Foreskin fixation - circumcision in the courts.

[Seismosaurus]

More to the point, women get breast augemtation for themselves. Parents don't generally have their child's breasts augmented, yes? And society would look on it rather negatively if they did.

 

[Darat]

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

That's just an re-assertion so not really an answer to my "why"? Of course you don't have to have a rational reason but I was curious as to the reasoning you used.

 

[3point14]

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.

That's very evasive. It's a simple question to answer but you decide not to as it subverts your previous arguments.

Nice try though.

 

[marplots]

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?

My response is that needing a hypothetical shows parents are doing a pretty good job under the system as it is now.

But if you want me to play the game anyhow, if you have a parent and a physician (in fact, a whole academy of pediatricians) who think it's something they want done, then yes, if an alteration survives this process, it's probably OK. Note, however, that objecting parents would still be free to hold their judgement as best.

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

And how do you answer the complaint, from the now-adult who wants to get circumcised, that their parents let them down? You can't rewind the clock and make the procedure safer again.

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?

No. Which of those things has a medical professional willing to offer it, an insurance company willing to pay for it, both as a matter of course and without much notice?

Parents do a lot of weird stuff to their kids. Outrageous stuff even. But circumcision has the benefit of a medical professional weighing in. It's so much more highly supervised, it's hardly worth pointing out. We'd do better to castigate parents for the lousy diets their kids are on, or jamming ill-formed feet into non-functional shoes, or any of a number of things that don't come with oversight at all.

Outrage is not an unlimited resource. It's wasted on circumcision.

 

[marplots]

That's very evasive. It's a simple question to answer but you decide not to as it subverts your previous arguments.

Nice try though.

Thank you. But please explain how a cultural practice, foreign to me and my experience, relates to circumcision? The fact that I cannot give you a general rule only highlights that the matter isn't one where a sweeping moral judgement applies. Nothing more.

If you think the answer should be some generally applicable rule, I cannot give it to you. The closest I can come is to say the onus is on the party wishing to prevent or shame it, not the party practicing it.

 

[3point14]

Thank you. But please explain how a cultural practice, foreign to me and my experience, relates to circumcision? The fact that I cannot give you a general rule only highlights that the matter isn't one where a sweeping moral judgement applies. Nothing more.

Because you have two options.

1 - Define what is and what is not acceptable, in clear terms and with reference to logic and reason - this should be an applicable standard regardless of cultural bias.

or

2 - Make stuff up as you go along and make sure it fits with your own cultural bias.


I see you're going for option 2

If you think the answer should be some generally applicable rule, I cannot give it to you. The closest I can come is to say the onus is on the party wishing to prevent or shame it, not the party practicing it.

Then you're suffering from deep cultural bias and not thinking critically at all.

Your continued evasion is noted.



(Edit - as an aside, do you have a foreskin? I'd really miss mine, lots. I'm very glad no barbaric, backwards, mutilation of me was undertaken when I was born. If I'd really wanted bits cut off me I could have decided when I grew up.)

 

[Seismosaurus]

But if you want me to play the game anyhow, if you have a parent and a physician (in fact, a whole academy of pediatricians) who think it's something they want done, then yes, if an alteration survives this process, it's probably OK. Note, however, that objecting parents would still be free to hold their judgement as best.

So okay with tattooing. And the eye gouging?

And how do you answer the complaint, from the now-adult who wants to get circumcised, that their parents let them down?

Much as I'd respond to an adult that wanted their eyes gouged out, and complained that their parents let them down for not gouging them out as a child.

"As a parent it was my job to look after you and give you the best start in life that I could. Hacking pieces off your body for no reason would be against that principle. Now that you're an adult you have the option to cut whatever you like off your body - that's a choice that you wouldn't have today if I'd done it for you as a child. If you want to be circumcised, go be circumcised."

No. Which of those things has a medical professional willing to offer it, an insurance company willing to pay for it, both as a matter of course and without much notice?

Once again, the question is what would your reaction be if that was the case? Saying "but it's not the case" isn't an answer, it is a dodge.

Would you or would you not support those things?

Parents do a lot of weird stuff to their kids. Outrageous stuff even. But circumcision has the benefit of a medical professional weighing in. It's so much more highly supervised, it's hardly worth pointing out. We'd do better to castigate parents for the lousy diets their kids are on, or jamming ill-formed feet into non-functional shoes, or any of a number of things that don't come with oversight at all.

It seems to me that you avoid every question put to you on this topic, probably because you grasp on some level that answering them would show your opinion about circumcision to be hypocritical.

 

[marplots]

Because you have two options.

