Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[colander]

The reason they advise that is because issues with the structure of the mouth that have a negative effect on health and well-being are sometimes more easily treated early, while the mouth is still growing.

It may well be true that wherever you are, braces on children are only installed to forestall serious dental issues. However, American dental health professionals recommend children's braces at far higher rates than their counterparts in other Western countries. Since in most of those countries, rates of problematic adult dentition don't exceed those found in the US, it would seem to indicate that most of the time, the installation of braces on American children is not performed for any reasons more pressing than those of dental aesthetics.

 

[ehcks]

It may well be true that wherever you are, braces on children are only installed to forestall serious dental issues. However, American dental health professionals recommend children's braces at far higher rates than their counterparts in other Western countries. Since in most of those countries, rates of problematic adult dentition don't exceed those found in the US, it would seem to indicate that most of the time, the installation of braces on American children is not performed for any reasons more pressing than those of dental aesthetics.

Fine then. You can start complaining to the American Dental Association about how they cause unnecessary pain to children.

Just as I'll continue to complain about circumcision causing unnecessary harm to babies.

 

[colander]

Fine then. You can start complaining to the American Dental Association about how they cause unnecessary pain to children.

Just as I'll continue to complain about circumcision causing unnecessary harm to babies.

Uh, what harm? Still not too clear on that.

 

[The Big Dog]

Finding (disparate, random, after the fact desperate reaching) medical benefits and something being medically justifiable are two different things.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/238.full

Wow. HIV/AIDS might not exist? Really?

Not seeing any serious response to the articles posted above, and certainly no justification for intruding on the parent/doctor/child relationship.

 

[ehcks]

Wow. HIV/AIDS might not exist? Really?

Furthermore, the potential risk for such diseases as HIV/AIDS may not exist when a population of boys circumcised in 2002 reach adult life. We are not certain at present whether AIDS is going to be an even more widespread disease in the future or whether it will be abolished by some new treatment. Therefore, it would be hard to justify mass circumcision with such a small potential gain.

 

[The Big Dog]

The funny thing is that it is over ten years later, and AIDS is still around.

You might want to spend more time checking the date or reading some of the articles posted than checking for smilies.

By the way, the hero claims they only do surgery when there is a medical need?

You might want to look up how many abortions are done.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wow. HIV/AIDS might not exist? Really?

You are going to quote mine? Really?

(I would say that the contradictory and debatable studies on the matter make it a poor justification, but I did not quote the article because of that one point. The point was that finding a random "benefit" does not necessarily mean a medical "justification".)

Not seeing any serious response to the articles posted above, and certainly no justification for intruding on the parent/doctor/child relationship.

Which articles?

I would say the same justification stands for banning any and all forms of FGM. It is not as if there is no foundation for this kind of law.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here is a Canadian journal that talks about the parent/child relationship in the case of female circumcision. Incidentally, they also say that surgeries need to be appropriate and necessary.

Female circumcision is special because the woman is acting as proxy decision maker for a child. Proxy decision makers do not have the right to use their values and perspectives - they must do what is in the best interests of the incompetent person, and may use their values or standards only as long as this will not imperil the welfare of their charge.

Linky.

 

[colander]

Here is a Canadian journal that talks about the parent/child relationship in the case of female circumcision. Incidentally, they also say that surgeries need to be appropriate and necessary.



Linky.

That letter is very silly. Do you think that male circumcision and female circumcision lead to comparable levels of imperilment to the welfare of the recipients?

 

[The Big Dog]

You are going to quote mine? Really?

(I would say that the contradictory and debatable studies on the matter make it a poor justification, but I did not quote the article because of that one point. The point was that finding a random "benefit" does not necessarily mean a medical "justification".)
Which articles?

I would say the same justification stands for banning any and all forms of FGM. It is not as if there is no foundation for this kind of law.

Wait, you quote something and I in turn quote from your quote that was particularly silly, and you accuse me of quote mining? I'll be damned.

That was not a study. That was a speech. Feel free to quote me.

Tell you what, why don't you keep your business out of my medical decisions, supported by medical evidence and medical doctors, and I'll keep out of yours.

Deal?

 

[Craig B]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The vast majority of elective circumcisions in my country are not done for religious reasons.

Circumcision was being compared to orthodontic procedures. These are typically cosmetic. Is the motive for circumcision, then, merely cosmetic? If so, why all the fuss?

Also, there exist other countries in the world, and in most of them elective circumcision is not so commonly practised. The OP refers to Nordic countries, for example.

 

[Wildy]

Judaism is also pretty much based on the holy book, which says eight days, and that's that.

So what happens if the eighth day is the sabbath?

That letter is very silly. Do you think that male circumcision and female circumcision lead to comparable levels of imperilment to the welfare of the recipients?

I'd say that would depend on many factors, like where it's being done or the type of circumcision being performed.

 

[colander]

So what happens if the eighth day is the sabbath?



