Foreskin fixation - circumcision in the courts.

[marplots]

It is not vestigial. A vestigial structure is a nonfunctional remnant of an historically extant functional body part. The foreskin does perform a function, albeit one that is not crucial to life; and it does not represent some older, more functional structure. There are other similar parts of the body as well; but the penis is magical in human thinking, such that many people feel compelled to micromanage its appearance. And the appearance of their infant's.

Indeed. I suppose we are lucky that no one has thought to get on parents for clipping umbilical cords.

 

[Meed]

Good analysis. Now all that's needed is some justification why sensitivity is a good thing.

There's an obvious reason.

The fact that a specific modification produces a difference is only a reflection on what the word modification means. It says nothing about whether or not we should make the change.

Not a reflection on what the word modification means, it was a response to you saying that it was merely cosmetic.

Here's a thought. We could ask the medical experts for their opinion on the matter.

Better thought: let people decide what happens to their own junk. If they want to consult a medical expert on the matter, they're certainly welcome to do so.

But for now, the pro-choice stance is best. One may personally disagree with circumcision, without denying it to those who think it's the thing to do.

I agree, one should not deny circumcision for those who wish to have it done to themselves. Similarly, one should not deny foreskin to those who are not yet capable of making the decision.

What is your stance on FGM and how would you assess your own arguments on circumcision if they were directed toward FGM?

 

[marplots]

What is your stance on FGM and how would you assess your own arguments on circumcision if they were directed toward FGM?

I think we should vaccinate children whether the children want it or not.

 

[3point14]

Good analysis. Now all that's needed is some justification why sensitivity is a good thing. For example, do circumcised males have fewer children? (Providing, of course, that they want more children.) Do they find the lack of a foreskin detrimental?

The fact that a specific modification produces a difference is only a reflection on what the word modification means. It says nothing about whether or not we should make the change.

Here's a thought. We could ask the medical experts for their opinion on the matter. Just as soon as you can't get a doctor to do the procedure, the matter will be settled. But for now, the pro-choice stance is best. One may personally disagree with circumcision, without denying it to those who think it's the thing to do.

Okay, so you wouldn't be upset if you grew up without a foreskin, without the webbing between your fingers, without all your hair (lazer removal, prevents nits - hair doesn't even have nerve endings) and with your teeth all pulled out becasue false ones are much less likely to cause medical issues. You'd be happy to have had all your toenails pulled off while you were a baby, especially the littlest one, as that one's no use at all.


Me, I think that, unless it's medically required, one should wait until one's child is grown up so they can make their own mind up about which bits of their body they want to keep.

 

[Polaris]

I think we should vaccinate children whether the children want it or not.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Shouldn't this be titled "Peckers in Peril"?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Does that mean that if someone would escrow the money for plastic surgery to repair a circumcision, all would be happy? Because if not, the objection fails.

No, in part because plastic surgery cannot actually "repair" a circumcision.

But I thought the objection was to the modification + pain and without permission of the victim or necessity. If the sole objection is going to be the inability to switch back, it doesn't strike me as a very powerful argument at all.

It's not the "sole objection". That's why I said "For starters. . . ". It was the just most obvious difference between the 2 things you are trying to equate. The fact that it is an unnecessary, irreversible medical procedure performed without consent of the patient sums up most of my objections to circumcision. But, I don't really want to debate the issue, I just hoped to shut down the stupid comparison to ear piercing.

But, for the record, I do not think children's ears should be pierced before they are old enough to consent. But, it concerns me less than circumcision, because it's a less invasive procedure that is easily reversible.

 

[luchog]

Good analysis. Now all that's needed is some justification why sensitivity is a good thing. For example, do circumcised males have fewer children? (Providing, of course, that they want more children.) Do they find the lack of a foreskin detrimental?

Sensitivity is not the only function of a foreskin. Do a bit of research. It may not be essential; but it is far from vestigial.

 

[luchog]

I think we should vaccinate children whether the children want it or not.

Of course; but I see that you completely ignored the question about FGM. Do you support religious/cultural FGM or oppose it? How is it different from circumcision?

Incidentally, someone else mentioned excision of the labia. Circumcision is much more akin to excision of the clitoral hood.

 

[marplots]

Okay, so you wouldn't be upset if you grew up without a foreskin, without the webbing between your fingers, without all your hair (lazer removal, prevents nits - hair doesn't even have nerve endings) and with your teeth all pulled out becasue false ones are much less likely to cause medical issues. You'd be happy to have had all your toenails pulled off while you were a baby, especially the littlest one, as that one's no use at all.


Me, I think that, unless it's medically required, one should wait until one's child is grown up so they can make their own mind up about which bits of their body they want to keep.

