Circumcision

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

Uncircumsized penises are disgusting.

Never thought I'd be quoting this incompetent fool, but here I am.

I haven't met any girls that are into egg roll looking penises.

Hi there. now you have. it really does not matter, they both do the same thing.

Maybe the gays and the women can enlighten us on this point: does it really make much difference?

It really does not. And if you think it does, you should not be involved sexually at all. This is what men do to argue over something. it is just how you use it, that matters.

[dead0man]

How can I say this without being rude.......

[Alcon]

@Alcon:
I said getting circumcised as a non-infant (say once a man reaches adulthood) it's apparently one of the most painful recoveries a man could possibly have from a medical operation. Much more painful than wearing a home-brewed device on your mahnum-mahnum for nine months. Surgery is also an option for guys who are in a hurry to get their foreskin back, AFAIK.

When I was out of school for a year, I spent my time on several medical support sites to pass the time.  I know that this claim is not true.  Where did your information come from?  It's a simple outpatient surgery with an annoying, but relatively easy recovery -- discomfort maybe, not agony.  You can even return to work the same day.  And you haven't presented a rational reason to support your claim that it is much easier on neonates (other than your claim of a recovery of seconds.)  We've known infants can feel pain intensely for decades.

(I checked:  Restorative surgery is comparably ineffective, if not worse, costs a huge amount, is covered under virtually no insurance programs and is experimental at best.)

And even if this claim were defensible, your burden is to justify increasing the likelihood of surgery having to occur from near 0% to 100.00%.  Maybe this would approach making sense if it were a drastically horrible experience for adults, and actually had a two minute recovery for infants.  But it isn't, and it doesn't.  Lacking a good utilitarian argument, there's only one claim that can reconcile these two positions...

Granted AFAIK most Libertarians are against circumcision, but I think it's best left up to the parents. They have their reasons for having it done to their baby boys, so might as well let them do it. Taking away a man's foreskin does not take away his life nor free will (nor anything else but his foreskin), so I really don't see why it's such a big deal.

...Which you seem to be touching on.

Are you, or are you not arguing, that allowing parental proxy is more important than an individual's choice to make non-urgent decisions about his own body?  And that parents are ethically and morally entitled to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't kill the child or completely revoke his autonomy?  And you maintain all of this while asserting the importance of autonomy in the exercise of parental proxy (kind of selective about our freedoms here) and apparently holding autonomy as morally important only if it is revoked absolutely.  But apparently the standard of partial revocation's acceptability does not apply with the parental proxy.  Seriously dude, what?

At risk of strawmanning, and with apologies if I do, your argument apparently boils down to:  "If they aren't killing the kid, it really isn't important what they do to him and parents have the moral right to defer to tradition and intuition.  That is more important than utility, or the child having a chance to decide for himself.  And even if it's wrong, who cares, that's not important.  But it's very important that the parents have the right."

That seems like a very selective (and arbitrary) interpretation of the importance of liberties, upheld by a very selective (and frequently incorrect) interpretation of empirical medical facts.

[SPC]

Is anyone here that is against infant circumcision circumcised?  Vice versa?

I have no opinion on the issue and I'm Jewish. However, I would hate to have the procedure at an age where I could actually remember it.

[Mechaman]

Uncircumsized penises are disgusting.

Never thought I'd be quoting this incompetent fool, but here I am.

I haven't met any girls that are into egg roll looking penises.

Hi there. now you have. it really does not matter, they both do the same thing.

Maybe the gays and the women can enlighten us on this point: does it really make much difference?

It really does not. And if you think it does, you should not be involved sexually at all. This is what men do to argue over something. it is just how you use it, that matters.

Finally a rational voice!

[k-onmmunist]

Uncircumsized penises are disgusting.

Never thought I'd be quoting this incompetent fool, but here I am.

I haven't met any girls that are into egg roll looking penises.

Screw you guys, moralfags.

[titaniumtux]

Are you, or are you not arguing, that allowing parental proxy is more important than an individual's choice to make non-urgent decisions about his own body?  And that parents are ethically and morally entitled to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't kill the child or completely revoke his autonomy?  And you maintain all of this while asserting the importance of autonomy in the exercise of parental proxy (kind of selective about our freedoms here) and apparently holding autonomy as morally important only if it is revoked absolutely.  But apparently the standard of partial revocation's acceptability does not apply with the parental proxy.  Seriously dude, what?

