcised apikoros).

One point here. There's no reason that a nice Jewish boy of marrying age would still be uncircumcised even if infant circumcision were banned. By that point, he'll have been able to make the choice for himself and get circumcised.

Two generations later, the only Jews left will be those that do not practice circumcision. And there won't be a lot of them.

Again, not necessarily. There may be some who don't practice circumcision. I would guess that the majority who stayed would adapt the circumcision ritual so that the person involved had a choice. As I said earlier, incorporating it into the bar mitzvah (I might be spelling that wrong) would likely be permissible. Even if it wasn't, he would absolutely be able to get it done at age 18.

That sort of radical religious change should come from within.

Except you completely ignored Mirkana's point that it does not deal only with 'new laws protecting the rights of others' but is also deals with a law that would specifically make it impossible for Jews and Muslims to practice their religion.

All you've done here is pretend that he is arguing that Jews will leave because they can't infringe on the rights of others, when Mirkana is actually saying that they would leave because it would be impossible to stay and still be a Jew.[/QUOTE]

In this case, the two are the same argument. According to Mirkana, to be a Jew, you have to cut body parts off of other people without their consent. Unless we are going to argue that children have no right to bodily integrity, this means that Mirkana's argument is that Jews have to violate the rights of others.

Religious freedom is a broad right, but it is an individual one. It doesn't extend to things you want to do to other people. If your religion says that people should do something to their bodies, that means you get to do it to yourself. It doesn't mean you get to do it to someone else.

Parents get some authority in religion in areas that they already have authority over. For example, parents already have the authority to decide what their children eat and where their children go, so they can require a child to keep to kosher food laws and to go to religious services. Parents do not, on the other hand, have the authority to arbitrarily cut pieces of their children off. The fact that their religion might require it doesn't suddenly change that - as evidenced by the fact that we do ban many such practices.

In this case, the two are the same argument. According to Mirkana, to be a Jew, you have to cut body parts off of other people without their consent. Unless we are going to argue that children have no right to bodily integrity, this means that Mirkana's argument is that Jews have to violate the rights of others.

Religious freedom is a broad right, but it is an individual one. It doesn't extend to things you want to do to other people. If your religion says that people should do something to their bodies, that means you get to do it to yourself. It doesn't mean you get to do it to someone else.
Dem, for once it would nice if there was some glimmer in your argument that you actually understand the difference between 'how things are' and 'how things should be'. You commonly behave as though the two are interchangeable, all the while contradicting yourself happily. Religious rights don't extend to things you want to do to other people? By all means, argue this, say it should be thus...but stop stating it as though it were fact. The word 'should' is your friend.

Parents get some authority in religion in areas that they already have authority over. For example, parents already have the authority to decide what their children eat and where their children go, so they can require a child to keep to kosher food laws and to go to religious services. Parents do not, on the other hand, have the authority to arbitrarily cut pieces of their children off. The fact that their religion might require it doesn't suddenly change that - as evidenced by the fact that we do ban many such practices.
Yet not all of them. Which would seem to suggest that...gasp...parents do in fact have the authority to cut pieces of their children off. I mean, if you want to insist on the word 'arbitrarily' as a modifier, making your argument somewhat correct in the real world, then that's fine. However, circumcision isn't defined as 'arbitrary' in the real world, now is it?

And I get accused of sweeping generalisations? :rolleyes:

Oh no!

In this case, the two are the same argument. According to Mirkana, to be a Jew, you have to cut body parts off of other people without their consent. Unless we are going to argue that children have no right to bodily integrity, this means that Mirkana's argument is that Jews have to violate the rights of others.


The crucial difference between Joc's and Mirks example is that gay marriage does not, in any way, whatsoever, prevent Christians from practising their religion. Circumcision on the other hand, does, it specifically prevents Jews and Muslims from practising theirs.


Religious freedom is a broad right, but it is an individual one. It doesn't extend to things you want to do to other people. If your religion says that people should do something to their bodies, that means you get to do it to yourself. It doesn't mean you get to do it to someone else.

Parents get some authority in religion in areas that they already have authority over. For example, parents already have the authority to decide what their children eat and where their children go, so they can require a child to keep to kosher food laws and to go to religious services. Parents do not, on the other hand, have the authority to arbitrarily cut pieces of their children off. The fact that their religion might require it doesn't suddenly change that - as evidenced by the fact that we do ban many such practices.

It's nice conjecturing about rights and other wishy washy stuff. Unfortunately, natural rights don't actually, you know, exist.

In this case, the two are the same argument. According to Mirkana, to be a Jew, you have to cut body parts off of other people without their consent. Unless we are going to argue that children have no right to bodily integrity, this means that Mirkana's argument is that Jews have to violate the rights of others....

I am not Mirkana, so I will not speak for him/her. Nor am I Jewish, but I do know a bit about Judaism. And I know enough to say this: if the boy is not circumcised, he is not Jewish.

So, you're not only talking about not allowing the parents to practice their religion, but the kid too.

Oh no!

http://www.chipshopawards.com/images/nominations/nom_749_p1_b93a2.jpg

http://www.chipshopawards.com/images/nominations/nom_749_p1_b93a2.jpg

Ahahaha nice. gg, CI, gg.

That sort of radical religious change should come from within.

Change in religion? Yes.

Change in the protection of children? No.

"My religion says so" should not be adequate legal justification for cutting off pieces of other people's bodies.

Dem, for once it would nice if there was some glimmer in your argument that you actually understand the difference between 'how things are' and 'how things should be'. You commonly behave as though the two are interchangeable, all the while contradicting yourself happily. Religious rights don't extend to things you want to do to other people? By all means, argue this, say it should be thus...but stop stating it as though it were fact. The word 'should' is your friend.

With the (sometimes) exception of your own children, religious rights do not extend to things you want to do to other people. They extend only to your own practice of your religion. If you contend that your religion requires you to do something to someone else, they can assert their rights and keep you from doing so.

And if I sometimes sound like I'm equating the law as it is and as it should be that is probably because;

(a) I don't feel the need to add the same qualifiers over and over and over again in a discussion
(b) The law has inconsistencies. Sometimes our legal system says that a particular legal precept is important, and then goes and violates it constantly.

Yet not all of them. Which would seem to suggest that...gasp...parents do in fact have the authority to cut pieces of their children off.

No. They have the authority to cut one specific piece of their children off because it hasn't been legally questioned and because there are possible medical reasons to do so.

This is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. And without justification for that exception, it shouldn't exist.

I mean, if you want to insist on the word 'arbitrarily' as a modifier, making your argument somewhat correct in the real world, then that's fine. However, circumcision isn't defined as 'arbitrary' in the real world, now is it?

Without the possible medical considerations, it is no more or less arbitrary than the removal of any other body part.


The crucial difference between Joc's and Mirks example is that gay marriage does not, in any way, whatsoever, prevent Christians from practising their religion. Circumcision on the other hand, does, it specifically prevents Jews and Muslims from practising theirs.

I wasn't talking about the gay marriage example. I was talking about the idea that a law banning infant circumcision would be in place to protect the rights of the child. Thus, the argument that a Jew must practice infant circumcision to be a Jew and the argument that said Jew wants to infringe upon the rights of others would be equivalent arguments.

It's nice conjecturing about rights and other wishy washy stuff. Unfortunately, natural rights don't actually, you know, exist.

And your point is, what? That we should not protect the rights of children because they aren't natural rights?


I am not Mirkana, so I will not speak for him/her. Nor am I Jewish, but I do know a bit about Judaism. And I know enough to say this: if the boy is not circumcised, he is not Jewish.

The fact that men can convert later in life and be circumcised at that time makes it quite clear that infant circumcision is not what makes one Jewish.

So, you're not only talking about not allowing the parents to practice their religion, but the kid too.

An infant cannot profess or practice a religion. Thus, infant circumcision is a religious practice of the parents, not the child.

I'm not arguing that a person cannot decide that his own religious faith requires him to be circumcised. I am arguing that no one can make that decision for someone else.

....


The fact that men can convert later in life and be circumcised at that time makes it quite clear that infant circumcision is not what makes one Jewish.



An infant cannot profess or practice a religion. Thus, infant circumcision is a religious practice of the parents, not the child.

I'm not arguing that a person cannot decide that his own religious faith requires him to be circumcised. I am arguing that no one can make that decision for someone else.

So, at what age do you think children should be allowed to start practicing a religion?

I am not Mirkana, so I will not speak for him/her. Nor am I Jewish, but I do know a bit about Judaism. And I know enough to say this: if the boy is not circumcised, he is not Jewish.

So, you're not only talking about not allowing the parents to practice their religion, but the kid too.

Actually, this is incorrect. The kid is still Jewish, but his parents are in violation of Jewish law.

Actually, this is incorrect. The kid is still Jewish, but his parents are in violation of Jewish law.

Oops. Pretend I got that right instead. So that I still look smart.;)

Actually, this is incorrect. The kid is still Jewish, but his parents are in violation of Jewish law.

It's actually quite an interesting question, from a religious perspective. I've a feeling it would simply create a rift in the Jewish community, rather than result in some mass exodus. Religiously it could be argued (or it seems to me, at least....but I sure as shit ain't a rabbi) that the parents are in violation but their child would only be in violation of the law after his Bar Mitzvah, so incorporating it as a precursor to that isn't completely out the window; from what I remember, a child's sins are either passed on to his parents prior to coming of age or completely erased at the time of bar mitzvah. And, with a bit of mental gymnastics, one could maybe say something like the parents are actually doing a mitzvah (or, perhaps, just a favor to their son) by allowing him to do such a thing when of age even though it counts as a mark against them.

Though, truthfully, I suspect a lot of Orthodox, many Conservative and virtually all Hasidim would probably leave.

So, at what age do you think children should be allowed to start practicing a religion?

Now that is an interesting question. I think we can all agree that an infant is incapable. I think most people would certainly agree that a minor is capable of making many or most religious decisions before the age of 18. But exactly where that would fall would be a debate in and of itself (much like the age of consent debates and the debate over whether or not a minor should be able to make reproductive decisions).

The significance of the decision would probably factor into it. For instance, I think the choice to be circumcised could be made at an earlier age than the choice to be castrated (I would place castration age at adulthood, actually).

I think a 13-year old could probably understand the implications of circumcision well enough to make that decision, which is why I suggested that it might be incorporated into the bar mitzvah. But I'm sure others would disagree with me on that.

Now that is an interesting question. I think we can all agree that an infant is incapable. I think most people would certainly agree that a minor is capable of making many or most religious decisions before the age of 18. But exactly where that would fall would be a debate in and of itself (much like the age of consent debates and the debate over whether or not a minor should be able to make reproductive decisions).

The significance of the decision would probably factor into it. For instance, I think the choice to be circumcised could be made at an earlier age than the choice to be castrated (I would place castration age at adulthood, actually).

I think a 13-year old could probably understand the implications of circumcision well enough to make that decision, which is why I suggested that it might be incorporated into the bar mitzvah. But I'm sure others would disagree with me on that.
I think part of determining the age of consent in this issue is what generally would happen with a child who chose not to. I realize all families are different, but does the child/teen have to worry about whether or not their parents will pay for college? Does the child/teen have to worry about having a roof over their head? Would a child/teen's status in the family change radically?

The Amish, from what I understand from the documentary "The Devil's Playground", have no pressure at all to join the faith. They still have normal relations with their family/friends if they choose not to live the Amish lifestyle. Would it (in general) be the same with the religions that practice circumcision?

It's actually quite an interesting question, from a religious perspective. I've a feeling it would simply create a rift in the Jewish community, rather than result in some mass exodus. Religiously it could be argued (or it seems to me, at least....but I sure as shit ain't a rabbi) that the parents are in violation but their child would only be in violation of the law after his Bar Mitzvah, so incorporating it as a precursor to that isn't completely out the window; from what I remember, a child's sins are either passed on to his parents prior to coming of age or completely erased at the time of bar mitzvah. And, with a bit of mental gymnastics, one could maybe say something like the parents are actually doing a mitzvah (or, perhaps, just a favor to their son) by allowing him to do such a thing when of age even though it counts as a mark against them.

Though, truthfully, I suspect a lot of Orthodox, many Conservative and virtually all Hasidim would probably leave.

I agree, mostly. I just think that the majority would leave, and the minority would adapt. Also, it would be virtually all Orthodox and Hasidim, and most Conservatives.

That sort of radical religious change should come from within.

That's a horsecrap argument, and you know it.

If a religion claims... hmmm, for example, polygamy, as a central tenet - and the law of the land suggests that polygamy should not be considered legal, the 'radical religious change shouyld come from within' argument holds no water - they can either play along, or gtfo.

Religions have had various differnt practises in their histories - from slavery, to mutilation, to child sacrifice, etc. As a society, we wouldn't automatically tolerate things that went against our law just because a religion claims it needs to do it.

I am not Mirkana, so I will not speak for him/her. Nor am I Jewish, but I do know a bit about Judaism. And I know enough to say this: if the boy is not circumcised, he is not Jewish.

So, you're not only talking about not allowing the parents to practice their religion, but the kid too.

I am not Mirkana, and (although my grandparents on one side were) I am not Jewish.

On the other hand: "Bound by this burden to comply with social expectations, most Jewish parents do not recognize that circumcision is a choice."

http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/

So, at what age do you think children should be allowed to start practicing a religion?

The age of majority seems reasonable, no?

It's actually quite an interesting question, from a religious perspective. I've a feeling it would simply create a rift in the Jewish community, rather than result in some mass exodus. Religiously it could be argued (or it seems to me, at least....but I sure as shit ain't a rabbi) that the parents are in violation but their child would only be in violation of the law after his Bar Mitzvah, so incorporating it as a precursor to that isn't completely out the window; from what I remember, a child's sins are either passed on to his parents prior to coming of age or completely erased at the time of bar mitzvah. And, with a bit of mental gymnastics, one could maybe say something like the parents are actually doing a mitzvah (or, perhaps, just a favor to their son) by allowing him to do such a thing when of age even though it counts as a mark against them.

Though, truthfully, I suspect a lot of Orthodox, many Conservative and virtually all Hasidim would probably leave.

Based on history?

No - probably not.

They might practise in secret.

I agree, mostly. I just think that the majority would leave, and the minority would adapt. Also, it would be virtually all Orthodox and Hasidim, and most Conservatives.

I think you're kidding yourself.

I doubt there'd be a significant statistical change, and - if you actually thought about it - you'd come to the same conclusion. It would either be practised in secrecy (who is going to know?) or it would become a focus of pilgrimage to Israel, for example.

But, to be honest, most people would probably just follow the law.

I wasn't talking about the gay marriage example. I was talking about the idea that a law banning infant circumcision would be in place to protect the rights of the child. Thus, the argument that a Jew must practice infant circumcision to be a Jew and the argument that said Jew wants to infringe upon the rights of others would be equivalent arguments.


And if I defined giving a name to a child when they are born as infringing on their rights (they did not consent to the name), then I could say that having a baby with a name is also infringing on other peoples rights. This is the problem with 'rights', you can declare whatever the fuck you want to be a right, and whatever you dislike to not be a 'right', because rights don't actually exist. It is not an argument stating what is and isn't a right, it is not a matter of fact, it's really just rhetoric.

Thank you for your kind consideration in deciding not to "pass judgment on the poster in question." Since you know little if anything about me, such restraint is appropriate. Since I know little if anything about you, or Neesika for that matter, I likewise shall not pass judgment on either of you.

I will note, however, that the health observations and the aesthetic observations pertaining to the dimensions of certain elements of the penis are not original to me. I recall reading them in a textbook on sexual health or some such that included a discussion of circumcision, found the arguments persuasive, and adopted them. The animal reference, however, is my own, and I stand by it. Laugh if you must, but you will understand if I give your derision all the respect it is due.
I must, I must! I'll try to use my laughter to offset the tears of having failed to gain your respect.

I change my position on the reaction of Jews to circumcision becoming illegal. Apparently, if the US did that, it would be the first country to do it. The first country will CERTAINLY see a heavy backlash as a result.

I also agree that taking a trip to have your child circumcised is another likely reaction. I doubt Jewish women will have any trouble finding 'good Jewish boys".

It's the baculum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum)! Found in most primates (but not humans <insert appropriate smiley here>). Still, human penises, despite lacking a bone, can still be subject to fracture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_fracture)!

