Time to end circumcision?

[Smalso]

I know that I wrote that I would draw out of this discussion, but I have become curious about something.

Christian, you keep using the judicial systems of various countries to justify the mutilation of infants. Could you explain how one justifies the other?

 

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Christian, you keep using the judicial systems of various countries to justify the mutilation of infants. Could you explain how one justifies the other?

Sure, that is a good question. I wont have time to answer today but, please wait for my response tomorrow morning. Thanks.

 

[NullPointerException]

So um?

I'm more upset about the way society treats children. Until humans reach the age of 18 they aren't part of society. Unless you kill someone, at which point you're tried as an adult. Either way, it's a perverse and ridiculous double standard. My stance? Don't allow non-medical neccesary things. I think risking 1/100,000 for a UI is better then being the lucky guy to get the circum from a drunk nurse and get a sex change operation to cover it up.

 

[Megalodon]

I understand circumcision is not practiced on Portugal and it is not covered by medical insurance. (I believe this is also true in the US)

No, circumcision is absolutely free for the parents, if they want it done. But the MD's won't get extra money for it, since it's performed in a public hospital.

So my point is, if the medical advantages are so significant, then why isn't the procedure done routinely in Portugal? Would it be that the same MD's that defend the practice so fervorously have some ulterior motives?

Now, listen to your reasoning, it is legal, to respect those few who do practice this barbaric act, that one else adheres to.

Well look at it this way. Although it is a barbaric act, the fact that it is so deeply rooted in tradition makes it acceptable by the main population, and most don't even think about it. No one in my family has been cut, so I can say the matter doesn't cross my mind very often.

But I'm against any kind of body modification done to a baby, and that includes pierced ears. If circumcision is so good for you, then an adult, or even a teenager can make that decision. I don't think it's up to the parents..

I'm sorry, it is difficult for me to accept that explanation. It seems highly unlikely.

Circumcision is so restricted to defined groups that it's far more likely to have a cultural cause than a medical one

Cheers

 

[Kodiak]

Kodiak

Cleaning an uncircumcized penis is ridiculously easy -- extra 2 seconds in the shower. Furthermore, Luke's point is utterly bollocks -- the doctors who told him that she performs circumcisions for reasons of repeated UTIs, performs them on those who get repeated UTIs! That's like a psychiatrist proclaiming that gays tend to mental illness because the gays who seek psychiatric help tend to mental illness. This sort of "reasoning" is nothing but an excuse, as it certainly holds no weight under scrutiny.

Sadly, too many men don't take those extra two seconds...

"Bollocks" you say???

 

[richardm]

Kodiak -

A rebuttal to one of the reports in your link is here .

Wiswell's statistic, that circumcision resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys," has often been quoted; however, it is misleading. In fact, UTIs are so rare in any case that, using Wiswell's data, 50 to 100 healthy boys would have to be circumcised in order to prevent a UTI from developing in only one patient. (Using more recent data from a better-controlled study, the number of unnecessary operations needed to prevent one hospital admission for UTI would jump to 195.39)

A general disputing-of-the-pro-circumcision-statistics is here

For every circumcision that prevents a Urinary Tract Infection, 194 circumcisions do not (The Lancet, 1998)

.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

Sadly, too many men don't take those extra two seconds...

how does that give the parents the right to deprive their children of an opportunity to make their own choice about their own bodies?

"Bollocks" you say??? [/B]

Yes. Bollocks. if the infant has repeated UTIs and it's not due to hygiene, circumcision may be medically warranted. I have no problem with medically warranted circumcision; but only about 4% -- and that's by the most aggressive study, there are indications that this number is ridiculously over-inflated -- of uncircumcised male infants get UTIs. See http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/altschul/ for a counter-view.

So, even if we accept the figure of 4%, are we to circumcise everyone because there is 1/25 chance of developing UTIs, which condition is generally little more than an easily managed annoyance?

 

[LW]

The issue of legality of circumcision surfaced in Finnish media this week. Currently, circumcision is not mentioned anywhere in Finnish laws. The thing that made it news is that there was a botched operation where six young muslim boys got severe complications and required hospital treatment after they had been circumcised in a private apartment. The immediate question now is that should the doctor who performed the operation be persecuted. Also, there is a discussion on should circumcision of infants and children be made illegal. Some people say that it should, by mostly the same arguments that have been presented in this thread. On the other hand, some say that it would be better to do them in hospital because they will be done in any case. Few hospitals in Finland do them, most don't.

There are only two groups of men who routinely get circumcised in Finland: Jews and Muslims. Before 1990s both groups were very small: at its largest (1929), the Helsinki synagogue had ~1750 members, currently there are ~1300, and the number of Finnish Tatars has been around 1000 for a century or so (both groups were established when Finland was under Russian rule in the 19th century and originally consisted of retired soldiers and their families). Both groups had their own doctors who performed circumcisions and it didn't concern the majority of Finns in any way.