How is it different for anything else? AFAIK (at least in my experience) before I turned 18, the doctor would always explain everything to my parents, without explaining anything to me about my medical situation. Not that I entirely agree with how many doctors practically ignore minors like their opinions don't matter, and fortunately I would discuss everything regarding my health with my folks, but ultimately the doctor would require my parents' authorization/signature for me to undergo surgery, etc. as opposed to mine, so in theory, as long as one is a minor, parents have the final say on any and every medical procedure. To what extent is that ethical is a whole other story, but having an operation under one's parents authorization is nothing new, and SPC certainly isn't the only one who is glad to not remember the recovery of his circumcision.

[Alcon]

How is it different for anything else? AFAIK (at least in my experience) before I turned 18, the doctor would always explain everything to my parents, without explaining anything to me about my medical situation. Not that I entirely agree with how many doctors practically ignore minors like their opinions don't matter, and fortunately I would discuss everything regarding my health with my folks, but ultimately the doctor would require my parents' authorization/signature for me to undergo surgery, etc. as opposed to mine, so e. To what extent is that ethical is a whole other story, but having an operation under onein theory, as long as one is a minor, parents have the final say on any and every medical procedur's parents authorization is nothing new, and SPC certainly isn't the only one who is glad to not remember the recovery of his circumcision.

I'm going to pair this down because I'm apparently not being clear enough.

I know that parental proxy is fairly unchecked in the U.S.  In fact, the law has to prove that what they're doing is clearly assaultive to stop it.  A full-body tattoo (assuming it wasn't insanely painful) would be legally allowed.  Is that because it's perfectly justified, fine and a reasonable decision for parents to make?  No, it's allowed because the law (in the U.S.) is very generalized about parental proxy.  Non-medical neonatal circumcision is not wrong because it's inconsistent with U.S. law.  It's wrong because proxy guardianship is a parental responsibility the law allows, and it's a failure to morally fulfill that responsibility.  It's a hasty and unjustified denial of personal choice.  It's not assaultive, it's not evil, it's universally well-intentioned, and it's wrong.

There's obviously a precedent of legal deference to parental proxy, something I'm not particularly against.  As you say, it's a different story the extent to which this use of parental proxy is right or reasonable.  In fact it's the story I've been arguing for a half-dozen posts now.  

[dead0man]

I'm pretty sure a parent can't force a kid against their will to get a tattoo.  As always I'd enjoy being wrong and learning something new.


(was that nicer than "cite"?)

[Alcon]

I'm pretty sure a parent can't force a kid against their will to get a tattoo.  As always I'd enjoy being wrong and learning something new.


(was that nicer than "cite"?)

err, sorry, what are you looking for a cite for?    I don't want to overload you with irrelevant info.

I can point you to a ton of bioethics literature on the history of deference to parental proxy consent.  Here's one:

Minors’ Rights in Medical Decision Making

Summary: At one point, minors were assumed automatically incompetent until they turned 18 and magically became upstanding adults.  Now, we have lots of laws about privacy rights for teenagers, and some broader allowances for "mature" minors.  But this hasn't changed the standard -- in absence of a party capable of protest, deference is given to parental proxy rights, unless the parent's actions are assaultive or negligent.  It doesn't especially matter if they are stupid or wrong, just as long as they aren't criminal.  Even mature minors generally have to take their issue to the courts to prove their competence.  Neonates have no "will" to provide standing to object on any of these recently granted grounds for overriding parental proxy, so deference to the parents (short of criminality) is automatic.

***

If you're asking what law allows parents to make inane non-medical proxy decisions on children old enough to object...I don't know much about that, because it isn't especially relevant in bioethics.  I did, for the record, never say anything about forcibly tattooing a kid against their will.  "Against their will" is different than "without their consent."

If you're looking for information on baby tattooing, I'm sure that doesn't happen outside of mass email hoaxes.  My entire point was that parents are responsible for making ethical decisions with the rights they are given, and "it's not illegal" is not an ethical argument.  If anything in my argument seemed at all contingent upon the existence of actual baby tattooing, then I'm failing horribly to explain my points here .

[titaniumtux]

Well, baby tattooing will substantially culturally condition the baby. It will likely compromise their moral compass and job opportunities (unless they become a baseball player, and it might motivate them to do that instead of going to college).

Circumcision, however, has no impact on a man's decisions in life, nor on his sex life, either. It simply means that his package will be lower maintenance, and if done as an infant he won't remember the recovery.