And AFAIK cats have spines on their penises. I used to think they were for more stimulation, but according to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat#Behavior), it was used to rake the female vagina to stimulate ovulation. Ouch. Perhaps that's why the neighborhood cats yelp and scream on the rooftops some nights.

Also here:
This is true about cats. And about primates, well, human guys should not feel inadequate. What they may lack in the...um...boniness of their boners, they more than make up by being the most well endowed of all primates.

And if I defined giving a name to a child when they are born as infringing on their rights (they did not consent to the name), then I could say that having a baby with a name is also infringing on other peoples rights. This is the problem with 'rights', you can declare whatever the fuck you want to be a right, and whatever you dislike to not be a 'right', because rights don't actually exist. It is not an argument stating what is and isn't a right, it is not a matter of fact, it's really just rhetoric.

They can change their name. They can't regain their body integrity.

Let's test if they're equivalent. You're in the hospital to have your gall bladder removed. You wake up and they've taken out your gall bladder and due to an error, removed your foreskin (let's assume you have one). What would the legal consequences to the hospital and staff be, do you think?

Okay, let's say you discover that due to a clerical error your legal name was changed to Pablo James Preen. You got and have it legally changed back and everything gets cleared up but it takes two weeks. What would the legal consequences to the staff of the office that accidentally changed your legal name?

Obviously, they aren't comparable. At all. Not in any way. Similarly, if as a joke I cut your nails while you were sleeping (another comparison that's been made on occasion), what would the legal consequences be?

Obviously, they aren't comparable.

Did I say the two situations were the same? No. And that's not the point, any way.

Without being a defender of infant circumcision, I have to say I am more than a little taken aback at how ready some people are to dictate the rules of belief to other people. No matter what we might think of it, circumcision is not equivalent to human sacrifice or the forced marriage of children to adults. I have seen no evidence that circumcision amounts to child abuse. Gross presumptuousness in making such a heavy decision for someone else without any consultation, maybe, but not child abuse. As such, I see no compelling public concern that should allow a government to violate the rights of religious freedom over this.

Some people bitch about Jews and Muslims forcing their beliefs onto their children, yet those same people have no problem forcing their beliefs onto Jews and Muslims -- and they seem to do so with no regard for the impact of that they would be doing thereby.

Did I say the two situations were the same? No. And that's not the point, any way.

No, I'm not saying you're saying they are the same.

You are, however, comparing them. The issue is that if I were to accidentally circumcise you you'd have a case for harm. Nothing else would have to happen. No added injury. Just the removal of your foreskin.

However, if I were to accidentally change your name, you'd certainly not. I'd just be asked to correct it. The only way you could argue harm is if you tied some other consequence to the name change. The name change alone wouldn't be harm that was actionable.

You're talking about making a non-harm illegal as compared to making a permanent and irreversible harm illegal. They just aren't comparable. Come up with another example. Preferrably one that is irreversible and removes the use of a healthy body part.

Without being a defender of infant circumcision, I have to say I am more than a little taken aback at how ready some people are to dictate the rules of belief to other people. No matter what we might think of it, circumcision is not equivalent to human sacrifice or the forced marriage of children to adults. I have seen no evidence that circumcision amounts to child abuse.


What about child rape?

Is it okay if we say that is abuse?

Circumcision causes permanent damage. I've presented evidence (that you apparently haven't seen...) that it causes physical, emotional, and mental harm. I can't see any way genital mutilation DOESN'T constitute abuse... unless you'd also argue that things like child rape aren't abuse.

Without being a defender of infant circumcision, I have to say I am more than a little taken aback at how ready some people are to dictate the rules of belief to other people. No matter what we might think of it, circumcision is not equivalent to human sacrifice or the forced marriage of children to adults. I have seen no evidence that circumcision amounts to child abuse. Gross presumptuousness in making such a heavy decision for someone else without any consultation, maybe, but not child abuse. As such, I see no compelling public concern that should allow a government to violate the rights of religious freedom over this.

Some people bitch about Jews and Muslims forcing their beliefs onto their children, yet those same people have no problem forcing their beliefs onto Jews and Muslims -- and they seem to do so with no regard for the impact of that they would be doing thereby.

But the difference here is that this isn't making it illegal to circumcise. It's simply making it illegal to force on someone else without their consent.

I'd agree that it's not comparable in harm to rape or forced marriage. But it is comparable in harm to removal of the clitoral hood (particularly if done before it's retractable as is done with the foreskin). The effects are actually fairly similar and the body parts are pretty comparable. Incidentally, removal of the clitoral hood is already illegal and no religious or cultural argument has been considered a reason to override such laws.

Note: For the purposes of the comparison, let's remember that the removable of the clitoral hood can be done just as carefully as a circumcision. We're not talking about it being done in a third-world country. We're talking about it being done in the US.

No, I'm not saying you're saying they are the

You are, however, comparing them. The issue is that if I were to accidentally circumcise you you'd have a case for harm. Nothing else would have to happen. No added injury. Just the removal of your foreskin.

However, if I were to accidentally change your name, you'd certainly not. I'd just be asked to correct it. The only way you could argue harm is if you tied some other consequence to the name change. The name change alone wouldn't be harm that was actionable.

You're talking about making a non-harm illegal as compared to making a permanent and irreversible harm illegal. They just aren't comparable. Come up with another example. Preferrably one that is irreversible and removes the use of a healthy body part.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with my point. I never quantified the two situations as being equal in harm to the child. I never made an argument saying "if naming your child is allowed, so should circumcision". You can address your point if you like, but what you're addressing here isn't my point.

And if I defined giving a name to a child when they are born as infringing on their rights (they did not consent to the name), then I could say that having a baby with a name is also infringing on other peoples rights.

Legally, that is true. Of course, the argument would be much more easily done away with, as a name does not cause harm to the child, and can be changed later.

Cutting off a body part, on the other hand, is a permanent change.

This is the problem with 'rights', you can declare whatever the fuck you want to be a right, and whatever you dislike to not be a 'right', because rights don't actually exist. It is not an argument stating what is and isn't a right, it is not a matter of fact, it's really just rhetoric.

So, do away with the legal system altogether, then? An awful lot of it is based on rights.

Without being a defender of infant circumcision, I have to say I am more than a little taken aback at how ready some people are to dictate the rules of belief to other people.

And I'm a little taken aback at how ready some are to defend the enforcement of religion on children to the extent that body parts are removed.

No one is arguing that a person cannot believe they need to be circumcised because of their religion. No one is even arguing that a person cannot believe that they need to circumcise someone else because of their religion. The argument that is being made is that no one has the right to circumcise someone else because of their own religion. Religious circumcision is a decision to be made by the person being circumcised, not someone else.

No matter what we might think of it, circumcision is not equivalent to human sacrifice or the forced marriage of children to adults.

I don't think anyone has argued that it is.

I have seen no evidence that circumcision amounts to child abuse. Gross presumptuousness in making such a heavy decision for someone else without any consultation, maybe, but not child abuse.

What if it were the clitoral hood instead, would that be child abuse (our law, btw, generally says it is)? What if it were an earlobe? Both could be argued to be either equally or even less harmful than circumcision. Both would also pretty much indisputably be seen as abuse in our country.

Why should removal of this one particular body part be seen differently?

As such, I see no compelling public concern that should allow a government to violate the rights of religious freedom over this.

I don't see how religious freedom includes cutting body parts off of other people.

Some people bitch about Jews and Muslims forcing their beliefs onto their children, yet those same people have no problem forcing their beliefs onto Jews and Muslims -- and they seem to do so with no regard for the impact of that they would be doing thereby.

Keeping someone from forcing their beliefs on other people is....forcing your beliefs on other people?

I wouldn't have expected such an argument from you, Murv.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with my point. I never quantified the two situations as being equal in harm to the child. I never made an argument saying "if naming your child is allowed, so should circumcision". You can address your point if you like, but what you're addressing here isn't my point.

What was your point, then?

It seems to be - if parents have the 'right' to pick their kid's name, they have the 'right' to chop bits of his dick.

I'm just saying.

What about child rape?

Is it okay if we say that is abuse?

Circumcision causes permanent damage. I've presented evidence (that you apparently haven't seen...) that it causes physical, emotional, and mental harm. I can't see any way genital mutilation DOESN'T constitute abuse... unless you'd also argue that things like child rape aren't abuse.

I know some people question whether it could possibly cause such harm, but it's been demonstrated that just removing the touch of another person for a few days can cause permanent harm to the child. That's why they've made all kinds of moves to ensure that premies get care that keeps them in contact with people to prevent their development from being retarded.

Infants are really not fully ripe at birth. During such a period of rapid and important growth, it's totally reasonable to suspect that an action such as a surgery without anesthesia would cause permanent harm.

So, do away with the legal system altogether, then? An awful lot of it is based on rights.


Just don't be so deontological about it, and treat it as absolute truth. But what you are stating is not 'the legal system', it's your own made up system, because under the legal system, you are allowed to circumcise your child.

What was your point, then?

It seems to be - if parents have the 'right' to pick their kid's name, they have the 'right' to chop bits of his dick.

I'm just saying.

My point was that simply stating X is a right, but Y isn't a right and that right A extends to B but not C, is not an argument, it's just rhetoric and you're either basically making shit up as you go along, or stating what the legal system currently states, which has little to do with what should be the case as Neesika was saying.

Why should removal of this one particular body part be seen differently?

I don't see how religious freedom includes cutting body parts off of other people.

Keeping someone from forcing their religion on other people is....forcing your religion on other people?


Three better arguments than I made.

*tips hat*

Infants are really not fully ripe at birth. During such a period of rapid and important growth, it's totally reasonable to suspect that an action such as a surgery without anesthesia would cause permanent harm.

To be fair, it generally is not performed without anesthesia anymore - at least not in a hospital setting.


Just don't be so deontological about it, and treat it as absolute truth. But what you are stating is not 'the legal system', it's your own made up system, because under the legal system, you are allowed to circumcise your child.

(a) It hasn't really been challenged.
(b) My supposition was premised on the idea that the medical community conclusively finds that there is no medical benefit which warrants infant circumcision. Of course it is a hypothetical.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with my point. I never quantified the two situations as being equal in harm to the child. I never made an argument saying "if naming your child is allowed, so should circumcision". You can address your point if you like, but what you're addressing here isn't my point.

Your point divorcing the issue from its context. I just put it back in context. The context is important.

I'll show why you can't remove the relevant context. Joe, a black guy, gets tackled by a John, white guy, and gets thrown in jail. Peter, a white guy, gets tackled by Paul, a black guy, and nothing happens to Paul at all. Racism? Or was the second scenario part of a football game and the other a bar fight?

Context is important even if you want to pretend it isn't. Setting a child's name without their consent isn't at all like cutting off their foreskin. Thus, talking about making setting their name illegal isn't related to talking about making cutting off their foreskin illegal. It's not relevant.

My point was that simply stating X is a right, but Y isn't a right and that right A extends to B but not C, is not an argument, it's just rhetoric and you're either basically making shit up as you go along, or stating what the legal system currently states, which has little to do with what should be the case as Neesika was saying.

I have to say, that just looks like you spilled alphabet spaghetti on your keyboard.

Keep it in terms of the content, please, because you're doing more to confuse than to elucidate. If the parents can change the name... how does that relate to whether or not they can call for mutilations?

You seem to be comparing the two 'rights' - which would more than explain the tangent you seem to think Jocabia is on.

(b) My supposition was premised on the idea that the medical community conclusively finds that there is no medical benefit which warrants infant circumcision. Of course it is a hypothetical.

But there is by no means a consensus, at all, that it causes serious harm (unless you can show me otherwise).

I have to say, that just looks like you spilled alphabet spaghetti on your keyboard.

Keep it in terms of the content, please, because you're doing more to confuse than to elucidate. If the parents can change the name... how does that relate to whether or not they can call for mutilations?

You seem to be comparing the two 'rights' - which would more than explain the tangent you seem to think Jocabia is on.

I think Hydesland was trying to make a point about "rights" in general - that anything legally declared to be a right is, by definition, a right. Much like Neesika's earlier statement that it takes effort to change the law, I'm not really sure how that is supposed to be a major point, but it does seem to be the point being made.

My point was that simply stating X is a right, but Y isn't a right and that right A extends to B but not C, is not an argument, it's just rhetoric and you're either basically making shit up as you go along, or stating what the legal system currently states, which has little to do with what should be the case as Neesika was saying.

We're not "simply stating". It's been ruled that you have a right to bodily integrity. In a legal system like ours, that's kind of important in the same way that Shaq is kind of big for a human being.

See, one right exists. It's already enforcable and would be enforcable if, say, I wanted to cut off a child's arm. The other does not. People have named children vagina and various other ridiculous names without issue.

You're the one who wants to "make shit up".

Yay for a huge thread, full of talk about foreskin!!!!

omg! If you support circumcision, you don't think child rape is abuse!

If you don't let me cut off my son's foreskin, me and all my people will leave the country!

Here's some algebra for you, so that you will see I'm right!

Gobble gobble!







Thorougly enjoyable.

It's not relevant.

No, it isn't. I wasn't trying to make it relevant to specifically cutting the foreskin off. I was trying to make it relevant to how silly it is to speculate on what rights people have, and don't have.

But there is by no means a consensus, at all, that it causes serious harm (unless you can show me otherwise).

There isn't? Then why would you have a case for harm if a hospital accidentally circumcised you?

No, it isn't. I wasn't trying to make it relevant to specifically cutting the foreskin off. I was trying to make it relevant to how silly it is to speculate on what rights people have, and don't have.

It's not speculating. Bodily integrity is a recognized right in this country.

I know some people question whether it could possibly cause such harm, but it's been demonstrated that just removing the touch of another person for a few days can cause permanent harm to the child. That's why they've made all kinds of moves to ensure that premies get care that keeps them in contact with people to prevent their development from being retarded.

Infants are really not fully ripe at birth. During such a period of rapid and important growth, it's totally reasonable to suspect that an action such as a surgery without anesthesia would cause permanent harm.

It's not unreasonable to suspect that ANY surgery could cause such harm - which is why surgery should be something you do when you MUST.

I have to say, that just looks like you spilled alphabet spaghetti on your keyboard.

Keep it in terms of the content, please, because you're doing more to confuse than to elucidate. If the parents can change the name... how does that relate to whether or not they can call for mutilations?

You seem to be comparing the two 'rights' - which would more than explain the tangent you seem to think Jocabia is on.

You've totally got mixed up in what I was trying to say. It was simply an analogy to show how silly getting all absolutist on rights is.

There isn't? Then why would you have a case for harm if a hospital accidentally circumcised you?

Because he couldn't have sex for 6-8 weeks afterward.

But there is by no means a consensus, at all, that it causes serious harm (unless you can show me otherwise).

(a) The seriousness of the harm is irrelevant unless there is a benefit to outweigh it. Cutting off an earlobe would cause no more harm to a child than cutting off the foreskin (and would arguably cause less harm), but it would pretty much universally be seen as abuse. Without the possibility of medical benefits from circumcision, there would be no reason to make a legal distinction between the two.

(b) There is no current medical consensus as to the benefits of circumcision and whether or not it is warranted as preventative medicine. This is an argument for leaving it up to the parents. If a medical consensus that infant circumcision is not warranted were reached, it would then be acceptable for the practice to be banned.

I think Hydesland was trying to make a point about "rights" in general - that anything legally declared to be a right is, by definition, a right. Much like Neesika's earlier statement that it takes effort to change the law, I'm not really sure how that is supposed to be a major point, but it does seem to be the point being made.

Sounds nonsensical to me, if it's the case.

It sounds like - by the same logic - you'd have to argue against MAKING gay marriage a 'right'... because it isn't one now.

*facepalm*

Because he couldn't have sex for 6-8 weeks afterward.

That's awfully presumptuous.




I'm sure the circumcision would have nothing to do with that.

We're not "simply stating". It's been ruled that you have a right to bodily integrity. In a legal system like ours, that's kind of important in the same way that Shaq is kind of big for a human being.

See, one right exists. It's already enforcable and would be enforcable if, say, I wanted to cut off a child's arm. The other does not. People have named children vagina and various other ridiculous names without issue.

You're the one who wants to "make shit up".

