Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rat]

On a similar note, I have to laugh when people say that kids will become confused or lose self esteem or something if they don't "match Dad".

I still haven't matched his bald head, and in many ways I feel my life has never recovered.

 

[jdp]

On a similar note, I have to laugh when people say that kids will become confused or lose self esteem or something if they don't "match Dad".

http://circumstitions.com/Images/looklike.gif

 

[Mycroft]

Because... infants commonly engage in high-risk sexual activity?

Puppies become dogs, kittens become cats, and infants become adolescents, who are often sexually active before reaching adulthood.

 

[Mycroft]

Actually, I was thinking of the AAP with their new, mixed conclusion. There are some benefits, but not enough to be recommended, and social and cultural reasons should guide the parents.

To me, that makes sense.

There are groups that advocate circumcision and groups that are opposed to it. Having looked into both, I conclude there are kooky elements to both, with slightly greater kooky elements among the anti-circumcision folks.

The science, to me, is pretty clear. There are real benefits to circumcision, but overall they are minor and not strong enough to recommend the procedure routinely. There are also risks, but again the risks are minor, and wouldn't be enough to prevent anyone from doing it if it's what they wanted. Frankly, I fail to see why this issue generates so much controversy. Leaving the decision to the parents and their doctors seems to be to be the rational choice.

 

[GlennB]

Except that gumboot said nothing specifically referring to children's penises not needing cleaning. His post quite clearly indicates that he believes that he believes the idea that any penis requires routine washing is some sort of pro-circumcision propaganda item.

This is most assuredly not the case.

We all know that. You should know that gumboot knows that.

You should, therefore, be able to work out that gumboot was talking about junior willies and not use his slip to project onto him beliefs he doesn't hold.

 

[GlennB]

Yep pretty basic but it's mostly lost information in the States.

It's the subject of ignorance all over.

We have friends who, 25 years ago or so, had two infant sons. Grandad was a GP (MD) and decided the time was right to, er, 'free' their foreskins and just kinda ripped them loose.

Dear FSM This was a trained doctor in action.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It's the subject of ignorance all over.

We have friends who, 25 years ago or so, had two infant sons. Grandad was a GP (MD) and decided the time was right to, er, 'free' their foreskins and just kinda ripped them loose.

Dear FSM This was a trained doctor in action.

There was a popular belief in Japan that the foreskin had to be forcibly retracted. Ostensibly it was to prevent phimosis, but it might have been related to cultural views about the foreskin covering the head (sort of the opposite of how it was with Greeks).

 

[colander]

We all know that. You should know that gumboot knows that.

You should, therefore, be able to work out that gumboot was talking about junior willies and not use his slip to project onto him beliefs he doesn't hold.

Sorry, but no. It's not my job to mentally add qualifiers to other posters' facially indefensible statements. If gumboot meant that he was only talking about children's penises, then that's what he should have said, and even now there is nothing stopping him from clarifying what he meant if he objects to the way I have interpreted his post. I note that as of my writing this, he has not apparently found the need to do so.

I don't believe the fact that we are discussing infant circumcision makes your interpretation of his post particularly likely to be the one he himself intended readers to make, since per your reading, it doesn't serve to refute the anti-anti-circumcisionist talking point about penile hygiene. Even if children's penises don't need cleaning, this does nothing to negate the fact that circumcised adults are typically able to devote significantly less attention to periodically clearing dickcheese from their members than are men whose foreskins are intact.

I note that although you seem convinced of the obvious correctness of what I shall now term the "children's penises" apologia of the fast-becoming-legendary gumboot dickpost, your fellow circumcision-disapprovalist Rat chose to read it in an entirely different way, inferring that gumboot must surely have meant that uncircumcised penises require no special care to clean. Although this reading, like yours, requires the mental addition of a word not found in the original text, I find his rather more plausible because I have no trouble believing that many intact men do not find their penile care regimen to be unduly taxing.

Nevertheless, though the effort involved in intact peen cleansing may be slight, it is still more effort than a circumcised man needs to expend in cleansing his member. And as I once again shall balefully inform you, though you may have no trouble with it, penile hygiene is indeed a skill that some intact penis-bearers have yet to master. The protocol is not intuitively obvious to everyone and certainly deserves to be outlined in any respectable adolescent health curriculum.

 

[colander]

PS: International readers with penile cleansing concerns may wish to consider importing some of this American product.

 

[sadhatter]

You know i honestly think that the debate is becoming over complicated. To me it boils down to one question, what is wrong with letting someone make this decision when they reach an age where they can weigh the pros and cons, and decide themselves?

If they want to, more power to them, if they don't, then they don't have to.

Seems like the only logical way to approach the situation. Fighting for doing it before someone can decide for themselves seems to only benefit keeping the procedure commonplace, if the benefits are so massive, then adults will flock to it, and physicians will recommend it, if not it will fall out of style.