Things started to change in 1990 when the first group of Somali refugees came to Finland, and now there are ~6000 Somalis here. While earlier there might be less than twenty circumcisions in whole Finland annually, the number has now risen to well over a hundred (in addition to Somalis there are also quite many Turkish and Kurdish immigrants). This number is still miniscule when compared to the total number of births in Finland (~50000), it's now large enough that now the common populace has noticed that circumcision happens. A large proportion of the Somali circumcisions is done by men with no real medical training and using traditional methods. One reason for this is the reluctancy of public medical care workers to perform operations that are not strictly necessary. Also, the Somalis are not as closely-knit group as Jews and Tatars are and in general they are quite poor, so they don't have as good access to private doctors as those groups have.

Few days ago our Parliament established a work group to study the issue of circumcision, in particular, should it be legislated in some way or another. It is expected that they take a couple of months to create a recommendation.

 

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Christian, you keep using the judicial systems of various countries to justify the mutilation of infants. Could you explain how one justifies the other?

Ok, the business of the judicial system (I'm talking here in a holistic sense) is to impart justice. I define justice as *giving each what he or she is entitled to*.

The medical industry is in the health business, physicists are in the *how the world works* business. So, the judicial system is in the *justice* business.

If we want wisdom on medicine, we look at those scientists and their conclusions for it. If in the physics arena, the same.

So, if we want criteria to what is fair or just, we can seek in the judicial system. Of course, no system is perfect, but there is a level of confidence associated with each field according to how mature the field is.

Humans have been in the justice business for a long time, I would say maybe longer than any other field in human endevours.

What does it say to you that at this stage in jurisprudence, there isn't a single State that makes circumcision illegal?

What it tells me is that, when all the elements are examined, the legislators of the world consider that parents are *entitled* to make this choice. Maybe the strongest argument for justice here is the right to privacy.

If you examine your argumentation carefully, it is very similar if not identical to the ones used by the pro-life movement. To them, the protection of the unborn supercedes the right to privacy of the woman. Although not unanimously, most judicial systems in the world have ruled that it is the other way around.

This right to privacy is one of the most sacred protections in most countries. If you outlaw circumcision, you have taken away this right of parents. I don't think it will happen, the implications of this would be enormous.

You see, I respect your right not to circumcise your male children, I also respect your right not to pierce the ear of your female children. But, you are advocating that my right be taken away.

Let me ask you, what is worse, in your opinion, that I pierce the ears of my daughter at birth or that I raise her to be Christian?

If your posts are any indication, I would suspect the latter. So, should I be prohibited from indoctrinating her? Should laws be enacted to protect their minds? Hey, why not let them choose their religion, if any, when they are adults and have full capacity to discern what is right for them to believe?

I hope you see my point.
Megalodon wrote:
No, circumcision is absolutely free for the parents, if they want it done. But the MD's won't get extra money for it, since it's performed in a public hospital.

So my point is, if the medical advantages are so significant, then why isn't the procedure done routinely in Portugal? Would it be that the same MD's that defend the practice so fervorously have some ulterior motives?

I don't know, maybe because most parents feel it is unnecessary. But, I don't know what that has to do with my argumentation.

Well look at it this way. Although it is a barbaric act, the fact that it is so deeply rooted in tradition makes it acceptable by the main population, and most don't even think about it. No one in my family has been cut, so I can say the matter doesn't cross my mind very often.

Fine, if this your explanation, I respect it.

But I'm against any kind of body modification done to a baby, and that includes pierced ears. If circumcision is so good for you, then an adult, or even a teenager can make that decision. I don't think it's up to the parents..

Here is where I totally disagree. I respect your right to choose that view and that position with your children. But, IMHO it would be unjust to impose your view on other parents.

Victor wrote:
how does that give the parents the right to deprive their children of an opportunity to make their own choice about their own bodies?

Parents have the right to deprive their children of many opportunities to make their own choice about their own bodies. Tattoos come to mind. And not only parents do, but the State as well, a child can't drink alcohol or smoke and most are required to take virus shots if they want to go to a particular school, even if the risk of the disease is almost non-existant. Oh and don't forget some children can die of a reaction to these shots, they are still mandatory.

NullPointerException wrote:
I'm more upset about the way society treats children. Until humans reach the age of 18 they aren't part of society. Unless you kill someone, at which point you're tried as an adult. Either way, it's a perverse and ridiculous double standard.

Aren't you glad that children can't drink or smoke? Isn't it a good thing that adults can't have sex with minors? Isn't a good thing that children are not allowed to watch violence (without parental supervision)?

 

[Smalso]

Of course, no system is perfect

Bingo.

