Norway debates banning male circumcision

[tsig]

Okay, then.

How common are ritual scarring or tattooing on children in the industrialized world?

Since circumcision is ritual scarring I'd say very common.

 

[sadhatter]

You seem really good at reading the first part of what I say, but not the second.

"...Personally I'd need to see more research or at least a reasonable theory of why before I bought into it."

Nobody believed in a universe from nothing until there was evidence and a plausible explanation.

If you have a study that says there is no difference in sexual satisfaction in adults after circumcision, then I would presume the null hypothesis would be there is no difference when performed in infancy either. If one study contradicted that, I'd look around for other studies before drawing a conclusion.

The fact that pediatrics and adult medicine are so very different should be a pretty big red flag to you that your thinking is wrong. But then again, so should about a dozen other well put points.

 

[sadhatter]

The thing is, the easiest way to show that it is wrong to make this decision for someone else would be as follows.

Every uncut gent reading this, who would be willing to let someone else make the decision to cut off your foreskin?

Those crickets you are are the sound of the fact that no one should be making unnecessary johnson related decisions for anyone else.

 

[tsig]

Humor aside, I probably should explain my point better.

Anti-circumcision advocates make a big deal about the sliding action of the penis within a skin sheath as part of their sexual pleasure. To me that doesn't sound pleasurable, it sounds frustrating. I grew up having orgasms triggered by friction on the surface of the skin.

If the penis fairy were to wave his magic wand and give me a foreskin, I don't think I would like the stimulation that's different from what I'm used to. At the same time, had I grown up uncircumcised, I'd probably prefer the "sliding action" to the surface friction I'm familiar with now.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong because at least one of those studies I quoted show that Ugandan males report no difference after having circumcisions as adults, but that culture also seems to like dry sex, so who knows.

I'm sure you love your penis but that's not an argument for circumcision.

 

[sadhatter]

Since circumcision is ritual scarring I'd say very common.

And again Mycroft misses the point. These practices are uncommon because folks sphincters clench at even the mention. Bring your kid into the dingiest , most hardcore tattoo place on earth and ask to get them tattooed, and your still going to get a "Hell no", because the idea is so repugnant.

And even then, i would rather someone have control of placing a hand sized tattoo on me, versus cutting off part of my waggler. I mean, lets not even go, think of the children, think of the wagglers for god sake. Who , ever would want someone else making the decision for them?

 

[sadhatter]

I'm sure you love your penis but that's not an argument for circumcision.

The problem is, because someone made that decision for him, he will never get to know if his opinion is correct. It could be the best feeling in his life, it could be something he would want to avoid at all costs, but because someone made that decision for him, he will never have the ability to know that.

Think about how profound this is. An adult will never know the full function of their body because someone chose to take away that choice from them, for an unnecessary reason.

 

[tsig]

This is a forum for critical thinking. Personal experience and anecdotes don't cut the mustard here. Hard evidence is required.

I am against circumcising infants and still maintain that the surgery has had no adverse effect on my sex life.

The effect of circumcision on your sex life is a personal anecdote.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

If done for medical reasons there is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for cutting it all off, it is quite enough just to cut off "the tip".

Not true. I had to do it twice, first a half or 1/3 circumcision, which didn't help, and then the complete removal of the foreskin. Very severe phimosis. I was about 3-4.

 

[jdp]

It's my assertion that your statement of principle is only ever meant to apply to circumcision. To my knowledge nobody is advocating ritual scarification or tattoos for infants. If you have evidence to the contrary, please put it forth.

No the statement of principle is intended, and applies just as readily, to other body modifications which are non-therapeutic and non-consensual. I believe I've been quite consistent, what evidence do you have that I would treat other body modifications done in a similar context differently?

I have no specific idea as to the number of people living in the US for whom tattooing or ritual scarification is important. But if it is your assertion that you are uncomfortable with the majority imposing their will on the minority through legislation then even one parent not being permitted to tattoo or ritually scar their child, for whatever subjective reason they give, should be enough to concern you. So far, you've not clearly explained why one should be allowed but others should not, unless you are intent on relying simply on the popularity of the body modification.

Or, if you refuse, I'll put the same question to you that I put to Silly Green Monkey. Is your statement of principle something you arrived at on your own, or did you hear it somewhere else first and then agree to it?

No I arrived at my opinion largely on my own.

Why should doctors be involved in a medical decision...? I think the question is a non-starter. First, circumcision may be chosen for either cultural or prophylactic reasons. Second, if the medical consensus comes to the conclusion that circumcision has zero prophylactic value, that decision should still come from the medical community, not the courts or the voting booth.

