This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Ryjkyj.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Infant-Circumcision-Full-Version

Thank you for this comprehensive response, it helps me better understand your stance. I can see now how, from an American legislative point of view, the San Fransisco law might have difficulty passing. That being said, I still believe it is unethical to irretrievably modify a child's body for cultural purposes.

In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

As I've already told Lawdeedaw several times now, I have no problem with parents performing cosmetic procedures (tribal tattooing, nipple reconstruction, etc.) on their children so long as there is no evidence of permanent harm being done to the child (although I would of course not ever do these to my own children).

To take your tribal tattooing example, I happen to be friends with a Maori who got his first tribal tattoo as a child (he didn't have a choice by the way). Tribal tattoos are an incredibly important part of Maori culture. It's reasonable for New Zealand Maori parents to tattoo their kids and help them fit into the culture, as there isn't any permanent long-term harm that I know of.

Now, this friend currently lives in Japan where tattoo are frowned upon (because of their association with organized crime). But my friend is quite proud of his tattoos and his heritage despite the fact that now he has to cover them up in public. I would hardly consider having to wear long-sleeve shirts when you go to the gym "permanent" or "long-term harm," so I'm not against the Maori maintaining their customs. And if he really wanted to get rid of those tattoos, he could (although I have never ever heard of a Maori who wanted to erase his/her tattoos).

Now, let's say some parents in the U.S. decided they wanted to tattoo the words "Dumb Ass" across their kid's forehead. I'm pretty sure you could easily find thousands of psychologists who would testify that such an act would cause long-term and lasting psychological harm to the child. The state would be justified in intervening in such a case to prevent the parents from taking action or punishing them if they've already taken such action.

So you see, I'm not arguing "parents can do whatever they want" to their children. I'm arguing the state needs to prove that there will be lasting harm to the child in order to justify intervening. In the San Francisco case, the evidence is simply not there. You may disagree with that (i.e. you think enough evidence exists). However, as I pointed out to chilaxe every medical association in the world that has issued a statement on the topic disagrees with your analysis. They've looked at the research and found it to be a safe elective surgery to be performed on children if the parents so desire.

And this is the point. The San Francisco law cannot possibly stand (if it passes) because on appeal the majority of medical experts will shoot down the basis for the existence of the law. The state can't intervene unless it can reasonably prove permanent harm to the child. I don't think the studies that have been done show this and in fact I don't think future studies will either (given the neutral and positive results of the majority of studies that have been done). But as I've said several times now, I'm willing to change my mind if such evidence does appear in the future.

@SDGundamX

Before you go, would you care to answer the question I posted elsewhere, i.e. "Is it okay for parents to tattoo their children?"

Or, on a similar note, to scarify their faces (for tribal recognition, as is still sometimes done in Africa)?

These analogies may seem irrelevant if you put forth the "health-care" argument of circumcision, but your own links disprove that there is such a one (as do my and others' comments here and on the related threads on the sift), which leaves only aesthetic and cultural arguments in favour of such child-disfiguring procedures.

@chilaxe

You, personally, require more evidence that it is a safe procedure. I respect that. But every medical association that has issued a statement on the topic (that I'm aware of anyway) has reviewed all of the evidence that exists and decided the procedure is both safe and reasonable as an elective surgery (so long as the parents are fully informed about the procedure). If you can find a medical association that differs in opinion I would love to read their statement.

Just to restate my own opinion, if a parent believes circumcision as an elective surgery is in their child's best interests--and there is no compelling evidence that it isn't in the child's best interest--then I do not believe the state can intervene in the parents' decision.

Again, I'll also restate my distaste for circumcision and my decision not to put my own kids through it. I don't belong to a cultural group that requires circumcision for a sense of "belonging" and I think there are more effective ways of reducing the risk of potential illnesses than circumcision.

But I'll still support another parent's right to read all the information for themselves and make the decision they feel is best for their child. My distaste should not infringe on their rights to do what they think is best--only compelling evidence that the actions they are about to take will irreparably harm the child could possibly convince me to intervene. And according to the experts on the topic (medical associations around the world) that evidence does not currently exist for circumcision. If some new compelling evidence arises in the future, I'm willing to change my mind on the topic.

@berticus
@Lawdeedaw
@hpqp
(and of course chilaxe)

Thanks for your comments and maintaining your civility throughout our discussion. I really enjoy debate and you've all proved to be worthy opponents. I think I've said all there is for me to say about this particular topic, so I probably won't be replying to this thread anymore unless someone happens to post something really exciting (i.e. a new study on the topic).

Peace.

EDIT: Removed quote function fail.

@berticus (@chilaxe too since it is relevant)

You are absolutely right--having been circumcised I have no idea what sex would be like had I not been circumcised. But how does that prove that circumcision should be illegal? How does that have absolutely anything to do with my argument?