If you examine your argumentation carefully, it is very similar if not identical to the ones used by the pro-life movement. To them, the protection of the unborn supercedes the right to privacy of the woman. Although not unanimously, most judicial systems in the world have ruled that it is the other way around.

Strawman. One is a mass of cells, the other is a human being.

This right to privacy is one of the most sacred protections in most countries. If you outlaw circumcision, you have taken away this right of parents. I don't think it will happen, the implications of this would be enormous.

What about the right of a child not to be abused or mutilated?

You see, I respect your right not to circumcise your male children, I also respect your right not to pierce the ear of your female children. But, you are advocating that my right be taken away.

No, I am advocating the right of the child not to be mutilated. You, as a parent have no such right, so I am not advocating that any right be taken from you.

Let me ask you, what is worse, in your opinion, that I pierce the ears of my daughter at birth or that I raise her to be Christian?

Strawman. One has nothing to do with the other.

If your posts are any indication, I would suspect the latter.

Please don't read more into my posts than is actually there.

Hey, why not let them choose their religion, if any, when they are adults and have full capacity to discern what is right for them to believe?

Yeah, why not? It worked for me and my children as well.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christan,

You are comitting naturalistic fallacy; you use how things are as a stand-in for how things ought to be. Just because circumcision isn't illegal, doesn't mean that it's not unethical (ethical is all about "ought" rather than "is"). Similarly, your comparison with anti-choice protesters is worth considering -- but you must understand that the question of what ought to be done about abortions, is distinct from the question of what is legal.

The normative ("oughtness"-related) argument has to be won on its own merits. Anti-choicers aren't wrong because abortions are legal, they are wrong because their arguments are unethical; they are wrong because they lose the ethical argument, not because they already lost the legal argument.

So, you harping on the fact that circumcision is universally legal, says exactly nothing about whether it's ethical or not. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. You have to understand this.

 

[Kodiak]

Kodiak

how does that give the parents the right to deprive their children of an opportunity to make their own choice about their own bodies?

An infant is incapable of making a choice. The parents, using their own judgement, act on their behalf. Parents do that on a nearly constant basis well into the child's teenage years.

 

[Denise]

People circumcise their children to conform to their culture. Period. There is no other reason to really do it. People were circumcising boys before there were any medical studies to support it or to show no support for it. Circumcision (to me) is the foot binding of our time.

I really believe that if circumcision was unknown to the world, and if the practice just started in the last decade, that most of us on this forum would think that it's barbaric. I realize that it's an uncomfortable issue for a lot of people to talk about.

There is no compelling medical reason to circumcise a child in infancy. None.

 

[Kodiak]

People circumcise their children to conform to their culture. Period. There is no other reason to really do it. People were circumcising boys before there were any medical studies to support it or to show no support for it. Circumcision (to me) is the foot binding of our time.

I really believe that if circumcision was unknown to the world, and if the practice just started in the last decade, that most of us on this forum would think that it's barbaric. I realize that it's an uncomfortable issue for a lot of people to talk about.

There is no compelling medical reason to circumcise a child in infancy. None.

Circumcision = foot binding?!?

A minor surgical procedure adult men no longer have memory of = a lifetime of crippling deformity and excruciating pain?!?

I still don't know what the big deal is.

 

[Denise]

Circumcision = foot binding?!?

A minor surgical procedure adult men no longer have memory of = a lifetime of crippling deformity and excruciating pain?!?

I still don't know what the big deal is.

You don't know what the big deal is because your parents had it done to you and your father's parents had it done to him. It is viewed as no big deal because people don't really talk about it. To me- it's kind of like 99 percent of people stay in the religion they were raised in- ok not sure of the statistic there and no I don't have a citation.

I see you don't like the equation with foot binding. How about the ethnic group that wraps their kids heads so that they are deformed because it is their ideal of beauty. Clearly, the children are not harmed. But it is irreversable.

 

[Kodiak]

You don't know what the big deal is because your parents had it done to you and your father's parents had it done to him. It is viewed as no big deal because people don't really talk about it. To me- it's kind of like 99 percent of people stay in the religion they were raised in- ok not sure of the statistic there and no I don't have a citation.

I see you don't like the equation with foot binding. How about the ethnic group that wraps their kids heads so that they are deformed because it is their ideal of beauty. Clearly, the children are not harmed. But it is irreversable.

As a matter of fact, my father, as well as all of my uncles on both sides (8 total), are uncircumcised! I don't know about my myriad male cousins...

The foot binding comparison was clearly inaccurate.

As far as your mentioning of head wrapping, you could have also mentioned the wearing of neck rings and lip disks...even tattooing. While western culture certainly does not employ these practices on their young, I'm often reluctant to judge a culture from the outside.

