Circumcision

[E.J.Armstrong]

Because I think one of humankind's greatest assests has been that we work in groups, and practices that strengthen groups are in our best interest.



Linda

That would mean that when a religious cult gets its members including children to drink cyanide, as has actually happened, you would find that because they acted in a group ethos it was in everyones best interest?

Non-medical circumcision of male or female babies is mutilation of defenceless children's genitals for the parents gratification and should outlawed, if we had respect for human rights.

 

[fls]

That would mean that when a religious cult gets its members including children to drink cyanide, as has actually happened, you would find that because they acted in a group ethos it was in everyones best interest?

Does that seem likely to you?

Non-medical circumcision of male or female babies is mutilation of defenceless children's genitals for the parents gratification and should outlawed, if we had respect for human rights.

What are you doing to accomplish that?

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I am simply trying to convey that I mean for my statement to apply to whatever it is that you are concerned about. If I have somehow mis-worded it so that you think I am referring to something else, I assure you that whatever it is that you are talking about is what I am talking about.

That is the funniest thing I've read all day.

There are usually several issues to be taken into consideration whenever one is attempting to form an opinion. If I mention one issue as the most relevant in a particular situation, please don't take that to mean that other issues don't become relevant if the situation is slightly changed. And please don't take that to mean that the same issue would be the most relevant when considering an entirely different situation altogether. And if I don't mention every single factor than may have bearing on a particular situation, or may have a bearing on any and all other situations that could ever be considered, please be assured that I do so in the interests of being direct, rather than in the interests of trying to hide something. I will usually attempt to find that perfect balance between saying too much and saying too little. But I can absolutely guarantee that I will be unable to please you. I'm okay with that, by the way. I'll still try.

And it does help to keep this debate going, hopping between factors involved in the decision of whether or not non-therapeutic infant circumcision should be stopped.

The "nope" was in response to whether or not I would whole scale remove a practice if I had the power to do so. The "I don't know" was in answer to whether the world is better off with suicide bombers. One possibility for me to consider is that the process of eliminating the practice strengthens humankind's ability to recognize practices that are harmful and prevent them from arising with the same ease. If I eliminated that process by waving my magic wand, when the suicide bombers disappeared, something else would simply fill the gap.

<snip>

Linda

Could someone ask Linda what she thinks would happen if non-therapeutic infant circumcision was considered illegal tomorrow? What does she see 'filling the gap' left by it?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What are you doing to accomplish that?

Linda

Making his opinion known on a public forum?

 

[Beth]

Why don't they have to justify their decision, though? They have to justify any reasons for education, health care (I.E., required vaccinations, etc.) if they wish to exempt their child from such procedures. Why is circumcision so different?

Circumcision is not different, but I don't think that parents should have to justify their decisions regarding the things you've mentioned with a few exceptions. The exceptions basically involve society having sufficient justification for intervening.

For example: Vaccinations - vaccinations aren't justified on the basis of the child's health. The requirement is justified on the basis of the potential harm to others. The exceptions permitted are based on the actual harm to the individuals, such as an expected allergic reaction to the vaccine. In most states, but not all, violation of the parent's religious beliefs is considered sufficient harm to justify exempting their children from the vaccination requirement. Personally, I agree with the assessment of harm and am okay with that exemption being allowed.

Parents are not required to justify their decision to send Sally Jr. to a parochial school rather than a public one or to homeschool. They are only required to provide an adequate education, which is quite loosely defined. Parents do not have justify the decision to have a mole removed or other minor optional surgical procedures. I do not think circumcision is different from those decisions and need not be justified by the parents. Governmental policies on when circumcision is to be permitted? No thanks. I'd rather that decision be left with the parents.

[/quote]
Then there comes the whole "choosing a religion" for a child that does not follow that religious belief. I don't see how that's justifiable, I really don't. A child cannot choose to be Jewish, and thus can't choose to have a Jewish ceremonial practice done on his body; and circumcision is permanent, which will affect him for the rest of his life.

I don't see why no justification is necessary.[/QUOTE]

I don't think any justification is necessary Because I want to live in a society where people I don't want them to have to justify every minor decision they make for their children. Yes, there are limits on what decisions they can make. It's reasonable to require justification for the non-vaccination of communicable diseases before allowing the child to attend public schools.

