Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[catsmate]

I shall now make the point that having sex with children and circumcising children are different sorts of activities. The law is entitled to view them differently. We are discussing the treatment of children. Both in the United States and in Europe, Jewish ritual circumcision of infants is not currently prohibited by law. As with ear piercings and orthodontic braces, parents are given the authority to make decisions regarding minor cosmetic bodily alterations on behalf of their own children. Find another analogy.

Like genital mutilation and dripping water?

Yeah, just like cities burned down because of the animal welfare laws.
<snip>http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=9541835
Neither did any cities burn for banning the FGM, if I recall correctly.

Yeah this rather discredits the Muslim city burning prediction.

Uh, you do realize that those laws were passed during Hitler's rise to power, right? You know, as one of many manifestations of Europe's then-swelling tide of virulent antisemitism?

No I don't realise this because it's not true. Yes there was a significant connection between animal welfare proponents and anti-semitism in the thirties (I'm reminded of Spencer-Leese, Williamson, Clarke and Chesterton in the UK) but your linkage with Hitler's rise is specious.

If ritual circumcision is a "minor cosmetic bodily alteration" then neither the human legislators nor God should give a toss whether it is banned or not. Find another description.

That's why the term 'genital mutilation', being factually accurate, is better.

I think it is pretty evident that the other side does think it has a valid place, just not to your benefit .

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Yah, but the overarching and ethusiastic denial that the affirmation of the free exercise of religion has any valid place in the socio-legal discourse on circumcision speaks volumes as to the deniers respect for minority religious rights.

I'm happy to own up to having no respect for minority religious rights where they affect other people.

If I'm brutally honest I have very little respect even where they don't affect other people - it's difficult to respect the continuation of ridiculous, supernatural beliefs, doctrines and practices in an educated, modern society... at least without appearing patronising. Or at least it is once you've broken free from the incredible social conditioning that grants a free pass to words like God, Jesus or Allah that it doesn't grant to words like fairy, dragon, wizard, Hercules, Zeus or Thor. But as so many seem afflicted by this social conditioning, I have, out of politeness learnt to occasionally mask my utter bemusement.

I have to say, it is highly amusing watching the circumcision lobby go through their incredible tortured mental gymnastics to somehow separate chopping a bit off the end of your old boy from any other form of mutilation (and boy don't you hate that word). And mutilation is the correct word - if we chopped peoples earlobes off (for religious or traditional reasons) that would have arguably even less practical impact on their on-going life (assuming the practice was widespread) than circumcision but it would still be mutilation.

Oh and trying to equate with orthodontic treatment - hilarious. A) Other than severe deformities, it would apply to an age range that would have a much better idea what is going on (and these days usually requests it) and b) is a corrective treatment which whilst satisfying a certain accepted aesthetic also has a practical purpose of establishing the correct bite pattern etc (which otherwise can cause jaw misalignment and headaches, difficulty in cleaning teeth etc). It's also relatively straightforward to reverse - care to find me even one example where someone has had their teeth corrected and in later life so regretted / disagreed with it that they got them made re-crooked? Personally I think it's gone a bit far - but then I didn't even like my daughters getting their ears pierced at age 16.

 

[Ryokan]

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

As I said very early in this thread, the reason the debate got started recently in Norway is because a baby boy died after his circumcision.

 

[The Big Dog]

How convenient for you the numerous studies and meta-analyses that contradict your position are all "deeply flawed"!

How about you actually offer your own critique of the studies' methodologies instead of merely asserting that they are?

You could start with these thirteen meta-analyses on the non-HIV-related benefits of circumcision. Maybe you could get Jenny McCarthy to help you.

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.

....

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.

The scholarly papers you are missing are linked in the above post.

I don't recall your asking what my medical professional based his recommendation on. I recall that he specifically mentioned reduced risk of penile cancer and reduced risk of STD's. Thanks for asking!

 

[luchog]

I'm pretty extreme when it comes to my anti-circumcision opinions, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong there. The big HIV/circumcision trial a while back was pretty flawless. There was also a smaller trial a while back showing that female circumcision has a similar effect. Sadly, it seems to make sense, in the sense that a pathogen which is adapted to sexual transmission is probably adapted to "normal" human genitals, so chopping genital parts off (in either gender) will interfere with how the pathogen has adapted to spread from host to host.

That said, it only applies to areas with endemic HIV among heterosexuals (basically Africa) and condoms still work better.