I'm by no means a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that most rights have exceptions and limits in a legal system, and don't act as blanket absolute rules that must apply to every conceivable situation. Such as, oh I don't know, circumcision of infants.

That's awfully presumptuous.




I'm sure the circumcision would have nothing to do with that.

Well, I don't know how often Hydesland has sex, but if he looks anything like his avatar...

You've totally got mixed up in what I was trying to say. It was simply an analogy to show how silly getting all absolutist on rights is.

I agree that 'absolutist' arguments for 'rights' are nonsensical, because I'm a subscriber to the philosophy that 'rights' ONLY exist in as much as we argue they do.

But... I'm not sure how that's tying in. It is currently allowed, apparently... and one day might not be. I'm not sure where else you were going with it.

I'm by no means a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that most rights have exceptions and limits in a legal system, and don't act as blanket absolute rules that must apply to every conceivable situation. Such as, oh I don't know, circumcision of infants.

Exceptions and limits need appropriate justification. Often, exceptions and limits are put in place, only to be later found to be in violation of rights - because they were not adequately justified.

Well, I don't know how often Hydesland has sex, but if he looks anything like his avatar...

Oh I dunno. I've heard even hideous morons can get laid once in a while.

omg! If you support circumcision, you don't think child rape is abuse!


For humor effect, I'm sure, but you miss the point.

If you don't think harm is harm, you don't think harm is harm.

It's so straightforward, it would have given Ayn Rand multiples.



That's just an image I wanted to leave in everyone's head.

I'm by no means a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that most rights have exceptions and limits in a legal system, and don't act as blanket absolute rules that must apply to every conceivable situation. Such as, oh I don't know, circumcision of infants.

You do realize that stating they aren't absolutes and stating that they aren't an argument isn't really the same thing.

If there are exceptions to a particular right, it's for you to show why a particular exception should be allowed. You're not even trying to do so. You're just bringing up how other rights would be nonsensical (incidentally rights you made up and would have nothing to do with being absolutionist or not). What part of the names argument helped demonstrate that some rights have exceptions?

Sounds nonsensical to me, if it's the case.

It sounds like - by the same logic - you'd have to argue against MAKING gay marriage a 'right'... because it isn't one now.

*facepalm*

Saying gay marriage is a right because gay marriage is a right would be fallacious, yes. Actually no, not fallacious, because that would imply there was an argument in there somewhere. It's not an argument, that is the problem. The argument is that it's discriminatory, as heteros are allowed to marry, but homosexuals aren't, and there you can bring in basic principles of fairness and equal protection blah blah blah, but most importantly, you can argue that society is better off when allowing gay marriage.

Saying gay marriage is a right because gay marriage is a right would be fallacious, yes. Actually no, not fallacious, because that would imply there was an argument in there somewhere. It's not an argument, that is the problem. The argument is that it's discriminatory, as heteros are allowed to marry, but homosexuals aren't, and there you can bring in basic principles of fairness and equal protection blah blah blah, but most importantly, you can argue that society is better off when allowing gay marriage.

And this is relevant exactly how? Seriously, you do know that just because you make an argument doesn't mean you're actually arguing a point that has anything to do with the topic, right?

See, in debate, you have to make an argument AND you have to show its relevance to the other than that you made that argument using the same alphabet and language.

but it would pretty much universally be seen as abuse.


Circumcision is not seen as abuse by the vast majority of people. It's not done arbitrarily, and to punish or for the sake of harm, it's a crucial cultural practice.

Well, I don't know how often Hydesland has sex, but if he looks anything like his avatar...

*facepalms*

But... I'm not sure how that's tying in.

Because it seemed like Dem was simply saying 'circumcision is a violation of crucial human rights'. Again, declaring something to be a right is not an argument about what should, or shouldn't be. That is how it tied in.

And this is relevant exactly how? Seriously, you do know that just because you make an argument doesn't mean you're actually arguing a point that has anything to do with the topic, right?

See, in debate, you have to make an argument AND you have to show its relevance to the other than that you made that argument using the same alphabet and language.

Yeah...ignoring that Dem and No True Scotsman were horribly confused, and that Hydesland was trying to make his point clearer is really fun, isn't it?

Saying gay marriage is a right because gay marriage is a right would be fallacious, yes. Actually no, not fallacious, because that would imply there was an argument in there somewhere. It's not an argument, that is the problem. The argument is that it's discriminatory, as heteros are allowed to marry, but homosexuals aren't, and there you can bring in basic principles of fairness and equal protection blah blah blah, but most importantly, you can argue that society is better off when allowing gay marriage.

And... Aha! You can argue that society would be better off if parents were not allowed to mutilate their children's sex organs...

By George, I think I've got it!

And... Aha! You can argue that society would be better off if parents were not allowed to mutilate their children's sex organs...

By George, I think I've got it!

Yes, you can.

It would be a very poor argument if you couldn't explain how though.

Because it seemed like Dem was simply saying 'circumcision is a violation of crucial human rights'. Again, declaring something to be a right is not an argument about what should, or shouldn't be.

But it is an argument about what IS.

And, if you can show that rights exist in a certain spectrum, and you can show that one thing is being somehow grandfathered in through a kind of special exception WITHIN that spectrum...

Yeah...ignoring that Dem and No True Scotsman were horribly confused, and that Hydesland was trying to make his point clearer is really fun, isn't it?

Yeah, actually that's a really good point. I was mostly talking about the general point, though.

He still hasn't really showed, even in general, why the original point was relevant. He said he's arguing that rights are absolute and then made up a right that no one claims exists to show... well, not sure how that shows anything.

Yes, you can.

It would be a very poor argument if you couldn't explain how though.

Well, it would be 'better off' simply for the reduction in number of people having their cocks lopped without their permission...

And... Aha! You can argue that society would be better off if parents were not allowed to mutilate their children's sex organs...


YES EXACTLY! This is what I've been trying to get people to do. I have yet to see a convincing argument, as I already said, that it actually does that to a significant extent to make such a costly government intervention 'worth it'.

Because it seemed like Dem was simply saying 'circumcision is a violation of crucial human rights'. Again, declaring something to be a right is not an argument about what should, or shouldn't be. That is how it tied in.

She said it was a violation of a particular human right. One recognized by the government as existing. She explained why.

At that point, you'd either have to show that it isn't, in fact, a violation of that right. Or that it deserves an exception.

You chose the third option of talking about whether or not you should declare choosing a name a right while claiming it's not a comparison to the right to bodily integrity.

Yeah, actually that's a really good point. I was mostly talking about the general point, though.

He still hasn't really showed, even in general, why the original point was relevant. He said he's arguing that rights are absolute and then made up a right that no one claims exists to show... well, not sure how that shows anything.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, and correct me please Hydesland...but I thought it was pretty clear that what he was saying was this:

Making an argument about rights as though rights exist objectively, is stupid. Rights exist within a context, and simply saying, 'This this is a right because it is a right' explains nothing, and does not a good argument make.

But it is an argument about what IS.


is/ought. But it isn't even arguing that it 'is'. She really said little other than 'right x extends to b', he didn't argue it to be the case, merely stated it. There is no reason why I should agree. I think a problem in many debates is that as soon as people declare something a right, people are a little uneasy about debating that.

YES EXACTLY! This is what I've been trying to get people to do. I have yet to see a convincing argument, as I already said, that it actually does that to a significant extent to make such a costly government intervention 'worth it'.

At the risk of Sin deliberately misinterpreting me again, no such 'significant extent' has been 'proved' for the rape of children, either...

Circumcision is not seen as abuse by the vast majority of people.

Slavery wasn't seen as a human rights abuse by the vast majority of people for quite a while. I fail to see how this is relevant.

t's not done arbitrarily, and to punish or for the sake of harm, it's a crucial cultural practice.

So was enslaving your enemies. So, for that matter, is FGM in some cultures. Yet we see no problem with banning either of those....

Sometimes, cultural practices infringe upon others. We often ban them when they do.

Because it seemed like Dem was simply saying 'circumcision is a violation of crucial human rights'. Again, declaring something to be a right is not an argument about what should, or shouldn't be. That is how it tied in.

Actually, I was arguing that, outside of the possible medical benefits, it would be a violation of human rights - in exactly the same way cutting off any other functional bit of your child would be.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, and correct me please Hydesland...but I thought it was pretty clear that what he was saying was this:

Making an argument about rights as though rights exist objectively, is stupid. Rights exist within a context, and simply saying, 'This this is a right because it is a right' explains nothing, and does not a good argument make.

It's a right that exists according to our legal framework. Dem was arguing about whether or not it should be used in an argument to make circumcision illegal.

I understood his point, but the problem is that it completely ignores any point that anyone else ever made. When did Dem make the claim that it's a right becuase it's a right?

YES EXACTLY! This is what I've been trying to get people to do. I have yet to see a convincing argument, as I already said, that it actually does that to a significant extent to make such a costly government intervention 'worth it'.

Should the government intervene if a parent cuts off a child's earlobe?

Well, it would be 'better off' simply for the reduction in number of people having their cocks lopped without their permission...

...

You make this statement as though it is self-evident that such a thing is bad.

Yet it isn't self-evident. What you might want to try proving is that it would be worse for someone to be circumcised than not to be circumcised. You might try taking into account things like religious identity, neutral outcomes in supposed 'health related circumcisions' and so forth.

...

You make this statement as though it is self-evident that such a thing is bad.

Yet it isn't self-evident. What you might want to try proving is that it would be worse for someone to be circumcised than not to be circumcised. You might try taking into account things like religious identity, neutral outcomes in supposed 'health related circumcisions' and so forth.

I... need to provide evidence that cutting people to pieces without their permission... is bad?

At the risk of Sin deliberately misinterpreting me again, no such 'significant extent' has been 'proved' for the rape of children, either...

...

Do you try to be this ridiculous, or does it just flow naturally?

is/ought. But it isn't even arguing that it 'is'. She really said little other than 'right x extends to b', he didn't argue it to be the case, merely stated it. There is no reason why I should agree. I think a problem in many debates is that as soon as people declare something a right, people are a little uneasy about debating that.

Um, the right to bodily integrity doesn't extend to whether or not we cut parts off according to you? You need someone to explain exactly how cutting off a body part would fall under your rights regarding your body?

Exactly what part is it that you think has not been adequately argued? Because you've definitely switched. You said at one point you were arguing rights weren't absolute. At another point you argued they don't exist and then made one up.

It's difficult to focus on your point when you can't seem to do so either.

...

Do you try to be this ridiculous, or does it just flow naturally?

Hey, if you've nothing to say to actually address the point, just saying it's ridiculous HAS to be almost as good, right?

I... need to provide evidence that cutting people to pieces without their permission... is bad?

oh! I thought we were talking about circumcision, not surgically cutting people to pieces. Whew! That explains it, totally not on the same topic.




Wait! I get it! You were engaging in ridiculous, assinine hyperbole! Oh boy! Those poor children! Someone, somewhere! Help! We must prevent these evil doctors from slicing our children to ribbons! :rolleyes:

...

You make this statement as though it is self-evident that such a thing is bad.

Yet it isn't self-evident. What you might want to try proving is that it would be worse for someone to be circumcised than not to be circumcised. You might try taking into account things like religious identity, neutral outcomes in supposed 'health related circumcisions' and so forth.

Would you say I would have the same difficulty if someone one accidentally circumcised a grown man when he went in to have his gall bladder removed?

Um, the right to bodily integrity doesn't extend to whether or not we cut parts off according to you?

It extends to whatever we want to extend it to, in reality. Currently, it doesn't extend to circumcision (if we are defining rights by what is legally recognised). Obviously Dem was claiming it does, but did not argue why it should. If she was stating that this was legally the case that the right extends to infant circumcision, she is simply wrong, because currently under US law, the right does not extend that far.

I... need to provide evidence that cutting people to pieces without their permission... is bad?

Sure. As soon as you also provide proof that parents who remove skin tags, moles, and non-cancerous bumps off their children are engaging in child abuse.

Would you say I would have the same difficulty if someone one accidentally circumcised a grown man when he went in to have his gall bladder removed?

Which difficulty are you referring to?

At the risk of Sin deliberately misinterpreting me again, no such 'significant extent' has been 'proved' for the rape of children, either...

I find that hard to believe.

oh! I thought we were talking about circumcision, not surgically cutting people to pieces. Whew! That explains it, totally not on the same topic.




Wait! I get it! You were engaging in ridiculous, assinine hyperbole! Oh boy! Those poor children! Someone, somewhere! Help! We must prevent these evil doctors from slicing our children to ribbons! :rolleyes:

Should we cut off our fingers so they don't get dirty too?

Oh, the irony, it burns.

Sure. As soon as you also provide proof that parents who remove skin tags, moles, and non-cancerous bumps off their children are engaging in child abuse.

Oh, he doesn't have to do that because no one in this thread has proven that child rape is abuse...aren't you following this scintillating argument closely enough?

Oh, the irony, it burns.

Not really. I'm playing both sides of the fence. All this agreement was boring me.

Oh, he doesn't have to do that because no one in this thread has proven that child rape is abuse...aren't you following this scintillating argument closely enough?

Well I could look up some statistics, but I'm not that interested, really.

Which difficulty are you referring to?

The need to demonstrate that the removal of the foreskin constitutes harm.

"What you might want to try proving is that it would be worse for someone to be circumcised than not to be circumcised."

I'm asking would I have the same problem if I were an adult circumcised without my consent?

oh! I thought we were talking about circumcision, not surgically cutting people to pieces. Whew! That explains it, totally not on the same topic.




Wait! I get it! You were engaging in ridiculous, assinine hyperbole! Oh boy! Those poor children! Someone, somewhere! Help! We must prevent these evil doctors from slicing our children to ribbons! :rolleyes:

If you dissect this, symbolically, it completely avoids actually addressing anything except it's own self-constructed targets.

You knew what I meant, and couldn't address it, that much is obvious.

It extends to whatever we want to extend it to, in reality. Currently, it doesn't extend to circumcision (if we are defining rights by what is legally recognised). Obviously Dem was claiming it does, but did not argue why it should. If she was stating that this was legally the case that the right extends to infant circumcision, she is simply wrong, because currently under US law, the right does not extend that far.

This is why I was asking her to be clearer when talking about 'Life according to Dem' versus 'reality'. She seemed to feel that the distinction between the two was obvious, I'm glad I'm not the only one who reads some of her statements as the latter when they should be read as the former.

Not really. I'm playing both sides of the fence. All this agreement was boring me.

It's fine that you're playing both sides, but you can't criticize someone for using a very similar style to one you engaged in, in the same thread.

Sure. As soon as you also provide proof that parents who remove skin tags, moles, and non-cancerous bumps off their children are engaging in child abuse.

Why? I'm not making any arguments about skin tags, moles or non-cancerous bumps. You COULD argue that you're discussing medical necessities, and we might not be even discussing circumcision at all, if the same could be said of it.

Why? I'm not making any arguments about skin tags, moles or non-cancerous bumps. You COULD argue that you're discussing medical necessities, and we might not be even discussing circumcision at all, if the same could be said of it.

Well, see, you've made the argument that circumcision is non-beneficial.

The jury's still out on that medically, but even if we accept that as true, the following stands to reason:

Removing skin tags, moles, and non-cancerous bumps is also non-beneficial, they won't grow back (probably), and you do them with or without the child's consent.

Why are they treated differently than circumcision? It's still cutting without consent.

It extends to whatever we want to extend it to, in reality. Currently, it doesn't extend to circumcision (if we are defining rights by what is legally recognised). Obviously Dem was claiming it does, but did not argue why it should. If she was stating that this was legally the case that the right extends to infant circumcision, she is simply wrong, because currently under US law, the right does not extend that far.

No, actually. If you're claiming that it shouldn't extend to circumcision then the burden is on you to show why such an exception need be made. That we've already made one is irrelevant. At one point, interracial marriage was illegal. It was reversed not by proving that right to marriage should be extended to interracial marriage, but by showing that the right to marriage is a recognized right in this country and that it's an individual right. With the lack of a valid argument for an exception that wasn't discriminatory, interracial marriage became legal.

Now, of course, because it's a court, both sides had to make arguments, but the burden to prove that an exception should remain an exception is on those arguing to keep the exception.

The need to demonstrate that the removal of the foreskin constitutes harm.

"What you might want to try proving is that it would be worse for someone to be circumcised than not to be circumcised."