That's the role of the parent. To make decisions with their adult minds for the infant. Parents are called upon to do this on a regular basis. I would caution against intruding into this without some serious justification.

As to your list of possible alterations, I have to admit they might someday become the norm. But an argument that puts forth cultural taboos as a justification for avoiding some practice will fall when those taboos change - pretty much how getting circumcised has moved from the "everyone gets it" (in the US) to the "not a good idea" column.

I'm back to my question. If it's not medically necessary, and this means it shouldn't be done, why do doctors do it? Are they violating their "first, do no harm" dictum?

My answer to those rhetorical questions is that it is medically neither here nor there, but a cultural practice of no real import outside of the couple having it done. The doctor does it because there's no real reason not to, and if it is going to be done, it ought to be done competently.

 

[marplots]

Of course; but I see that you completely ignored the question about FGM. Do you support religious/cultural FGM or oppose it? How is it different from circumcision?

Incidentally, someone else mentioned excision of the labia. Circumcision is much more akin to excision of the clitoral hood.

FGM = Female Genital Mutilation
(Can't be good - "mutilation" is right in the name.)

In my culture, FGM is taboo, although labia reduction is not an unpopular surgery. I have no particular feelings one way or the other about FGM. I would not have it done on my daughter. For those who did have it done, I would support having a competent medical professional involved.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have no particular feelings one way or the other about FGM.

If I felt that way it would make me very nervous.

 

[luchog]

I'm back to my question. If it's not medically necessary, and this means it shouldn't be done, why do doctors do it? Are they violating their "first, do no harm" dictum?

Doctors do it because it's customary in American culture. This was initially an outgrowth of Jewish influence on American, and in particular American medical culture. The only reason circumcision exists is because of a religious mandate; specifically Jewish (and to a lesser extent Christian), and Muslim. Muslim influence has been notably missing from US history; so it can be said that it is predominantly Jewish influence that has developed into custom; with the assistance of the fundamentalist Christian community.

This would have been insignificant in the long term, outside a small religious community; except for certain religious fanatics who held profound influence in culture and government, who promoted infant circumcision as a way to prevent masturbation. Their support was typically backed up with a great deal of pseudo-scientific medical woo, and religious moralizing.

Even this would not have been sufficient in the long term; but then the US military got into the act, insisting on soldiers being circumcised in order to prevent the spread of venereal disease; again based on pseudo-scientific woo, and profoundly counter-productive.

Infant circumcision did not become commonplace in the US until the 1950s, so it's not even as if it has a significant history in US culture. It's a very new phenomenon, easily within the lifetime of many people reading this board. There are no historical justifications for it, just as there are no medical justifications for it.

Infant circumcision is enforcing a religious and pseudo-scientific precept that is not even necessarily part of the religion of most people adhere to; and does not even have a historical cultural basis to fall back on. Attempts to justify it as medical necessity, or even medical irrelevancy, have consistently fallen flat, due to the complete lack of evidence of necessity, and the wealth of evidence of harm.

Are they violating their "first, do no harm" dictum?

Yes, but doing so for cultural, religious, or ideological reasons is nothing new. Any number of problematic actions have been undertaken by the medical community in violation of said dictum. Forcible sterilization of the developmentally disabled jumps immediately to mind.

My answer to those rhetorical questions is that it is medically neither here nor there,

Wrong. There are no valid reasons to do it, and quite a few reasons not to.

but a cultural practice of no real import outside of the couple having it done.

Wrong. There are a number of complications that can result from circumcision, even if performed by a medical professional. Add to that, it's a medically unnecessary cosmetic procedure that is done without the patient's consent. This is not a good precedent to set.

The doctor does it because there's no real reason not to, and if it is going to be done, it ought to be done competently.

Again, wrong. Doctors do it because of public demand. See previous comment about complications. It should not be done, period, except by adults choosing to do so for themselves.

 

[marplots]

(very good post, trimmed to address one point)

Again, wrong. Doctors do it because of public demand. See previous comment about complications. It should not be done, period, except by adults choosing to do so for themselves.

I think this is the nub of it, and not directly addressed in these conversations. It's the idea of the relationship between parents and offspring should be. If we agree that an adult can choose to have a circumcision, for whatever reason spins their prop, and we wouldn't prevent them from doing so, then why is it any different than other decisions a parent makes on behalf of their child?

Any decision we say has to be made by an infant will be no decision at all. You can't get an infant to agree to anything. In general, we believe parents have the best interests of their children at heart, and only in extreme cases do we (as a society) step in and say them nay.

Which just brings us back around to cultural norms.

