Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[colander]

Not quite. In many particular cases when a parent commits theft it's bad for a child to have the parent imprisoned, and it would be better to have some other punishment imposed, and this is often taken into account during sentencing. But that's not an argument for not imposing criminal penalties in cases of theft. For that matter, here is a reductio ad absurdum argument. If it's not as bad for a child as having a parent put in prison for murder, then you probably shouldn't impose criminal penalties on parents for doing it. Many unfortunate children suffer greatly because their parents have been imprisoned, quite rightly, for serious crimes.

Your comparison ignores a vitally important distinction between the prohibition of theft and the prohibition of infant circumcision, to wit: in only one of these cases does there inarguably exist a group of people who benefit when those prohibitions are enforced.

Anti-theft laws are intended to benefit people who might otherwise become victims of theft. That children may be inconvenienced by the imprisonment of their thieving parents is unfortunate, but their misfortune can not in the general case be said to supercede the benefit to society that is served by imposing legal penalties upon those who would thieve: this benefit and this detriment are being imposed on groups of orthogonal membership, and it thus makes sense for a society to decide that the favor done by anti-theft laws for people who would prefer not to fall victim to ubiquitous passels of never-imprisoned thieves (that is, everyone) is large enough in magnitude to mitigate the ill done to the comparatively much smaller number of children who may suffer if thieves are jailed.

Any instance of enforcement of an anti-infant-circumcision statute, by contrast, cannot seriously be said to furnish an improvement in the lives of future potential victims of those perpetrators, as that set of people is exactly superimposable upon the set of people who will be made parentless as a consequence of that act of enforcement.

Criminalizing circumcision can thus only possibly benefit society if the laws are able to effectively deter circumcision from ever happening in the first place... but in order for that to happen, there must be some kind of effective child-circumcision reporting dragnet in place. But how many of the people who are likely to have an opportunity to notice such an infraction will end up deciding to report it, given the gravity of the consequences this dime-drop will end up imposing on the circumcised child?

Even if you truly feel that infant circumcision is a bad problem that everyone should immediately stop doing, it is difficult to argue that criminalization is anything like a viable solution. Positive outcomes on this front would be best obtained not by attempting to impose consequences on violators by force of law on violators, but by propagation of informational campaigns that discourage the practice.

 

[zooterkin]

Did your doctor recommend that your child be tattooed or her clitoris foreskin be removed?

No. Nor did he suggest my son be circumcised, for much the same reasons.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Hyperbole is wickedly awesome. Next, we'll discuss the horrors of stopping people from spitting in meat markets. Imagine the slippery slope!

ETA: this post is not aimed at zoot

 

[Belgian thought]

I happen to have done such comparison between the US and my country.

Male population
US: 151.4 million (of 316.8) with about 79% circumcised
Finland: 2.666 million (of 5.442) with less than 5% circumcised

Infant death rate
US: 6.8
Finland: 2.4


HPV
The US estimates of HPV prevalence vary from 14% to more than 90%, so I'm not gonna bother with that. Besides, there's a vaccine against the most harmful types of HPV including 6, 11, 16 and 18.


Penile cancer
US: 1 570 cases/year, rate: 1.04 per 100 000 males
Finland: 13 cases/year, rate: 0.49 per 100 000 males

Penile cancer is a rare condition in both countries. But the US has over double the rate despite having for generations circumcised most of the male infants. Doesn't seem like it has helped them much though.

If we for the sake of the argument suppose the health benefit exists and go by the estimated efficancy of 1 prevented cancer per 322 000 circumcisions per year (Learman,1999) then the US male population would need to get circumcised multiple times to get their cancer rate halved.

I guess it goes without saying that the relevant medical associations and experts in Finland do not condone infant circumcision as a medically justified preventive measure against penile cancer. Sometimes it's good to have rational people in charge. No wait, not just sometimes.


Cervical cancer
US: 2004 estimate 7 per 100,000 women
Finland: 5,4 per 100,000 women
Again the US prevalence is apparently higher, but not by as much.


HIV (did not find the number of HIV infected males in the US)
US: 1.148 million infected, 362 per 100 000
Finland: 2072 infected, 38 per 100 000

The US has almost ten times the rate of HIV infections despite having most of the male infants circumcised for generations.


UTI

Some infants do get UTI and it's generally one of the most common bacterial infections among infants. I haven't found an authorative estimate about the prevalence of UTI among infants and children in the US. One study I found put it at 1.8% in infants which sounds surprisingly high IMO. Yet the estimate I've most often seen quoted is that roughly about 1% of boys and about 3% of girls get it at least once during their childhood. Incidently happens to be the same as estimated in Finland.