I'm asking would I have the same problem if I were an adult circumcised without my consent?

Nope, unless you were an adult who lacked the capacity to make those decisions for himself.

And capacity, dear friend, is exactly what separates (legally) the circumcised child from the circumcised adult.

If, for Jews (and Muslims, I don't really know when they do it or how important it is) being circumcised as an infant is an incredibly important aspect of cultural identity, then NOT being circumcised is going to cause an individual a great deal of grief in terms of acceptance, cultural and religious identity and so on. You cannot change that by insisting only adults be circumcised (or minors deemed to have capacity). The harm in NOT circumcising these people is not comparable to not circumcising the adult in your scenario. Apples to oranges. Or banana peels to foreskin.

Oh, he doesn't have to do that because no one in this thread has proven that child rape is abuse...aren't you following this scintillating argument closely enough?

Removing skin tags, moles, and non-cancerous bumps has not been so much as suggested as causing permanent damage, nor has there been any suggestion that such surgeries might cause physical, emotional, or mental harm. Nor, has it been suggested that such treatments that such things should be done for less than medically necessary reasons.

I've provided evidence that suggests circumcision causes physical, emotional and mental harm. It obviously inflicts permenant damage (by design, no less).

I'm pretty sure that most arguments AGAINST child rape would center around the risks of permanent damage, and the physical, emotional and psychological harm.

One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same.

If you dissect this, symbolically, it completely avoids actually addressing anything except it's own self-constructed targets.

You knew what I meant, and couldn't address it, that much is obvious.

And if you make overly emotive statements, expecting them to be taken seriously, in order to ignore the argument I made...that your argument is shit unless you PROVE that ceasing circumcisions would improve society...feel free. But I'm not going to lose sight of the fact that you haven't made your case very well, just because you fall down and froth at the mouth a little.

Nope, unless you were an adult who lacked the capacity to make those decisions for himself.

And capacity, dear friend, is exactly what separates (legally) the circumcised child from the circumcised adult.

If, for Jews (and Muslims, I don't really know when they do it or how important it is) being circumcised as an infant is an incredibly important aspect of cultural identity, then NOT being circumcised is going to cause an individual a great deal of grief in terms of acceptance, cultural and religious identity and so on. You cannot change that by insisting only adults be circumcised (or minors deemed to have capacity). The harm in NOT circumcising these people is not comparable to not circumcising the adult in your scenario. Apples to oranges. Or banana peels to foreskin.

I don't disagree. That you did it without my consent would be a given. That I'm capable of giving consent is also a given. However, when determining the consequences in a lawsuit, what I'd be compensated would not just be based on the fact that something, anything, happened without my consent.

You and I both know that what I'd be compensated would be based on the fact that the removal of my foreskin would constitute harm.

You're welcome to suggest that the jury or a judge would decide the only harm was in not getting consent and that there was no other concern. That would make the consequences of accidentally shaving my head in prep the same as cutting off my schmeckle, but I'm pretty sure we'd both agree that's a completely unlikely conclusion by pretty much every jury and pretty much every judge.

It's fine that you're playing both sides, but you can't criticize someone for using a very similar style to one you engaged in, in the same thread.

Of course I can. It was a ridiculous comparison, and purposely so.

Well, see, you've made the argument that circumcision is non-beneficial.

The jury's still out on that medically, but even if we accept that as true, the following stands to reason:

Removing skin tags, moles, and non-cancerous bumps is also non-beneficial, they won't grow back (probably), and you do them with or without the child's consent.

Why are they treated differently than circumcision? It's still cutting without consent.

Because medically necessary surgeries are, by definition, necessary, medically.

Are you going to trot out triple-heart-bypasses, if we ever discuss the propriety of breast enhancement?

Of course I can. It was a ridiculous comparison, and purposely so.

Well, you can, but you basically pretended it was idiotic, which would be, in essence, arguing that you were being an idiot earlier in the thread. Do you disagree?

Because medically necessary surgeries are, by definition, necessary, medically.

Removing a skin tag is medically necessary? The child dies if you don't?

The same for a mole, or a non-cancerous bump? They will die if you don't remove them?

Are you going to trot out triple-heart-bypasses, if we ever discuss the propriety of breast enhancement?

Never heard of a skin tag removal being linked with survival. This is news to me.

And if you make overly emotive statements, expecting them to be taken seriously,


There was nothing overly emotive about it. You could call the language colorful, perhaps... I'll admit I spoke somewhat picturesquely... but the point was good, and the demanor was calm.


...in order to ignore the argument I made...


Ah, sorry - I see why you're confused. You didn't make an argument.

You just said 'source please', in true NSG spirit (for which, obviously, I commend you).


...that your argument is shit unless you PROVE that ceasing circumcisions would improve society...feel free.


My argument is 'shit'?

Thank god you're not a lawyer or something.

I rather think that the onus for evidence... would be on those that claim UNNECESSARY surgery should be de rigeur on babies.


But I'm not going to lose sight of the fact that you haven't made your case very well, just because you fall down and froth at the mouth a little.

Falling down and frothing at the mouth. It's cute how you drop back into that every time you've nothing to say.

Removing a skin tag is medically necessary? The child dies if you don't?

The same for a mole, or a non-cancerous bump? They will die if you don't remove them?

Never heard of a skin tag removal being linked with survival. This is news to me.

Got nothing, huh?

Removing a skin tag is medically necessary? The child dies if you don't?

The same for a mole, or a non-cancerous bump? They will die if you don't remove them?



Never heard of a skin tag removal being linked with survival. This is news to me.

I have to say that the argument about skin tags and such are much better. It's an actually much more comparable decision by the parents.

Out of curiosity, what is the incidence of death or dis"member"ment in the removal of skin tags? How many times do they require surgeries to repair the botched skin tag removals? I'm asking honestly since it's relevant to the comparison.

It should also be noted that in order to make the comparison complete you'd have to show there is some argument for the use of skin tags.

I don't disagree. That you did it without my consent would be a given. That I'm capable of giving consent is also a given. However, when determining the consequences in a lawsuit, what I'd be compensated would not just be based on the fact that something, anything, happened without my consent.

You and I both know that what I'd be compensated would be based on the fact that the removal of my foreskin would constitute harm.

You're welcome to suggest that the jury or a judge would decide the only harm was in not getting consent and that there was no other concern. That would make the consequences of accidentally shaving my head in prep the same as cutting off my schmeckle, but I'm pretty sure we'd both agree that's a completely unlikely conclusion by pretty much every jury and pretty much every judge.

Please don't play armchair lawyer. Dem mangles that enough.

With an adult who has capacity, pretty much any contact out of the ordinary can be considered a battery. Because consent is assumed to have NOT been given to these out of the ordinary interactions. Consent is key.

An infant, or an adult who lacks capacity, needs someone to make decisions for them. Consent is not in the hands of the person lacking capacity, consent is in the hands of the person making those decisions on their behalf. Of course, there are things said decision maker is not allowed, by law, to consent to on that person's behalf. Otherwise you'd see the special ed classes working the avenues with their pimp teaching pocketing the profit.

It makes no sense to compare an infant,whose parents or guardians are in the place to make decisions like this for the child...to an adult. Not legally.

If you want to make some other argument outside of the law, please, feel free, and I'll entertain it.

Got nothing, huh?

I'm saying that you would gladly remove a skin tag, a mole, or a bump on the child's skin that's non-cancerous and non-threatening well before the age of consent. You wouldn't even think twice about it.

There is conflicting medical evidence on circumcision, stating it is beneficial in some cases, but might be harmful in others. It has a very low complication rate, and is recommended by many (although not the majority) doctors for medical reasons.

How, in the world, is it different from a skin tag?

No, actually. If you're claiming that it shouldn't extend to circumcision then the burden is on you to show why such an exception need be made. That we've already made one is irrelevant. At one point, interracial marriage was illegal. It was reversed not by proving that right to marriage should be extended to interracial marriage, but by showing that the right to marriage is a recognized right in this country and that it's an individual right. With the lack of a valid argument for an exception that wasn't discriminatory, interracial marriage became legal.

Now, of course, because it's a court, both sides had to make arguments, but the burden to prove that an exception should remain an exception is on those arguing to keep the exception.

*hoping neesika or some other person in law addresses this, not that I actually care how the US legal system works*

In the meantime Q: Do you think parents shouldn't be allowed to pierce the ears of infants?

*hoping neesika or some other person in law addresses this, not that I actually care how the US legal system works*

In the meantime Q: Do you think parents shouldn't be allowed to pierce the ears of infants?

Actually, I don't think they should. I also think they shouldn't tattoo their faces. Of course, the impact of piercing ears is quite different than cutting off the foreskin.

Again, it's fairly easy to analyze the comparison. If while you were unable to consent someone accidentally pierced your ears, what would be the consequence? How would it compare to accidentally removing your foreskin?

I think that it's relatively obvious that the impace of the circumcision is much greater. Complication from circumcision, removal of the glans of the penis. Complication from a botched ear-piercing, removal of the lobe. Hmmmmmm.... you're male. Which would you find more invasive?

I'm saying that you would gladly remove a skin tag, a mole, or a bump on the child's skin that's non-cancerous and non-threatening well before the age of consent. You wouldn't even think twice about it.

There is conflicting medical evidence on circumcision, stating it is beneficial in some cases, but might be harmful in others. It has a very low complication rate, and is recommended by many (although not the majority) doctors for medical reasons.

How, in the world, is it different from a skin tag?

First - why would I remove skin tags, moles, or non-cancerous bumps? I've never had a mole removed from myself, or any of my kids... why am I about to start doing this? And... what kind of skin tag are we talking about, that I'm trotting out the money (I don't have) to pay for unnecessary surgeries?

Funny that you know what I'm going to do better than I do...

Second - foreskins serve a purpose, I've yet to see the 'benefits' claims for moles, tags and bumps.

Actually, I don't think they should. I also think they shouldn't tattoo their faces. Of course, the impact of piercing ears is quite different than cutting off the foreskin.


Do you think it should be illegal though? Which is what I meant to say, I don't mean whether you would personally object to it.


Again, it's fairly easy to analyze the comparison. If while you were unable to consent someone accidentally pierced your ears, what would be the consequence? How would it compare to accidentally removing your foreskin?


Irrelevant. The question is whether it is a violation of the right to bodily integrity or not, there are many very different things that can violate this right.


I think that it's relatively obvious that the impace of the circumcision is much greater. Complication from circumcision, removal of the glans of the penis. Complication from a botched ear-piercing, removal of the lobe. Hmmmmmm.... you're male. Which would you find more invasive?

Again, do the severity of the consequences actually make a difference to whether something is a violation of the right to bodily integrity or not?

*hoping neesika or some other person in law addresses this, not that I actually care how the US legal system works*

In the meantime Q: Do you think parents shouldn't be allowed to pierce the ears of infants?

Do you think parents should be allowed to cut earlobes off of their kids?

You know - just for the sake of parity.

Please don't play armchair lawyer. Dem mangles that enough.

With an adult who has capacity, pretty much any contact out of the ordinary can be considered a battery. Because consent is assumed to have NOT been given to these out of the ordinary interactions. Consent is key.

An infant, or an adult who lacks capacity, needs someone to make decisions for them. Consent is not in the hands of the person lacking capacity, consent is in the hands of the person making those decisions on their behalf. Of course, there are things said decision maker is not allowed, by law, to consent to on that person's behalf. Otherwise you'd see the special ed classes working the avenues with their pimp teaching pocketing the profit.

It makes no sense to compare an infant,whose parents or guardians are in the place to make decisions like this for the child...to an adult. Not legally.

If you want to make some other argument outside of the law, please, feel free, and I'll entertain it.

You aren't actually paying attention, huh? It's an accident. It would not be battery. There is no intent.

You've repeatedly lectured me about paying attention to what people say, so do it. You claimed that you'd have to show that there is harm done by removing the foreskin.

What I asked, as a way to demonstrate whether or not removing the foreskin constitutes harm, is whether or not YOU believe a jury or judge would grant compensation to someone based on the removal of foreskin without their consent.

What I asked was whether or not that would be different than say if the same hospital accendentally shaved a two inch square of hair off thinking you needed different prep than you did.

In both cases, your consent was not given and in both cases you were capable of consent. The question is that the only difference in each case is what was done without your consent. If the consequence for shaving was less than the consequence for removing the foreskin, then this is clear evidence that removing the foreskin, in and of itself, constitutes harm to the person.

Do you think parents should be allowed to cut earlobes off of their kids?

You know - just for the sake of parity.

Why should it matter? Does severity affect whether it violates the right to bodily integrity or not?

First - why would I remove skin tags, moles, or non-cancerous bumps? I've never had a mole removed from myself, or any of my kids... why am I about to start doing this? And... what kind of skin tag are we talking about, that I'm trotting out the money (I don't have) to pay for unnecessary surgeries?

You're forgetting that in some cases (circumcision), medically, removing the foreskin IS necessary.

Why should it matter? Does severity affect whether it violates the right to bodily integrity or not?

That's not an answer.

Do you think it should be illegal though? Which is what I meant to say, I don't mean whether you would personally object to it.

Yes, I really do. I would be more adamant if the consequences were as grave as those of circumcision, however.


Irrelevant. The question is whether it is a violation of the right to bodily integrity or not, there are many very different things that can violate this right.

Yes, it is.

Again, do the severity of the consequences actually make a difference to whether something is a violation of the right to bodily integrity or not?

No. It does make a difference on whether or not it should be permitted for a parent to make the decision, however. For example, I can restrain a child in a way that I cannot restrain an adult. However, I cannot tie a child to a table for a week.

I happen to disagree with Dem in that simply pointing out that the right exists is enough. We do allow all kinds of decisions by parents that violate rights we couldn't violate with adults.

That's not an answer.

The answer to the question is no, currently. There may be situations where the answer is yes.

You're forgetting that in some cases (circumcision), medically, removing the foreskin IS necessary.

No, I'm really not.

I've not once in the thread suggested that medically-necessary circumcisions should be considered in the same light as... well, UN-necessary... ones.

I've been consistent on it from the start.

I also don't think you should cut people's hands off for shits and giggles, but if there's a good medical reason, I can totally see it.

You're forgetting that in some cases (circumcision), medically, removing the foreskin IS necessary.

We're talking about it being done routinely. When it's done to correct a medical condition is not something anyone here is objecting to. As such, it's also not something we're discussing.

The answer to the question is no, currently. There may be situations where the answer is yes.

Then, what would be a good enough reason?

The answer to the question is no, currently. There may be situations where the answer is yes.

What situations would those be?

Then, what would be a good enough reason?

What situations would those be?

Before I answer, let me say I don't actually know but I'm assuming the only problems of cutting earlobes of a child off are aesthetic, after the initial pain, correct me if I'm wrong.

Before I answer, let me say I don't actually know but I'm assuming the only problems of cutting earlobes of a child off are aesthetic, after the initial pain, correct me if I'm wrong.

Why are the potential problems relevant? There are potential problems with circumcision as well.

Before I answer, let me say I don't actually know but I'm assuming the only problems of cutting earlobes of a child off are aesthetic, after the initial pain, correct me if I'm wrong.

Nowhere to hang earrings, too...

I suppose you're right... if we really want some degree of parity, it should really be more like cutting off the whole outer ear...

So - what would you consider justification?

Why are the potential problems relevant? There are potential problems with circumcision as well.

Arguably, I haven't seen any clear evidence that circumcision causes significant long term harm, there doesn't seem to be consensus, and there seems to be even contradictions in the medical community about the matter.

Nowhere to hang earrings, too...

I suppose you're right... if we really want some degree of parity, it should really be more like cutting off the whole outer ear...


I've seen nothing convincing me that the two are equal.


So - what would you consider justification?

For earlobes, or for cutting the whole ear off now?

Arguably, I haven't seen any clear evidence that circumcision causes significant long term harm, there doesn't seem to be consensus, and there seems to be even contradictions in the medical community about the matter.

Um, you do know that between 2 and 10% of circumcisions have complications, right? That's what I'm talking about. In very, very few cases, the result can be death.

The more common outcome is scar tissue, which happened to me.

Um, you do know that between 2 and 10% of circumcisions have complications, right? That's what I'm talking about. In very, very few cases, the result can be death.

The more common outcome is scar tissue, which happened to me.