Nope, the African study was highly flawed. The study did not adequately allow for changes in sexual practices after the circumcision; particularly a profound reduction in high-risk sexual practices among the test group which was not manifest in the control group, and the reduction in sexual activity of the test group (especially considering the short duration of the study)

 

[colander]

I'm happy to own up to having no respect for minority religious rights where they affect other people.

If I'm brutally honest I have very little respect even where they don't affect other people -

color me shocked

 

[colander]

Nope, the African study was highly flawed. The study did not adequately allow for changes in sexual practices after the circumcision; particularly a profound reduction in high-risk sexual practices among the test group which was not manifest in the control group, and the reduction in sexual activity of the test group (especially considering the short duration of the study)

Not sure who told you that, but it doesn't seem to be true. The researchers did a follow-up this year--seven years after the original study--and found that their original conclusions re: circumcision fostering a reduction in HIV contraction rates seem to have been pretty much on target.

Initial data pointed to a risk reduction of half, an estimate that was later boosted to 65 to 76 percent, according to the location.
Auvert's team went back to Orange Farm, the South African township where the first trial took place in 2002 and 2005, in order to carry out a follow-up survey.
They asked more than 3,300 men to be tested for HIV and give details about their sexual behaviour.
Multiple partners and condom use were the same, whether the men were circumcised or uncircumcised, the investigation found.
But the risk of HIV infection was 57-61 percent lower among those who had been circumcised.
Without circumcision, prevalence of HIV in the community would have been 19 percent higher.

Of course, since support for a ban seems to stem more from vicarious wiener-cutting-related moral outrage than from consideration of any sort of measured medical cost/benefit analysis, I wouldn't expect these study results to sway ban advocates from their positions.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

As I said very early in this thread, the reason the debate got started recently in Norway is because a baby boy died after his circumcision.

Forgive pedant, but I can't help but take note of your wording. If it were me--and were the case--I'd have been very sure to write that the boy died as a result of his circumcision. That isn't what you wrote. Why not?

 

[luchog]

Not sure who told you that, but it doesn't seem to be true. The researchers did a follow-up this year--seven years after the original study--and found that their original conclusions re: circumcision fostering a reduction in HIV contraction rates seem to have been pretty much on target.

Okay, they did follow up. The original reported figures were after a 3-month reporting period.

However, that still doesn't address the flaws of self-reporting, high dropout rate, and failure to account for substantial changes in high-risk sexual activity among the test group. Independent evaluation found a dramatic reduction in high-risk sexual activity and increase in condom use of the test group vs. the control group. There was also a substantial drop-out rate among the test subjects who reported no change in sexual activity after circumcision. On top of that, independent evaluation found a reporting problem with one of the population studies that resulted in it being dropped; said population did not demonstrate the dramatic drop in AIDS rates. There were a couple threads on this board that cropped up after the study was published, which dealt with the various flaws in the study in detail. The drop in AIDs rates is better attributed to improvements in sex education, resulting in a reduction in high-risk sexual activity and increased condom use.

 

[colander]

Forgive pedant, but I can't help but take note of your wording. If it were me--and were the case--I'd have been very sure to write that the boy died as a result of his circumcision. That isn't what you wrote. Why not?

It's a fair cop. The baby did apparently die as a result of complications from the procedure. However, there seems to be some question as to whether the complications might not have arisen due to physician negligence (indeed, the professionals responsible have had their practice suspended and are facing conduct review). Seems quite possible given that doctors in Norway don't typically have much experience with proper circumcision protocol, and perhaps since so many Norwegian physicians disapprove of the procedure, when it is performed it is often done with insufficent medical oversight.

By way of comparison, I note that the CDC puts American infant circumcision rates of "mild" complications at 0.2%, and "severe" rates at approximately 0%. It is an extremely low-risk procedure when properly done.

 

[Slowvehicle]

,respectful snip for focus.

...I was truly hoping by now that you might have deigned to explain how something that became, by tradition, a "mitzvah" could have "always been" a "mitzvah"...

 

[The Big Dog]

Okay, they did follow up. The original reported figures were after a 3-month reporting period.

However, that still doesn't address the flaws of self-reporting, high dropout rate, and failure to account for substantial changes in high-risk sexual activity among the test group. Independent evaluation found a dramatic reduction in high-risk sexual activity and increase in condom use of the test group vs. the control group. There was also a substantial drop-out rate among the test subjects who reported no change in sexual activity after circumcision. On top of that, independent evaluation found a reporting problem with one of the population studies that resulted in it being dropped; said population did not demonstrate the dramatic drop in AIDS rates.

Beyond the fact that you cite no sources, it appears that many of the claims you make are specifically contradicted by the follow on report.