I think the decision to circumcise your son is one that belongs to the parents, not society, and that their is not a compelling reason for society to involve itself in the decision.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I think the decision to circumcise your son is one that belongs to the parents, not society, and that their is not a compelling reason for society to involve itself in the decision.

What about how the circumcision is performed? Do you think effective pain relief should be mandatory?

 

[Lonewulf]

Circumcision is not different, but I don't think that parents should have to justify their decisions regarding the things you've mentioned with a few exceptions. The exceptions basically involve society having sufficient justification for intervening.

For example: Vaccinations - vaccinations aren't justified on the basis of the child's health. The requirement is justified on the basis of the potential harm to others. The exceptions permitted are based on the actual harm to the individuals, such as an expected allergic reaction to the vaccine. In most states, but not all, violation of the parent's religious beliefs is considered sufficient harm to justify exempting their children from the vaccination requirement. Personally, I agree with the assessment of harm and am okay with that exemption being allowed.

So if the harm and risk was entirely to the child and not to others, then you would be okay with the child not having vaccination treatments? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

Parents are not required to justify their decision to send Sally Jr. to a parochial school rather than a public one or to homeschool.

Which is different, as the child still gains education.

They are only required to provide an adequate education, which is quite loosely defined.

Yes, they are still required to have an adequate education.

Parents do not have justify the decision to have a mole removed or other minor optional surgical procedures.

Which does not necessarily correlate to circumcision, as pointed out by Southwind.

I do not think circumcision is different from those decisions and need not be justified by the parents. Governmental policies on when circumcision is to be permitted? No thanks. I'd rather that decision be left with the parents.

And I'd rather not, but you knew I'd say that.

I don't think any justification is necessary Because I want to live in a society where people I don't want them to have to justify every minor decision they make for their children.

But you do want them to justify not having vaccinations, not having a proper education, etc. I take it you also want parents to justify footbinding their child, or enacting painful female circumcision?

Yes, there are limits on what decisions they can make. It's reasonable to require justification for the non-vaccination of communicable diseases before allowing the child to attend public schools.

I think the decision to circumcise your son is one that belongs to the parents, not society, and that their is not a compelling reason for society to involve itself in the decision.

I think there is plenty of compelling reasons for societies to involve itself in the decision. I've already listed the ones I found compelling in this thread already.

 

[Unalienable]

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?

It's ME, it's a big part of me, of who I am. If some cruel bastard decided to play the "I'll pay you to lop off parts of your body game" with me, I would much rather sacrifice a small toe or even a pinky than my foreskin.

Let's see if I can put this delicately. The head of the penis is (or ought to be) slightly moist, a little like the inside of your mouth. The foreskin can naturally be pulled foreward or backwards, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what it's like not to have one. In fact sometimes the foreskin even gets hung up on undergarments etc. to expose to penis head to air for an extended amount of time--every uncircumsized man knows this. And what happens during even brief exposure to air? It starts to shrivel up, change color, dry out, become insensitive.

Imagine how your gums would appear if you had no lips: they would start to become dry, hard, change color, and become desensitized. It's pretty much the same kind of thing. You could probably talk and eat fairly normally without your lips, but one thing is for sure, the interior of your mouth, especially at the point where air is making contact, would be like hard leather compared to the soft moist tissue that is there now.

In my mind, cutting the foreskin off is about as barabaric as cutting off lips, ears, or toes. No, it won't kill you, you'll probably live a normal life, but it's downright barabaric and inhuman. I regard all studies that argue the benefits of circumcision in the same way I view studies that try to validate the Noah's Ark theory: some religious mumbo-jumbo begging for scientific substantiation and coming up empty handed.

 

[Beth]

What about how the circumcision is performed? Do you think effective pain relief should be mandatory?

I think such details are simply part that decision. Since I think that decision is best left to the parents, I also think it best to leave all such details of it up to those same parents.

So if the harm and risk was entirely to the child and not to others, then you would be okay with the child not having vaccination treatments? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

No, you're not misunderstanding me. For example, I think it's perfectly reasonable to leave vaccination decisions to the parents in cases where the child isn't attending public school. While I don't agree with their decision, I don't feel that society has sufficient justification to override their choice and impose a different one.

