Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Loss Leader]

Thus the child can make decisions about their body, culture, religion, etc. when they are able to.

... which will be too late to do a circumcision as quickly, with as little pain, with as low a likelihood for complications and with no loss of sexual function or feeling.

 

[Craig B]

... 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.

Jews are not guilty of murderous acts, but your argument is still unsound. People have believed that they have been commanded by God to kill witches, or indeed to kill Jews. So belief that an act is in response to a divine command is not, and ought not to be - in and of itself - a reason why the act should be permitted by law. The only justification should be (if this is indeed the case) that infant male circumcision does so little harm that it is not expedient that the law should take notice of it.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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?

Is it being singled out? It seems to me that the trend has been in this direction for some time. Why, here in Illinois we just banned minors using tanning beds. Many are or are proposing to ban cosmetic surgeries and tattoos on minors. As already mentioned there are the notoriously rigid FGM bans. There has also been a lot of interest in the cases of intersexed children. And we even do this for dogs, livestock, and other animals with tail docking and ear cropping bans. Smoking and drinking are often restricted, often not. We don't allow children to work, even if their parents want them to. (And yes, a lot of these are going to vary by where you live, so replying that where you live X is allowed is not a rebuttal.)

There is a general notion that certain things shouldn't be done to non-consenting things, and it is the government's role to protect the interests of those non-consenting things.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

... which will be too late to do a circumcision as quickly, with as little pain, with as low a likelihood for complications and with no loss of sexual function or feeling.

Such appeals to convenience when we are discussing ethics and human rights is dull.

If it would be less painful, etc. for me to bifurcate his penis, or split his tongue, or give him a *****in' Queen tattoo down his arm, is that a justification to do those things? No.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

In the news here lately is a story about four young brothers finally taken from their parents. They weren't taught anything, from toilet training to language. A choice made by their parents, but as the boys will never grow into productive members of society, is not the state harmed by their loss? Does the state have no say in how its future members are treated?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

... which will be too late to do a circumcision as quickly, with as little pain, with as low a likelihood for complications and with no loss of sexual function or feeling.

Why should that be any different when done as an adult? There doesn't seem a logical reason for that other than that the loss is the same but when done as a child you have nothing to compare it to...

 

[Wildy]

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.

But that depends on what makes it culturally important. Do you really think that cultures where circumcision is a rite of passage are going to accept those reasons to change when they do it?

 

[Morrigan]

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?

Plenty of practices with religious or cultural backgrounds are outlawed (such as animal sacrifice, female circumcision, etc.). It's not singled out.

And even if it were, it's not a valid argument. Just because we allow parents to take their kids to church doesn't mean it follows that we should allow them to perform unnecessary and irreversible surgery on infants.

 

[catsmate]

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

Awww. I'm taller than my father, that hasn't blighted my life.

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.

Perhaps because you, and others supporting the parents "right" to mutilate their children's genitals, have failed to address the questions put to you regarding the limits of what "religious freedom" can be used to justify.

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?

We also stop parents from doing thing to their children, why exclude genital mutilation from this?

In the news here lately is a story about four young brothers finally taken from their parents. They weren't taught anything, from toilet training to language. A choice made by their parents, but as the boys will never grow into productive members of society, is not the state harmed by their loss? Does the state have no say in how its future members are treated?

Yeah, I heard about that. Bloody awful.
Really there are two points to this, the hard to society and the harm to the children whose rights (granted by the society) need to be upheld.
Likewise in the UK a parental dispute over MMR vaccination went to the courts who decided that the mother's refusal to consent could be over-ridden in the interest of the children.

The state, in it's role of protector of the citizens, has the right and the duty to intervene in families in some circumstances.

Plenty of practices with religious or cultural backgrounds are outlawed (such as animal sacrifice, female circumcision, etc.). It's not singled out.

Despite being asked to, those who support infant genital mutilation have avoided engaging on the subject of what exactly can be justified by "religious freedom".

And even if it were, it's not a valid argument. Just because we allow parents to take their kids to church doesn't mean it follows that we should allow them to perform unnecessary and irreversible surgery on infants.

Indeed.

 

[spin0]

... which will be too late to do a circumcision as quickly, with as little pain, with as low a likelihood for complications

Yet even the AAP says that the likelihood of complications is unknown:
"The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis."

And the same goes with older boys:
"There have been few reports of acute complications after non-newborn circumcision in the United States. Furthermore, there are no adequate studies of late complications in boys undergoing circumcision in the post-newborn period; this area requires more study."
"There are no adequate analytic studies of late complications in boys undergoing circumcision in the post-newborn period."

So, as the actual incidence of complications is unknown in both groups the assertion that likelihood of complications would be lower in infants has no real scientific basis. That assertion looks even more suspect considering that the infant immune system is not yet fully developed and is not as effective in defending from and fighting off infections as later in life. And that in adolescence the foreskin has naturally detached from glans penis but in infants it has to be ripped off with the added potential of causing complications.

AAP goes on about the risks:
"Stratification of Risks
Based on the data reviewed, it is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately assess the total impact of complications, because the data are scant and inconsistent regarding the severity of complications. For example, studies that report bleeding as a complication do not uniformly report how frequently the bleeding was controlled with local measures versus requiring a transfusion or surgical intervention. Similarly, infection is rarely further divided into local tissue infection versus bacteremia or sepsis. Financial costs of care, emotional tolls, or the need for future corrective surgery (with the attendant anesthetic risks, family stress, and expense) are unknown."

Quotes from TECHNICAL REPORT - Male Circumcision (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2012)
It's a quite strange document which on one hand says that the risks are unknown and "difficult, if not impossible, to adequately assess", and then on the other hand asserts that supposed benefits outweight the risks.

and with no loss of sexual function or feeling.