Actually, this percentage is possibly true, but this is why I'm more likely to support Sweden's approach, if any change is needed.

Out of curiosity, what is the incidence of death or dis"member"ment in the removal of skin tags? How many times do they require surgeries to repair the botched skin tag removals? I'm asking honestly since it's relevant to the comparison.

Very small I'm sure, as is circumcision. I'd say too much bleeding is the only thing I can think of right at this moment. I haven't been able to find any articles on the subject yet.

However, for circumcision, complications are between 1/200 to 1/500 for circumcision, depending on who you ask, and most of those are small and easily correctable.

However, in the US, as far as I can tell (and I've looked), there has not been a death from circumcision in the last century.

It should also be noted that in order to make the comparison complete you'd have to show there is some argument for the use of skin tags.

Could be a beauty mark. There's very little argument for the use of foreskin. The penis works just fine without it, better, worse, or about the same depending on who you ask. Mostly the argument has been that the child cannot consent to being cut.

Very small I'm sure, as is circumcision. I'd say too much bleeding is the only thing I can think of right at this moment. I haven't been able to find any articles on the subject yet.

However, for circumcision, complications are between 1/200 to 1/500 for circumcision, depending on who you ask, and most of those are small and easily correctable.

However, in the US, as far as I can tell (and I've looked), there has not been a death from circumcision in the last century.

Wait, according to whom? The only studies I've seen (there were two) showed that it varies from 2% to 10% depending on what you consider a complication. The source for that has been placed in this thread repeatedly, but I'll provide it again if necessary. What's your source?


Could be a beauty mark. There's very little argument for the use of foreskin. The penis works just fine without it, better, worse, or about the same depending on who you ask. Mostly the argument has been that the child cannot consent to being cut.
There is? Hmmmm... only if you pretend that no one is making that argument. If the foreskin had no use, then the medical reasons for removing it would also go away. The foreskin helps the glans remain moist (incidentally the clitoral hood does virtually the same thing). It's precisely that moisture that is claimed to be the culprit in most of the medical issues used as justification for its removal. It's also that moisture that prevents ketonization.

I've seen nothing convincing me that the two are equal.


By design, the foreskin provides protection. It also houses meters of blood vessels and tens of thousands of never endings.

You can cut it off, and the penis still functions.

By design, the outer ear serves the purpose of channeling sound.

You can cut it off, and the ear still functions.


In both cases, you could argue that neither situation leaves an ideal result.

Sure, they're not equal. One involves ears, and the other involves penises... and I'm reliably informed that those are VERY different things.

On the other hand - both situations here would involve some arguable loss of functionality of design, even if you CAN argue that the relevant body part still 'works'.


For earlobes, or for cutting the whole ear off now?

Either would be a start, no?

There's very little argument for the use of foreskin.

Someone hasn't been paying attention to the sources...

Wait, according to whom? The only studies I've seen (there were two) showed that it varies from 2% to 10% depending on what you consider a complication. The source for that has been placed in this thread repeatedly, but I'll provide it again if necessary. What's your source?

The World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/rhl/hiv_aids/cmcom/en/)

There is? Hmmmm... only if you pretend that no one is making that argument. If the foreskin had no use, then the medical reasons for removing it would also go away. The foreskin helps the glans remain moist (incidentally the clitoral hood does virtually the same thing). It's precisely that moisture that is claimed to be the culprit in most of the medical issues used as justification for its removal. It's also that moisture that prevents ketonization.

If you say so. I read one article that claimed it's instrumental in the penis' development during gestation, but serves no use once born. It was by a doctor, but it seemed... slanted, so I didn't link it.

\Sure, they're not equal. One involves ears, and the other involves penises... and I'm reliably informed that those are VERY different things.

Source?

On the other hand - both situations here would involve some arguable loss of functionality of design, even if you CAN argue that the relevant body part still 'works'.


Show me a medical general consensus about loss of functionality of the penis from circumcision.


Either would be a start, no?

If there was a very populous tribe that had existed for thousands of years within a nationstate, where cutting off the earlobe was a crucial cultural and religious ritual, and that it wasn't seen as particularly strange to not have an earlobe in that nation, then I wouldn't be too bothered. If it was the whole ear however, I would probably not allow it.

The World Health Organization (http://apps.who.int/rhl/hiv_aids/cmcom/en/)



If you say so. I read one article that claimed it's instrumental in the penis' development during gestation, but serves no use once born. It was by a doctor, but it seemed... slanted, so I didn't link it.

Your source isn't the WHO. It's an article on the WHO, that references another source. That references another source. And so on.

Your source isn't the WHO. It's an article on the WHO, that references another source. That references another source. And so on.

My bad. The source is:

American Academy of Pediatrics. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388-391.

Source?

The ultimate arbiter (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=ears&word2=penis)

Your source isn't the WHO. It's an article on the WHO, that references another source. That references another source. And so on.

It's not going to be unreliable though, and most certainly a UN organisation would be using reviewed references and not unreliable, faulty ones. 99% of the sources linked on NSG which are considered reliable are things like journal articles that reference other sources.

Okay, found the original source. It was Kaplan. Incidentally, it was also Kaplan I was citing, but his numbers have been updated.

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/kaplan/

My bad. The source is:

American Academy of Pediatrics. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388-391.

No, it isn't. That's citing another source. Kaplan, GW.

It's not going to be unreliable though, and most certainly a UN organisation would be using reviewed references and not unreliable, faulty ones. 99% of the sources linked on NSG which are considered reliable are things like journal articles that reference other sources.

However, it's necessary to get to the original source. See, in this case, the source, Kaplan, actually did further study. I actually linked his most recent conclusions here.

Also, incidentally, the WHO isn't doing anything. They have a sourced paper available on their site. It was written by certain people. It's not a policy statement from the organization. Those people used a source, that used a source, that was ultimately Kaplan. As such, we should look at what Kaplan says.

Show me a medical general consensus about loss of functionality of the penis from circumcision.

Uh, you need a source that the function of the foreskin is lost? Does it somehow remain while the foreskin doesn't?

The foreskin has a function to protect the glans. It's not disputed that it has that function. There is some dispute about whether that function is necessary, but there is no dispute that it does, in fact, protect the glans.

No, it isn't. That's citing another source. Kaplan, GW.

You have that article for me to look at? Because I don't see a link to it anywhere. It also doesn't mention Kaplan anywhere in the article.

Also, going back to the AAP, and I know you won't believe it, but they have an article here. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/1/S2/246)

A specific point in that article is this, from 2000:

Methods. Using the Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System for Washington State, we retrospectively examined routine newborn circumcisions performed over 9 years (1987-1996). We used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify both circumcisions and complications and limited our analyses to children without other surgical procedures performed during their initial birth hospitalization.

Results. Of 354 297 male infants born during the study period, 130 475 (37%) were circumcised during their newborn stay. Overall 287 (.2%) of circumcised children and 33 (.01%) of uncircumcised children had complications potentially associated with circumcision coded as a discharge diagnosis. Based on our findings, a complication can be expected in 1 out every 476 circumcisions. Six urinary tract infections can be prevented for every complication endured and almost 2 complications can be expected for every case of penile cancer prevented.

Conclusions. Circumcision remains a relatively safe procedure. However, for some parents, the risks we report may outweigh the potential benefits. This information may help parents seeking guidance to make an informed decision.

Still no mention of Kaplan.

Show me a medical general consensus about loss of functionality of the penis from circumcision.


For realsies? Have you not being paying attention at all?


If there was a very populous tribe that had existed for thousands of years within a nationstate, where cutting off the earlobe was a crucial cultural and religious ritual, and that it wasn't seen as particularly strange to not have an earlobe in that nation, then I wouldn't be too bothered. If it was the whole ear however, I would probably not allow it.

The 'whole ear' isn't the same as the external ear, by the way. You could cut off the external ear without detroying the 'function' of the ear, per se. Hence, the external ear actually being a better parallel. And one that you think shouldn't be allowed?

Uh, you need a source that the function of the foreskin is lost? Does it somehow remain while the foreskin doesn't?

The foreskin has a function to protect the glans. It's not disputed that it has that function. There is some dispute about whether that function is necessary, but there is no dispute that it does, in fact, protect the glans.

GnI was suggesting that it hinders the functionality of the penis as much as cutting off the ear hinders the ability to hear, I would like at the very least a source from a reliable medical organisation to suggest this is true, rather than some loan scientist.

Uh, you need a source that the function of the foreskin is lost? Does it somehow remain while the foreskin doesn't?

The foreskin has a function to protect the glans. It's not disputed that it has that function. There is some dispute about whether that function is necessary, but there is no dispute that it does, in fact, protect the glans.

Quick amendment - there's not even a dispute about whether that function is necessary, really - since the glans of a circumcised penis keratinizes in the absence of a foreskin, effectively trying to duplicate the effect that having a foreskin had.

The functionality of the foreskin is pretty un-arguably lost, hence why the glans has to adapt.

For realsies? Have you not being paying attention at all?


Are you going to present it or not? Again let me be specific because there is some confusion, I want a source showing that it hinders an important functionality of the penis to an extent equal to how cutting off the outer ear impairs hearing.


The 'whole ear' isn't the same as the external ear, by the way. You could cut off the external ear without detroying the 'function'

But seriously impairing it I believe, and I believe it causes other complications.

You have that article for me to look at? Because I don't see a link to it anywhere. It also doesn't mention Kaplan anywhere in the article.

Also, going back to the AAP, and I know you won't believe it, but they have an article here. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/1/S2/246)

A specific point in that article is this, from 2000:

Methods. Using the Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System for Washington State, we retrospectively examined routine newborn circumcisions performed over 9 years (1987-1996). We used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify both circumcisions and complications and limited our analyses to children without other surgical procedures performed during their initial birth hospitalization.

Results. Of 354 297 male infants born during the study period, 130 475 (37%) were circumcised during their newborn stay. Overall 287 (.2%) of circumcised children and 33 (.01%) of uncircumcised children had complications potentially associated with circumcision coded as a discharge diagnosis. Based on our findings, a complication can be expected in 1 out every 476 circumcisions. Six urinary tract infections can be prevented for every complication endured and almost 2 complications can be expected for every case of penile cancer prevented.

Conclusions. Circumcision remains a relatively safe procedure. However, for some parents, the risks we report may outweigh the potential benefits. This information may help parents seeking guidance to make an informed decision.

Still no mention of Kaplan.

Then you're not looking. AAP isn't the source. The article housed on AAP is.

American Academy of Pediatrics. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388-391.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686#B35

That's the source. Here is their source...

Kaplan GW Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1983; 10:543-549 [Medline]
(look at the bottom of the page on that link) Do a search for this text as a source for the AAP source. I used their source as mine (much earlier in the article, in fact.

and it links back to my article. That article actually gives a lot of numbers none of which seem to be what they're saying they are.

Honestly, just follow the sources.
YOUR source.

Are you going to present it or not? Again let me be specific because there is some confusion, I want a source showing that it hinders an important functionality of the penis to an extent equal to how cutting off the outer ear impairs hearing.

But seriously impairing it I believe, and I believe it causes other complications.

Cutting off the external ear would arguably be unsightly.

It might lead to complication, including infection.

It's main effect would be to remove the function of the outer ear - to focus sound into the inner ear (allowing us to do things like work out where a sound is coming from),.

Cutting off the foreskin is arguably unsightly.

It might lead to complication, including infection.

It's main effect would be to remove the function of the foreskin - to protect the glans.

Are you going to present it or not? Again let me be specific because there is some confusion, I want a source showing that it hinders an important functionality of the penis to an extent equal to how cutting off the outer ear impairs hearing.

Important? What would you regard as important? See, here's the problem. If you never had ears, how important would you consider them to be? Because that's the issue with circumcision. The argument seems to be that because people who don't have them for their entire lives don't seem to miss them thus they don't need them.


But seriously impairing it I believe, and I believe it causes other complications.

What other complications?

Bed time for now, bubbye.

Cutting off the external ear would arguably be unsightly.

It might lead to complication, including infection.

It's main effect would be to remove the function of the outer ear - to focus sound into the inner ear (allowing us to do things like work out where a sound is coming from),.

Cutting off the foreskin is arguably unsightly.

It might lead to complication, including infection.

It's main effect would be to remove the function of the foreskin - to protect the glans.

It is funny that he seems to think we should be allowed to even cut off the lobe.

Then you're not looking. AAP isn't the source. The article housed on AAP is.

American Academy of Pediatrics. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388-391.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686#B35

That's the source. Here is their source...

Kaplan GW Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1983; 10:543-549 [Medline]
(look at the bottom of the page on that link)

and it links back to my article. That article actually argues the most reasonable numbers put it at 2% to 10%, so it's a stretch to source them and then give a different number than that.

Honestly, just follow the sources.
YOUR source.

My apologies.

BTW the article I just linked to isn't that article. In fact, it's an article from ten years later.

My apologies.

BTW the article I just linked to isn't that article. In fact, it's an article from ten years later.

I know, but the original article sources the article I just linked, which links to an article I've been sourcing throughout the thread. Your own sources show that Kaplan is outstanding in this field.

By the way, my numbers I just cited were from another source I was using. I edited.

It is funny that he seems to think we should be allowed to even cut off the lobe.

I'm a little disturbed by that argument, certainly. But, as he pointed out, to have some degree of functional parity, the lobe is small potatoes (what a gross mental image) in comparison.

Honestly, just follow the sources.
YOUR source.

I looked at it. The 0.2% figure and the 0.6% figure are referenced by numbers 33 and 34.

33. Gee WF, Ansell JS Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview with comparison of Gomco clamp and Plastibell device. Pediatrics 1976; 58:824-827 [Abstract]
34. Harkavy KL The circumcision debate. Pediatrics 1987; 79:649-650 [Abstract/Free Full Text]

Are you going to present it or not? Again let me be specific because there is some confusion, I want a source showing that it hinders an important functionality of the penis to an extent equal to how cutting off the outer ear impairs hearing.

http://www.circinfo.org/quote.html

A US doctor, 1891

In consequence of circumcision the epithelial covering of the glans becomes dry, hard, less liable to excoriation and inflammation, and less pervious to venereal viruses. The sensibility of the glans is diminished, but not sufficiently to interfere with the copulative function or to constitute an objection. … It is well authenticated that the foreskin … is a fruitful cause of the habit of masturbation in children.

Jefferson C. Crossland MD, "The hygiene of circumcision", New York Medical Journal, Vol. 53, 1891, pp. 484-5

Not good enough, perhaps. But it's something to start with Hydey.

I looked at it. The 0.2% figure and the 0.6% figure are referenced by numbers 33 and 34.

33. Gee WF, Ansell JS Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview with comparison of Gomco clamp and Plastibell device. Pediatrics 1976; 58:824-827 [Abstract]
34. Harkavy KL The circumcision debate. Pediatrics 1987; 79:649-650 [Abstract/Free Full Text]

You do know 34 is just a letter from a doctor, yeah? And the number .6 is the number from one hospital without noting any further complications that did not return to that hospital or were not immediate. You should read it. The methodology isn't cited properly and it shouldn't be used as a source.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/79/4/649

Again, to be clear, it wasn't meant to be a study or a source. It was simply an argument about the problems with another article.



Now, for 33. They only noted immediate complications. For example, my own complication would not be accounted for. That means .2 percent is the amount of immediate complications and doesn't address complications where there are later cosmetic issues or issues that require an additional surgery.

The same article notes that there are, in fact, deaths according to one of it's sources. They openly note there are all kinds of complications they aren't addressing because it wasn't their purpose. As such, that number is erroneous as we have to consider non-immediate complications.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/58/6/824

Sorry to dip out like that, crazy shit came up eep! Okay, not sure I'll have time to catch up tonight, but it's not because I'm ignoring anyone! Continue making this thread awesome!

Not good enough, perhaps. But it's something to start with Hydey.

God hates people who masturbate. Ergo, Circumcision should be mandatory. For their own good.:D

Sorry to dip out like that, crazy shit came up eep! Okay, not sure I'll have time to catch up tonight, but it's not because I'm ignoring anyone! Continue making this thread awesome!

Especially me, right? Right?

THe fun part is that you can just join whatever side you decide is more interesting. Ah, the benefits of being willing to just fuck with people. :p

You aren't actually paying attention, huh? It's an accident. It would not be battery. There is no intent. Tsk, tsk Jocabia, I warned you not to play armchair lawyer.

