My question is directed at whether or not the practice of male circumcision is harmful. You say it is. But is that any kind of official position. I haven't been able to find any such thing, and I did try.
Well it removes the foreskin. If you did that to me without my consent I'd sue the crap out of you. And I'd be successful in asserting harm was caused and easily win if I could demonstrate you committed the act or you admitted it.
Is causing harm to someone who doesn't recognize they were harmed not actually causing harm to them?
Not only does it reduce functionality of the penis, but the procedure itself carries risks - some of which can have lifelong consequences (up to and including death) or require additional surgery to correct.
It has about the same degree of harm as removing the clitoral hood, which is illegal because it is considered harmful.
Since any benefits that exist are minor and there are risks present:
You cannot have the procedure performed in Australian public hospitals. The legality is unclear in Britain, one reading of the law suggests it is illegal due to nonsensually causing harm to another individual - citing human rights act and others. As one judge opined:
quote:In my judgment, if FGM Type IV amounts to significant harm, as in my judgment it does, then the same must be so of male circumcision.
Royal Courts of Justice Case No: LJ13C00295 - although the judge concedes the law treats FGM and male circumcision differently. It's as close to an official statement that harm is caused by the British government that I can find and its 'only' a Family Court. The law does allow an adult to sue their GP for circumcising them as infants, but there is a small window of opportunity (3 years after majority) and I know of only one case where someone attempted it. I can't find any follow up so I presume it never went to court.
In Europe there is a non-binding resolution on Children’s right to physical integrity:
quote: Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, among others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons...
Germany, we had a thread (German judge rules child circumcision as child abuse. ) on Germany. A judge ruled male non-therapeutic circumcision amounted to causing bodily injury (violating the bodily integrity of an individual). This only applied to the local jurisdiction of Cologne and Germany enacted a State wide law later explicitly permitting it under certain circumstances after pressure from Jewish and Muslim groups. So, it is harmful but we will create a religious exception clause. That is - you can harm a child if there is a religious reason to do so.
It still strikes me as odd that you can get multiple years in prison for licking a 10 year old's genitals because it is harmful - but slicing bits of their genitals off (if they're a boy) is considered acceptable.
It's also odd to think that if it had never been done for religious reasons and a new religion sprung up which mandated infant circumcision as a sign of a covenant with God...it would probably never be made legal any more than a religion that mandated infant oral sex would. I wonder how long a practice has to go before it is considered legal due to religious or cultural concerns and what the limits of that would be.
Nobody is trying to remove your foreskin. If, in fact, that was what was going on, unquestionably it would wrong.
Exactly the point I was making. Glad you agree. It is wrong because it is harmful. If it's harmful to non-consenting adult, I can't see how it is not harmful to a week old baby.
Supposedly removing the foreskin has some positive impact.
By the reckoning of many many, probably most - maybe even almost all, medical groups any benefits are insignificant enough that they cannot justify prophylactic circumcision under almost all circumstances.
There is little to no evidence that it is harmful.
Unnecessarily removing skin from sexual organs is harmful. It is not like the judges, legal and ethical experts came to this conclusion arbitrarily. You asked for some official stances, I gave them - but you seem to have ignored them. Why?
Parents also have their kid's ears pierced and their tonsils removed without any kind of informed consent on the part of the child.
I certainly question the ethics of piercing a baby's ears. I also question the ethics of piercing a 10 year old's ears if they express they don't consent.
Removing tonsils is a medical procedure often done when the tonsils are infected, at risk of being infected and possibly in some cases - when associated Ear/Nose/Throat problems are being corrected through surgical intervention. It's either justified as a prophylactic - or medically useful to do it.
Neither piercing ear cartilage nor procedures used to treat disease are comparable to non-therapeutic circumcision.
What is the mortality rate for ear piercing? How often does it have a long term impact on sexual function? How difficult is it to reverse an ear piercing? How many support groups exist for people who had their ears pierced as children?
Folk also elect to remove their sex organs, to pierce their belly buttons and nipples, and to donate their kidneys. I expect you would also sue the crap out of someone if did that to you without your consent. So, is that observation really any part of a great argument?
Do you think it is ethically justifiable to remove children's genitals entirely or to harvest their organs for non-therapeutic reasons?
