Foreskin fixation - circumcision in the courts.

[Swordfishtrombone]

There is actually no significant medical reason for routine circumcision. It's a religious practice that was adopted culturally in the US.

I'm aware of that - as I argued, it's justified only if there's a medically valid reason to perform the operation. I.e., if there's a serious medical problem with the foreskin.

The foreskin being a natural part of the male body, there cannot be any medical reason sufficient to justify routine circumcision; otherwise natural selection would certainly have done the job for us, and we wouldn't have foreskins in the first place.

 

[Checkmite]

To support a piece of tissue, I have to accept that human bodies are innately, what?

The property of the person who inhabits them, and no one else's. And that as such, parents' power of decision-making should be limited to procedures that are medically necessary to protect a child's life and health, and things like cosmetic body modifications should be left to the mature individual's own prerogative.

 

[marplots]

The property of the person who inhabits them, and no one else's. And that as such, parents' power of decision-making should be limited to procedures that are medically necessary to protect a child's life and health, and things like cosmetic body modifications should be left to the mature individual's own prerogative.

The parents aren't doing this alone. They have the support of society and the pediatrician involved. But worse, "medically necessary" isn't as clear a term as we might like it to be. Baby in an irreversible coma? "Medically necessary" would imply you can't unplug them.

The problem remains. If the touchstone is going to be one of choice, and we have a human who cannot choose (same for the mentally incapacitated, demented, senile), then the buck has to stop somewhere. I prefer it stop with the parent in this case, even when the decision is not one I would personally choose.

I am relying on an assumption that parents really want to care for their children as best they are able, as well as monitoring by a medical professional. However, judging by a circumcision rate over 70% in the US, it appears that my assumption is not shared by others here. Because those circumcisions were approved by parents, and if circumcision is wrong, then those parents are at least partially to blame and not so caring as I think they are.

And I think the default should be "prove it's harmful," not, "prove it's helpful." With the follow up of, "Is it harmful enough to interfere?"

Furthermore, the concept of "hands off my body" isn't well thought through, especially in the case where the body in question isn't owned by a reasoning being. This same thinking has led to a disastrous situation when it comes to organ donation, where the "owner" has to be consulted before their organs can be harvested to save another's life.

And finally, the idea that "evolution knows best" is hogwash. Evolution doesn't know anything at all. Nature is our enemy, not our friend or our God.

I can hardly wait for the kerfuffle that will ensue once in utero genetic modification is available in a big way. Sure, we'll start with fixes to known congenital defects, but customization with a nod to cultural norms won't be far behind. At least we still think the fetus is "owned" by mom.

 

[332nd]

The parents aren't doing this alone. They have the support of society and the pediatrician involved. But worse, "medically necessary" isn't as clear a term as we might like it to be. Baby in an irreversible coma? "Medically necessary" would imply you can't unplug them.

The problem remains. If the touchstone is going to be one of choice, and we have a human who cannot choose (same for the mentally incapacitated, demented, senile), then the buck has to stop somewhere. I prefer it stop with the parent in this case, even when the decision is not one I would personally choose.

I am relying on an assumption that parents really want to care for their children as best they are able, as well as monitoring by a medical professional. However, judging by a circumcision rate over 70% in the US, it appears that my assumption is not shared by others here. Because those circumcisions were approved by parents, and if circumcision is wrong, then those parents are at least partially to blame and not so caring as I think they are.

And I think the default should be "prove it's harmful," not, "prove it's helpful." With the follow up of, "Is it harmful enough to interfere?"

Furthermore, the concept of "hands off my body" isn't well thought through, especially in the case where the body in question isn't owned by a reasoning being. This same thinking has led to a disastrous situation when it comes to organ donation, where the "owner" has to be consulted before their organs can be harvested to save another's life.

And finally, the idea that "evolution knows best" is hogwash. Evolution doesn't know anything at all. Nature is our enemy, not our friend or our God.

I can hardly wait for the kerfuffle that will ensue once in utero genetic modification is available in a big way. Sure, we'll start with fixes to known congenital defects, but customization with a nod to cultural norms won't be far behind. At least we still think the fetus is "owned" by mom.

For me its not so much "prove its harmful" or "prove its helpful" as "prove its necessary". In some cases it is, in most cases it isn't, so why put the boy through it?

 

[Aepervius]

So what? It's cosmetic before you clip it too. Vestigial even. No one is going to shout if you clip off an extra nipple based on the idea that it has nerves. We are human beings - masters of our own physiology. Body modification is a thing because we can do it without too much danger of lasting harm.

Is there some naturalistic fallacy going on, where whatever God (or Momma Nature) constructs should be off limits? I can't buy into that. There ain't nothing holy about a foreskin.

It isn't cosmetic. It has nerve which can be excited, and can enter a nice sexual play. Also it protect the gland. I am sorry if you never had somebody play with your forskin, but despite a start of phimosis I have no intention of giving that up unless forced.

 

[marplots]

For me its not so much "prove its harmful" or "prove its helpful" as "prove its necessary". In some cases it is, in most cases it isn't, so why put the boy through it?

Because being a vegan is part of my cultural identity.

 

[marplots]

It isn't cosmetic. It has nerve which can be excited, and can enter a nice sexual play. Also it protect the gland. I am sorry if you never had somebody play with your forskin, but despite a start of phimosis I have no intention of giving that up unless forced.