1 - Define what is and what is not acceptable, in clear terms and with reference to logic and reason - this should be an applicable standard regardless of cultural bias.

or

2 - Make stuff up as you go along and make sure it fits with your own cultural bias.


I see you're going for option 2

Then you're suffering from deep cultural bias and not thinking critically at all.

Your continued evasion is noted.

Well, they don't call it a cultural bias for nothing. It gets me one thing though. A default position.

I think you are underestimating both the power and the useful purpose of a cultural bias. If we were Jews discussing this, we'd have another religious dimension - something of real heft - to add to the mix.

(Edit - as an aside, do you have a foreskin? I'd really miss mine, lots. I'm very glad no barbaric, backwards, mutilation of me was undertaken when I was born. If I'd really wanted bits cut off me I could have decided when I grew up.)

Is this a "pics or it didn't happen" thing? I prefer to remain penis-anonymous.

 

[marplots]

Once again, the question is what would your reaction be if that was the case? Saying "but it's not the case" isn't an answer, it is a dodge.

Would you or would you not support those things?

I don't know the answer. And that's a serious answer, I really don't know. How do the people who practice the things you mention feel about those things? It is very likely that if I were them, I'd feel like they do. But I don't know, I only have this set of eyes to look out of, this brain to think with.

It seems to me that you avoid every question put to you on this topic, probably because you grasp on some level that answering them would show your opinion about circumcision to be hypocritical.

The questions assume, without merit, that "these things are like that thing" and that I would feel the same (or should to avoid hypocrisy) about the entire set. But the construction of the question is flawed. It's front-loaded and disingenuous. If the counterargument is about other cultural practices which we may jointly dislike, how does that advance the conversation about this cultural practice?

There is one cultural practice I have said I support broadly: a caring parent making a decision for their child, with the guidance and support of a medical practitioner. Isn't that enough?

Here's a hypothetical in return. How would you feel about circumcision if you were a faithful Muslim in a Muslim country, were circumcised yourself and everyone around you was as well?

That's rhetorical, because I put it to you that, unless you were such a person, you'd have no idea of how you'd feel about it.

 

[3point14]

Well, they don't call it a cultural bias for nothing. It gets me one thing though. A default position.

I think you are underestimating both the power and the useful purpose of a cultural bias. If we were Jews discussing this, we'd have another religious dimension - something of real heft - to add to the mix.

So you're happy to observe others cultural parctices and neither pass judgement nor seek to intefere, simply because they're cultural practices?

FGM is the one I'd most like to discuss, there are cultures in which it is routine, I think it's barbaric. Would you view it as simply cultural and allow these people to continue with the practice?

Is this a "pics or it didn't happen" thing? I prefer to remain penis-anonymous.

I can understand that.

I've never know any man who actually has a foreskin advocate for the right of parents to chop theirs off their children.

 

[luchog]

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.

This is one of the dumbest straw men I've seen you use so far. Seriously, it's like you're not even remotely interested in rational debate; just ridicule. Try debating honestly for a change.

Are you really having that hard a time understanding the difference between "unnecessary cosmetic surgery" and "medical necessity"? Or does your post-modernist anti-rational relativism not accept that there is a difference?

It's about bodily autonomy, and individual agency. The perfectly rational belief that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests, to the extent that they are able; and that violations of said autonomy should be limited to only what is strictly necessary to maintain life and health. Do you have any objection to that, or does your relativism even acknowledge that such things even exist?

Interesting that in supporting routine non-medical circumcision, you're the one supporting belief over rationality. Are you aware of the hypocrisy and irony of your comments here?

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

Unless, of course, your child experiences one of a significant number of potentially dangerous complications. But, of course, it's more important to adhere to someone else's religious or pseudo-scientific beliefs than to allow children to decide the matter for themselves when they are old enough to understand the nature of the choice.

Percentage of males circumcised in the US: down from 88 percent in the 1960s to 77% in 2010. (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumci...ng-study-says/)

Did you actually read the article and sources? Lots of mis-reporting and inadequately-supported speculation there.

 

[The Norseman]

My response is that needing a hypothetical shows parents are doing a pretty good job under the system as it is now.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the status quo, though.

But if you want me to play the game anyhow, if you have a parent and a physician (in fact, a whole academy of pediatricians) who think it's something they want done, then yes, if an alteration survives this process, it's probably OK. Note, however, that objecting parents would still be free to hold their judgement as best.

Routine circumcision is contentious in the medical community in the US, not as staunchly pro-circ as you are implying and if the rest of the first world is taken into consideration, the pro-circ physicians in the US are a decided minority of physicians.

And how do you answer the complaint, from the now-adult who wants to get circumcised, that their parents let them down? You can't rewind the clock and make the procedure safer again.