 

[colander]

Okay, they did follow up. The original reported figures were after a 3-month reporting period.

However, that still doesn't address the flaws of self-reporting, high dropout rate, and failure to account for substantial changes in high-risk sexual activity among the test group. Independent evaluation found a dramatic reduction in high-risk sexual activity and increase in condom use of the test group vs. the control group. There was also a substantial drop-out rate among the test subjects who reported no change in sexual activity after circumcision. On top of that, independent evaluation found a reporting problem with one of the population studies that resulted in it being dropped; said population did not demonstrate the dramatic drop in AIDS rates. There were a couple threads on this board that cropped up after the study was published, which dealt with the various flaws in the study in detail. The drop in AIDs rates is better attributed to improvements in sex education, resulting in a reduction in high-risk sexual activity and increased condom use.

Er, you'll pardon me if I decline to take your word for all that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

As I said very early in this thread, the reason the debate got started recently in Norway is because a baby boy died after his circumcision.

Demostrating that political debate can start of individual cases, especially if they are highly emotive, not that circumcision has a high risk-benfit ratio. If you look at the meta-analyses that rack complications and benefits of circumcision, you wil see the numbers-needed-to-harm [NNH] for the adverse effects of circumcision (i.e., the numbers of circumcisions that, on average, need to be performed in order to observe one occurrance of an adverse effect) a one to two orders of magnitude larger the numbers-needed-to-treat [NNT] (i.e., the number of circumcisions that, on average, need to be performed in order to observe a single prevention of a pathologic condition). That is, the adverse effects require, on average 10 to 100 times more circumcision be performed before a single occurrance is observed.

Having a highly principled apporached to circumcision (e.g., one death is too many) is something that I can respect. However, such higly principled approaches tend to lack the subtlety to address real-world socio-medico-legal problems, because such problems tend to center around complex legal issues, such as consent, free exercise of religion, and compelling goverment interest in the safety of its populace, and medical procedure that clearly have both prophylactic benefits and immediate adverse effects, and are therefore not settled well based on moral indignation.

What is extremely problematic about the opposition to circumcision as it has been presented in this thread is the tendency to utterly disregard thorny legal issues* and to blatantly deny that medical cost-benefit analysis is possible**. Moreover, there are seems to be a reluctance to even express the fact that legal proscription of an action prevents everyone from legally perfoming the proscribed action; whereas, the maintainance of an action's legality does not prevent people from not performing the action legally. That is, outlawing circumcision prevents those who want to circumcise their children from doing; whereas, maintaining the legality of circumcision does not prevent those who do not want to circumcise their children from not circumcising their children. Therefore, it seems reasonable to place the onus upon the circumcision opponents to present an evidence-based argument, from both legal principle and legal practice, and dependent upon medical data as to why circumcision should be illegal, something that circumcision opponents in this thread have utterly failed and seem steadfastly unwilling to do.

*e.g., that the foundational legal documents of the countries in which the the bans are proposed also grant residents a fundamental right to the free exercise of their religions and that consent-based medical decisions are not necessarily recognized with respect to the explicit consent of the minor patient but with respect to the consent-by-proxy of the minor patient's parents

**e.g., that no medical benefits exist and that the data demonstrating medical benefits is "fundamentally flawed"

 

[mijopaalmc]

...I was truly hoping by now that you might have deigned to explain how something that became, by tradition, a "mitzvah" could have "always been" a "mitzvah"...

Seeing as you refuse the understand the difference between an action that has been in practice so long that it has become obligatory as if it has always been in practice and an action that is obligatory because it has always been in practice, there is little for me to actually say to you, except to note that the etiquette for bringing attention to a question that you feel has not been answered is quote the relevant discussion. Not only is quoting an irrelevant post with a "polite snip for focus" is in fact neither polite nor focused, but "snipped" is also .a particuarly poor choice of words given the topic at hand.

 

[Lithrael]

Moreover, there are seems to be a reluctance to even express the fact that legal proscription of an action prevents everyone from legally perfoming the proscribed action; whereas, the maintainance of an action's legality does not prevent people from not performing the action legally. That is, outlawing circumcision prevents those who want to circumcise their children from doing; whereas, maintaining the legality of circumcision does not prevent those who do not want to circumcise their children from not circumcising their children. Therefore, it seems reasonable to place the onus upon the circumcision opponents to present an evidence-based argument, from both legal principle and legal practice, and dependent upon medical data as to why circumcision should be illegal, something that circumcision opponents in this thread have utterly failed and seem steadfastly unwilling to do.