I suppose if having a foreskin for sex play is important, then a parent who shares this view would not have their child circumcised. Same for gland (is that the right word?) protection. I think fingernails should be long enough to scratch well with. My wife thinks they accumulate dirt and cuts her's back quite short.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[3point14]

I suppose if having a foreskin for sex play is important, then a parent who shares this view would not have their child circumcised. Same for gland (is that the right word?) protection. I think fingernails should be long enough to scratch well with. My wife thinks they accumulate dirt and cuts her's back quite short.

Different strokes for different folks.

Okay, so, in your view, what isn't a parent allowed to do to their child?

Full on female genital mutilation that leaves it incredibly painful for the lady to have sex?

Foot binding?

That strange thing witht the rings around the neck that drops the shoulders and makes the kneck look long?

There are some that literally split the penis down the middle, should that be allowed (I should point out that it still, apparently works afterwards)


How much are you prepared to put the child through, without their consent, simply because, for whatever reason, the parent demands it?

 

[Darat]

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.

I would consider functional and cosmetic mutilation to be an extreme example.

 

[marplots]

Okay, so, in your view, what isn't a parent allowed to do to their child?

Full on female genital mutilation that leaves it incredibly painful for the lady to have sex?

Foot binding?

That strange thing witht the rings around the neck that drops the shoulders and makes the kneck look long?

There are some that literally split the penis down the middle, should that be allowed (I should point out that it still, apparently works afterwards)


How much are you prepared to put the child through, without their consent, simply because, for whatever reason, the parent demands it?

I am willing to allow parents to get a medical professional to perform a circumcision on their child. I am curious why anyone would not allow that as a choice involving a parent and the physician. Is it because the method isn't giving the "right" result in this case? Bummer.

 

[Darat]

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.

One just has to consider as a default that the human body is functional and we only interfere without a child's consent when function is affected.

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.

Anything could therefore be considered "just fashion". As the example given above you can make the argument that having a large tattoo inked into a childs face is "just fashion". Such a procedure doesn't alter the functionality of the human body so one would have thought the argument would be even stronger for allowing that type of procedure.

Would you argue for such tattooing being allowed since it would be "just fashion"?

...snip....

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

You are not pro-choice, as you are removing the choice for the adult to make the decision for themselves.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

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?

They are paid to do the procedure, just as they are to enlarge a persons breasts.

...snip...
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.

Surely it is of import for the adult the child will become?

 

[marplots]

I would consider functional and cosmetic mutilation to be an extreme example.

Judging by the population statistics in the US, I'm gonna guess that a circumcised penis functions fairly well. As to the "cosmetic" aspect, I suppose the beauty of either style is in the eye of the beholder. One person's mutilation is another's aesthetic enhancement.

I do agree it probably wouldn't sell as well if we called plastic (or cosmetic) surgery, "mutilation."

"Did you see that gal in shipping? I'm pretty sure she had her breasts mutilated. Wow, are they impressive now!"

 

[3point14]

I am willing to allow parents to get a medical professional to perform a circumcision on their child. I am curious why anyone would not allow that as a choice involving a parent and the physician. Is it because the method isn't giving the "right" result in this case? Bummer.

Just circumcision? You would be set against the other things I mentioned?

 

[Darat]

I am willing to allow parents to get a medical professional to perform a circumcision on their child. I am curious why anyone would not allow that as a choice involving a parent and the physician. Is it because the method isn't giving the "right" result in this case? Bummer.

Why?

 

[Seismosaurus]

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.

But the question isn't how much it has caught on. The question was whether we should be fine with parents who do it.

If parents decided to tattoo pictures of Daffy Duck all over the face and body of their child, what would be your response?

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

And that's a factor that the grown up kid can weigh when he decides whether or not to get it done.

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 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.

Yes. And so you would indeed support a parent's right to tattoo all over their kid's body, have sex with their kids, hack an arm or leg off... pretty much anything they want to do.

Yes?

 

[marplots]

Just circumcision? You would be set against the other things I mentioned?

I didn't reread the list, but as far as I could tell, none of those things were being done to infants in the US. I am a product of my culture, as much as anyone. This is why I stuck with circumcision, which is prevalent here.

I am not claiming to be taboo free.

 

[marplots]

Why?

Because I think it is a good general method for raising children.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I am curious why anyone would not allow that as a choice involving a parent and the physician. Is it because the method isn't giving the "right" result in this case? Bummer.

For exactly the same reason I wouldn't allow parents to have a physician gouge their child's eyes out.

Would you? For once, don't dodge the question. A simple yes or no, and then a reason why : would you allow parents to have a doctor gouge their child's eyes out?

 

[Darat]

Judging by the population statistics in the US, I'm gonna guess that a circumcised penis functions fairly well. As to the "cosmetic" aspect, I suppose the beauty of either style is in the eye of the beholder. One person's mutilation is another's aesthetic enhancement.

I do agree it probably wouldn't sell as well if we called plastic (or cosmetic) surgery, "mutilation."

"Did you see that gal in shipping? I'm pretty sure she had her breasts mutilated. Wow, are they impressive now!"

Why would we call "plastic/cosmetic" procedures mutilation? Whilst some cosmetic procedures can effect function (those procedures are usually labeled something like "corrective" or "reconstructive") cosmetic procedures are not the same as male genital mutilation; increasing the size of a person's breasts does not make functional changes to the body whilst male genital mutilation changes how the body works and removes some functionality.

That males can have a satisfactory sex life without their foreskin seems a rather weak reason to remove that choice from an adult.