In civil law, intent is not an element of battery. Battery is a trespass against the person, and in many jurisdictions, it's strict liability. There are defences of course, but every single surgery is a battery unless there is consent. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Talk about not paying attention, sheesh, you must have slept through torts.

Oh wait. Riiiight. You haven't actually studied the law. Hmm.

You've repeatedly lectured me about paying attention to what people say, so do it. You claimed that you'd have to show that there is harm done by removing the foreskin. What I said was that you would have to weigh the harm in NOT circumcising someone as opposed to doing so. I also pointed out how it was inappropriate to compare this analysis to one of an adult who was mistakenly circumcised. I went into pretty good detail there too, are you unclear on a point? I'll gladly fill it in. Repeating myself however, seems counterproductive.

What I asked, as a way to demonstrate whether or not removing the foreskin constitutes harm, is whether or not YOU believe a jury or judge would grant compensation to someone based on the removal of foreskin without their consent.
And as I pointed out, in obviously more detail than you were able to grasp, is that your comparisons don't work, legally, for the reaons I've already stated.



What I asked was whether or not that would be different than say if the same hospital accendentally shaved a two inch square of hair off thinking you needed different prep than you did.

It would still be a battery, but unless you were only seeking nominal damages, you'd have to show that this harmed you in some way. The harm in your foreskin being removed would be more obvious, but you'd still have to quantify it in someway. Now THAT would be interesting. What is a foreskin worth, I wonder?

Now wasn't that a nice little walk down diversion lane? Because as I've repeatedly pointed out, this analogy simply doesn't work, in a legal sense, if you want to actually discuss infant circumcision.


In both cases, your consent was not given and in both cases you were capable of consent. The question is that the only difference in each case is what was done without your consent. If the consequence for shaving was less than the consequence for removing the foreskin, then this is clear evidence that removing the foreskin, in and of itself, constitutes harm to the person.

I've never claimed that circumcision doesn't constitute 'harm', just as I wouldn't argue that a piercing, a tattoo or scarification do not constitute harm. (I did, however, suggest that the harm in NOT circumcising someone may actually outweigh the harm in performing the circumcision)

And yet STILL, shockingly, this entire pseudo-legal analysis of yours falls short, because you can consent to these kinds of 'harms', and if you can't consent...someone very well may be able to consent for you. Hi mummy! Hi daddy!

Don't make me smack you with my copy of Black's Legal Dictionary for expressely engaging in a debate you aren't prepared for. Take this out of the legal realm, and you'll have a better argument.

Especially me, right? Right?

THe fun part is that you can just join whatever side you decide is more interesting. Ah, the benefits of being willing to just fuck with people. :p

I'm not nearly that capricious. The truth is, I'm not entirely decided on the issue. I wouldn't have my sons (of which there will never be any, I am DONE baby making) circumcised. It isn't my culture, and I don't find the medical benefits very compelling. However, I understand why (if not in great detail perhaps) it is an important practice for some. I wouldn't support preventing them from doing it.

Tsk, tsk Jocabia, I warned you not to play armchair lawyer.

In civil law, intent is not an element of battery. Battery is a trespass against the person, and in many jurisdictions, it's strict liability. There are defences of course, but every single surgery is a battery unless there is consent. Intent has nothing to do with it.

Talk about not paying attention, sheesh, you must have slept through torts.

Oh wait. Riiiight. You haven't actually studied the law. Hmm.
What I said was that you would have to weigh the harm in NOT circumcising someone as opposed to doing so. I also pointed out how it was inappropriate to compare this analysis to one of an adult who was mistakenly circumcised. I went into pretty good detail there too, are you unclear on a point? I'll gladly fill it in. Repeating myself however, seems counterproductive.

And as I pointed out, in obviously more detail than you were able to grasp, is that your comparisons don't work, legally, for the reaons I've already stated.




It would still be a battery, but unless you were only seeking nominal damages, you'd have to show that this harmed you in some way. The harm in your foreskin being removed would be more obvious, but you'd still have to quantify it in someway. Now THAT would be interesting. What is a foreskin worth, I wonder?

Now wasn't that a nice little walk down diversion lane? Because as I've repeatedly pointed out, this analogy simply doesn't work, in a legal sense, if you want to actually discuss infant circumcision.


I've never claimed that circumcision doesn't constitute 'harm', just as I wouldn't argue that a piercing, a tattoo or scarification do not constitute harm. (I did, however, suggest that the harm in NOT circumcising someone may actually outweigh the harm in performing the circumcision)

And yet STILL, shockingly, this entire pseudo-legal analysis of yours falls short, because you can consent to these kinds of 'harms', and if you can't consent...someone very well may be able to consent for you. Hi mummy! Hi daddy!

Don't make me smack you with my copy of Black's Legal Dictionary for expressely engaging in a debate you aren't prepared for. Take this out of the legal realm, and you'll have a better argument.

The problem that you're missing is that we were only discussing whether or not there is harm. That was your specific question. We know the parents are consenting to allow you to have the foreskin removed. There is no debate there.

But intrinsic to whether or not this practice should be stopped is whether or not we can and should consider the removal of the foreskin harm. You asked that very question. I created the hypothetical to demonstrate that we'd certainly consider the same practice harmful if it were an adult. As you pointed out there is a difference between if the harm were shaving the head versus removing the foreskin. That says that the harm isn't solely in the fact that I've not consented but found in the actual removal of the foreskin.

Do you see the point of my analogy now?

EDIT: As to battery, I'm aware (though not entirely versed) of the lack of a need to intend harm for battery in civil court, but in my scenario you had permission for contact. The problem was that due to negligence the contact was not the desired contact. Like I said, I'm not entirely versed, but that degree and type of intent requirement is different would not be where my mistake lay. I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong in this, as well, but isn't intent still required but it doesn't require intent to harm. At least, that's what I remember it being for the US.

Nope, unless you were an adult who lacked the capacity to make those decisions for himself.

And capacity, dear friend, is exactly what separates (legally) the circumcised child from the circumcised adult.

Suppose I were the legal caretaker of an adult with the mental capacity of a child. Would it be legally acceptable for me to have him circumcised based on my own religious convictions?

I happen to disagree with Dem in that simply pointing out that the right exists is enough. We do allow all kinds of decisions by parents that violate rights we couldn't violate with adults.

Luckily, I never made that argument, so you aren't disagreeing with me there.

Pointing out that the right exists is the first step. It means that the exception to that right - the ability of the parent to make that decision - must be justified by their legal status as the caretaker of that child. Yes, there are many things we allow parents to do to a child that they cannot do to an adult. But there are also many things that a parent cannot do to a child or an adult. The former arise out of the parent's role as caretaker.

I've even used examples in this thread - a parent can choose what foods a child eats, where they go, what medical procedures they undergo. These things are all necessitated by the fact that the child is not yet competent to make these decisions and they need to be made at the time. So the caretaker (the parent) gets to make them.

I have yet to be given any reason outside of medical justification that a parent needs the authority to cut off pieces off of his child. As such, there is no reason to hold that the parent can do so.

The answer to the question is no, currently. There may be situations where the answer is yes.

So if I fervently believed that God wanted me to cut my child's earlobes off, that would be permissible according to you?

How severe an injury can I make under that justification?

Could be a beauty mark. There's very little argument for the use of foreskin.

Actually, there's little argument against the idea that the foreskin serves a purpose. Even those who advocate circumcision don't argue that point. Remove it, and the penis is still functional, yes. But this is because it adapts, not because the foreskin is vestigial.

If there was a very populous tribe that had existed for thousands of years within a nationstate, where cutting off the earlobe was a crucial cultural and religious ritual, and that it wasn't seen as particularly strange to not have an earlobe in that nation, then I wouldn't be too bothered. If it was the whole ear however, I would probably not allow it.

Why does the length of time matter? Should the government really be making judgment calls on which religion or culture is more important based on its age or number of adherents?

If I am a member of a minority or newer religion, does that mean that I should receive less religious freedom than someone who is a member of a majority or old religion?

I'm a little disturbed by that argument, certainly. But, as he pointed out, to have some degree of functional parity, the lobe is small potatoes (what a gross mental image) in comparison.

I intentionally used it that way. Cutting off an earlobe would remove less tissue and would not really impair function. It would remove far less nervous tissue and, I believe, less vascular tissue as well. With the possible exception of Hydesland, I have not seen anyone in this thread arguing that a parent should be allowed to cut off his child's earlobe. They are, however, arguing that the parent should be allowed to make the decision to cut off a more significant piece of the child's anatomy.


Sorry to dip out like that, crazy shit came up eep! Okay, not sure I'll have time to catch up tonight, but it's not because I'm ignoring anyone! Continue making this thread awesome!

'S a thread about penises. Doesn't that make it automatically awesome?

I've never claimed that circumcision doesn't constitute 'harm', just as I wouldn't argue that a piercing, a tattoo or scarification do not constitute harm. (I did, however, suggest that the harm in NOT circumcising someone may actually outweigh the harm in performing the circumcision)

I don't see how. Any harm done by not circumcising can be easily rectified by doing the circumcision when the person wants it. Harm done by circumcising can't be rectified.

And yet STILL, shockingly, this entire pseudo-legal analysis of yours falls short, because you can consent to these kinds of 'harms', and if you can't consent...someone very well may be able to consent for you. Hi mummy! Hi daddy!

They may. But they can't always. For instance, I could consent, for instance, to being whipped, but most jurisdictions would consider actual whipping of a child to be abuse. The parent doesn't get to consent to that.

My question is why mummy and daddy should be able to consent to removing a child's body part without medical justification (and, tbh, I think the law is willing to accept pretty flimsy medical justification in most cases).

Don't make me smack you with my copy of Black's Legal Dictionary for expressely engaging in a debate you aren't prepared for. Take this out of the legal realm, and you'll have a better argument.

If your argument is that a practice should be illegal, how exactly can you take it out of the legal realm? <3

I'm not nearly that capricious. The truth is, I'm not entirely decided on the issue. I wouldn't have my sons (of which there will never be any, I am DONE baby making) circumcised. It isn't my culture, and I don't find the medical benefits very compelling. However, I understand why (if not in great detail perhaps) it is an important practice for some. I wouldn't support preventing them from doing it.

FGM, in many forms, is also an important practice for some. But I haven't seen you argue that parents should be allowed to perform it on female children. Why is this different?

What about child rape?

Is it okay if we say that is abuse?

Circumcision causes permanent damage. I've presented evidence (that you apparently haven't seen...) that it causes physical, emotional, and mental harm. I can't see any way genital mutilation DOESN'T constitute abuse... unless you'd also argue that things like child rape aren't abuse.
What about strawmen? Why won't anyone think of the strawmen!!! Instead of just jumping up and down on your soapbox and trying to demonize anyone who disagrees with you on any part of your platform, why don't you try thinking about what someone else actually writes? You know, maybe just for a minute or two.

EDIT: I have seen your evidence. In my opinion, it does not overwhelm the counter evidence that others have posted. They cancel each other out in regard to the severity of the effect of circumcision.

But the difference here is that this isn't making it illegal to circumcise. It's simply making it illegal to force on someone else without their consent.

I'd agree that it's not comparable in harm to rape or forced marriage. But it is comparable in harm to removal of the clitoral hood (particularly if done before it's retractable as is done with the foreskin). The effects are actually fairly similar and the body parts are pretty comparable. Incidentally, removal of the clitoral hood is already illegal and no religious or cultural argument has been considered a reason to override such laws.

Note: For the purposes of the comparison, let's remember that the removable of the clitoral hood can be done just as carefully as a circumcision. We're not talking about it being done in a third-world country. We're talking about it being done in the US.
I personally do not approve of any permanent body changes forced onto anyone by anyone for any reason -- whether it is a parent doing something to a child who is not old enough to give or withhold consent, or even it is an adult forced into something by social pressure/expectations.

But my opinion is not more important than the principle of religious freedom. Especially as I live in the US, where I am free not to follow other people's beliefs, then I am not going to sit and pick apart other people's beliefs, just as I would not want them to pick apart mine. The fact remains, that whatever damage circumcision does to the body, it is minor compared to the kinds of abuses that would justify government intervention. Therefore, I cannot condone calls for such intervention in this regard.

Neesika has already addressed the uncomfortable questions that surround the relative acceptability or unacceptability of female circumcision, and I think she makes good points, so I'll refer you back to her on that one.

I will just add that your apparently assumption that I'm applying a double standard here, and condoning an act done to males that I would condemn when done to females, has failed on you.

And I'm a little taken aback at how ready some are to defend the enforcement of religion on children to the extent that body parts are removed.
Feel free to quote me defending the practice at any time.

No one is arguing that a person cannot believe they need to be circumcised because of their religion. No one is even arguing that a person cannot believe that they need to circumcise someone else because of their religion. The argument that is being made is that no one has the right to circumcise someone else because of their own religion. Religious circumcision is a decision to be made by the person being circumcised, not someone else.
No, you're just arguing in favor of government intervention to put a limit on religious practice, in the same way that other religions are restricted on who they can legally marry (no minors, no forced unions), how they can sacrifice animals, etc. The only time -- in the US, at least -- that government does that is when there is a compelling public interest. And that happens only when standards of violence and personal abuse are being violated, or standards of public health are being violated.

So, you can explain what you think you're arguing for all day and night if you like. The end result is still that you are asking male circumcision to be treated in the exact same way as force child marriage.

Now, you may disagree with me on this, but I do not think they are comparable.


I don't think anyone has argued that it is.
No, that is a comparison that I drew to illustrate my argument that circumcision does not rise to that standard.

What if it were the clitoral hood instead, would that be child abuse (our law, btw, generally says it is)? What if it were an earlobe? Both could be argued to be either equally or even less harmful than circumcision. Both would also pretty much indisputably be seen as abuse in our country.

Why should removal of this one particular body part be seen differently?
I told Jocabia that an argument based on the assumption that I am applying a double standard and that I'm okay with something done to males that I'd be outraged about if done to females, is a failed argument. I have the same questions and issues about both practices.

I don't see how religious freedom includes cutting body parts off of other people.
I'm aware that you don't see that. I do see it. Hm...impasse.

Keeping someone from forcing their beliefs on other people is....forcing your beliefs on other people?

I wouldn't have expected such an argument from you, Murv.
That makes us even, because I would not have expected your argument to come from you, either.

My argument is that the level of intervention you propose is too invasive and is not justified by the level of presumed harm that is thought (but not proven) to be done.

I agree with something Neesika said much earlier, about how change like that should come from within the religious community, and if the pressures of social expectations can bring about such a change, I think that is infinitely better than bringing down the force of law on something that is extremely minor compared to the other kinds of things that force is typically invoked for.

If you don't think harm is harm, you don't think harm is harm.

That is total bull. Here's why:

Assault =/= murder. Both harm, but they do not harm equally.

Theft of $50 =/= the Bernie Madoff $50Billion Ponzi scam. Both harm, but not equally.

Circumcision =/= child rape. Guess why.

Your ridiculous remark above illustrates nothing but a loss of realistic perspective.

So, you can explain what you think you're arguing for all day and night if you like. The end result is still that you are asking male circumcision to be treated in the exact same way as force child marriage.

Now, you may disagree with me on this, but I do not think they are comparable.

Does that matter ? "A" being perceived as being much worse than "B" does not automatically mean that "B" is okay and allowable.

Would you say I would have the same difficulty if someone one accidentally circumcised a grown man when he went in to have his gall bladder removed?
You do realize that children do not go to a bris to get their gall bladders worked on, right? I mean, I just want to make sure you understand the difference between a doctor or mohel doing what they are not supposed to do, and them doing what they ARE supposed to do and you just not liking it afterwards.

Does that matter ? "A" being perceived as being much worse than "B" does not automatically mean that "B" is okay and allowable.
It is not mere perception. Harm is measurable, at least partially, and the harm done to children forced to marry adults (I'm not talking about strictly symbolic ritual "marraiges" that don't have any reality outside the ritual), can be shown to be significant. The harm done by circumcision, on the other hand, cannot be shown to be comparable to that.

All right, I'm going to bed, but after reading this thread, there is one significant harm done to some people by male circumcision and it is this: That it turns some people into shrill, penis-obsessed complainers.