I would bet that multiple genital piercings would be safer when done as a child as well. There are many, many men who have, as an adult, chosen to have multiple genital piercings. Do you think they'd be fully supportive of having had their genitals pierced multiple times as a child?

Parents do a lot of weird stuff to their kids. Outrageous stuff even. But circumcision has the benefit of a medical professional weighing in. It's so much more highly supervised, it's hardly worth pointing out. We'd do better to castigate parents for the lousy diets their kids are on, or jamming ill-formed feet into non-functional shoes, or any of a number of things that don't come with oversight at all.

We have the advantage of science and learning now and it's okay to let archaic cultural habits go.

Well, they don't call it a cultural bias for nothing. It gets me one thing though. A default position.

And yet, when presented what I consider to be compelling evidence in support of stopping routine circumcision, you cling to the cultural habit. What would it take for you to change your mind?

Is this a "pics or it didn't happen" thing? I prefer to remain penis-anonymous.

My parents had me circumcised when I was an infant and would rather have had the choice, just similarly I am glad that I have the choice to tattoo my face or perform rhinoplasty or have multiple genital piercings.

 

[luchog]

Because being a vegan is part of my cultural identity.

Excision of the clitoris in female children is part of the "cultural identity" in many parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Murder of albinos to gain magical abilities is part of the "cultural identity" in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

Child marriage and raping children is parts of the "cultural identity" in parts of the Middle East and Africa.

Slavery is parts of the "cultural identity" in parts of the Middle East and Africa.

Genocide to "purify" ethnic identity is part of the "cultural identity" in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia.

Women as chattel to be bartered for social and economic advantage is part of the "cultural identity" in much of the world.

Systematic oppression of low-caste populations is part of the "cultural identity" in parts of the Middle East, the Indian Subcontinent, and East/Southeast Asia.

Enslavement and genocide of "subhuman" Africans and other indigenous peoples was part of the "cultural identity" in Europe and North America as part of their Manifest Destiny for centuries.

When does "cultural identity" overrule basic human rights in your world? Where is the line?

 

[marplots]

This is one of the dumbest straw men I've seen you use so far. Seriously, it's like you're not even remotely interested in rational debate; just ridicule. Try debating honestly for a change.

Are you really having that hard a time understanding the difference between "unnecessary cosmetic surgery" and "medical necessity"? Or does your post-modernist anti-rational relativism not accept that there is a difference?

It's about bodily autonomy, and individual agency. The perfectly rational belief that everyone should be able to decide for themselves what is in their own best interests, to the extent that they are able; and that violations of said autonomy should be limited to only what is strictly necessary to maintain life and health. Do you have any objection to that, or does your relativism even acknowledge that such things even exist?

Despite your insistence to the contrary, these are not rational concepts but personal preferences, preferences we violate routinely for a variety of reasons. The only difference is we sometimes think there's enough reason and sometimes not.

Babies are incapable of deciding what is in their own best interests, hence the role of parents and physicians. Or, posters on ISF, as the case may be.

Interesting that in supporting routine non-medical circumcision, you're the one supporting belief over rationality. Are you aware of the hypocrisy and irony of your comments here?

I'm aware that you perceive them to be so. As far as supporting the medical procedure of circumcision, I don't think I do, so much as supporting the mechanisms which allow it to occur.

Unless, of course, your child experiences one of a significant number of potentially dangerous complications. But, of course, it's more important to adhere to someone else's religious or pseudo-scientific beliefs than to allow children to decide the matter for themselves when they are old enough to understand the nature of the choice.

I don't believe this is about health statistics, but a particular bias toward "body envelope" and "nature as a good default condition." Surely, if it truly were about medical consequences, and those consequences were clearly adverse, it wouldn't have the support of the relevant medical discipline.

I think there's also an element of mirroring here. Those against circumcision have framed it as, "I don't want this done to me, so it shouldn't be done to anyone else." At least, that's my sense of it.

Did you actually read the article and sources? Lots of mis-reporting and inadequately-supported speculation there.

I did read it, yes. Do you think their quoted percentages of circumcised males in the US is incorrect? I would be happy to adopt one that is better supported.

 

[William Parcher]

It's been a while since this forum had a Circumcision War.

 

[marplots]

And yet, when presented what I consider to be compelling evidence in support of stopping routine circumcision, you cling to the cultural habit. What would it take for you to change your mind?

I don't know.
I don't think the evidence is compelling however. For example, I have read that uncircumcised males will get an average of one infection of the foreskin in their lifetimes. Is that a "compelling" reason to do it? I don't think it is.

And that's part of the problem. "Compelling" seems to be a result of a preconceived notion of body autonomy or a taboo against modification. So, evidence that is so-so gets ranked higher.