I suppose you also think that removing the clitoral hood from little girls is OK too?
If the answer to either is 'No' then yes - my argument that doing it to a non-consenting adult would be harmful is applicable to children too.
Just because a person may consent retrospectively when they come of age, is not a sufficient justification for doing it before they can consent.
I think the job of our institutions is to follow the public will, not dictate its practices.
It is also to defend against the tyranny of the majority. If most people refuse to serve Black people at shops, hotels etc etc, it is still justifiable for the government to criminalize doing so.
We're talking about cultural practices that can be used to target specific religious groups. By declaring certain practices like circumcision "harmful", you can excuse discrimination against the people who practice them.
What's the problem with that, exactly? People excuse discrimination all the time - if they are breaking the law in doing so they themselves are subject to legal consequences. It is neither an ethical nor legal justification even if people justify it to themselves. Cutting of a thief's hands may be a religiously motivated practice - but it is illegal. And if someone were to illegally discriminate against a hand chopper they too should be penalized.
This was pretty much settled in the US in Reynolds v. United States (1878)
quote:Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?
I'm confident you will find similar decisions being made by other nations that have religious freedom enshrined into law.
I did not agree that it was harmful. I agreed that you had a right to bodily integrity. You have the right not to allow circumcision to be performed on you even if it has a positive impact on your health. What I asked others, and what I now ask you is for evidence that circumcision is harmful.
I define harmful such that it includes the violation of bodily integrity unnecessarily. I can consent to have it done, which removes the harm - assuming the procedure is carried out competently and successfully. Since you concur that non-consensual and non-therapeutic circumcision violates bodily integrity, by my definition it is harmful.
You have yet to define harm, so you can't criticize me for not scoring a goal to your satisfaction when you haven't placed the posts down yet.
I'll note here that you take it further to discuss piercing the ears of a 10-year-old who does not want it done. Yes, that is questionable. But I am not really addressing that issue.
So if they are old enough to decline the procedure- there's a valid ethical concern if they are forced into it. But if they are unable to give consent or to say "no", then you don't see any problem? Does this apply to sex too?
If most people refuse to serve Black people at shops, hotels etc etc, it is still justifiable for the government to criminalize doing so.
We're talking about "harm" here. Until recently, many governments judged that equality for black people did more harm to society. When they changed their assessment, they were following public opinion more than leading it.
What actually happened and what would be justifiable are different things. Regardless of public opinion the government would have been justified in criminalizing refusal to serve. In any case:
There were polls that suggest support in general including
58% in favour of civil rights laws {after their being passed} - although a larger proportion felt their should be moderation in its enforcement.
In any case, my point was actually the government's responsibility to fight against the tyranny of the majority
quote:When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
--James Madison
It was one of the arguments for creating a constitution and a bill of rights that contained things that, for example, couldn't be overturned by a simple majority and ensure attempts to do so by the majority could be challenged by any affected member of the minority.
That doesn't address what I said: I don't want you deciding what is harmful to me.
Welcome to civilization. I'm sorry you don't like it here. Here's hoping that a pregnant loved one isn't given thalidomide by a doctor who thinks like you.
Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves.
Child Labour. Child Sexual Abuse. FGM Infanticide. Child Neglect. Giving addictive recreational drugs to children. Corporal punishment.
Are you sure?
Prohibition doesn't work. It only makes the criminals rich.
That may be true of nouns (although evidence suggests it is not), but you can't jump from what is true of nouns to what is true of verbs (murder, abuse etc).
Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you about what is "harmful".
I don't want you, your parents or your institutions deciding what is harmful to me. Oh, that only works as an argument when its in your favour? Sorry.
I don't get what's harmful about circumcision, there just seems to be an abstract objection to being "mutilated" and having it done against your will,
Why is the burden of proof on us. Surely the burden of proof is upon those that wish to cut bits off of the genitals of babies to prove it is not harmful?
but otherwise America is full of circumcised men who aren't complaining about it as far as I've heard.
How many would it take before you decide to make lifelong changes on someone else's behalf? 10%? 20%? 50%? Are there any modifications that you would object to? Infant tattoos?
Are you "mutilated" if your appendix is removed?