 

[Edx]

Lol wow... Asking why sensitivity is important when deciding if we cut bits off little boys and babies penises isn't an argument I've heard yet. Especially as I also mentioned the needless risks of varying degrees of damage to the penis, and death. Especially as I also mentioned that we even get near a little girl with a scalpel and we freak out. I wonder if we had been talking about FGM if anyone would say "what's so important about sensitivity then?", especially as something like a labia is far less important than a foreskin. If it's about what is medically necessary even the clitoris isn't necessary, and the visible part of the clitoris is really just the tip of a much larger organ that internally really looks much like a penis. I for one would still enjoy sex if you halved the sensitivity I currently have but I sure would love to have the full sensitivity back and I would have preferred the decision not have been made for me.

Lastly I'm told we should trust the experts. Yet the experts have said there is no need to circumcise boys and they don't recommend it. Defending circumcision is rooted in emotional bias and inevitably demands special pleading for circumcision being totally different from FGM. There was a study that even found FGM protects again STDs the same way circumcision is meant to much to the surprise of the authors, but we know that was always a ridiculous argument since no one suggests circumcision to combat STDs and AIDS in 1st world nations but many seem to think it makes sense in poor ignorant African countries where they will now believe they can have as much unprotected sex as they want

The most hilarious thing is I'm told the "pro choice" stance is best. Interesting! I'm also pro choice. In reality marplots is promoting the absence of choice, a baby or little boy isn't getting any choice. When you're an adult you can mutilate yourself in any way you want, but other than circumcision we don't allow this to be done to children.

 

[luchog]

I think this is the nub of it, and not directly addressed in these conversations. It's the idea of the relationship between parents and offspring should be. If we agree that an adult can choose to have a circumcision, for whatever reason spins their prop, and we wouldn't prevent them from doing so, then why is it any different than other decisions a parent makes on behalf of their child?

Any decision we say has to be made by an infant will be no decision at all. You can't get an infant to agree to anything. In general, we believe parents have the best interests of their children at heart, and only in extreme cases do we (as a society) step in and say them nay.

More nonsense. Every child is a person, and should have bodily autonomy like any other individual human being; otherwise they're not truly people.

We allow parents to make decisions for their children in limited cases, for the good of the child, because children are incapable of making informed decisions in their own best interests. But there must be clear and rational limits to what we allow parents to do with their children. There are far too many incidents where parents clearly do not, in fact, have their children's best interests at heart. Where parents are far more concerned with their religious beliefs, customs, or personal biases than with the well-being of their children.

This is not in the best interests of the child, by any rational measure. It is only being done to satisfy a parents' religio-cultural bias. We typically don't allow parents to make other detrimental medical decisions for their children based on religious or cultural preferences, and for a very good reason. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses have tried, and continue to try, to refuse to allow their children to receive blood transfusions based on their religious beliefs; a refusal that would result in dead children. And before you shout "hyperbole", children have died and been permanently mutilated as the result of complications or errors made during the procedure. Rare, but it happens; and it happens as a result of a procedure which is medically unnecessary, except in very rare cases, and has no rational justification otherwise.

Look at vaccines. This is one of the very, very few other areas where parents are allowed to make medical decisions that are against their children's best interests. The growing number of children disabled or dead, from diseases that would be extinct by now if not for the anti-vax movement, is a clear and disturbing illustration of why we should not allow parents to make medical decisions for their children based on irrational religious, cultural, or pseudo-scientific beliefs.

For a less-lethal example, there are plenty of parents out there who believe it is not only their right, but their duty, to physically and psychologically abuse their children if they show any tendencies toward homosexuality. "Conversion/Reparative therapy." They believe being homosexual is a "sickness" that has to be "treated" -- by imprisonment, deprivation, indoctrination, and physical and psychological torture designed to take advantage of the "Stockholm Syndrome" effect.

People have absolute right over what to do with their own bodies; they do not have the absolute right over anyone else's bodies. That way abuse, slavery, and death lies.

 

[luchog]

Lastly I'm told we should trust the experts. Yet the experts have said there is no need to circumcise boys and they don't recommend it. Defending circumcision is rooted in emotional bias and inevitably demands special pleading for circumcision being totally different from FGM. There was a study that even found FGM protects again STDs the same way circumcision is meant to, but we know that was always a ridiculous argument since no one suggests circumcision to combat STDs and AIDS in 1st world nations but seems to think it makes sense in poor ignorant African countries where they will now believe they can have as much unprotected sex as they want

And in both cases, those studies were highly flawed; and when those flaws were taken into account, the studies did not actually show what was claimed. It was junk science done to support a pre-existing agenda.

And the one regarding male circumcision only found the "effect" in female-to-male HIV transmission; which statistically has the lowest rate of HIV transmission, already almost insignificant by comparison to male-to-female, and male-to-male transmission rates. Even without the clear flaws, it proved effectively useless.