[Alcon]

titaniumtux,

I've responded individually to your points and presented an argument that addresses them to the best of my abilities.

You've misinterpreted a pretty explicit analogy (the entire paragraph was trying to differentiate "legal use of parental proxy" from "just use of parental proxy") to just be equating the two items.  I have no idea why, but it makes me feel like you're not actually reading what I'm writing.  I just don't think I've been that unclear.

I'm getting frustrated.  You've brought up all these points before, in one form or another.  You've also managed to introduce two obviously contestable points (it's inherently lower maintenance and there are no sexual effects) and one incorrect implication (there are no other potential downsides) as objective fact.  You didn't cite or defend either claim, and have previously introduced completely wrong information.  I have contradicted the last item in past posts.  It feels intellectually dishonest, or at least dismissive.

I've responded to all these points before and put them in the context of my overall argument.  Instead of responding to that, I'm getting the same points re-presented and it's like I never posted any reply to them at all.  I don't get what the communication issue here is.

[titaniumtux]

Ah, here's an interesting link:
http://www.aboutcirc.com/ - this site seems to be unbiased, and they simply did a bunch of surveys to compare (if there's any bias they sampled the gay community more heavily than proportional to the general population)

After reading the sexuality section, it seems that women prefer to fellate circumcised men, and natural men masturbate more. Circumcised men are also more likely to be in a relationship, and be more confident. I don't know about you, but who wouldn't want to be part of the demographic that "gets more head"? And I don't think anyone would want to remember their circumcision if it can be done as an infant.

For the medical reasons, I quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Infant circumcision is a very low-risk, routine operation and it really ought to be left up to the parents. When taking the baby boy home, the parents have to protect their infant's body including the tip of their penis whether circumcised or not to make sure there are no diaper rashes (AFAIK), so any post operation recovery as an infant is arbitrary.

If you can find sources that prove otherwise, let me know. Honestly, most of the anti-circumcision websites I've seen keep raving about circumcision being unethical, mutilation, etc. and don't seem to provide tangible numbers. Granted in developed countries natural men are less at risk now than they were before, but who would want to chance it when the cut instantly eliminates (and in some cases reduces, like STI's) your odds of so many medical problems?

[Alcon]

You're still not addressing arguments I've make, just throwing out benefits you can find and saying "doesn't that justify it?" without demonstrating how it contradicts what I've said, or where you disagree.  Maybe I shouldn't even talk.  

This web site doesn't exactly seem unbiased to me.  I Googled some surveys they presented, and in every case, they use the highest incidence rate found, sometimes substantially.  Moreover, they present phimosis as if it were a terrible condition of some sort.  Apparently, after simple painless treatment, its non-surgical resolution rate is about 99% (with betamethasone cream.)  And if that doesn't work, a less risky/invasive alternative to circumcision exists.  So, you are prophylactically treating an uncommon condition (10% rate [highest I found] + 99% treatment success = 1 in 1,000 cases).  You'd perform at least 1,000 surgeries to avoid 1 case of a surgery (and potentially a less invasive one) being necessary later for a minor condition.  Even if you were to wholly ignore issues of individual liberty here, that makes sense to you?

If you're actually concerned about a condition as rare as penile cancer, let's take an objective look at health policy.  Now, at this point, you might argue, you can't obligate people to spend money on education.  But, um, dude, you're modifying someone else's body instead and with less effective results.  And you're advocating they spend the money either way.  So, let's briefly take the 1 in 1,500 statistic.  Nevermind that more recent estimates in Scandinavia (from national health reports) put it at more like 1 in 100,000.  Also nevermind that it is almost unheard of in non-smokers.  I'll take the 1 in 1,500, generously.

1,500 to prevent 1 case [generous] * $200 for surgical and anesthesia costs [generous] = $300,000

You've just spent at least $300,000 to prevent one case of cancer.  Using the American Medical Association's prevalence estimates (much closer to 1 in 100,000) and a more accurate cost average, you would spend roughly $20 million to prevent one case of cancer.  No wonder the AMA outright calls it "unjustified."  I think you've just stumbled on one hell of an argument against the practice, unless you want to backtrack on the whole "individual liberties aren't important on this matter" deal.