I think there is plenty of compelling reasons for societies to involve itself in the decision. I've already listed the ones I found compelling in this thread already.

Okay. I've read them. We disagree. I don't find those arguments compelling.

 

[Unalienable]

A related story:

You know these people who are big tattoo enthusiasts? They keep getting one tattoo after another until their entire bodies are covered.

I heard about a case where a couple, both tattoo lovers, started to let their son of 7 years old acquire tattooes until by the time he was a teenager he too was covered from head to toe with ink.

Does that bother you? Is it just "the parent's choice?" I am not sure if I would advocate laws to prevent those parents from raising their child as they see fit, but I certainly am offended by their behavior. A boy of 7 has no idea what it means to do something that will last "the rest of his life" -- he should be older before he starts to make lifelong commitments like that.

 

[Kaylee]

At the very least Jews and Muslims should be required by law to employ effective pain relief.

(my comment: I quoted from Ivor's post out of sequence, but IMHO it doesn't change the meaning of any of his statements.)

Interesting comment. I happened to see this web site the other day:

http://www.emohel.com/faq.htm See FAQS 13 and 14.

Per those FAQS, this traditional mohel doesn’t use pain relief, except for sweet wine and sugar water. His FAQ refers to the Harvard Health Letter: Vol. 16, No. 8; 6/91 to backup his assertion that sugar water provides the infant pain relief. Does anyone have access to that health letter?

He does not recommend anesthesia for infants. He provides reasons, but doesn't provide references to any studies.

I’m skeptical. Isn't anesthesia normally provided for infants that have to have surgery in the hospital while they are still only days old? Is a baby’s physiology so different that sugar can act like an anesthetic?

Though LossLeader likes to make out the law is on his side, by default it is not. Non-theraputic infant circumcision is a glaring exception to the rule. No public official (currently) dares to focus on the inconsistencies (such as how a girl's genitals are protected from any modification, but males are not) for fear of offending Jews, Muslims and other parents who've had their boys circumcised.

No healthy child needs to be circumcised, just as no healthy child needs to be branded.

Currently I'm tentatively not in favor of circumcision for healthy baby boys. (See my responses to Fran as to why my opinion is tentative.)

However, in democracies laws aren't passed and enforced without the consent of the governed.

As the situation stands now, I suspect that some babies would be more harmed by banning male circumcision than they would be helped. Some parents would still have their children circumcised out of religious conviction, but it is likely that they would be poorly done since I suspect it would be harder to find a competent person to perform an illegal operation. Its easy to speculate that these circumcised children might not be taken to doctors for their annual physical examinations and therefore wouldn't get vacinations. Their certificate of vacinations might be forged for the schools that require them.

At this stage, instead of making male circumcisions for healthy babies illegal, I would support more education for the parents that make these decisions.

I don't know how common this new ceremony is, but I read on the net that some Jewish people are trying to introduce the concept of a Shalom Bris which is an alternative welcoming ceremony for the male child without circumcision.

And let's not forget that it is not the parents who are performing the circumcision on the child. There is invariably a third party involved (e.g., a physician or a mohel). It is this individual who has to be able to demonstrate that their actions are in the best interest of the child.

I also think that the parents are responsible too. They may not have the expertise of a physician or a mohel, but shouldn't they be expected to do "due diligence", to steal a phrase from the legal world, and make sure that they are receiving credible advice?

 

[Southwind17]

I firmly believe that, for any particular scenario (in this case, male circumcision on non-medical grounds), in the final analysis right prevails over wrong, and good over bad. History adequately demonstrates this.

I have absolutely no doubt that, in time (I don't know how long), the incidence of male circumcision both generally and specifically will decline to the point where it becomes rare. At that point we might well look back and offer all the excuses that we currently use when analyzing other past wrongs that, with increased wisdom and knowledge (hindsight, I suppose), we now 'know' were wrong. I guess some of us are able to 'know' what's right or wrong, good or bad, long before other people are; people who elect to rely on history to tell them so after the event, often, and in this case, in the interests of satisfying their immediate self-gratification.

 

[babbits]

I think parents should only be permitted to authorize mutilation if it is to prevent an immediate and clearly defined health risk.