From now on, I'm going to have to administer a circumcision test. If I'm dating a guy, I will have to ask him if he is circumcised (presumably before I have seen for myself), and if he is, then I'll have to ask him how he feels about that.

If he goes on and on about how it's tantamount to child rape and he was cut to pieces, etc, for 63 pages, that will be the end of the date.

Sorry, but seriously, it is a very interesting topic with a very good arguments to be made on both sides -- but some of you all have been making some piss poor excuses for arguments and making them loud and long, but not better.

Feel free to quote me defending the practice at any time.

You've been saying that it should be legally allowed based on religious freedom. This means that you've been arguing that religious freedom means that you can cut body parts off of other people.

No, you're just arguing in favor of government intervention to put a limit on religious practice, in the same way that other religions are restricted on who they can legally marry (no minors, no forced unions), how they can sacrifice animals, etc.

Yes, I'm arguing that a religious practice that harms another non-consenting person should be restricted. I don't see why that's a problem. We generally do that. You're arguing that this particular practice be an exception.

The only time -- in the US, at least -- that government does that is when there is a compelling public interest. And that happens only when standards of violence and personal abuse are being violated, or standards of public health are being violated.

Strangely, I think cutting body parts of of other people is a violent act.

I find it funny that there are people in this thread (I don't remember your take on it, so I'm not going to go into that) who argue that spanking your child should be illegal, because it is assault. Cutting off a part of the child's body, on the other hand? Totally covered by religious freedom.

So, you can explain what you think you're arguing for all day and night if you like. The end result is still that you are asking male circumcision to be treated in the exact same way as force child marriage.

Not exactly the same way. Children cannot consent to marriage until a pretty high age (16 or something, with parental consent?). I'm saying that a child could consent to circumcision when he is able to understand the procedure and its implications. Given the relatively low level of harm, I would place that age pretty low.

I told Jocabia that an argument based on the assumption that I am applying a double standard and that I'm okay with something done to males that I'd be outraged about if done to females, is a failed argument. I have the same questions and issues about both practices.

So we should repeal the laws against FGM, as they interfere with religious practice?

I'm aware that you don't see that. I do see it. Hm...impasse.

Why? Why should your religious freedom allow you to make permanent bodily modifications to someone else? What else does it allow you to do to other people without their consent?

That makes us even, because I would not have expected your argument to come from you, either.

I don't see why not. I value individual religious freedom. I don't think individual freedom extends to cutting body parts off of other people.

I agree with something Neesika said much earlier, about how change like that should come from within the religious community, and if the pressures of social expectations can bring about such a change, I think that is infinitely better than bringing down the force of law on something that is extremely minor compared to the other kinds of things that force is typically invoked for.

Is it your contention, then, that a parent who cut off his child's earlobes would not be pursued by the law? After all, cutting off the earlobes would arguably be less harmful than removing the foreskin. I suppose he might have to say that his religion said so, since that makes it all ok.

You do realize that children do not go to a bris to get their gall bladders worked on, right? I mean, I just want to make sure you understand the difference between a doctor or mohel doing what they are not supposed to do, and them doing what they ARE supposed to do and you just not liking it afterwards.

Children go to a bris because their parents carry them there. They have no more choice in the matter than someone who goes in to get their gall bladder worked on and ends up circumcised.

A mohel who performs a circumcision on a male convert to Judaism is doing what he has been requested to do - and that request has been made by the person getting circumcised. A mohel who performs an infant circumcision is also doing what he has been requested to do - but that request came from someone other than the person whose foreskin he is removing.

You do realize that children do not go to a bris to get their gall bladders worked on, right? I mean, I just want to make sure you understand the difference between a doctor or mohel doing what they are not supposed to do, and them doing what they ARE supposed to do and you just not liking it afterwards.

Again, we were discussing whether the removal of the foreskin constitutes harm, whether the denial of use that the child suffers and the unnecessary surgery are harmful. That we consider harm in an adult demonstrates that we do in fact recognize that the act of removing foreskin does cause harm. A similar scenario also demonstrates how silly it was when people were comparing the damage of removing the foreskin to the damage of removing hair or fingernails.

We know that in the scenarion where you take the foreskin from a grown without his consent, in addition to the damage granted by simply doing something wrong to someone without their consent (which would be covered by accidentally shaving their head in the hospital scenario), we also recognize an additional due to the permanent removal of the foreskin. How much harm is a question, but the scenario has certainly answered the question of whether or not a harm exists which has been asked throughout the thread.

People keep acting like with or without the foreskin is a non-difference, that the child really hasn't experienced something. Apparently, they don't really feel that way or we wouldn't almost universally agree that doing so to an adult without consent would be worse than, say, writing balls on their forehead.

Now that I have a few minutes where I'm not in and out of the lab, let me expand on this in a less hurried manner.

I believe that I view children's rights in a rather different manner from most of society. With most of our society, and much of the law, children are treated in many ways more as if they are the property of their parents than as if they are individual human beings with a full complement of rights of their own. As long as the parents aren't doing something really horrible, society tends to say, "Well, that's a parental right," and the law typically agrees. Although the bar for "really horrible" is different, this is in many ways the same standard we use for the care of animals.

I don't see it that way. I see children as individual human beings with all the same rights that any other individual human being has. However, they are human beings who are not yet capable of being independent, and thus need a caretaker. In this way, I see them in much the same way as an adult with diminished mental capacity who also needs a caretaker to make many decisions for him. Such a caretaker has authority by virtue of necessity, not because they have any particular right to it.

This means that I come at questions like these from a different angle. Most of society would ask the question, "Is this horrible enough to step in?" because anything that isn't really horrible is, by default, allowed. I, on the other hand, ask "Does the parent need this authority?" If the answer is no, it doesn't really matter how slight the harm is, I don't think the parents should be allowed to do it if they couldn't do it to another adult. And, to be honest, I'm willing to accept some pretty flimsy arguments for why the parents might need certain authority (depending on what it entails, obv.) But I think, "My religion says so" is an incredibly flimsy reason for making permanent bodily modifications to another human being.

I asked Neesika earlier if the caretaker of an adult with diminished mental capacity would be legally able to have him circumcised because the caretaker's religion required it. I don't know if it got lost in the maze of posts or if she just hasn't gotten there yet. But I do think it is a more important question than, "Just how harmful is this, anyways?"

that post you just made there

That's really interesting. I consider the role of the parents to be similar to the one you described, but I'd never thought of it in quite that way before. Thanks for the perspective. For what it's worth, I agree completely.

That's really interesting. I consider the role of the parents to be similar to the one you described, but I'd never thought of it in quite that way before. Thanks for the perspective. For what it's worth, I agree completely.

What Jord said. Dem, well said.

The problem with all yer arguments is that it requires me to be the victim, since you're playing the victim card, over and over.

Not just me of course, but a majority of males who had circumcisions as infants and are not, actually, victims in a meaningful sense of the word. We are to be at once both exemplified as victims of child abuse and had our rights violated with a 'mutilation' that traumatizes us.... and dismissed if we happen to not see things that way.

The problem with all yer arguments is that it requires me to be the victim, since you're playing the victim card, over and over.

Not just me of course, but a majority of males who had circumcisions as infants and are not, actually, victims in a meaningful sense of the word. We are to be at once both exemplified as victims of child abuse and had our rights violated with a 'mutilation' that traumatizes us.... and dismissed if we happen to not see things that way.

It doesn't actually require that at all. It just requires the recognition that parents shouldn't automatically have the right to do this, as they do not own their children.

It doesn't actually require that at all. It just requires the recognition that parents shouldn't automatically have the right to do this, as they do not own their children.

WTF said anything about "owning" children?

WTF said anything about "owning" children?

*sigh* talk about twisting my point.

*sigh* talk about twisting my point.

I didn't see that I twisted anything. You said the reason was that parents don't own children. Well, I agree that parents don't own children. I disagree that circumcision has anything to do with slavery.

The problem with all yer arguments is that it requires me to be the victim, since you're playing the victim card, over and over.

Not just me of course, but a majority of males who had circumcisions as infants and are not, actually, victims in a meaningful sense of the word. We are to be at once both exemplified as victims of child abuse and had our rights violated with a 'mutilation' that traumatizes us.... and dismissed if we happen to not see things that way.

I don't really care whether or not you see yourself as a victim or have any problem with what your parents did. That doesn't mean they should have had the authority to do it.

I don't see myself or my brother as a victim of child abuse because my parents spanked us. However, there are people who would argue that a parent should not be allowed to employ spanking as a disciplinary method. I disagree with them, but I don't discount their argument solely on the basis that I don't personally feel like a victim.

I don't really care whether or not you see yourself as a victim or have any problem with what your parents did.

Right, taking that into account might be a reasonable thing to do. Best to dismiss it as irrelevant. Let's just pretend this thread isn't crammed fill with emotive, exagerrative, irrational comparisons to child abuse, slavery, to FGM harping on the victimhood of male circumcision victims.

That doesn't mean they should have had the authority to do it.

So you are less concerned with actual harm done and more concerned with the 'principle' of the matter. A nice esoteric philosophical question disconnected with the real world. But, that's not what anyone else is arguing. They are arguing that "Male Genital Mutilation" is a traumatizing child abuse. I am disagreeing.

I don't see myself or my brother as a victim of child abuse because my parents spanked us.

Because you're not. And if someone kept arguing that it was and therefore you were, you might object.

However, there are people who would argue that a parent should not be allowed to employ spanking as a disciplinary method. I disagree with them, but I don't discount their argument solely on the basis that I don't personally feel like a victim.

You would if their argument took for granted that you were a victim, that it was just like rape and assault and Nazis and FGM and slavery. And so do I.

But, that's not what anyone else is arguing.

Actually quite a few people are arguing exactly that. The fans of circumcision sofar however prefer to focus on the "it is not molestation part"; so the principle of the thing is somewhat being ignored.

Right, taking that into account might be a reasonable thing to do. Best to dismiss it as irrelevant. Let's just pretend this thread isn't crammed fill with emotive, exagerrative, irrational comparisons to child abuse, slavery, to FGM harping on the victimhood of male circumcision victims.

"What this thread is crammed with" is not equivalent to my particular argument, now is it?

So you are less concerned with actual harm done and more concerned with the 'principle' of the matter. A nice esoteric philosophical question disconnected with the real world.

Not really disconnected with the real world at all. You may not personally find it important, but I think the question of what authority parents do have over children - and why - is pretty important.

Because you're not. And if someone kept arguing that it was and therefore you were, you might object.

If someone kept saying, "You're avictim and your parents were awful people," then yes, I'd object. But there's really only been one person in this thread making an argument similar to that. You seem to think anyone and everyone arguing against infant circumcision is making that same argument.

You would if their argument took for granted that you were a victim, that it was just like rape and assault and Nazis and FGM and slavery. And so do I.

Luckily, no one is this thread has made that argument. They have used rape and assault and FGM as examples of bad things, but, with the exception of removing the clitoral hood, no one has suggested that these things are the same in scale.

Actually quite a few people are arguing exactly that. The fans of circumcision sofar however prefer to focus on the "it is not molestation part"; so the principle of the thing is somewhat being ignored.

Right, people should be able to insist it's molestation but if I, a "fan," respond to that I'm narrow-minded, missing the big picture. The greater principles behind the insulting generalizations and moronic comparisons. How narrow-minded of me to disagree!

Right, people should be able to insist it's molestation but if I, a "fan," respond to that I'm narrow-minded, missing the big picture. The greater principles behind the insulting generalizations and moronic comparisons. How narrow-minded of me to disagree!

*raises eyebrow*
Did you just deliberately miss the point ?
There are multiple reasons one can be against circumcision. One is believing it is molestation.
Another is being against snipping bits of children (or piercing them, tattooing them and so on) on principle. Not because it is molestation, but for instance because you believe it shows you do not see a child as an indivual, but as a plaything or as an object which is the property of the parents.

Only adressing the molestation part and ignoring other objections is indeed narrow minded. And silly.

"What this thread is crammed with" is not equivalent to my particular argument, now is it?

Yet it is mine, and if you'll notice, it's what I'm responding to. Not everything is about you.

Not really disconnected with the real world at all. You may not personally find it important, but I think the question of what authority parents do have over children - and why - is pretty important.

I don't really care if you personally find that important. This thread is about "male genital mutilation," and your personal opinions on tenuously related generalized topics are really quite irrelevant to me.

If someone kept saying, "You're avictim and your parents were awful people," then yes, I'd object. But there's really only been one person in this thread making an argument similar to that.

No, there have been quite a few.

You seem to think anyone and everyone arguing against infant circumcision is making that same argument.

Do I now.

Luckily, no one is this thread has made that argument. They have used rape and assault and FGM as examples of bad things, but, with the exception of removing the clitoral hood, no one has suggested that these things are the same in scale.

Oh ho ho, how clever. Yeah, I'm comparing you to the Nazis, but since I admit your evil is on a far smaller scale, it's a reasonable comparison and you shouldn't be getting so upset about it.

Yet it is mine, and if you'll notice, it's what I'm responding to. Not everything is about you.

The problem with all yer arguments is that it requires me to be the victim, since you're playing the victim card, over and over.

Hmmmmm, really? This post didn't quote another post, so it wasn't clearly directed at anyone in particular. Given the posts immediately previous, it can either be said to be directed at my argument particularly, or at the arguments of everyone in this thread. That includes me.

I don't really care if you personally find that important. This thread is about "male genital mutilation," and your personal opinions on tenuously related generalized topics are really quite irrelevant to me.

Neesika said from the beginning that she was using that phrase to elicit a given response, not that this thread was not meant to be about circumcision as a whole. The fact that you, and others, decided to focus more on that applicability of that particular phrase than on the topic of circumcision is actually rather silly.

No, there have been quite a few.

I've read the entire thread and I can only name one. There might have been a few hit-and-runs here and there, but only one person who has been actively participating in the thread has said that.

What about strawmen? Why won't anyone think of the strawmen!!! Instead of just jumping up and down on your soapbox


Oh no, not another one.

Come on, Sin's already got the over-emotive rhetoric covered. No one is jumping up and down on soap boxes, no one is 'frothing at the mouth'.


and trying to demonize anyone who disagrees with you on any part of your platform, why don't you try thinking about what someone else actually writes? You know, maybe just for a minute or two.


Trying to demonize wasn't the point at all.

Groups like NAMBLA echo certain historical cultural concepts, positively advocating certain types of same-sex sexual relationships with underage partners, for the claimed benefit of those relationships.

Most of us would argue there is damage - physical, emotional and psychological. Well, I've presented evidence that the same can be said for circumcision... but you don't have any way to deal with that, so you pretend that the evidence 'balances' (which it doesn't, not even close) and pretend that this is about me trying to 'demonize' you.

If you can make the argument that there's no harm, that there's no emotional, psychological or physical damage being done - then you can make the claim that it's not abuse.

But I don't think you'd allow the same arguments in OTHER situations (like sex with children), so I believe you are PURELY applying a special exception logic to circumcision... which is extremely intellectually dishonest.

It's funny that you'd talk about me not thinking about what other people write. Did you actually put this much thought into what I wrote, and what I'm writing here?


EDIT: I have seen your evidence. In my opinion, it does not overwhelm the counter evidence that others have posted. They cancel each other out in regard to the severity of the effect of circumcision.

No one has presented 'counter evidence'.

The pro-circumcision argument is that it's medically beneficial and that 'god' really likes it if you mutilate babies.

That side of the debate has presented nothing about the harm or the damage.

Circumcision =/= child rape. Guess why.

Your ridiculous remark above illustrates nothing but a loss of realistic perspective.

I notice you say 'guess why'.

I have to assume that's because you know there's absolutely no way you could support your ridiculous assertion.

All right, I'm going to bed, but after reading this thread, there is one significant harm done to some people by male circumcision and it is this: That it turns some people into shrill, penis-obsessed complainers.


If you've nothing constructive to say, you don't actually have to press the "submit" button.


From now on, I'm going to have to administer a circumcision test. If I'm dating a guy, I will have to ask him if he is circumcised (presumably before I have seen for myself), and if he is, then I'll have to ask him how he feels about that.

If he goes on and on about how it's tantamount to child rape and he was cut to pieces, etc, for 63 pages, that will be the end of the date.

Sorry, but seriously, it is a very interesting topic with a very good arguments to be made on both sides


As to yet, we've only seen 'very good arguments' from the anti-circumcision side of the debate, and a lot of excuses from the opposition.

