Are you circumcised?
>> ^SDGundamX:

WALLOFTEXT

@SDGundamX "no permanent damage to [its] function"

Circumcision reduces sexual pleasure and cutting off ears reduces our hearing ability. Both sometimes have complications.

I guess, though, that it's better for society if the lower classes enjoy sex less and spread less STDs (seems likely circumcision inversely correlates with education level). So I've changed my mind.

@chilaxe

Like I said to Lawdeedaw, I don't agree with the analogy of cutting ears off. It's a red herring argument in my opinion. At best, I think you could say it is equivalent to shaving some skin off the ear lobes--it would leave no permanent damage to the function of the ear, though it would change the appearance slightly. If some culture in the world did that as a means of showing "belonging" and if, additionally, it was shown to be a medically useful procedure in preventing ear illnesses in some people, then I guess I'd have to say I'd have no problem with it being performed on babies.

I notice you left out a very important sentence from your quote (the very next one in fact).

Non-surgical restoration is inexpensive, relatively easy, and gives good results. It is not surgery, and it is not classified as a medical treatment.

They explicitly state that when done correctly the procedure should be painless, though it does take time. There is no conclusive medical evidence that having a foreskin makes sex more pleasurable (see the link to the Bioethics of Circumcision) although there are anecdotal reports from adults who have the procedure done that supports all three views (i.e. some say sex got better, some say sex got worse, some say there is no difference).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying everyone should be circumcised. I'm saying it should be the parents' choice. It should certainly be an informed choice based on all the latest information--they should know for instance that the vast majority of people who go uncircumcised don't have any problems. But they should also do what they think is best for their child. Maybe they're wrong--it turns out eventually that the procedure isn't best for their child. But it's certainly not all that harmful either, judging by the evidence we have.

As parents, we do this on a daily basis--we make decisions that seriously affect our children's future long before they have the aptitude to make the decisions for themselves. And sometimes we make the wrong decisions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to make the decisions in the first place. Those against circumcision have to unequivocally prove that it is harmful to the child before they can take away parents' rights to choose to have the procedure done. And quite frankly they haven't done that yet, which is why this law will fail. You, personally, can find the practice distasteful (as I do). And you, personally, can choose not to have your male children circumcised (as I have). But our distaste alone doesn't entitle us to stop other parents from having the procedure done on their own children.

In time, I predict this practice will die out. Religious attendance is on the decline and in many countries like the U.K. male circumcision has virtually disappeared. Coincidentally, what led to the dramatic decline in the U.K. and other countries was insurance deciding it was an elective procedure and not paying for it anymore. I think the protesters in San Francisco would be better served by trying to lobby insurance companies not to cover it anymore than to try to pass a law against it.

Wow, that was the longest edit I've ever written. Sorry.

@SDGundamX

It seems more accurate to say circumcision is partially reversible, at the expense of substantial time, discomfort, and inferior results. From your link:

Tape and weights, elastic straps, a traction device, or even manual stretching can be used to exert a gentle outward tension on the shaft of the penis to induce the skin to grow, to make the most of what was left after the circumcision.
[OR]
Surgical restoration (or reconstruction) is the grafting of skin onto the penis, either from the penis itself or from elsewhere on the body, to reconstruct something that looks and functions like a foreskin. The grafted skin may be of dissimilar texture to the original.

Maybe some people who have already been circumcised might what to consider pursuing restoration. Most people would like more pleasurable sex.

Even though it's partially reversible to cut off children's ears or foreskins (we could grow them new ear-like tissue in a lab), I'd be very skeptical of any claim that parents should be cutting off their children's ears.

@SDGundamX

I guess you would have nothing against a parent tattooing their child then?

Not wanting to repeat myself, please read the comment thread of this video, as all your arguments are treated there in comments by myself and others.

The Wikipedia entry on the Bioethics of Circumcision is surprisingly good. If you're interested in this topic, I'd consider it a must-read. My own opinion is in line with Holm (2004) who states that in regards to this issue, what people couch as ethical questions really often is just a mask for their cultural prejudices.

@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.

I would say the parents are materialistic for doing something like piecing their child's ears, but hey, we are speaking about Americans...

However, I would not say piecing your baby's ear is equivalent to circumcision. An adequate comparison would be removing the earlobe from a baby's ear completely. After all, who needs the extra skin? And we both know Gundam, that is definitely illegal.

Secondly, you have no idea what nerves do to the brain when functioning to trauma--even when unremembered. If a baby is beaten until they are two-ish, remember nothing of the beatings and are otherwise healthy, don't you still think his/her brain will actually form based on its experiences? I do. You read to a child, his brain actually grows differently than when you would not. You chop off his dick's skin...

Lastly, you can pull out earrings. How the fuck is my scar ring supposed to be fixed? Or for that matter, what about those with really botched, fucked up shit?

>> ^SDGundamX:

Just to echo what I wrote on the Penn and Teller Sift regarding circumcision:
I feel it's a cosmetic choice. It's not a crime to pierce your kid's ears when they are born--and that's done without anesthetic. There are people who clearly have medical benefits from having it done (see nanrod's comment at the Penn and Teller video) and if it's done at a hospital anesthetic will often be used so that it's not nearly as traumatic as the pundits are making it out to be. Even if anesthetic ISN'T used, no child ever remembers the experience. If you belong to a culture that supports male circumcision and want your kid to fit into that group then by all means, have it done. It's not going to do any permanent damage to him. And if he really, really wishes you hadn't done it, it can be undone.
I agree with DerHasisttot, legislating this is just stupid. Even if it passes, it won't be seen as anything except an anti-Semitic attack and--unless some new compelling medical research appears that shows it is harmful to have the procedure done--will likely be overturned. Educate people about the truth--that for most people it's medically unnecessary and let them decide for themselves how they want to raise their kids.