I doubt it's an unwillingness so much as it's a situation that simply does not find itself resolved by current legal principle or practice, and the medical data is less than a wash for anyone who's not considering the loss of foreskin itself a serious injury.

The question of whether the wishes of the parents trump the infant keeping a bit that is very very nice, but which it can indeed live without, is not one that can be solved by pointing at anything else, IMO. I don't think it can be solved by anything at all, in fact. I don't think anyone who does not feel this is an important issue of bodily integrity is ever going to be convinced that it is.

But it's certainly my gut feeling that everyone should get to keep bits that are very very nice, and that traditions that require irreversible alterations to the body before the age of consent can eat my shorts.

 

[spin0]

I shall now make the point that having sex with children and circumcising children are different sorts of activities.

I also thought so until I learned about Gilgal Society (among others). It's a pro-circumcision advocacy group with members sharing a sado-masochistic fetish of circumcision, that is they get sexually aroused by fantasizing, watching, or performing circumcisions. The group has also published erotic literature about circumcising minors. Interestingly some of the members also happen to be medical professionals who not only perform circumcisions but also advocate circumcision to the point of making it mandatory, and also produce studies which purpotedly show significant health benefits for circumcision such as reducing AIDS. Last year Vernon Quaintance, the Head of Gilgal society, was convicted of possession of child porn.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I doubt it's an unwillingness so much as it's a situation that simply does not find itself resolved by current legal principle or practice, and the medical data is less than a wash for anyone who's not considering the loss of foreskin itself a serious injury.

The question of whether the wishes of the parents trump the infant keeping a bit that is very very nice, but which it can indeed live without, is not one that can be solved by pointing at anything else, IMO. I don't think it can be solved by anything at all, in fact. I don't think anyone who does not feel this is an important issue of bodily integrity is ever going to be convinced that it is.

But it's certainly my gut feeling that everyone should get to keep bits that are very very nice, and that traditions that require irreversible alterations to the body before the age of consent can eat my shorts.

You do realize that, if the government wants to limit a fundamental right, such as the free exercise of religion, it should probably do so is a legally consistent manner, right?

Jumping up and down and shrieking "bodily integrity" doesn't actually consitute a valid legal analysis of how the government actually intervenes in the parent-child relationship with respect to issues of legal consent and it relation to medical procedures that are arguably able to be delayed until the age of legal majority but have greater long-term benefits to the patient when perfomed during childhood and adolescence. The whole point of the references to orthodontic procedures is that the minor patients often does explicitly and vehemently object to their performance, regardless of their medical necessity, but the minor patients' non-assent does not necessarily constitute a legally recognized lack of consent on the part of the minor patient, nor does the parent-child necessarily constitute a milieu within which the minor patient's consent can be guaranteed to have been obtained in a non-coercive fashion. The circumcision opponents' objections circumcision due to the assumed lack of consent from patient and the alleged ability to delay circumcision until a point at which circumcision opponents deemed the patient capable of giving legally meaningful consent, which is strangely long before the age of legal majority (given the tendency for circumcision opponents in this thread to interpret their receipt of orthodontic correction to arise from their own informed consent), seem not to be legally consistent with their support for orthodontia.

By the way do the governments that are currently seeking to ban circumcision over concerns about bodily support the right of legal minors to be circumcised against the wishes of their parents?

 

[spin0]

Uh, you do realize that those laws were passed during Hitler's rise to power, right? You know, as one of many manifestations of Europe's then-swelling tide of virulent antisemitism?

*ding, ding* Aaand we have a winner! Yes Finland is literally Hitler. I should know because I'm literally Hitler. You have just won the debate. Congratulations.

Yet surprisingly, the animal welfare laws in Finland are motivated by animal welfare.

Animals are to be slaughtered without undue stress, pain or suffering. Person's religious beliefs are not a legal reason to cause undue pain or suffering to animals. Yet it does not mean that such religions or having such beliefs would be illegal. For example a devil worshipper can freely believe in a dark fairy but act of torturing animals to death is illegal even if it was done as a ritual belonging to that religion.

 

[Lithrael]

You do realize that, if the government wants to limit a fundamental right, such as the free exercise of religion, it should probably do so is a legally consistent manner, right?

That's the whole problem; there is nothing else that is sufficiently like circumcision to draw consistent lines with. This is one of the times when any decision is going to have to be made out of whole cloth.

You keep bringing up the point that it's legal to refrain from circumcision. Are you going anywhere with that? You're using an awful lot of words to leave out so much meaning.