These 'very good arguments' from the pro crowd? Can someone post them?


-- but some of you all have been making some piss poor excuses for arguments and making them loud and long, but not better.

Mr Kettle, there's a Mr Pot on line #2.

The problem with all yer arguments is that it requires me to be the victim, since you're playing the victim card, over and over.

Not just me of course, but a majority of males who had circumcisions as infants and are not, actually, victims in a meaningful sense of the word. We are to be at once both exemplified as victims of child abuse and had our rights violated with a 'mutilation' that traumatizes us.... and dismissed if we happen to not see things that way.

If you blind a child young enough, it will never know any different version of the world.

Does that mean it's okay to blind babies?

(The point is, presenting your opinion based on how you've adapted is kind of nonsensical. The act was still mutilation of an unwilling victim when iot happened, even if you're 'okay' with it now).

Right, people should be able to insist it's molestation but if I, a "fan," respond to that I'm narrow-minded, missing the big picture. The greater principles behind the insulting generalizations and moronic comparisons. How narrow-minded of me to disagree!

I've seen it referred to as abuse - which it is, and 'mutilation', which it also is.

I don't recall anyone saying 'molestation'. Did I miss it?

If you blind a child young enough, it will never know any different version of the world.

Does that mean it's okay to blind babies?Some children are born with diseases, some on genitals as well. We can't interfere and try to cure them, it's rape or assault on their bodies!

Who are you to define what is a disease, what is "normal" (i.e and shouldn't be removed)? Seems to me like discriminatory against people with mutations!

(I'm talking at the point where they aren't even aware, like in your case, so no their consent cannot be justified)

Some children are born with diseases, some on genitals as well. We can't interfere and try to cure them, it's rape or assault on their bodies!

Who are you to define what is a disease, what is "normal" (i.e and shouldn't be removed)? Seems to me like discriminatory against people with mutations!

(I'm talking at the point where they aren't even aware, like in your case, so no their consent cannot be justified)

And, if you read all my posts in this thread, not just taking one line in isolation, you'll see that I've constantly said that I'm NOT talking about medically necessary circumcisions.

Surgical procedures are not trivial. We shouldn't do them to people who don't need them (and can't consent), ebcause to do so is to introduce risk for no reward, and is to do physical harm (at the very least) that they have no say over.

THAT is abuse.

On the other hand, if the procedure IS necessary, we should do it.

It's not that outlandish a concept - should we stick scalpels in babies? Hell no, of course not, and we'd go societally apeshit over anyone claiming we should... but then, what if the baby needs an appendix operation... ah well, that's different.

Should we mutialte the genitals of non-consenting individuals? No, it's craziness... unless it's medically necessary.


Of course, there are people who might WANT unnecessary surgery, and even mutilation (the musician Genesis P. Orridge leaps instantly to mind), and I believe those people should TOTALLy be allowed to do those things if they want... ONCE they can consent for themselves.

That wasn't my point. "medically necessary" is a VAGUE concept, unless we're talking about life threatening diseases, which I'm not.

Suppose we can bring vision to blind babies (but not later on for some reason) with surgery. Some baby is born blind. What do you do?

Let it how he is naturally until he consents he wants vision? If not, why do you think he needs a "medically necessary" step? He won't die without it, but let's say he is different -- at my argument with mutations.

You can't define what's "normal" (i.e with vision) based on that argument, it simply doesn't hold.

That wasn't my point. "medically necessary" is a VAGUE concept, unless we're talking about life threatening diseases, which I'm not.

Suppose we can bring vision to blind babies (but not later on for some reason) with surgery. Some baby is born blind. What do you do?

Let it how he is naturally until he consents he wants vision? If not, why do you think he needs a "medically necessary" step? He won't die without it, but let's say he is different -- at my argument with mutations.

You can't define what's "normal" (i.e with vision) based on that argument, it simply doesn't hold.

Is a foreskin akin to blindness?

Blindness would be an aberration in the functional design. A foreskin IS the functional design.

Circumcision of an aberrant foreskin (i.e. one in which there is a medical problem) is obviously justifiable under that logic regime. Circumcision of a fully functional foreskin is the CREATIOn of an aberrant foreskin, under that logical regime.

In effect, you're arguing for blinding babies who could see... not for curing the blind.

Ok, after performing umpteen thousand Google searches, and reviewing a whole host of conflicting evidence, I have come to a conclusion.

At this time, I would not get my son circumcised (if miraculously I had one right at this moment - I didn't even know I was pregnant). It doesn't appear (to me) that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are some benefits documented, some risks, and hosts of studies that conflict each other on both those benefits and those risks, and the amount of each.

With that kind of conflicted medical data, I can't really cut something off that I don't know what kind of effects it will have.

However, that being said, I still would not pass a law making it illegal (except in case of medical necessity) to circumcise children, and take them away from their parents because their parents are abusive. Why, you ask? Because just that - the evidence is conflicting. Parents, in concert with their doctors, may decide that it does, in fact, provide a greater benefit than a risk. If they do, then they have acted within medical advice and are probably attempting to be a good parent.

And the statement that change must come with the Jewish/Muslim community is flat out wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If it really is a greater risk than benefit, and the Jewish/Muslim community spontaneously decided to change their stance on the matter, that would be nice, but it's really irrelevant.

If it really is greater risk than benefit of sufficient magnitude to restrict the religious freedom on the matter, the change first has to come within the medical community, which, at this moment, seems to be unsure about the whole thing. However, the medical community (in the US) still leans pro-circumcision, and so the first step in making any law on the subject would be to convince the people with degrees in medicine that it's a bad fucking idea. Then, with medical degrees in hand, they can go the courthouse and to the lawmakers and say "Hey! This is a bad fucking idea!" and point to studies showing it.

Ok, I'm all done with this thread. Adieu, gentlemen.

Blindness would be an aberration in the functional design. A foreskin IS the functional design.What is "functional design"?

Mutants with a longer finger have a different "functional design"? If so what makes them less 'normal' since no two people are the same anyway, technically we each are 'mutants' more or less?

Black people have a different functional design too, they absorb more light and heat up easier. Assuming we can change the pigments, let's place surgery on them cause we all know caucasians are the "normal" ones.

(mind you take that last one as light-hearted, I'm not accusing you of racism, just of setting the 'normal' boundary).

Ok, after performing umpteen thousand Google searches, and reviewing a whole host of conflicting evidence, I have come to a conclusion.

At this time, I would not get my son circumcised (if miraculously I had one right at this moment - I didn't even know I was pregnant). It doesn't appear (to me) that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are some benefits documented, some risks, and hosts of studies that conflict each other on both those benefits and those risks, and the amount of each.

With that kind of conflicted medical data, I can't really cut something off that I don't know what kind of effects it will have.

However, that being said, I still would not pass a law making it illegal (except in case of medical necessity) to circumcise children, and take them away from their parents because their parents are abusive. Why, you ask? Because just that - the evidence is conflicting. Parents, in concert with their doctors, may decide that it does, in fact, provide a greater benefit than a risk. If they do, then they have acted within medical advice and are probably attempting to be a good parent.

And the statement that change must come with the Jewish/Muslim community is flat out wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If it really is a greater risk than benefit, and the Jewish/Muslim community spontaneously decided to change their stance on the matter, that would be nice, but it's really irrelevant.

If it really is greater risk than benefit of sufficient magnitude to restrict the religious freedom on the matter, the change first has to come within the medical community, which, at this moment, seems to be unsure about the whole thing. However, the medical community (in the US) still leans pro-circumcision, and so the first step in making any law on the subject would be to convince the people with degrees in medicine that it's a bad fucking idea. Then, with medical degrees in hand, they can go the courthouse and to the lawmakers and say "Hey! This is a bad fucking idea!" and point to studies showing it.

Ok, I'm all done with this thread. Adieu, gentlemen.

Wow. I...um...pretty much agree with this entirely.

Wow. I...um...pretty much agree with this entirely.

You did read the part where I said I don't want it outlawed, right? :p

At this time, I would not get my son circumcised (if miraculously I had one right at this moment - I didn't even know I was pregnant).
What!? You're a woman now?

What!? You're a woman now?

*hands RoI a sarcasmeter*

You did read the part where I said I don't want it outlawed, right? :p

Yes. And I have repeatedly stated in this thread that the situation under which I would want to see it outlawed is the situation in which there was a medical consensus that infant circumcision was a bad idea. I've stated more than once that, as long as there is no such consensus, it is a medical decision and is therefore appropriately in the hands of the parents.

Yes. And I have repeatedly stated in this thread that the situation under which I would want to see it outlawed is the situation in which there was a medical consensus that infant circumcision was a bad idea. I've stated more than once that, as long as there is no such consensus, it is a medical decision and is therefore appropriately in the hands of the parents.

Ah, ok. I was just doublechecking. You know how I get.

Wow. I...um...pretty much agree with this entirely.

Same

*hands RoI a sarcasmeter*

There such thing as a sarcasmeter!?

Ok, after performing umpteen thousand Google searches, and reviewing a whole host of conflicting evidence, I have come to a conclusion.

At this time, I would not get my son circumcised (if miraculously I had one right at this moment - I didn't even know I was pregnant). It doesn't appear (to me) that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are some benefits documented, some risks, and hosts of studies that conflict each other on both those benefits and those risks, and the amount of each.

With that kind of conflicted medical data, I can't really cut something off that I don't know what kind of effects it will have.

However, that being said, I still would not pass a law making it illegal (except in case of medical necessity) to circumcise children, and take them away from their parents because their parents are abusive. Why, you ask? Because just that - the evidence is conflicting. Parents, in concert with their doctors, may decide that it does, in fact, provide a greater benefit than a risk. If they do, then they have acted within medical advice and are probably attempting to be a good parent.

And the statement that change must come with the Jewish/Muslim community is flat out wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If it really is a greater risk than benefit, and the Jewish/Muslim community spontaneously decided to change their stance on the matter, that would be nice, but it's really irrelevant.

If it really is greater risk than benefit of sufficient magnitude to restrict the religious freedom on the matter, the change first has to come within the medical community, which, at this moment, seems to be unsure about the whole thing. However, the medical community (in the US) still leans pro-circumcision, and so the first step in making any law on the subject would be to convince the people with degrees in medicine that it's a bad fucking idea. Then, with medical degrees in hand, they can go the courthouse and to the lawmakers and say "Hey! This is a bad fucking idea!" and point to studies showing it.

Ok, I'm all done with this thread. Adieu, gentlemen.

A very reasonable post.

I differ with you on the default position - you seem to default to the current status quo, and I default to 'No, you gotta prove it's necessary before you chop'... but other than that, I think I generally agree.

There such thing as a sarcasmeter!?

*hands RoI a sarcasmeter to test that sarcasmeter*

A very reasonable post.

I differ with you on the default position - you seem to default to the current status quo, and I default to 'No, you gotta prove it's necessary before you chop'... but other than that, I think I generally agree.

Well, as I said, the medical community (here in the US) still leans pro-circumcision. The courts (and politicians, too) have a tendency (and rightfully so) to take expert opinions into account. Since the experts lean more "towards" than "against", it's likely that to change that you'd have to change the medical community's thoughts on the matter.

What is "functional design"?

Mutants with a longer finger have a different "functional design"? If so what makes them less 'normal' since no two people are the same anyway, technically we each are 'mutants' more or less?

Black people have a different functional design too, they absorb more light and heat up easier. Assuming we can change the pigments, let's place surgery on them cause we all know caucasians are the "normal" ones.

(mind you take that last one as light-hearted, I'm not accusing you of racism, just of setting the 'normal' boundary).

Since white skin (my 3 year old says 'peach' actually, and I can't fault him on that) is the aberration, it would be white skin we'd have to 'cure' anyway.

The functional design of the foreskin is protection, much like the functional design of the skull. Sure - you could surgically remove someone's skull, and they'd probably be okay provided you feed them through a straw, and didn't let anything bump against their heads. But we don't... and you'd be looked at kind of outlandishly if you even suggested we should.

The fustional design of the foreskin isn't really in dispute. The BEST argument the opposition can provide is 'well, you can get by without it'... which isn't a great argument for doing something, and fails to address the functionality argument completely.

Well, as I said, the medical community (here in the US) still leans pro-circumcision. The courts (and politicians, too) have a tendency (and rightfully so) to take expert opinions into account. Since the experts lean more "towards" than "against", it's likely that to change that you'd have to change the medical community's thoughts on the matter.

The medical community is wrong on this one - not because of the 'medical' angle, but because of the 'community' angle.

That is - our medical community is heavily biased towards cultural and religious arguments for circumcision, that they are weighing as at LEAST the equal of medical arguments for or against.

An absolutely objective medical assessment would find circumcision to be of very slight benefit, if any - and definitely not worth chopping bits of babies.

The medical community is wrong on this one - not because of the 'medical' angle, but because of the 'community' angle.

That is - our medical community is heavily biased towards cultural and religious arguments for circumcision, that they are weighing as at LEAST the equal of medical arguments for or against.

An absolutely objective medical assessment would find circumcision to be of very slight benefit, if any - and definitely not worth chopping bits of babies.

So you say, but there's no such thing as an absolutely objective medical assessment. At least, such far there hasn't been.

So you say, but there's no such thing as an absolutely objective medical assessment. At least, such far there hasn't been.

It's true there doesn't seem to be any movement towards massed objective assessment, but I'm not sure it's true that NO ONE is assessing it objectively.

If you weighed all the pro's and con's, and then simply excised any cultural considerations, you'd have a pretty objective assessment, based on data we already have. So - it's not a mater of 'so I say' - it's a matter of that IS what is left, if you remove all the 'human interest' clutter.

It's true there doesn't seem to be any movement towards massed objective assessment, but I'm not sure it's true that NO ONE is assessing it objectively.

If you weighed all the pro's and con's, and then simply excised any cultural considerations, you'd have a pretty objective assessment, based on data we already have. So - it's not a mater of 'so I say' - it's a matter of that IS what is left, if you remove all the 'human interest' clutter.

To have a true objective assessment, you'd have to have a truly objective assessor. No one is truly objective.

Except Bluth Corporation, of course. Just ask him. (ok, that was unfair, but funny)

To have a true objective assessment, you'd have to have a truly objective assessor. No one is truly objective.

Except Bluth Corporation, of course. Just ask him. (ok, that was unfair, but funny)

No, to have a truly objective assessment, you only need to process the data objectively. Like I said - we can already do this, and with the data we already have.

No, to have a truly objective assessment, you only need to process the data objectively. Like I said - we can already do this, and with the data we already have.

/sigh

Not going to argue this with you. If this thread goes from penises to arguing whether there is any such thing as "true objectivity" in, well, anything, Neesika is going to fly down here and rip my penis off my body.

You wouldn't want that sort of abuse and mutilation to befall me, would you?

/sigh

Not going to argue this with you. If this thread goes from penises to arguing whether there is any such thing as "true objectivity" in, well, anything, Neesika is going to fly down here and rip my penis off my body.

You wouldn't want that sort of abuse and mutilation to befall me, would you?

I wouldn't want to have to explain to Nana-chan my own involvement in such a tragedy, certainly... :D

I wouldn't want to have to explain to Nana-chan my own involvement in such a tragedy, certainly... :D

She'd probably do the same to you, you know. She's very protective of my pee-pee.

The problem with all yer arguments is that it requires me to be the victim, since you're playing the victim card, over and over.

Not just me of course, but a majority of males who had circumcisions as infants and are not, actually, victims in a meaningful sense of the word. We are to be at once both exemplified as victims of child abuse and had our rights violated with a 'mutilation' that traumatizes us.... and dismissed if we happen to not see things that way.

I hate to make this comparison because it's not the same degree at all, but you don't have to see yourself as a victim of a school teacher sleeping with you in order for us to recognize that teachers shouldn't sleep with students.

No matter how many male students came forward saying they only wish they could have banged one of their teachers we don't analyze the harm or good based on your problem with that view.

She'd probably do the same to you, you know. She's very protective of my pee-pee.

Ya think? Hmmm... maybe I should reconsider...

Ya think? Hmmm... maybe I should reconsider...

I meant she would rip something off you.

I meant she would rip something off you.

Indeed. Who wouldn't want to be emasculated by a fiery Euro-ess?