That isn't the question, this isn't a medical decision. Not, for the most part, when an infant or child is involved anyway. I reject that non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting individuals is a valid cultural decision in the same way that I reject tattooing or ritual scarification in similar circumstances. The potential prophylactic value are, and I am being generous, small. Those that involve STIs are of no value to the infant, an adult can evaluate that evidence when they are of age and potentially at risk. The benefit that relates to reduction of UTIs is relatively small because UTIs are rare in boys to begin with and they are easily treatable when they occur. It is also not entirely clear whether urinary tract anomalies contribute to the observed benefit. In any case, circumcision represents the most radical potential approach and any rational medical approach would reserve it for those who can truly benefit rather then offer it whole sale.

Since you asked though, it isn't just the German, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, and Finnish courts and legal bodies that are arguing this. In at least a few of those countries, the relevant medical associations have come out opposed to non-therapuetic infant/child circumcision especially in the last two or three years. So along with the small number of individuals that practice this in those countries, does the opinion of their medical societies and doctors make such a proposal palatable to you in at least these countries?

Once again, I am not advocating circumcision.

I know that but you're trying to use the suggested lack of harm as a rationalization for allowing parents to impose circumcision on their children.

 

[Moss]

I have a hard time understanding the value of infant circumcision from a religious point of view. Isn't it a sacrifice the male offers to seal a covenant with Yahweh? How could that work? The child isn't aware of offering and is unable to grasp its significance. And that is something God would accept?
I'm familiar with initiator sacrifices in other cultures, for example the sacrifices of Odin, and but those tend to emphasize the conscious willing nature of it.
Which makes me wonder from a theological perspective why it needs to happen so early and without the consent of the person who sacrifices a part of himself.

 

[sadhatter]

I have a hard time understanding the value of infant circumcision from a religious point of view. Isn't it a sacrifice the male offers to seal a covenant with Yahweh? How could that work? The child isn't aware of offering and is unable to grasp its significance. And that is something God would accept?
I'm familiar with initiator sacrifices in other cultures, for example the sacrifices of Odin, and but those tend to emphasize the conscious willing nature of it.
Which makes me wonder from a theological perspective why it needs to happen so early and without the consent of the person who sacrifices a part of himself.

Get a psychic reading free, no real impetus to pretend you believe it. Pay a psychic 100 dollars, and you will suddenly find that everything they said is gold, because if not you are an idiot who just gave 100 dollars to an old woman in a funny dress.

This is to say nothing to giving your foreskin to a god. Once you have had part of your wang invested in a religion, its going to be much harder to convince you it is B.S.

 

[catsmate]

I have a hard time understanding the value of infant circumcision from a religious point of view. Isn't it a sacrifice the male offers to seal a covenant with Yahweh? How could that work? The child isn't aware of offering and is unable to grasp its significance. And that is something God would accept?
I'm familiar with initiator sacrifices in other cultures, for example the sacrifices of Odin, and but those tend to emphasize the conscious willing nature of it.
Which makes me wonder from a theological perspective why it needs to happen so early and without the consent of the person who sacrifices a part of himself.

Culturally it bind the child into the group, building the us/them aspect.

 

[Mycroft]

The problem is, because someone made that decision for him, he will never get to know if his opinion is correct. It could be the best feeling in his life, it could be something he would want to avoid at all costs, but because someone made that decision for him, he will never have the ability to know that.

Think about how profound this is. An adult will never know the full function of their body because someone chose to take away that choice from them, for an unnecessary reason.

That's foolish. I know just as much about life with a foreskin as you do about life without a foreskin.

Further, in perusing previous circumcision threads on JREF, I find this:

No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3796602#post3796602

So there you go. Arguing that I can't possibly know how blissful life would be with a foreskin is kinda like arguing that I can't possibly know how what it's like to be born Asian, or female. It's just pointless.

 

[Mycroft]

No the statement of principle is intended, and applies just as readily, to other body modifications which are non-therapeutic and non-consensual. I believe I've been quite consistent, what evidence do you have that I would treat other body modifications done in a similar context differently?

The functional word there is would because it's purely hypothetical. There are no other issues this applies to.

I have no specific idea as to the number of people living in the US for whom tattooing or ritual scarification is important...

Oh yes you do, and so do I. The number is something pretty damned close to zero, if not actually zero.

Do you doubt that?

No I arrived at my opinion largely on my own.