1. tonsils may be removed if in the opinion of qualified medical practitioners the surgery, with its risks, will prevent more harmful chronic infection

2. amputation of a diseased or injured limb will prevent a clear danger of a worse consequence, e.g. gangrene in a diabetic child

But to mutilate a healthy child because of tribal or religious rules or because of parental idiosyncratic notions of 'the beautiful' should be considered child abuse, with the parents who authorized it, the medics or religious agents who performed it, subject to the legal penalties usual in their countries for culpable assault and mutilation.

No one should have a healthy organ mutilated except with their own informed, legal consent -- which cannot be given by an infant.

 

[Lonewulf]

No, you're not misunderstanding me. For example, I think it's perfectly reasonable to leave vaccination decisions to the parents in cases where the child isn't attending public school. While I don't agree with their decision, I don't feel that society has sufficient justification to override their choice and impose a different one.

Wow, that's pretty disgusting IMO. Who cares if their kid ends up dying from a disease? It's their choice to put their kid at risk.

The rights of the parents seem to supersede the rights of the child in your preference. Not sure if I'll ever agree.

A related story:

You know these people who are big tattoo enthusiasts? They keep getting one tattoo after another until their entire bodies are covered.

I heard about a case where a couple, both tattoo lovers, started to let their son of 7 years old acquire tattooes until by the time he was a teenager he too was covered from head to toe with ink.

Does that bother you?

Yes. Very much so.

I don't think they should be able to do it until the child is old enough consent.

The kid isn't old enough to decide, and he will be affected for the rest of his life; from the time he's 7 until the time he dies. If he wants to remove the tattoos, he would then have to commit acts that would include scarring and damaging his skin.

Please tell me why this is justifiable... at all.

 

[3point14]

That's exactly right. But my distaste for, say, ritual scarring, does nothing to change the fact that there might be circumstances under which a pluralistic society has to agree that its none of their business if some people want to purposefully scar their kids. There is no way to craft a rule that works perfectly in all circumstances forever - everything near the line will always require interpretation.

Hang on, you've shifted ground now. You pointed out that it was all a grey area, I pointed out that one couldn't write a standard which ruled out some unpleasant things but didn't rule out circumcision, now you've gone back to 'it's cultural, it's none of anyone else's business.' Are you conceding the point that one couldn't write a standard as outlined in my previous post?

I am a lawyer.

I mentioned my lack of legal expertise just in case my understanding of the process was flawed. Why do you mention this here?

 

[Lonewulf]

I mentioned my lack of legal expertise just in case my understanding of the process was flawed. Why do you mention this here?

Because the law of the U.S. is rather important here, since some (like myself) actually suggest that such an act should be prevented by the medical society (for violations of the Hippocratic oath) and/or law.

I'll have to say that I am not surprised at all by Loss Leader's profession. He certainly debates like a lawyer...

 

[Southwind17]

Because the law of the U.S. is rather important here, since some (like myself) actually suggest that such an act should be prevented by the medical society (for violations of the Hippocratic oath) and/or law.

I'll have to say that I am not surprised at all by Loss Leader's profession. He certainly debates like a lawyer...

Just as well he's not billing us for his eternal words of wisdom!

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

(my comment: I quoted from Ivor's post out of sequence, but IMHO it doesn't change the meaning of any of his statements.)

Interesting comment. I happened to see this web site the other day:

http://www.emohel.com/faq.htm See FAQS 13 and 14.

Per those FAQS, this traditional mohel doesn’t use pain relief, except for sweet wine and sugar water. His FAQ refers to the Harvard Health Letter: Vol. 16, No. 8; 6/91 to backup his assertion that sugar water provides the infant pain relief. Does anyone have access to that health letter?

He does not recommend anesthesia for infants. He provides reasons, but doesn't provide references to any studies.

I’m skeptical. Isn't anesthesia normally provided for infants that have to have surgery in the hospital while they are still only days old? Is a baby’s physiology so different that sugar can act like an anesthetic?

In a part of the UK (Bradford) with a high concentration of Muslim families the local hospital provides an infant/child circumcision service. The staff have been trained to use a ring block (the most effective pain relief technique for circumcision) on the infant.

Currently I'm tentatively not in favor of circumcision for healthy baby boys. (See my responses to Fran as to why my opinion is tentative.)