The surveys are unsourced self-selection Internet polls of Australians or gays or gay Australians or something.  Hard to say because no citations are given.  I don't have any idea of where it was or the methodology used, and the author of the site notes that several of the results make little anatomical sense whatsoever, so I dunno.  Paulbots maybe.  Being neither gay nor an Australian, you'd have to find someone other than me to provide analysis of that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Being circumcised, I of course have no issue with circumcision.

[titaniumtux]

Circumcision doesn't have to be so expensive, and it certainly does not have to be a multi-billion dollar industry! That's just corruption of the medical industry if they charge that much. I would never support subsidizing circumcision, either. I'm sure when Abraham started mandating circumcision for Jewish and Muslim boys, he didn't anticipate some multi-billion dollar industry. Besides, there are places you can go (even within the USofA) to have a circumcision done for much cheaper than $200 (I'm sure a Rabbi can recommend someone). Also, I don't know of any anesthesia used in infant circumcision. Besides, if you go to a Jewish hospital, they may offer the circumcision at no cost! You have to pay for a delivery at a hospital anyway...if you really want to save money you could have the delivery at home and then invite a Rabbi to do the snipping.

Circumcision has a much higher success rate than 99%...I have yet to see a source that claims the success rate to be that low.

It's not just about the penile cancer, you also reduce the odds of cervical cancer in Jewish women, etc. There are plenty of medical benefits, and say if 10-20% of natural men are at all inconvenienced by their foreskin (phimosis, paraphimosis, etc.) health-wise, that's a fairly high number.

Think about it this way, Jews are getting more head, and Gentiles masturbate more...How could you not want to be in the circumcised demographic when stated that way? Even if nothing else, this alone seems like a good enough reason

[Alcon]

Circumcision doesn't have to be so expensive, and it certainly does not have to be a multi-billion dollar industry! That's just corruption of the medical industry if they charge that much. I would never support subsidizing circumcision, either. I'm sure when Abraham started mandating circumcision for Jewish and Muslim boys, he didn't anticipate some multi-billion dollar industry. Besides, there are places you can go (even within the USofA) to have a circumcision done for much cheaper than $200 (I'm sure a Rabbi can recommend someone). Also, I don't know of any anesthesia used in infant circumcision. Besides, if you go to a Jewish hospital, they may offer the circumcision at no cost! You have to pay for a delivery at a hospital anyway...if you really want to save money you could have the delivery at home and then invite a Rabbi to do the snipping.

...

It's not just about the penile cancer, you also reduce the odds of cervical cancer in Jewish women, etc. There are plenty of medical benefits, and say if 10-20% of natural men are at all inconvenienced by their foreskin (phimosis, paraphimosis, etc.) health-wise, that's a fairly high number.

OK, this is getting really frustrating.  You're making up information without research (do you seriously think performing a circumcision is ever cost-free?  Neonates magically don't feel pain?  Only if they go into shock) and ignoring my argument.

Let's say it costs US$50, which unless the U.S. cost of living cratered, would be impossible unsubsidized.  And let's again use the ridiculously low incidence rate for penile cancer of 1 in 1,500.  That's still USD$75,000.  Are you saying we should pay USD$75,000 to prevent one case of cancer, and that USD$75,000 couldn't be used more effectively?  Now, with the updated American incidence rate for penile cancer, you'd still be spending over $1 million per case.  So, you're advocating spending at least USD$50k to treat one case of preventable disease.  Morality of parental proxy issues aside, how can you possibly consider that to be effective health policy?

Seriously, please answer that question, you've been avoiding it for like five posts now.

Circumcision has a much higher success rate than 99%...I have yet to see a source that claims the success rate to be that low.

Wait, so you want to perform thousands off redundant surgeries to raise the success rate for treating a condition that, at worst, requires a less severe surgery than that you performed, from 99+% to 100%?   Because the "success rate is higher"?  oy.

I'm starting to believe that you're screwing with me.

Think about it this way, Jews are getting more head, and Gentiles masturbate more...How could you not want to be in the circumcised demographic when stated that way? Even if nothing else, this alone seems like a good enough reason

Ignoring for a moment that we're talking about an unsourced Internet poll, with no information about sampling or even methods used to avoid multiple votes, and that Ron Paul isn't President of the U.S....

Honestly:  It doesn't really matter what demographic I am in, or want to be in.  This is not my body, and I've established here that there is no justification for making it my business.  I'm not getting into a machismo match-off; I think they're both reasonable preferences, and they both have advantages and disadvantages.  It may be that I'm personally all, why would anyone ever want to be the other?!, but some (real numbers -- more than 1 in 1,000) do.  And unless I want to call them insane, I can't ignore that.  I'm certainly not going to actively seek a way of rationalizing screwing their individual subjective preference over just because I disagree with it.  That's lame.

