Pfff I'd say: educate rather than legislate.

@DerHasisttot

Pfff I'd say: be complicit in baby torture for the time being rather than take steps to prevent 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


Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.

of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

Wow at that reporter... what an ignorant dickhead. The speaker defending the proposed ban did a very poor job. Meanwhile, so long as the "you're just attacking our religion" argument is given weight by the media and general population, this and a myriad of other unethical and barbaric practices will continue to be tolerated.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.


Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?

Glad I'm a woman!

>> ^marbles:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Yeah but you cannot win this ban by legislating, because Jewish people. I'm strongly against circumcision, but this cannot be won in the american political system.
of course I'd like to be proven wrong.

Is there an exemption on statutory rape to religions that condone it?


Nope. BUT tell me one piece of greater civil legislation in the history of the USA that did not have a large popular movement behind it. I misspoke on the matter that one should educate instead of legislate. I was wrong.
One should first educate, then legislate. Attempts to ban it now will be killed in flight, because only a small group is behind it. Plus they will inevitably be called antisemites because male circumcition is undeniably linked to an influential social group. When education reaches a large threshold in society, legislation can go through. Then it will be peachy.

I disagree @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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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!

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.

Take a look at James DeMeo's seminal book, Saharasia, which details the origins of genital mutilation practices and how the preservation of these barbaric traditions only serves to sustain the emotional armoring in fear of violence so necessary for social control.

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

@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"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.

Are you circumcised?
>> ^SDGundamX:

WALLOFTEXT

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.

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?

@berticus

Yep. Sex is great. No complaints.

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

>> ^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?

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.

@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.

>> ^hpqp:

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


Why would I?

@berticus

Sorry, what was the point?

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?

@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 @username to make things easier to read.

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.

@SDGundamX

The citations you refer to just find a lack of "valid comparative data." It seems like a difficult argument to make that reducing the sensitivity of sexual tissue has no effect on sexual sensation, and thus the intellectual burden of proof is probably on the people 'cutting up dicks.'

@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.

@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.

@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.