It depends on why it was removed. The same applies to any body part. If removing the labia, kidney, leg is medically recommended to save a life then it isn't mutilation. If it is non-therapeutic then consent should be required.
Would giving a 4 year old a breast implants be justifiable?
Does the foreskin have any particular function that you think is a big loss if it's gone?
Yes! I'd be mortified if I had to have it amputated. Could you imagine spending your life with your clitoris exposed rubbing up against your clothes every time you take a step. *shudder*
In the female case it would be irritating or painful, but I've never heard a circumcised man complain about that kind of experience.
It's irritating or painful to me when my glans becomes exposed for some reason.
If circumcised men are not bothered by this I can only suppose their glans has become less sensitive due to constant stimulation of that region. That doesn't sound good, does it?
But nobody's ever complained about a lack of sensitivity either.
Well that's not true. Obviously for those circumcised as children, they wouldn't know as they have no basis for comparison. Those circumcised as adults have been known to complain about this.
Wouldn't we know if there was such a problem from circumcision?
You'd think - but there doesn't seem to be a lot of studies. However, there have been some studies:
quote:The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
There are a number of papers which either show no difference, or less sensitivity in the circumcised depending on the methods of measurement. The only positive result I could find in favour of circumcision was it increased the time before ejaculation during sex - but this seems to support the hypothesis of lower sensitivity.
But I've never seen either kind of problem discussed anywhere. I conclude there is no problem.
It's a highly discussed subject, that you haven't seen this discussion is insufficient grounds for you to conclude anything.
Again I say, rather than cut someone's genitals until evidence that it is harmful to do so is incontrovertible we should refrain from cutting sensitive skin from people without their consent until evidence that it is harmless to do so is incontrovertible.
I can see that circumcision as an adult could cause problems but I'm not talking about that.
If it causes problems in adults, I don't see how it doesn't cause problems for children who will become adults.
Resenting having your foreskin removed as an infant doesn't say anything about sensitivity.
But it does suggest one feels harmed, which is what you were asking about.
I didn't have scientific studies in mind, I just thought we'd all know about something like this from the popular press if it was a big deal, and that's what I meant about not seeing it discussed.
The popular press tends to cover news. That NEWs. This is an old discussion - ongoing for at least a century, perhaps more. The press does sometimes cover court cases where people challenge circumcision - or offer some updates on statistics:
quote:The strange case of a Florida mom who took her 4-year-old into hiding to avoid circumcision has rekindled interest in the controversy around the practice.
...
The age gap on circumcision is of a piece with millennials' skepticism about vaccines. Overall, men who have been circumcised don't appear to have many regrets about it: only 10 percent of circumcised men said they wished they hadn't been circumcised, according to YouGov.
"Only", huh? I'd say that's a lot of men when we're talking about a population of 160 million or so of them. If 100 million were circumcised then 10 million Americans wish they hadn't. Since it can be done as an adult - why subject millions of Americans to a lifetime of dissatisfaction with their genitals?
quote:Several factors are fueling the trend, including growing secular discomfort with the practice, mixed data on medical necessity and an American culture increasingly open to reinterpreting religious practices and texts. The percentage of circumcision procedures among the general population is also dropping.
quote:Circumcision removes a substantial part of the penis, which is not just a piece of skin. The foreskin is a specialized, retractable sleeve of erogenous tissue that protects the head of the penis, can be manipulated during sex and masturbation, and amounts to about 50 square centimeters in the adult male. In recent years, more and more circumcised men have begun speaking out in favor of leaving baby boys’ penises intact. According to one recent poll, fully 10 percent of circumcised U.S. men wish they had not been circumcised. Many argue that future generations of boys and men should have the chance to decide for themselves whether something as significant and personal as an irreversible surgery on their sexual organ is what they really want, when they reach an age of understanding.
quote:Men who are circumcised as infants are no less sensitive than those who keep their foreskin. At least this is what Queen's University scientists are reporting in the Journal of Urology after testing 62 men between the ages of 18 and 37, half of whom had been circumcised as babies and half of whom hadn't.
quote:
Having your newborn baby boy circumcised used to be a common practice in the United States, but in recent years, more parents are opting out. According to Charge Data Master, newborn circumcision rates declined from 58.4 percent in 2001 to 54.7 percent in 2010. Yet these numbers don’t take into account circumcisions performed outside of the hospital — such as those for religious reasons.