After all, it's pretty traumatic getting your head dipped in cold water when you're 6 months old...how do we know he or she didn't want to become a Rastafarian or a Zoroastrian?

 

[Denise]

As a matter of fact, my father, as well as all of my uncles on both sides (8 total), are uncircumcised! I don't know about my myriad male cousins...

The foot binding comparison was clearly inaccurate.

As far as your mentioning of head wrapping, you could have also mentioned the wearing of neck rings and lip disks...even tattooing. While western culture certainly does not employ these practices on their young, I'm often reluctant to judge a culture from the outside.

After all, it's pretty traumatic getting your head dipped in cold water when you're 6 months old...how do we know he or she didn't want to become a Rastafarian or a Zoroastrian?

I was incorrect in my assumption. Sorry. Why did your parents have you circumcised?

I don't think the foot binding comparison was inaccurate. I was trying to point out that it was a way of identifying with their group same as circumcision. I think circumcision is just as silly as the lip disks, ear disks, etc.

Having a child's head dipped in water in no way changes them physically for the rest of their life like circumcision.

 

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Strawman. One is a mass of cells, the other is a human being.

I'm sorry, it is not a strawman, I didn't say you hold this position.

What about the right of a child not to be abused or mutilated?

Well, it is not considered abuse.

No, I am advocating the right of the child not to be mutilated. You, as a parent have no such right, so I am not advocating that any right be taken from you.

But, this is where you are wrong. Parents have this right and countless exercise it every year.

Strawman. One has nothing to do with the other.

How can there be a strawman in a quetion of camparison?

Please don't read more into my posts than is actually there.

That is exactly why I suspect it, your posts clearly indicate that Christianity is a negative thing to teach children. If I'm wrong, please correct me unequivocally.

Yeah, why not? It worked for me and my children as well.

Because a comment like this clearly indicates I'm suspecting right.

Victor wrote:
You are comitting naturalistic fallacy; you use how things are as a stand-in for how things ought to be. Just because circumcision isn't illegal, doesn't mean that it's not unethical (ethical is all about "ought" rather than "is").

No, it clearly does not. But it is clear indication that (it is correct use of a reference to authority) that it is not. It is evidence that it is not unethical. That you consider it to be, does not make it so, either.

Please explain why your ethical standard is superior. What is the basis for it? Just because you believe to be barbaric or unethical does not make it so?

How do I support my contention that is not barbaric or unethical, I using an appeal to authority saying that no judicial system in the world comes to that conclusion. Hey, it's find if that is not convincing for you, in this types of subjects, I don't think there would be anything that would change anybody's mind.

Similarly, your comparison with anti-choice protesters is worth considering -- but you must understand that the question of what ought to be done about abortions, is distinct from the question of what is legal.

Victor, laws are enacted with purpose of syncronizing what is from what ought to be. Yes, many do not fulfill it, but more and more (and as civilization advances), the judicial system carries out it's purpose quiet well.

The normative ("oughtness"-related) argument has to be won on its own merits. Anti-choicers aren't wrong because abortions are legal, they are wrong because their arguments are unethical; they are wrong because they lose the ethical argument, not because they already lost the legal argument.

Yes, but the best way to understand that the argument has been lost is through the legal system. All ethical arguments are just that until the justice system picks it up and rules on it.

So, you harping on the fact that circumcision is universally legal, says exactly nothing about whether it's ethical or not. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. You have to understand this.

I don't agree. It shows me evidence that it is. Remember the whole British and US system of *justice* is based precisely on the premise you are denying. Common law is used by judges to determine what is fair, how to proceed.

And common law is nothing but looking at how things have been resolved in the past and what the reasoning of the ruling was. Once, it has been establish that it is *common* to rule this way, judges consider to have legal precedents and justification for their ruling.

My argument is exactly like that. I'm saying, based on precedents and universal rule of law, circumcision is not barbaric or unethical.

 

[Kodiak]

I was incorrect in my assumption. Sorry. Why did your parents have you circumcised?

I don't know...I'll ask them tonight and let you know tomorrow.

I don't think the foot binding comparison was inaccurate. I was trying to point out that it was a way of identifying with their group same as circumcision. I think circumcision is just as silly as the lip disks, ear disks, etc.

The comparison is valid, then, in the limited scope you mentioned.

Having a child's head dipped in water in no way changes them physically for the rest of their life like circumcision.

I know...that's why I added the "smiley-wink"!

 

[dingler44]

just because it's harmless...

I hear some people saying that because they don't think circumcision is harmless, let it continue.

This rationale is absurd.

There should have been a reason for the circumcision in the first place, shouldn't there? I see no compelling reason to use circumcision and therefore, I say, let it NOT continue.

But I definitely don't believe the government should regulate it. Just let people decide for themselves. If there are no benefits to circumcision, eventually people will stop using it.