So, apparently neither country suffers from an epidemic of UTI among children despite having very different rates of and attitudes towards infant genital mutilation. Over here it is not used as a treatment for UTI because it is not a treatment for it, and it's treatable with antibiotics anyway. Recurring infant and childhood UTIs are much rarer cases and by far most of them are caused by developmental abnormalities in the urinary tract. Those are checked and diagnosed before any possible surgical intervention is planned. For such cases there exists also medication for keeping the UTIs from reoccurring.

No, over here we don't tend to mutilate childrens' genitals after they have born. They receive a gift package instead: Finland’s State-Issued Baby Care Packages Give All Children an Equal Start in Life

These figures and you research commendable. But, it removes us from the major ethical question.

'Is it OK to cut off any part of a baby/child for some belief system?'

That is what needs to be answered - for me - the answer is simply no. To try and argue about culture/religion etc is simply bollocks and apologetic.

Fed up with this thread - I am out!

 

[spin0]

As it should be. I find it interesting that in most of medicine, at least as far as I am aware, there is an emphasis on conservative treatments first. In countries where circumcision has strong cultural roots though that idea, where it relates to the male genitalia, is typically dismissed. Especially if there is any hint of a problem but surprisingly enough even when no clear theraputic need exists. It's the classic, I think I only have a hammer problem.

A solution in search of a problem, as Edward Wallerstein put it.

Here's a fun compilation of various falsehoods used as a misinformed medical justification for MGM through its history: http://www.icgi.org/medicalization/#Page_1

From "curing" perfectly natural things such as wet dreams and masturbation to beliefs that it would cure paralysis, bedwetting, crossed eyes, epilepsia, deafness, tuberculosis, cancer, clubfoot, and more. In 1894 an article argued that circumcising the “Negro” would reduce the rape of white women, and in 1991 a mass circumcision was supposed to prevent sand from getting under soldiers' foreskins. But one thing those quacksalvers got right about their universal cure: it actually does desentize the penis, but that did not prevent them from lying about that too later.

I'm not sure if it was Aaron J. Fink in 1986 who first came up with the idea that circumcision prevents AIDS as also Valiere Alcena has claimed bids on that claiming that Fink stole that idea from him. Anyway, it didn't take long after the discovery of HIV for these guys to claim that the universal cure of circumcision would prevent it somehow. Now we also know that the related 1993 assumption of the Langerhans cells was probably wrong: Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells.

 

[The Big Dog]

No. Nor did he suggest my son be circumcised, for much the same reasons.

Cool! Why did you bring it up then?

 

[jdp]

These figures and you research commendable. But, it removes us from the major ethical question.

'Is it OK to cut off any part of a baby/child for some belief system?'

That is what needs to be answered - for me - the answer is simply no. To try and argue about culture/religion etc is simply bollocks and apologetic.

Fed up with this thread - I am out!

Well the information provided by spin0 is useful because those who would suggest that it's OK to cut off any part of a baby/child's for some social/cultural belief system try to buttress their support of that practice by citing potential medical benefits. Consider the other arguments that have been put forth in this very thread:

* God made me do it.
* They won't remember it anyway.

Under what other circumstances are these rational, even acceptable, arguments for anything? That's why it's necessary to try and find actual medical benefits, no matter how marginal. And a post like spin0 shows how marginal those benefits likely are. It's only in cultures where circumcision is already embedded that any of this seems rational. That's why you see so much chatter from places like Europe discussing abolition of circumcision and oceans (and it is oceans) of research attempting to justify circumcision from places like the US.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well the information provided by spin0 is useful because those who would suggest that it's OK to cut off any part of a baby/child's for some social/cultural belief system try to buttress their support of that practice by citing potential medical benefits. Consider the other arguments that have been put forth in this very thread:

* God made me do it.
* They won't remember it anyway.

Under what other circumstances are these rational, even acceptable, arguments for anything? That's why it's necessary to try and find actual medical benefits, no matter how marginal. And a post like spin0 shows how marginal those benefits likely are. It's only in cultures where circumcision is already embedded that any of this seems rational. That's why you see so much chatter from places like Europe discussing abolition of circumcision and oceans (and it is oceans) of research attempting to justify circumcision from places like the US.

who decides whether it is marginal? spin0?

My conclusion is that Europeans are willing to take an authoritarian, government based approach, while others are willing to take a personal medical based approach.

 

[Baylor]

My conclusion is that Europeans are willing to take an authoritarian, government based approach, while others are willing to take a personal medical based approach.

What are the benefits of the "personal medical based approach?"

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

who decides whether it is marginal? spin0?

My conclusion is that Europeans are willing to take an authoritarian, government based approach, while others are willing to take a personal medical based approach.

For which child rights violations would you take a personal medical based approach?

 

[Baylor]

Unfortunately their wonky puritan inspired pseudoscience is still influencing many, which means that many males in the USA have to live with having their penis scarred for life.

US circumcision rate is declining, and I expect it to decline much further.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/u-s-circumcision-rates-are-declining/?_r=0

 

[ddt]

who decides whether it is marginal? spin0?