Did you? Was that before or after being exposed to the circumcision controversy?

That isn't the question, this isn't a medical decision...

I'm pretty sure the medical community would disagree.

Since you asked though, it isn't just the German, Norwegian, Dutch, Swedish, and Finnish courts and legal bodies that are arguing this. In at least a few of those countries, the relevant medical associations have come out opposed to non-therapuetic infant/child circumcision especially in the last two or three years...

I certainly prefer their judgement to the judgement of the courts, and hope their opinions are not unduly influenced by the anti-circumcision orthodoxy.

I know that but you're trying to use the suggested lack of harm as a rationalization for allowing parents to impose circumcision on their children.

As opposed to using a systematic minimization of real benefits and exaggeration of harm to rationalize imposing your will on the various cultural/religious minorities.

Which I suppose may explain why it's so important to insist it's about some "principle" and not just the single issue of circumcision.

 

[sadhatter]

That's foolish. I know just as much about life with a foreskin as you do about life without a foreskin.

Further, in perusing previous circumcision threads on JREF, I find this:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3796602#post3796602

So there you go. Arguing that I can't possibly know how blissful life would be with a foreskin is kinda like arguing that I can't possibly know how what it's like to be born Asian, or female. It's just pointless.

No, it is not.

If i felt the need to see what life is like without a foreskin , i could go make an appointment, have mine hacked off (as an adult.) and then i would know both. But you, on the other hand, simply do not have this option, it was taken away from you, something you seem to be perfectly okay with happening to others.

Think of it this way, if one could, through some magic means, make sure their child never had the soft drink Coke. That child could never say they they like coke less or more than Pepsi, the choice has been removed from them. This is the same situation you are in, someone made it so you can never know which you would prefer, due to touch and pleasure being such a subjective experience. No one is saying you must hate your johnson, simply that you have no frame of reference, nor ability to gain said frame of reference, because this choice was removed from you.

 

[sadhatter]

The functional word there is would because it's purely hypothetical. There are no other issues this applies to.



Oh yes you do, and so do I. The number is something pretty damned close to zero, if not actually zero.

Do you doubt that?



Did you? Was that before or after being exposed to the circumcision controversy?



I'm pretty sure the medical community would disagree.



I certainly prefer their judgement to the judgement of the courts, and hope their opinions are not unduly influenced by the anti-circumcision orthodoxy.



As opposed to using a systematic minimization of real benefits and exaggeration of harm to rationalize imposing your will on the various cultural/religious minorities.

Which I suppose may explain why it's so important to insist it's about some "principle" and not just the single issue of circumcision.

You miss the point completely, these things are not done in the united states or canada much because they are frowned upon. And the reason is because it causes permanent effects for no necessary reason.

Causing permanent effects for no necessary reason on an individual that has no choice, is something we strive to avoid. Yet for this one scenario you say that it is okay.

The irony in your argument is that your trying to use "These don't happen here much." as a point, when it is not a point that helps your case. If had the same attitude toward these things as we did circumcision, then folks who wanted to have them done would be doing them. But because we realize that this kind of thing is barbaric, there are few folks willing to do it, so there are few folks that have had it done.

 

[jdp]

The functional word there is would because it's purely hypothetical. There are no other issues this applies to.

You miss the point completely, these things are not done in the united states or canada much because they are frowned upon. And the reason is because it causes permanent effects for no necessary reason.

Causing permanent effects for no necessary reason on an individual that has no choice, is something we strive to avoid. Yet for this one scenario you say that it is okay.

Sadhatter has gotten it right. There is no other issue that this applies to only because we've already said that, for the same reasons that I (and others) oppose circumcision, these 'choices' are not permissible. So now how about a little quid pro quo and answer one of our questions. What principles are you applying that allow you to allow parents to choose non-therapeutic circumcision but not these other potential ritual body modifications?

Oh yes you do, and so do I. The number is something pretty damned close to zero, if not actually zero. Do you doubt that?

I agree that the number is small (perhaps even close to zero) but your past posts seem to indicate that small numbers don't justify (or should even figure into) the potential prohibition. So then what does?

Did you? Was that before or after being exposed to the circumcision controversy?

Yes, though this is impossible for you to verify, my opinion on this matter has been largely the same since I was 12 or 13. That was before I knew there was a 'controversy' because that was largely before the Internet. Non-US sourced information was much more difficult to come by.

I'm pretty sure the medical community would disagree.

