This started up in the low content thread. If I knew how to move those posts here, I would do it. I think this is the post that started it off. I'm interested in reading the arguments for and against, and I think that the posters in the low content thread, who have commented on this subject, have more interest in the subject than what belongs in a low content thread.
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Well, here's a thought on a separate but similar issue: what about vaccines?
There are risks, sometimes deadly risks, associated with vaccines. So whenever an adult gets a vaccine, he has to weigh the risks against the rewards. But what about children and infants? They cannot do such a thing. Are we to say that an infant must wait until he is a legal adult to make an educated choice about whether or not he should have the polio vaccine?
Maybe the polio vaccine is safe and has no risks, but there are vaccines that are risky and can cause problems for a small portion of people. And then of course there is medication with side effects.
We vaccinate infants and children. If they are sick, we medicate them - sometimes against their will. I'm not talking about ADHD. I'm talking about illnesses that can cause death or whatever. Are we to say that these children are to wait until legal adults before they are given medicine? No.
Medical institutions have studied circumcision and stated that there are benefits, even if they are only slight. Some other studies have indicated otherwise. But few of us here are qualified to understand which studies are accurate, so we just pick whichever one supports our position.
Since I am not a medical expert, I must defer to those that are. Mayo Clinic has a good reputation and states that there are benefits. I happen to trust Mayo Clinic as a source of medical information.
I'm talking about illnesses that can cause death or whatever. Are we to say that these children are to wait until legal adults before they are given medicine? No.
I was actually talking about just getting sick (and perhaps dying) from a flu vaccine. But if we were to assume that the risk is not sickness leading to death but autism, I would think that the rewards would outweigh the benefits even more. But really these need to be looked at case by case. Is there are certain vaccine that carries a risk of autism, or is it just vaccines in general? Do we risk polio or autism? It doesn't have to be polio, that's just an example.
What if the choice is between a high chance of death or a low chance of autism? What if it were the reverse? What if it were a choice between a risk of mild discomfort or a risk of autism?
My main point is that some diseases strike in infancy and childhood, which is obviously before a child is an adult and is supposed to make his own decisions. I am just saying that we should not make blanket statements that we must necessarily wait for a person to become an adult in order to make his own decision. I also believe the opposite, that we should not say that parents can do whatever to their child consequences be damned.
I don't know if that answers your question.
The case against circumcision is much stronger than a "battle of arcane medical studies." Other mammals have a penis with a foreskin or sheath. These mammals drag them through the mud, go underwater, and live in cold, hot, wet and dry climates. Humans are mammals and we have inherited the basic architecture of a sheathed penis. The idea that it's a very infection-prone, dysfunction-prone body part is simply absurd. This isn't a marginal "could be this way, could be that way" argument and we don't need to do statistical studies to see that the penis, with its foreskin, is already designed by natural selection to be infection-resistant and to be almost completely defect-free (at the population level). In this case, statistics is just a refuge of scoundrels.
Clayton -
I was actually talking about just getting sick (and perhaps dying) from a flu vaccine. But if we were to assume that the risk is not sickness leading to death but autism, I would think that the rewards would outweigh the benefits even more.
whereas if the immunity to a specific disease resulting in death comes at the cost of risk of another illness with different symptoms, this is a value judgment and cannot be made for other people. In the case of a guardian who must make decisions for other people, I believe that this is also a value judgment, as it is actually the preceding situation cubed, if you will. I cant tell you whether to vaccinate or circumcise your son any more than I can tell you whether to go canoeing or dirtbiking this weekend.
But why do I care what natural selection designed my penis for?
I think the question at hand is what natural selection designed your infant son's penis for. Unless you're uncircumcised and considering getting a circumcision (yeah, right!), that is.
Well, I did do that (when I became religious), but that's beside the point.
Why should I care what evolution designed my infant's penis for, rather than what he can do with it?
Anyway, in my opinion, besides religious reasons, circumcision is silly.
@ Flying Axe
And here is a totally non-sarcastic blog post from DigitalPh33r, now known as JonCJG, on the matter.
http://digitalph33r.blogspot.com/2009/03/video-deus-ex-machina-episode-9.html
That’s why division of labor is a good thing. If you’re going to circumcise yourself, go to a doctor. If you’re going to circumcise your infant child, go to a doctor or a mohel.
It was his April Fool's joke. In his blog post after that, he talks about how circumcision sucks.
Honestly, this is such a silly clutch issue. If your family practices Judaism, then get your son(s) circumcised. If your family does not practice, then don't do pursue circumcision(s) for your son(s). There are bigger issues to tackle, just saying.
I wouldnt wish it upon anyone to be circumcised.
Unless they voluntarily do it.
CENSORED BY MOD:
Its pointless and hurts like a bitch (you have to wear a ring around ur dick for like a few months).
MOD: Kelvin stop being vulgar.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Bahd kitteh!
(note to the MOD: one can still read the text..)
I know. But only if you take the extra effort.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Sorry. Ill use better language next time.
I think this is the very attitude that needs to be tackled and reversed. It's not no big deal. People take female genital mutilation very seriously... that's one of the justifications for US entry into Afghanistan where tens of thousands of Afghanis and hundreds (thousands?) of US troops have also died.
Please read any anatomy article discussing the foreskin. You will find that it is homologous to the female clitoral hood - which plays an essential role in female clitoral orgasm. Without the hood, many women find sex unpleasurable and are incapable of orgasm. That's a big deal.
Circumcision is precisely as damaging to the male anatomy. The "average" adult male foreskin is around fifteen square inches of skin. In addition to the role that the foreskin plays in male orgasm (similar to the clitoral hood's role for the woman), the foreskin also eases penetration, reducing the likelihood of minor injuries, chafing and discomfort for both partners. These effects can be detrimental over the long run. For example, a woman who is regularly injured by her partner during penetration can develop a fear reflex that makes it difficult for her to get lubricated, hampering the couple's sex life which can lead to other complications in the relationship. It's a big deal.