I think parents realize babies are born perfectly intact, said Anthony Losquadro, executive director of Intaction.org, a non-profit organization that opposes infant circumcision. Although the reasons have tried to be rationalized over the decades as a necessary procedure, I think parents are becoming more educated on the issue.
There has also been a change in the demographics as certain ethnicities are declining the procedure and a cultural shift where parents are realizing it’s not necessary, according to Dr. Andrew Freedman, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision. Financial access is another factor as Medicaid covers routine circumcision in only 30 states.
Several studies conducted during the 1970s and 1980s confirm that babies experience some pain from circumcision. And even though topical and local anesthetics are used, they don’t eliminate the pain completely.
quote:"To be circumcised should be an informed, personal choice," or so thinks the Danish Medical Association, which on Friday issued its recommendation that no boy under age 18 in the country be circumcised.
Going that route then leaves the door open for the male to make a decision of his own "when he has come of age," says Lise Moller, the head of the association’s ethics board.
And some Alex Jones content for good measure:
"It is basically sexual mutilation" - Alex Jones
The Bible:
quote:Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh...But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
That's a poor example. Once the effect of thalidomide were known, nobody would have wanted it anyway.
Sounds like you do want people telling you that things can be harmful to you. Make up your mind!
A better example is marijuana, which can have some harmful effects but is criminalizing the users an appropriate response?
Yes it is. Babies should not be fed marijuana, it would be abusive. There are basically no benefits and there is risk AND they can't consent to accept those risks.
Prohibition of alcohol caused the organized crime problem that still exists today. So yes.
I didn't realize you were for the legalization of murder and child sexual abuse. I think circumcision is the least of our disagreements.
Those are completely different situations. Murder is harmful to the victim, to his loved ones, even to society as a whole. I'm not banned from murdering because it's harmful to me. The same applies to Child Labour, Child Sexual Abuse, Infanticide, Child Neglect, Giving addictive recreational drugs to children and Corporal punishment.
Yes, that's my point.
That's what I'm saying. I have no desire to stop you from doing anything that's harmful to only you.
Awesome - but what happens if someone else does something harmful to me?
Two of my brothers were circumcised at birth and two of us were not. I'm not even sure how I know that because I have never once heard either of them mention it.
Thanks for sharing?
I have no idea what the state of my three brothers' penises are so I can't share back - two of them were born in the UK so probably they are intact though one moved to the US so maybe he had it cut since. The third was born in the US so its anybody's guess and I don't feel like asking.
I want health-care professionals telling me that thalidomide, alcohol and marijuana are bad for me. I don't want politicians jailing me for using them.
And giving harmful things to non-consenting people? Is that OK?
I think it should be up to the parents, like it is for circumcision. To prove that it "is" harmful, you'd have to prove that it did harm.
So having oral sex with a child is OK to do to as a parent as long as harm is not proved?
As I've said, that's an entirely different situation. I have no problem with the government telling others not to harm me and telling me not to harm others. What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself.
I'm pretty sure children aren't circumcising themselves.
You make my point. There doesn't seem to be a problem.
Your point is that brothers don't tend to talk to one another about their penises?
Nobody should force harmful things on non-consenting people
Exactly the point of this thread.
It has been shown that such things are harmful.
If you can show me the harm for doing it to an 8 day old child I'd be interested to see it. I'd be fascinated to see that applying pressure with lips and tongue is harmful but applying pressure with a wetwipe is not harmful and slicing bits off is not harmful.
Children can not consent to sexual activity, education, medical procedures, etc.
That was rather my point, yes. I was questioning why your comment - "What I'm against is the government telling me not to harm myself." was relevant in a discussion about doing things to other people who cannot consent.
My point is that if nobody talks about a problem, it's hard to establish that there is a problem.
But as has been established in this very thread, people are talking about this problem. People seek surgery to correct the problem. There are support groups where people talk about this problem. There are legal avenues to sue in some countries because of this problem.
That some brothers don't talk to one another about it is not evidence that nobody is talking about it.
™ Version 4.2