What is illogical or wrong about this? If the benefits are focused on stds, then surely there is no harm in waiting till one is older to let them make the decision, no?

 

[colander]

What is illogical or wrong about this? If the benefits are focused on stds, then surely there is no harm in waiting till one is older to let them make the decision, no?

You are free to do that if you want with your kids and your penis. However, Jews would prefer that governments refrain from making laws that prohibit them from upholding what they consider to be an extremely important part of their religious duty. Hygienic concerns don't really enter into it for us.

 

[Mycroft]

You know i honestly think that the debate is becoming over complicated. To me it boils down to one question, what is wrong with letting someone make this decision when they reach an age where they can weigh the pros and cons, and decide themselves?

Two reasons come to mind.

Those people to whom this is culturally important, it's important to do it in childhood or infancy.

If it's done in infancy, it's uncomplicated, heals faster, and the kid doesn't remember it.

To me the simple question is; if there is so little harm and some benefit (even if you don't agree the benefit is enough to choose the procedure for yourself or your children), why not leave the decisions to the family and their doctors? Why should any government be making this decision for anyone?

 

[jdp]

You are free to do that if you want with your kids and your penis. However, Jews would prefer that governments refrain from making laws that prohibit them from upholding what they consider to be an extremely important part of their religious duty. Hygienic concerns don't really enter into it for us.

These two positions are irreconcilable. When a parent imposes that choice, the child is no longer free to have that choice.

 

[sadhatter]

You are free to do that if you want with your kids and your penis. However, Jews would prefer that governments refrain from making laws that prohibit them from upholding what they consider to be an extremely important part of their religious duty. Hygienic concerns don't really enter into it for us.

But then that is the government playing favorites with religion. If we make the exception for Jews, then we then should modify all laws based on what religion someone has. Surely you are not arguing that Jews should receive special treatment?

And on top of that, what if the child does not want to be Jewish? again, surely you are not arguing that stripping someone of a choice in regards to religion? If the merits of you're religion are obvious the child will join when they can weigh the pros and cons. And i have a hard time believing that there is no method of bringing someone into the faith when they are grown.

 

[sadhatter]

Two reasons come to mind.

Those people to whom this is culturally important, it's important to do it in childhood or infancy.

If it's done in infancy, it's uncomplicated, heals faster, and the kid doesn't remember it.

To me the simple question is; if there is so little harm and some benefit (even if you don't agree the benefit is enough to choose the procedure for yourself or your children), why not leave the decisions to the family and their doctors? Why should any government be making this decision for anyone?

But they arnt, no one is saying ban all circumcision, just let those that want to do it when they can make the decision.

And as for cultural importance, many things are important to many cultures are prohibited by law, why should this be any different?

 

[sadhatter]

These two positions are irreconcilable. When a parent imposes that choice, the child is no longer free to have that choice.

Also it's not the parents penis, if we are using the logic that a parent has every right to do what they will with their child , well that opens up some disturbing possibilities

 

[colander]

Also it's not the parents penis, if we are using the logic that a parent has every right to do what they will with their child , well that opens up some disturbing possibilities

But we are not using the logic that a parent has every right to do what they will with their child. We are using the logic that a parent has a right to have their child circumcised.

We have been using that logic for a very long time and "disturbing possibilities" have yet to materialize.

 

[colander]

But then that is the government playing favorites with religion. If we make the exception for Jews, then we then should modify all laws based on what religion someone has. Surely you are not arguing that Jews should receive special treatment?

There is no exception. You are free to circumcise your children if you wish.

And on top of that, what if the child does not want to be Jewish? again, surely you are not arguing that stripping someone of a choice in regards to religion?

It is perfectly possible to be circumcised and yet not be Jewish.

If the merits of you're religion are obvious the child will join when they can weigh the pros and cons. And i have a hard time believing that there is no method of bringing someone into the faith when they are grown.

Jews believe that they have been commanded by God to get their sons circumcised while they are babies. They do not particularly care what you believe regarding the matter.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Two reasons come to mind.

Those people to whom this is culturally important, it's important to do it in childhood or infancy.

If it's done in infancy, it's uncomplicated, heals faster, and the kid doesn't remember it.

To me the simple question is; if there is so little harm and some benefit (even if you don't agree the benefit is enough to choose the procedure for yourself or your children), why not leave the decisions to the family and their doctors? Why should any government be making this decision for anyone?

Technically, the government isn't making a decision about the child's body, it is deciding that parents can't make that decision about their child's body. Thus the child can make decisions about their body, culture, religion, etc. when they are able to.

 

[colander]

Technically, the government isn't making a decision about the child's body, it is deciding that parents can't make that decision about their child's body. Thus the child can make decisions about their body, culture, religion, etc. when they are able to.

We allow parents to make all kinds of other decisions regarding their children's bodies, cultures and religions.

Why single out this one as disallowed?