But I am no expert in infant health. The experts don't seem to think it should be forbidden, so, unless I am willing to do some serious learning, that's my default.

Here is part of the 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on circumcision. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989)

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

Seems pretty clear. Is it compelling?

Despite that, I would not force children to be circumcised and leave it up to the parents to decide after discussing it with their physician.

 

[The Norseman]

I don't know.
I don't think the evidence is compelling however. For example, I have read that uncircumcised males will get an average of one infection of the foreskin in their lifetimes. Is that a "compelling" reason to do it? I don't think it is.

And that's part of the problem. "Compelling" seems to be a result of a preconceived notion of body autonomy or a taboo against modification. So, evidence that is so-so gets ranked higher.

But I am no expert in infant health. The experts don't seem to think it should be forbidden, so, unless I am willing to do some serious learning, that's my default.

Here is part of the 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on circumcision. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989)

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

Seems pretty clear. Is it compelling?

Despite that, I would not force children to be circumcised and leave it up to the parents to decide after discussing it with their physician.

This is one topic on which I've changed my mind. I used to be nominally in support of circumcision until I read the evidence against it. I also changed my stance on Alcoholics Anonymous on these boards, and even altered my stance on gun-control on these boards. Same with "rape culture", female income inequality, and the assumed existence of Jesus. All because of what I consider to be compelling evidence and thoughtful conclusions based on it.

I understand that you don't consider the evidence to be compelling enough but I'm thinking that since you don't know yet what evidence would be in fact enough, you won't ever find it.

 

[luchog]

Despite your insistence to the contrary, these are not rational concepts but personal preferences, preferences we violate routinely for a variety of reasons. The only difference is we sometimes think there's enough reason and sometimes not.

This is more evasive relativist nonsense. Of course they're rational concepts; they're the only possible rational concepts available. Objectively, are we all individuals with individual agency and autonomy? Is that a fact that exists, or not? If the former, then we can rationally debate what is good or bad for the individual. If the latter; then there is no possibility of rational debate, since everything is merely elaborate justification of individual preference and privilege.

You've apparently taken the post-modernist view that objectivity and objective reality is impossible, and nothing exists except personal preference; therefore there is no possibility of further debate on this issue.

Fortunately for the rest of use, the evidence is strong that humans are discrete individuals, with individual agency and autonomy; and can thus be discussed rationally.

I don't believe this is about health statistics, but a particular bias toward "body envelope" and "nature as a good default condition."

No, you're making stuff up again. I've clearly stated repeatedly what my beliefs are, and what I see the rational options being. Your attempt at revisionist distortions of my statements to fit your relativist philosophy does not change that, it just makes you intellectually dishonest. I have said, and will not say, anything about "body envelope", and your attempts to cast my statements as a naturalistic fallacy are either indicative of very poor reading comprehension, or are deliberately disingenuous.

Surely, if it truly were about medical consequences, and those consequences were clearly adverse, it wouldn't have the support of the relevant medical discipline.

History has repeatedly proven this to be profoundly untrue. Your refusal to acknowledge this doesn't change the fact that youa re demonstrably wrong. The history of the Eugenics movement is more than ample refutation of your assertion.

I think there's also an element of mirroring here. Those against circumcision have framed it as, "I don't want this done to me, so it shouldn't be done to anyone else." At least, that's my sense of it.

Again, you are either not understanding, or you are being disingenuously revisionist and dismissive. The fact that everyone else seems to be able to easily understand what I am actually saying makes me strongly suspect the latter.

 

[luchog]

I understand that you don't consider the evidence to be compelling enough but I'm thinking that since you don't know yet what evidence would be in fact enough, you won't ever find it.

Going by previous posts in this and other threads, marsplots has consistently denied even the possibility of objective evidence; preferring to cast everything in the light of post-modernist relativism, which denies the existence of objectivity, or at least human capacity to objective rationality; and attempts to paint everything as individual preference and groupthink. You didn't come to a decision based on objective facts and preponderance of evidence, your change of culture influenced you to change your worldview to adapt and conform to your new cultural milieu. Neither position is more objectively "true" than the other.

 

[luchog]

Here is part of the 2007 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on circumcision. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989)

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

Seems pretty clear. Is it compelling?

Clear and compelling only if you ignore the actual results; and the fact that it has been refuted in many respects. To start with, although the study did find a difference in the rate of penile cancer, the difference is statistically insignificant, and IIRC the margin for error was an order of magnitude higher than the actual difference. The part dealing with UTIs did not adequately control for differences in hygiene practices; and the difference is only significant in places and conditions where normal hygiene is difficult to maintain (eg. desert environments). I've briefly touched on the glaring flaws with the STD study earlier in this thread.