It depends on which medical community you ask. American, yes they would disagree. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, ect. they would agree that there is no medical need and no 'medical decision' is needed.

I certainly prefer their judgement to the judgement of the courts, and hope their opinions are not unduly influenced by the anti-circumcision orthodoxy.

How would you make that determination?

As opposed to using a systematic minimization of real benefits and exaggeration of harm to rationalize imposing your will on the various cultural/religious minorities.

Which I suppose may explain why it's so important to insist it's about some "principle" and not just the single issue of circumcision.

Where have I systematically minimized the benefits? I am fine with accepting those that you've put forward as valid. Understanding them in the proper context is important; this is something that papers you've posted continue to miss. Those benefits may inform an individual about whether circumcision is right for him but they have little barring on non-therapeutic infant/child circumcision.

Again you seem comfortable to impose prohibitions on tattooing and other scarification rituals on minorities, why the difference? What principle are you working from which allows one but not the others?

 

[Mycroft]

No, it is not.

If i felt the need to see what life is like without a foreskin , i could go make an appointment, have mine hacked off (as an adult.)

Which is moot, because you're not going to do that.

Think of it this way, if one could, through some magic means, make sure their child never had the soft drink Coke. That child could never say they they like coke less or more than Pepsi, the choice has been removed from them.

I actually think that analogy is amazingly apt. A life knowing only Coke or Pepsi would be just as tragic as you're making circumcision out to be.

 

[Mycroft]

You miss the point completely, these things are not done in the united states or canada much because they are frowned upon. And the reason is because it causes permanent effects for no necessary reason.

Another amazing analogy, equating the "harm" done by circumcision to the "harm" done by a tattoo.

Causing permanent effects for no necessary reason on an individual that has no choice, is something we strive to avoid. Yet for this one scenario you say that it is okay.

I'm not the one making a statement of principle and pretending it applies to more than one issue. You're not arguing for the rights of children to remain un-tattooed because nobody is tattooing children.

The irony in your argument is that your trying to use "These don't happen here much." as a point, when it is not a point that helps your case. If had the same attitude toward these things as we did circumcision, then folks who wanted to have them done would be doing them. But because we realize that this kind of thing is barbaric, there are few folks willing to do it, so there are few folks that have had it done.

It's approaching tautology there. You're basically saying nobody is doing them because nobody wants to do them, but if some people wanted to to them then the people that wanted to do them would want to do them.

 

[Mycroft]

Sadhatter has gotten it right. There is no other issue that this applies to only because we've already said that, for the same reasons that I (and others) oppose circumcision, these 'choices' are not permissible. So now how about a little quid pro quo and answer one of our questions. What principles are you applying that allow you to allow parents to choose non-therapeutic circumcision but not these other potential ritual body modifications?

Already been done.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8404993#post8404993

I agree that the number is small (perhaps even close to zero) but your past posts seem to indicate that small numbers don't justify (or should even figure into) the potential prohibition. So then what does?

If you really claim that need to have it explained why one small number is different from a different small number that you said is expected to grow to a very large number effecting tens of millions later on, then I say you're just being obtuse.

Yes, though this is impossible for you to verify, my opinion on this matter has been largely the same since I was 12 or 13. That was before I knew there was a 'controversy' because that was largely before the Internet. Non-US sourced information was much more difficult to come by.

What happened when you were 12 or 13 that caused you to formulate this principle?

It depends on which medical community you ask. American, yes they would disagree. Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany, the Netherlands, ect. they would agree that there is no medical need and no 'medical decision' is needed.

They all agree it's a medical procedure. Like a tonsillectomy, people can disagree about its necessity, but that doesn't make it not a procedure.

How would you make that determination?

The determination of what influenced decisions...?

Where have I systematically minimized the benefits? I am fine with accepting those that you've put forward as valid. Understanding them in the proper context is important; this is something that papers you've posted continue to miss. Those benefits may inform an individual about whether circumcision is right for him but they have little barring on non-therapeutic infant/child circumcision.

You can't simultaneously stipulate that the benefits put forward are valid then call the procedure non-therapeutic. If the benefits are valid, then there is therapeutic value to the procedure.

Again you seem comfortable to impose prohibitions on tattooing and other scarification rituals on minorities, why the difference? What principle are you working from which allows one but not the others?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8404993#post8404993

I'm just going to keep that link handy on my clipboard. It is the answer to that question. Everything you need to know to understand my position is contained right there. Claims that it's not enough information are disingenuous, as it's self-evident you feel you understand my opinion well enough to have determined that you must continue to argue against it.