That does not compute.
When one amputates a part of the genital tissue which has function and is sensitive it logically follows that there is loss of sexual function and feeling when amputating it.

 

[Rat]

Likewise in the UK a parental dispute over MMR vaccination went to the courts who decided that the mother's refusal to consent could be over-ridden in the interest of the children.

Just in case anyone misunderstands this, I should make it clear that (if it's the case I'm thinking of) the father wanted them vaccinated. The courts do not normally compel vaccination against parents' wishes, even if some wish that they would.

 

[catsmate]

That does not compute.
When one amputates a part of the genital tissue which has function and is sensitive it logically follows that there is loss of sexual function and feeling when amputating it.

As shown in the previous thread studies indicate that there is a loss of sexual function in circumcised men. For example the Frisch, Lindholm and Grønbæk study.

Just in case anyone misunderstands this, I should make it clear that (if it's the case I'm thinking of) the father wanted them vaccinated. The courts do not normally compel vaccination against parents' wishes, even if some wish that they would.

Yes I should have been more clear. That said, in Ireland the courts have over-ridden unanimous parental wishes in the interest of the child, e.g. in the case of xian sects refusing medical treatment.

 

[Loss Leader]

Why should that be any different when done as an adult?

The evidence says so, that's why. Studies of men circumcised as teens or adults find a much higher rate of loss of sexual feeling up to total sexual dysfunction. Meanwhile, there has never been any study that reliably shows that men circumcised as infants suffered any loss. And, seeing as Jews are managing to reproduce without difficulty, it doesn't appear as there is any problem.

I believe that the reason for the difference is that newborn infants have not mapped their pleasure and pain receptors to specific parts of their body. They may know they're in pain, but they can't tell the source of the pain. My beliefs, however, may be wrong. The reliable evidence still stands.

 

[Loss Leader]

As shown in the previous thread studies indicate that there is a loss of sexual function in circumcised men. For example the Frisch, Lindholm and Grønbæk study.

From the study:

"Of circumcised male participants in our study, only 15% had been circumcised before age 6 months; among spouses of female participants, the corresponding proportion was 28%. Consequently, our study had limited statistical power to address in detail whether observed associations with sexual difficulties applied particularly to neonatal circumcisions or operations performed after infancy."​

So, basically, worthless for the discussion of infant circumcision.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

The evidence says so, that's why. Studies of men circumcised as teens or adults find a much higher rate of loss of sexual feeling up to total sexual dysfunction. Meanwhile, there has never been any study that reliably shows that men circumcised as infants suffered any loss. And, seeing as Jews are managing to reproduce without difficulty, it doesn't appear as there is any problem.

I believe that the reason for the difference is that newborn infants have not mapped their pleasure and pain receptors to specific parts of their body. They may know they're in pain, but they can't tell the source of the pain. My beliefs, however, may be wrong. The reliable evidence still stands.

But what would you compare it to if you were circumcised as an infant? There's no point of reference. Don't get me wrong, despite my opposition to circumcision as a pointless primitive practice, I fully accept that in the vast majority of cases, circumcised people are able to have a very happy and fulfilled sex-life. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have had even more 'sensation' if they had a foreskin - surely they'll simply never know (and it's difficult to measure such things objectively). I'm just wondering if the perceived difference in when you have it done is simply that one lacks a reference point to note any downturn in sensation (still leaving plenty of sensation to enjoy).

 

[Loss Leader]

But what would you compare it to if you were circumcised as an infant? There's no point of reference. Don't get me wrong, despite my opposition to circumcision as a pointless primitive practice, I fully accept that in the vast majority of cases, circumcised people are able to have a very happy and fulfilled sex-life. That doesn't mean they wouldn't have had even more 'sensation' if they had a foreskin - surely they'll simply never know (and it's difficult to measure such things objectively). I'm just wondering if the perceived difference in when you have it done is simply that one lacks a reference point to note any downturn in sensation (still leaving plenty of sensation to enjoy).

You imply a distinction where none exists.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

A boy circumcised as an infant may well have loss of sexual feeling, but he'd never know it.

 

[Loss Leader]

A boy circumcised as an infant may well have loss of sexual feeling, but he'd never know it.

And you repeat a distinction where none exists.

You also repeat a claim for which there is zero evidence.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

When I was younger, I did not wear corrective lenses. Trees being blobs and chalkboards being unreadable were just the natural state of affairs. I wasn't missing out on anything, because I had no frame of reference.

Yeah, not buying "distinction without a difference".

 

[Loss Leader]

When I was younger, I did not wear corrective lenses. Trees being blobs and chalkboards being unreadable were just the natural state of affairs. I wasn't missing out on anything, because I had no frame of reference.

Yeah, not buying "distinction without a difference".

Ridiculous. You were missing out on something - something identifiable, objective and measurable. There was an objective standard by which your vision could be measured. You could have been fitted with a pair of binoculars, but since that is not normal human vision the doctor didn't do that. You could have been fitted with infrared optics. They didn't do that, either.

I know of no objective scale for pleasure. Hospitals have found that the best measure of pain, however, is a subjective scale where the patient rates his own pain. Most all hospitals now have a smiley face, simple 1-10 system. Going by a subjective scale, there is no evidence that men circumcised at birth experience less pleasure. There is, however, evidence that men circumcised in their teen and adult years do.

We might speculate that men who derive less pleasure from sex will have less sex, experience more sexual dysfunction and, possibly, have fewer children. However, there is no evidence that Jewish men are experiencing less fulfilling or fruitful sex lives.