One correction, people on this board have, in fact, supported male circumcision to fight HIV in first-world countries, despite the lack of good scientific support. I've not seen anyone supporting the female equivalent.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I think this is the nub of it, and not directly addressed in these conversations. It's the idea of the relationship between parents and offspring should be. If we agree that an adult can choose to have a circumcision, for whatever reason spins their prop, and we wouldn't prevent them from doing so, then why is it any different than other decisions a parent makes on behalf of their child?

And by extension, since adults can agree to be tattooed and parents have the right to make decisions for their children, then we should be fine if parents decide to tattoo their favourite cartoon characters all over their kid's face and body... right?

And of course, the same argument could also be made in support of paedophilia. Adults can consent to sex, so why not parents consent to sex on behalf of their children?

Any decision we say has to be made by an infant will be no decision at all.

Has anybody suggested the infant make the decision? The only suggestion I've seen is that the infant should make the decision after they have reached adulthood, which is rather different, yes?

In general, we believe parents have the best interests of their children at heart, and only in extreme cases do we (as a society) step in and say them nay.

Such as when they decide to mutilate their children's bodies, say.

 

[marplots]

Lol wow... Asking why sensitivity is important when deciding if we cut bits off little boys and babies penises isn't an argument I've heard yet. Especially as I also mentioned the needless risks of varying degrees of damage to the penis, and death. Especially as I also mentioned that we even get near a little girl with a scalpel and we freak out. I wonder if we had been talking about FGM if anyone would say "what's so important about sensitivity then?", especially as something like a labia is far less important than a foreskin. If it's about what is medically necessary even the clitoris isn't necessary, and the visible part of the clitoris is really just the tip of a much larger organ that internally really looks much like a penis. I for one would still enjoy sex if you halved the sensitivity I currently have but I sure would love to have the full sensitivity back and I would have preferred the decision not have been made for me.

Lastly I'm told we should trust the experts. Yet the experts have said there is no need to circumcise boys and they don't recommend it. Defending circumcision is rooted in emotional bias and inevitably demands special pleading for circumcision being totally different from FGM. There was a study that even found FGM protects again STDs the same way circumcision is meant to much to the surprise of the authors, but we know that was always a ridiculous argument since no one suggests circumcision to combat STDs and AIDS in 1st world nations but many seem to think it makes sense in poor ignorant African countries where they will now believe they can have as much unprotected sex as they want

The most hilarious thing is I'm told the "pro choice" stance is best. Interesting! I'm also pro choice. In reality marplots is promoting the absence of choice, a baby or little boy isn't getting any choice. When you're an adult you can mutilate yourself in any way you want, but other than circumcision we don't allow this to be done to children.

Do you realize it's just replacing one taboo with another?

To support a piece of tissue, I have to accept that human bodies are innately, what? Designed by nature in some way? By God? That's an odd stance on an otherwise rational, materialist forum.

It's just fashion, on both sides of the issue. That's why pro-choice works so well. Make your arguments to caring parents and the doctors who act at the parent's behest. Let them decide, just as they would decide any other issue related to their child.

Percentage of males circumcised in the US: down from 88 percent in the 1960s to 77% in 2010. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/)

And then there's this (from 2012):
"(CBS News) The health benefits from male circumcision outweigh the risks, says the American Academy of Pediatrics in its latest guidelines on the controversial procedure published Monday.

In its first policy statement on the subject since 1999, which was later reaffirmed in 2005, the academy stops short of recommending routine circumcision for males, but adds that based on the current evidence, insurers should cover its costs. "

Pro-choice is the way to go. I support your right to not have your child clipped.

 

[marplots]

And by extension, since adults can agree to be tattooed and parents have the right to make decisions for their children, then we should be fine if parents decide to tattoo their favourite cartoon characters all over their kid's face and body... right?

That's interesting, because some parents have been fined for getting a child tattooed. It's illegal under a certain age in some states. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like tattooing has really caught on, has it? So, we understand parents are making the choice to do one, but not the other. Maybe we should trust them.

Has anybody suggested the infant make the decision? The only suggestion I've seen is that the infant should make the decision after they have reached adulthood, which is rather different, yes?

Yes. It's more dangerous to have a circumcision later in life.

Such as when they decide to mutilate their children's bodies, say.

Oh, for sure. Baby bodies are temples of the Lord and altering them should be off the table. Except you can clip their nails. Or trim their hair. Or repair a cleft palate, or fix a nasty looking belly button, or reshape an ear or a nose, or punch a hole in an earlobe. But those are approved, and doctors help parents decide to do them or not.

In the US, circumcision is the norm. It's no big deal. Your kid will be fine either way.