There are other fish to fry. Mass murder in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. However, I don't think there's any dependency between ending the wars and being able to say "Circumcision is a big deal and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as not an issue that needs to be addressed right now."
Most circumcised men do not find their organs’ sensitivity diminished. Some of those who do find it a welcome phenomenon allowing them to last longer. (And in Judaism, letting the woman orgasm is a required part of sex. If the man fails the first time, he has to try again.)
Having said that, I would not advocate circumcision for non-religious reasons. For religious reasons... there is little point arguing. People who believe in X find it more important than whatever arguments you will bring, simply because they "answer to a higher authority".
Most circumcised men do not find their organs’ sensitivity diminished. Some of those who do find it a welcome phenomenon allowing them to last longer.
If men are circumcised, I'm willing to guess that the majority of them had it done a few days after birth. How can they tell?
@Flying: A competent individual should be able to make that choice on his own behalf. I do not believe it should be allowed on infants or children - incompetents. Of course, it's ultimately a family/religious matter so some enclaves may continue to permit aggressive practices such as circumcision. But it's not just the Jewish community saying "we reserve the right to practice this" - after all, I'm sure that the incidence of circumcision regret among Jewish males is much lower than in the general population precisely because it's an integral part of their identity within their own community. What pisses me off is the medical establishment trying to gin up justifications for an ancient and - in my opinion - barbaric religious ritual. I've read that some modern Jews just have a ritual cut made rather than going all the way around. Many old customs have had to be discarded as human moral awareness has become more sophisticated and I think it's high time we identified circumcision as one of those customs that's up for retirement. And I hope there's a special place in hell for the AAP.
A decision to circumcise is not principally different from a decision to immunize. The parent is doing what he perceives to be the best for the child.
I have asked this question before: how do we figure out what is the case of abandonment/child abuse (in Blockian sense) and what is not? For instance, is snipping the tongue frenulum a case of child abuse?
Clayton: I've read that some modern Jews just have a ritual cut made rather than going all the way around. Many old customs have had to be discarded as human moral awareness has become more sophisticated and I think it's high time we identified circumcision as one of those customs that's up for retirement. And I hope there's a special place in hell for the AAP. Clayton -
I've read that some modern Jews just have a ritual cut made rather than going all the way around. Many old customs have had to be discarded as human moral awareness has become more sophisticated and I think it's high time we identified circumcision as one of those customs that's up for retirement. And I hope there's a special place in hell for the AAP.
It’s not a custom. It’s a commandment given to us by the source of all reality. Or so we believe.
Making a ritual cut is not a proper way of circumcision. It’s confusion of the concepts. The person who was circumcised in a hospital, without proper religious procedure, needs to be circumcised again. Since this is obviously impossible, they do the ritual cut (not really a cut, a pin-prick).
Whaver. As I said before, it’s a pointless discussion. It’s very difficult to make someone who doesn’t see a religious point of view understand it. And each religious point of view is unique. I also did not get it in my atheist years.
FlyingAxe: I have asked this question before: how do we figure out what is the case of abandonment/child abuse (in Blockian sense) and what is not? For instance, is snipping the tongue frenulum a case of child abuse?
I.e., I am following my source of information (British Journal of Medicine) that says that tongue frenulum, when too short, can impede nursing. But you think it’s a barbarous practice... according to your sources (American Journal of Pediatrics). And your sources think my sources are a bunch of whackjobs, and vice versa.
What’s next? How do we figure out whether I am abusing my kid or not? Do we follow a local custom? But what does that have to do with anything? Just because most of my neighbors are AJP subscribers, I get to have my kid taken away from me (G-d forbid), or at least forbidden to do a procedure which (I believe) will help him to nurse?
@FlyingAxe: I completely respect your position. My primary beef is with the medical establishment trying to gin up medical justifications for it. You and I agree that's nonsense. Without the propping of the medical establishment, we know the incidence of circumcision would drop drastically to mostly just those who do it for religious reasons. While I still think it is aggressive, as another poster pointed out, there are bigger fish to fry.
From what I understand, when you get circumcised you are actually getting rid of a lot of nerve ends that can cause greater and fuller orgasms, that with a circumcised penis you are not fully feeling what you could during sex.
That being said, I'm against circumcision. I don't see any real medical or health reason to have it, it's only from a cultural/ritual aspect that it's performed, but for some reason even in our "age of reason" we still do it.
I consider circumcision to constitute aggression if done without the person's express permission, no matter how young he is. If I ever have a son, it will be up to him to get circumcised (which means he won't be circumcised as an infant).
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I consider it aggression to take out my daughter's bugers with a suction bulb without her permission (which, in many occassions she does not give on the account of the process being unpleasant).
But I still do it -- because what can I do? I want my daughter to breathe.
If she wanted them taken out, she would've asked you, wouldn't she? (I'm assuming she's old enough to understand what you're doing.)
That's different than physically removing a piece of my body depriving myself of full sexual pleasure.
There's certainly a difference of degree between doing a thing that's uncomfortable but not damaging versus doing a thing that's both uncomfortable and permanently disfiguring. I wonder if the degree matters, though? Are both types of actions not forms of aggression? I don't have kids, so it's easy for me to say this, but I do think that once a child is old enough to have the ability to voice a rational opinion, it seems like it's important for her to be consulted in her personal care like that. It would be helpful for her to be aware right from the start that she has the right to a final say over what happens to her own body. Probably a lot easier to recruit her good behavior during the event, too.