FYI, in one of my posts above, I pointed out that anecdotal reports from adults who have had the procedure done show support for all three views--some people report improved sexual pleasure, some reported no change, and some reported less pleasure. For a great summary of research findings in this area see this table. Notice that the number of studies showing no change or improvement in sexual satisfaction and sensation after circumcision far outweigh those with negative outcomes. Isn't science great?

For another nice article explaining why lessened sensitivity (due to nerve ending loss) does not necessarily translate into less satisfaction (as the studies above seem to show) see this article.

If you were born with achromotopsia, how could you ever understand the perception of colour? And consider my continued use of the broken quoting system a mild protest in the vain hope that it gets fixed. >> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus
Again, not sure what you're saying... could you spell it out a little clearer? Also, quote function looks to be broke--let's use the @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/username" title="member since July 11th, 2006" class="profilelink">username to make things easier to read.

That you don't know what you don't know.
>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus
Sorry, what was the point?

>> ^hpqp:

^and don't retort with "what of hair/nail-cutting?", which are necessary hygiene procedures that are not irretrievable.


Why would I?

@chilaxe

Nearly every medical association in the world disagrees with you (read the page on the Bioethics of Circumcision that I linked to above). There is no conclusive evidence that it causes any decrease in sensitivity or pleasure. If convincing empirical evidence arose in the future, I'd agree with you entirely--it needs to be banned. But until such evidence arises, any law attempting to stop circumcisions doesn't have a leg to stand on.

@Lawdeedaw

I believe I answered your question multiple times, most specifically in my response to hpqp above. Circumcision is more than just a cosmetic adjustment. But, as I've said in other responses, I wouldn't personally be against parents choosing to make other cosmetic adjustments to their children so long as there was no evidence of permanent harm being done. I think most doctors would agree that cutting off someone's earlobes will cause lasting medical harm. According to Wikipedia:

Since the earlobe does not contain cartilage it has a large blood supply and may help to warm the ears and maintain balance.

So, cutting someone's earlobes off seems at the least potentially likely to kill them (through massive blood loss) and may impair both ear and balance functioning. Plus it doesn't seem like it would prevent any illnesses either. That's why I find it a red-herring argument when discussing circumcision. It's a nice emotional visual, I'll give you that. But it's irrelevant to whether circumcisions should be legally banned or not.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't finish my response to chilaxe before I hit submit. Plus fixed some typos/tags.

That's not really the point.
>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/berticus" title="member since April 18th, 2007" class="profilelink">berticus
Yep. Sex is great. No complaints.

>> ^hpqp:

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?


It's not a simple ethical concept at all because it is not simply a modification to a person's body. From the Wiki Bioethics of Circumcision Page:

The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.

– American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement

Parents have a right to make decisions for their children that they believe will improve their children's future. They're not just doing it because they think it looks nice. Here are the issues that most parents consider:

1) They belong to a group where this is the norm and they want their child to fit in socially. By doing it while the child is still a baby they ensure that the child will have no recollection of the procedure. Furthermore, the child is obviously not sexually active yet. Delaying the procedure until age of consent (which I assume you define as sometime after puberty) guarantees that the person will have to abstain from sexual actions while healing takes place and that they'll have full memories of both the procedure and the subsequent recovery pain.

2) Circumcision will guarantee that the child does not ever have to deal with an infected foreskin. Although proper cleaning can help prevent such an infection in non-circumcised males, only circumcision guarantees (100%) the child will never have to deal with it. The medical research waffles a lot on the reduction of penile cancer and AIDS transmission rates, but the medical consensus is still that circumcision may help in both of these areas.

Given these two facts--and the lack of any conclusive evidence that the procedure is harmful--I see no reason to deny parent's the right to choose to have the practice done on their own child. If they think it will benefit their child, then they should feel free to do so.

Does that answer your question?

I am asking, and this is my main point, which you need to address, can parents make any decisions related to cosmetics? Or is it limited to what you and I use as our subjective standards? For example, can a parent have the earlobe removed because it will make the baby more beautiful/handsome to the parent? It is, after all, reasonable to point out that both are harmless cosmetic adjustments. (And why note that a parent has a right to have one cosmetic surgery but be a hypocrite and say that the same parent does not have the right to have another.)

Can a parent have a harmless lip-reduction done on a child? Or how about removing the nipples on boys? I ask because some parents do have these surgeries done... and it seems you are fine with them...because they do not leave trauma.

Also, we can speculate a bit on the extent of damage, but damage to the body does rewire the brain. You blind a man, you just don't take his sight, his brain rewires to the physical trauma...

Some studies suggest that ripping an infant's dick skin off creates aggressive tendencies later in life. Do I "have an idea of" how far that damage or violence caused might be. No. But we all DO know that physical trauma does propagate violence.

And removing some of the earlobe is not like removing all of the foreskin. All the earlobe and all the foreskin. Just because you leave actual dick skin, that doesn't equate to the foreskin...

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).
I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.
My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.