@hpqp

I don't agree that the argument of aesthetics is vile. Why is it vile exactly? Feet binding is a red herring argument. Feet binding has severe medical consequences (not sure about neckrings, do you have any info on it?) and that is why it shouldn't be tolerated. The medical consensus so far is that male circumcision does no medical harm (this is not to say that some doctors think it does harm, only that the majority consensus is that it is neither harmful nor beneficial). That's why it's an aesthetic decision and actually is preventative in some cases (i.e. nanrod would have benefited from it as a baby). And that's why it belongs in the same category as ear piercing. BTW, I pierced my ears 20 years ago and I still have the holes even though I haven't worn an earring in over 15 years--it never completely heals.

@SDGundamX : I am aware of phimosis (I suggest reading the whole article), and do not oppose circumcision as a last resort in a severe case thereof, should all else fail. Justifying circumcision as a preventive measure, however, is absurd and unethical (cf. this video's comments).

The argument from aesthetics is vile and contemptible. Feet-binding and neckrings where/are performed for the same reason, should they be tolerated too? Circumcision and ear-piercing are not alike (although I disprove of doing the latter to children as well). A pierced ear will heal, a foreskin will not grow back; the functions of the foreskin (and there are several) are lost forever, whereas nothing is lost from a pierced ear (but susceptibility to infection is gained).

As for FGM, just because one act is worse than the other (and FGM certainly is worse than male circumcision, as I've stated many times before: see this video), does not mean that the lesser of the two evils is therefore justifiable. Every time someone argues in favour of male circumcision on non-consenting people, they are undermining the fight against FGM and other religion/culture-based barbarisms that use the same defensive arguments.

Just to echo what I wrote on the Penn and Teller Sift regarding circumcision:

I feel it's a cosmetic choice. It's not a crime to pierce your kid's ears when they are born--and that's done without anesthetic. There are people who clearly have medical benefits from having it done (see nanrod's comment at the Penn and Teller video) and if it's done at a hospital anesthetic will often be used so that it's not nearly as traumatic as the pundits are making it out to be. Even if anesthetic ISN'T used, no child ever remembers the experience. If you belong to a culture that supports male circumcision and want your kid to fit into that group then by all means, have it done. It's not going to do any permanent damage to him. And if he really, really wishes you hadn't done it, it can be undone.

I agree with DerHasisttot, legislating this is just stupid. Even if it passes, it won't be seen as anything except an anti-Semitic attack and--unless some new compelling medical research appears that shows it is harmful to have the procedure done--will likely be overturned. Educate people about the truth--that for most people it's medically unnecessary and let them decide for themselves how they want to raise their kids.

@hpqp : I'm curious if you saw nanrod's post and what your reply to that might be?

My wife and I look at male circumcision as a purely cosmetic decision. We see no harm in it. Some people pierce their daughter's ears at birth but no one freaks out and calls that mutilation (but give San Francisco more time, I'm sure they will). The children don't ever remember it (in fact when performed in the hospital anesthesia is used so there's no reason for them to remember it), it can be beneficial for some people (see nanrod's comment above), and if you belong to a cultural group where that is the "norm" and it's important to you for your kids to fit in then go for it.

On the other hand, female "circumcision" is mutilation pure and simple. It is done with the intent of preventing the girl from experiencing orgasms. It's a barbaric ritual that misogynistic cultures employ to control women, thinly veiled under the guise of preventing female "promiscuity." I'm all on board for denouncing and stopping that practice wherever it is found because it causes real harm--both physical and psychologocial--to the individuals who have to suffer through it.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot
Pfff I'd say: be complicit in baby torture for the time being rather than take steps to prevent it


What about all the torture babies put the rest of the world through? I'd say they've got it coming!

*promote to complete the circumcision videos and their discussions.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I disagree @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/DerHasisttot" title="member since May 11th, 2010" class="profilelink">DerHasisttot, the push for legislation can be a fantastic way of grabbing people's attention, thereby legislating and educating simultaneously. Despite the fact that every professional medical organization in the world (such as the AMA) finds no medical justification for circumcision, it is still routinely performed without question. A legal rumpus may be just what this issue needs to enter the public consciousness.
But you may be right in that this will take several attempts to pass before enough people realize what barbaric bullshit they are using as justification for mutilating their children. Perhaps it will morph into a bill where there are special exemptions for religious purpose. I'd be fine with that. The point is to get people to stop thinking of it as normal and medically justified. In fact just the opposite, the procedure carries the risk of death (rare as it may be). All of the supposed risks that are used to justify circumcision can be remedied by basic hygiene, and it's long past time that people were aware of that.


I fully agree. In my mind I compare it with the drive to legalise Marihuana, which is somewhat comparable, in the way that both issues are depending on widespread support.

I grant you the attention-grabbing possibilities, but to be honest, the activist in the video was not the right man for the job.