[titaniumtux]

You keep complaining about me not answering your questions, so I will quote your questions from your previous post and answer them. If there are still unanswered questions from previous posts, please do me the favor of listing them and I'll take them on.

OK, this is getting really frustrating.  You're making up information without research (do you seriously think performing a circumcision is ever cost-free?  Neonates magically don't feel pain?  Only if they go into shock) and ignoring my argument.

Let's say it costs US$50, which unless the U.S. cost of living cratered, would be impossible unsubsidized.  And let's again use the ridiculously low incidence rate for penile cancer of 1 in 1,500.  That's still USD$75,000.  Are you saying we should pay USD$75,000 to prevent one case of cancer, and that USD$75,000 couldn't be used more effectively?  Now, with the updated American incidence rate for penile cancer, you'd still be spending over $1 million per case.  So, you're advocating spending at least USD$50k to treat one case of preventable disease.  Morality of parental proxy issues aside, how can you possibly consider that to be effective health policy?

Seriously, please answer that question, you've been avoiding it for like five posts now.

I will admit that it doesn't make economic sense if the sole purpose is to prevent one type of cancer. But penile cancer is not the only health benefit! Foreskin may be a health issue to varying degrees for natural men, considering the percentages that are at all affected by phimosis, paraphimosis, etc.

Wait, so you want to perform thousands off redundant surgeries to raise the success rate for treating a condition that, at worst, requires a less severe surgery than that you performed, from 99+% to 100%?   Because the "success rate is higher"?  oy.

I'm starting to believe that you're screwing with me.

No, I'm arguing that the success rate of circumcision is higher than 99%. There are ridiculously few cases where a circumcision is the cause of future health problems. Is that not where you get your 99% from?

Ignoring for a moment that we're talking about an unsourced Internet poll, with no information about sampling or even methods used to avoid multiple votes, and that Ron Paul isn't President of the U.S....

Honestly:  It doesn't really matter what demographic I am in, or want to be in.  This is not my body, and I've established here that there is no justification for making it my business.  I'm not getting into a machismo match-off; I think they're both reasonable preferences, and they both have advantages and disadvantages.  It may be that I'm personally all, why would anyone ever want to be the other?!, but some (real numbers -- more than 1 in 1,000) do.  And unless I want to call them insane, I can't ignore that.  I'm certainly not going to actively seek a way of rationalizing screwing their individual subjective preference over just because I disagree with it.  That's lame.

Ron Paul isn't President of the US!? Shucks! Fair enough, they may be entitled to their opinions, even if I cannot relate...

Seriously though, the website I quoted (despite you claiming it's biased) did pie charts on how people feel about being circumcised or not circumcised. I noticed that if you pool the two segments of people who are really unhappy with their state with those who would prefer to be in the other group (basically everyone who would rather be otherwise), it works out to be about the same. There are people who would rather have an egg roll, and there are egg rollers who would rather be cut. I mean when you consider that, there will always be people who will complain about their state (I mean some people claim to be born in the wrong sex!). You can't possibly consider that the small number of complainers would be a valid argument!

[Alcon]

You keep complaining about me not answering your questions, so I will quote your questions from your previous post and answer them. If there are still unanswered questions from previous posts, please do me the favor of listing them and I'll take them on.

I will admit that it doesn't make economic sense if the sole purpose is to prevent one type of cancer. But penile cancer is not the only health benefit! Foreskin may be a health issue to varying degrees for natural men, considering the percentages that are at all affected by phimosis, paraphimosis, etc.

My argument is that it doesn't make economic/cost-benefits sense (because there would always be a better use for resources than neonatal circumcision), and therefore moral issues aren't even the problem.  You haven't responded to this, philosophically or practically, at all, until this post.

Now, you're claiming that there are more benefits that make up this ridiculous ratio -- thousands of redundant surgeries, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to stop one case of preventable disease.  And why do you believe this?  Have you actually calculated it?  Considering that you've variously claimed in this debate that there is a two-minute recovery time for infants, and that anaesthesia need not be used, I'm inclined to think that you haven't bothered.  And yet it's the foundation of your entire argument!  (Along with ignoring issues of individual liberty, or the much-more-common possibility that the kid might not want to have been circumcised, and arbitrarily dismissing its inferiority to other "economical" issues.)