However, in democracies laws aren't passed and enforced without the consent of the governed.

As the situation stands now, I suspect that some babies would be more harmed by banning male circumcision than they would be helped. Some parents would still have their children circumcised out of religious conviction, but it is likely that they would be poorly done since I suspect it would be harder to find a competent person to perform an illegal operation. Its easy to speculate that these circumcised children might not be taken to doctors for their annual physical examinations and therefore wouldn't get vacinations. Their certificate of vacinations might be forged for the schools that require them.

Has any of this happened for parents in the US who would have liked to have had their daughters circumcised?

I’ve watched a few Jewish circumcisions on Google video and there appears to be a large variation on technique, the time it takes and (presumably) the amount of foreskin removed, the finished results and the amount of pain inflicted. Some were over in 30 sec., others took several minutes. So it makes me wonder exactly how much foreskin needs to be removed to please the parents God.

I think the religious excuses need to be challenged, just as they are for the other commandments that are flat-out ignored, such as a Jew only marrying another Jew, or stoning blasphemers. There appear to be both Jewish and Muslim groups who oppose circumcision. These groups should be supported, just as women who protest against FGM are. I think most reasonable people would agree that how you behave has more to do with the rewards and punishments your parents provided you with as a child than the amount of foreskin they had removed from your penis. Though traumatic events can interrupt breastfeeding and are recommended to be avoided if possible.

At this stage, instead of making male circumcisions for healthy babies illegal, I would support more education for the parents that make these decisions.

For the vast majority of parents in the US circumcision has no religious meaning at all. It is merely a custom, foisted on them by the medical profession. American TV programs make infant circumcision to be humorous and no big deal. That attitude is reflected in some of the posts made by people on this forum. I find nothing funny about inflicting unnecessary pain on children. I think the education will have to be far blunter before parents (and TV producers) start to get the message that hurting children for the sake of a trivial social custom is wrong.

Given the current state of the American economy, I propose an circumcision tax Make it so physicians take home less money for each circumcision they perform.

I don't know how common this new ceremony is, but I read on the net that some Jewish people are trying to introduce the concept of a Shalom Bris which is an alternative welcoming ceremony for the male child without circumcision.

I think it’s pretty rare at the moment. Though hopefully it will help a change of opinion from within the Jewish community.

I also think that the parents are responsible too. They may not have the expertise of a physician or a mohel, but shouldn't they be expected to do "due diligence", to steal a phrase from the legal world, and make sure that they are receiving credible advice?

Yes, they should, but the point I was trying to make was that parental consent for non-therapeutic circumcision does not remove the requirement for the individual performing the circumcision to operate in the best interests of the child. Linda’s argument is that physicians have to take into account the mental well-being of the child, and this gives grounds for a physician to perform a circumcision on a healthy child. This is a specious line of reasoning though. It would not be considered strong enough reason to remove any other healthy body part, such as a small toe, female prepuce or little finger at the request of the parents. In effect it is saying that the physician has to assume that the parents are going to treat the child less well because its penis looks different to its father’s. Are we to assume the parent-child bond is really that fragile?

 

[3point14]

Because the law of the U.S. is rather important here, since some (like myself) actually suggest that such an act should be prevented by the medical society (for violations of the Hippocratic oath) and/or law.

I'll have to say that I am not surprised at all by Loss Leader's profession. He certainly debates like a lawyer...

Ah.

It seemed to me a little like an attempt to intimidate after having to back down on the 'grey area' thing. Of course, I could be wrong. I certainly am not intimidated, I've met a few members of the legal profession.

 

[Lonewulf]

Ah.

It seemed to me a little like an attempt to intimidate after having to back down on the 'grey area' thing. Of course, I could be wrong. I certainly am not intimidated, I've met a few members of the legal profession.

Considering that someone as "talented" as Jack Thompson managed to pass the bar, saying "I am a lawyer" is not intimidating to me at all.

Or Fred Phelps.

Jack Thompson is funny. A 12 year old sends him an e-mail that's well-thought out, and questions what evidence he has that video games make people violent. He gets a reply saying, "i dont talk to mentally retarded people", with bad capitalization, bad punctuation, everything.

REALLY makes lawyers look good, I tell you.