I'd say that would depend on many factors, like where it's being done or the type of circumcision being performed.

And since the majority of female circumcisions as practiced in the world entail at least the removal of the clitoris, which would be analogous to removing a man's entire penis, wouldn't you say that it is a bit disingenuous to imply that male and female circumcision are in any way equivalent?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Wait, you quote something and I in turn quote from your quote that was particularly silly, and you accuse me of quote mining? I'll be damned.

It seems fallacious because you did not focus on the main point and my reason for quoting it. That particular argument could be completely wrong but it would not matter in context.

That was not a study. That was a speech. Feel free to quote me.

Okay... And?

Tell you what, why don't you keep your business out of my medical decisions, supported by medical evidence and medical doctors, and I'll keep out of yours.

Deal?

So you, and the law, will stay out if I get my daughter circumcised?

We obviously don't treat parents as sovereign rulers of their children, and we do make laws prohibiting surgical procedures. There is no great line being breached here. In fact, circumcision can be seen as the anomaly.

What I find odd is that it has been like pulling teeth to get you to explain what it is you are claiming your doctor claimed.

I wonder what medical evidence you are claiming that hasn't already been reviewed and been found wanting for recommending routine circumcision.

 

[colander]

Circumcision was being compared to orthodontic procedures. These are typically cosmetic. Is the motive for circumcision, then, merely cosmetic? If so, why all the fuss?

For circumcised non-Jews in America, yes, I'd say cosmetic preference is a good description. Perhaps you haven't yet noticed, but people get quite attached to whichever penis style it is that they're used to. And since function is minimally affected either way, why shouldn't we continue letting parental preferences play tiebreaker, as we do with orthodontics or earrings or lacrosse lessons or whether to buy a trampoline? (That last, by the way, injures far more children than the clumsiest mohel could ever aspire to harm.)

Also, there exist other countries in the world, and in most of them elective circumcision is not so commonly practised. The OP refers to Nordic countries, for example.

Surely the reasons that you feel infant circumcision is so harmful that it should be outlawed don't suddenly cease to exist when you change countries!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That letter is very silly.

How so?

Do you think that male circumcision and female circumcision lead to comparable levels of imperilment to the welfare of the recipients?

Read the last paragraphs:

The fact that female circumcision is a more serious intervention does not alter the situation. Both involve what in other contexts would be called nonconsensual mutilation of a minor for nonmedical reasons.

 

[Craig B]

... Surely the reasons that you feel infant circumcision is so harmful that it should be outlawed don't suddenly cease to exist when you change countries!

Indeed I don't feel anything of the kind. We were discussing the incidence of non religious circumcision in various countries, not whether it should be banned. I think it is very undesirable to carry out operations on infants for purely cosmetic reasons, as you say, of "style". I'm not sure if religious or other circumcision warrants a ban, as I have stated already. But the defence of it, that a ban is tantamount to religious persecution, seems unsound to me. There are things mandated by religion that do warrant a ban, as has been noted. And where such bans are in force, religion is specifically excluded as a defence.

As another example; I do not think the care of children should be taken from their parents, but when these refuse for religious reasons to permit a child to receive a life saving blood transfusion, then state intervention may rightly take precedence over religious belief. That is not state persecution of religion.

 

[Wildy]

And since the majority of female circumcisions as practiced in the world entail at least the removal of the clitoris, which would be analogous to removing a man's entire penis, wouldn't you say that it is a bit disingenuous to imply that male and female circumcision are in any way equivalent?

That's all well and good but it's got nothing to do with what you asked.

Or are you saying that the woman who chooses to get her clitoral hood removed and does it safely in a hospital is more imperilled compared to a man who gets his done with an unsterilised knife in highly unsanitary conditions?

 

[colander]

That's all well and good but it's got nothing to do with what you asked.

Or are you saying that the woman who chooses to get her clitoral hood removed and does it safely in a hospital is more imperilled compared to a man who gets his done with an unsterilised knife in highly unsanitary conditions?

I'd say I don't think infant clitoral hood removal necessarily should be illegal (and in case you didn't know, it already is perfectly legal to decide to have one's own clitoral hood removed--it's called a hoodectomy, and the plastic surgeons who do labiaplasty will be glad to perform one for you if you've got the cash).

Since so few female circumcision enthusiasts would be satisfied with such a limited allowance, however, I don't expect there to be much call for its legalization. Sociologically speaking, the two procedures don't really serve as homologous to each other... the one is done for the express purpose of crippling a woman's ability to feel any kind of sexual pleasure, which a hoodectomy does not do. The other makes your wiener smell a bit less after a couple of days without showering.

 

[ehcks]

the one is done for the express purpose of crippling a woman's ability to feel any kind of sexual pleasure, which a hoodectomy does not do. The other makes your wiener smell a bit less after a couple of days without showering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Male_circumcision_to_prevent_masturbation