See, here's an example of you not addressing a question:  In my last post, I explained how pre-emptively treating phimosis with circumcision makes no cost-benefits sense whatsoever.  In response, you just pointed out that circumcision prevents phimosis again.  Well, duh, and mastectomy presents breast cancer.  That doesn't mean that it automatically becomes justified as prophylaxis just by repeating "it prevents breast cancer," so why are you doing the same thing here?  Even if you do think such prophylaxis is inherently justified, I think you should at least argue that, instead of just repeating what I've already replied to...

No, I'm arguing that the success rate of circumcision is higher than 99%. There are ridiculously few cases where a circumcision is the cause of future health problems. Is that not where you get your 99% from?

The only time I've mentioned 99% is the resolution rate for phimosis without surgery -- surgery that would be less risky than neonatal circumcision, anyway (cite).  I don't know why you're comparing that to the "success rate of circumcision" (whatever that means.)

Ron Paul isn't President of the US!? Shucks! Fair enough, they may be entitled to their opinions, even if I cannot relate...

Seriously though, the website I quoted (despite you claiming it's biased) did pie charts on how people feel about being circumcised or not circumcised. I noticed that if you pool the two segments of people who are really unhappy with their state with those who would prefer to be in the other group (basically everyone who would rather be otherwise), it works out to be about the same. There are people who would rather have an egg roll, and there are egg rollers who would rather be cut. I mean when you consider that, there will always be people who will complain about their state (I mean some people claim to be born in the wrong sex!). You can't possibly consider that the small number of complainers would be a valid argument!

Eh, it's not so biased that I think they made up the results to their survey.  I just...know nothing about it.  There's no sourcing, no description of methodology.  I don't need to tell you how impossible it is to get a self-selected sample on the Internet that represents any sort of true random sample.  But we at least need some idea of the sampling to treat it as anything but complete trash.

That having been said, you're bringing up a point I made earlier.  There are a roughly equal number of people who are annoyed by being either status.  Like I just said, they both have advantages and disadvantages.  One side has the option, using an outpatient surgery (which isn't -- despite your claims -- vastly and arbitrarily more horrific for adults), of getting their preference.  The other can strap a device on their johnson, which has no medically established safety or efficacy, for nine months, and get a sort-of-kind-of result.

There are three issues here: cost-benefits (whether it's justified because the end results warrant its prophylactic use more than any other method), functional (whether it leaves people happy or with the option of happiness) and moral (the use of parental proxy.)  It is unjustified using every mode of analysis, even if one arbitrarily and selectively ignores the other two.

[titaniumtux]

My argument is that it doesn't make economic/cost-benefits sense (because there would always be a better use for resources than neonatal circumcision), and therefore moral issues aren't even the problem.  You haven't responded to this, philosophically or practically, at all, until this post.

Now, you're claiming that there are more benefits that make up this ridiculous ratio -- thousands of redundant surgeries, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to stop one case of preventable disease.  And why do you believe this?  Have you actually calculated it?  Considering that you've variously claimed in this debate that there is a two-minute recovery time for infants, and that anaesthesia need not be used, I'm inclined to think that you haven't bothered.  And yet it's the foundation of your entire argument!  (Along with ignoring issues of individual liberty, or the much-more-common possibility that the kid might not want to have been circumcised, and arbitrarily dismissing its inferiority to other "economical" issues.)

Quoting the Muslims here (http://www.muslim-names.co.uk/articlecircumcision.php):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I may have exaggerated, mind you the recovery is much faster as an infant, and having it done as an infant saves a circumcised man from worrying about the aftermath of circumcision: abstinence from sex and probably masturbation ('twould be tough for those addicts, especially if they had egg rolls all this time). I think every man circumcised as an infant can appreciate not remembering their recovery from circumcision.

See, here's an example of you not addressing a question:  In my last post, I explained how pre-emptively treating phimosis with circumcision makes no cost-benefits sense whatsoever.  In response, you just pointed out that circumcision prevents phimosis again.  Well, duh, and mastectomy presents breast cancer.  That doesn't mean that it automatically becomes justified as prophylaxis just by repeating "it prevents breast cancer," so why are you doing the same thing here?  Even if you do think such prophylaxis is inherently justified, I think you should at least argue that, instead of just repeating what I've already replied to...