My conclusion is that Europeans are willing to take an authoritarian, government based approach, while others are willing to take a personal medical based approach.

What you call a "personal medical based approach" is neither personal nor medical.

a) It's as personal as murder: it's about circumcising someone else, nor yourself. And just as murder is outlawed but suicide not, nobody in this thread has argued against someone deciding to have himself circumcised. But we do object against circumcising someone else without their consent.

b) It's not "medical based" because the evidence of any clear medical benefit is sorely lacking. The comparison above between Finland and the USA also does not show any of the touted benefits.

Finally, the "authoritarian" label is also a big misnomer. It's a human rights approach. Children have human rights too, and one of those human rights is the integrity of the human body.

 

[The Big Dog]

What you call a "personal medical based approach" is neither personal nor medical.

a) It's as personal as murder: it's about circumcising someone else, nor yourself. And just as murder is outlawed but suicide not, nobody in this thread has argued against someone deciding to have himself circumcised. But we do object against circumcising someone else without their consent.

b) It's not "medical based" because the evidence of any clear medical benefit is sorely lacking. The comparison above between Finland and the USA also does not show any of the touted benefits.

Finally, the "authoritarian" label is also a big misnomer. It's a human rights approach. Children have human rights too, and one of those human rights is the integrity of the human body.

It is personal as murder? Seriously?

And who is going to enforce those human rights? The government? How you going to do that?

The medical evidence has been presented, and I assume that you folks are going to assign a governmental overseer to enforce your view of the medical decision?

Yikes!

 

[ddt]

It is personal as murder? Seriously?

You're taking offense at the wording? Then you should have thought of your own words first, because all those three attributes were big misnomers.

I note that you don't offer any argument in favour of two of those attributes, so I may assume that you concede that (a) the anti-circumcision standpoint offered on this thread by various posters is not authoritarian, and that (b) the pro-circumcision standpoint is not personal.

And who is going to enforce those human rights? The government? How you going to do that?

Who else? But that's utterly besides the point. The point is that it is a human rights principle, and it is not the whim of an authoritarian government. And how? Do you really have to ask? How do we catch murderers and thieves?

The medical evidence has been presented, and I assume that you folks are going to assign a governmental overseer to enforce your view of the medical decision?

The medical evidence presented is as clear as mud, that much is very obvious. There are numerous statements by medical associations, that have also been linked to in this and previous threads, that routine circumcision should not be done. And that "overseer" already exists, it is the courts that can lock people up and the medical councils that can strip physicians of their license.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I now have a project. Not sure if I'll complete it successfully. I will contact a local hospital and request that the next time a medical (not religious) circumcision is performed as one of the local niños is born, that I be permitted to retrieve it and place it in a plastic vial filled with isopropyl alcohol.

I will then mail it to one of the opponents of trimming, since (given its ring shape) it is so Precious. You can then have one, and worship it as you see fit without jerking about on your own.

FFS, why are some of you so obsessed with someone else's penis?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It is personal as murder? Seriously?

And who is going to enforce those human rights? The government? How you going to do that?

The medical evidence has been presented, and I assume that you folks are going to assign a governmental overseer to enforce your view of the medical decision?

Yikes!

The medical "evidence" you've presented are unauthored blurbs that source uncited "studies". I fail to see why you place so much faith in an individual doctor over the established mandate of the public.

This isn't a case of some unseen "government overseer" subverting rights. This is an example of a society RECOGNIZING rights by overturning an antiquated custom.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Did your doctor recommend that your child be tattooed or her clitoris foreskin be removed?

No. Nor did he suggest my son be circumcised, for much the same reasons.

Cool! Why did you bring it up then?

Some people remember the OP even if you don't. "Circumcision" is right there in the title. Keep going, though. You dig a bigger hole for yourself than I ever could.

 

[The Big Dog]

How do we catch murderers and thieves?

The medical evidence presented is as clear as mud, that much is very obvious. There are numerous statements by medical associations, that have also been linked to in this and previous threads, that routine circumcision should not be done. And that "overseer" already exists, it is the courts that can lock people up and the medical councils that can strip physicians of their license.

And they'll lock you up and strip the medical physicians of their licenses.

Doctors, parents, murderers and thieves.

The overseer has arrived.


Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And they'll lock you up and strip the medical physicians of their licenses.

Doctors, parents, murderers and thieves.

The overseer has arrived.


Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

Really? You left out the Holocaust reference. 4/10.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

And they'll lock you up and strip the medical physicians of their licenses.

Doctors, parents, murderers and thieves.

The overseer has arrived.


Clear the streets for the brown battalions,
Clear the streets for the stormtrooper!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!
Millions are looking upon the foreskin full of hope,
The day of freedom and of bread dawns!

The humor forum is here ---> http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=28

The people here actually want to discuss a serious topic, and trolls are unappreciated.