Well, breasts are much more practical than a foreskin. We can't compare removing a foreskin to removing breasts, it would be much more appropriate to compare it to removing wisdom teeth or tonsils.

The only time I've mentioned 99% is the resolution rate for phimosis without surgery -- surgery that would be less risky than neonatal circumcision, anyway (cite).  I don't know why you're comparing that to the "success rate of circumcision" (whatever that means.)

Ah, that makes sense. I wouldn't see the need for surgery to deal with phimosis in most cases, mind you, but I'm sure phimosis isn't fun, and even if surgery isn't necessary to resolve it, I'm sure it's much more convenient to be cut as an infant (and not remember the recovery) than to have to deal with phimosis.

Eh, it's not so biased that I think they made up the results to their survey.  I just...know nothing about it.  There's no sourcing, no description of methodology.  I don't need to tell you how impossible it is to get a self-selected sample on the Internet that represents any sort of true random sample.  But we at least need some idea of the sampling to treat it as anything but complete trash.

That having been said, you're bringing up a point I made earlier.  There are a roughly equal number of people who are annoyed by being either status.  Like I just said, they both have advantages and disadvantages.  One side has the option, using an outpatient surgery (which isn't -- despite your claims -- vastly and arbitrarily more horrific for adults), of getting their preference.  The other can strap a device on their johnson, which has no medically established safety or efficacy, for nine months, and get a sort-of-kind-of result.

The strap device is one way of doing it, I suppose surgery could make it happen much faster. It would be more expensive to circumcise adults than infants, but seriously, you might as well leave it up to the parents. Besides, circumcised or not, parents have to take care of the tip of their boy's penis to avoid diaper rashes anyway.

There are three issues here: cost-benefits (whether it's justified because the end results warrant its prophylactic use more than any other method), functional (whether it leaves people happy or with the option of happiness) and moral (the use of parental proxy.)  It is unjustified using every mode of analysis, even if one arbitrarily and selectively ignores the other two.

Cost-benefits? Since when should you think you know best for how parents should be spending their money? Cost-benefits is a non-issue if parents want to spend their money that way. Functionality is arbitrary, because there are happy and unhappy men both cut and natural, and I find your argument of morality amusing...usually morality correlates with religion (Faith), yet Jews, Muslims and many Christians (especially Catholics) endorse circumcision! It seems fairly arbitrary to argue that circumcision is immoral when many people considered to be moral do it. The parental proxy is a whole issue of its own, and it's generally accepted in North American society, so if you want to argue this as a secular ethical/moral issue, then you're leading us into the relativism of socio-cultural trends.

[Alcon]

Quoting the Muslims here: [...]

I may have exaggerated, mind you the recovery is much faster as an infant, and having it done as an infant saves a circumcised man from worrying about the aftermath of circumcision: abstinence from sex and probably masturbation ('twould be tough for those addicts, especially if they had egg rolls all this time). I think every man circumcised as an infant can appreciate not remembering their recovery from circumcision. [...]

Ah, that makes sense. I wouldn't see the need for surgery to deal with phimosis in most cases, mind you, but I'm sure phimosis isn't fun, and even if surgery isn't necessary to resolve it, I'm sure it's much more convenient to be cut as an infant (and not remember the recovery) than to have to deal with phimosis.

With no disrespect to the Muslims, science disagrees on infant pain.  You need anesthetic.  Otherwise, the child may go into shock.  Period.  If you had Googled that for ten seconds you would have found this and many corroborating studies.

You're still refusing to address context.  You're saying "it would suck to have to be circumcised as an adult and remember it."  Yeah, except circumcision is almost never, ever necessary as an adult; even phimosis has a treatment rate of 99%+.   Here, dude, stop and do the math.  Condition affecting 10% of adult male population (highest estimate I could find) + 95% resolution rate through non-surgical methods (lowest estimate I could find with regiment of steroidal treatments).

That's 1,000 full circumcisions to prevent one preputioplasty, which is a simple Z-cut procedure that heals in a matter of a few days.  And that's likely a gross underestimate of the number of redundant surgeries that would require.  About $75,000 to prevent a $50 procedure that has a lower sequalae rate (counting dissatisfaction or otherwise) than the preventive surgery you're advocating.

You're fundamentally arguing we should ignore individual preference in deference to cost-benefits...except then we shouldn't think about whether the cost wouldn't be better-spent for more benefit elsewhere.  How does that work?

Well, breasts are much more practical than a foreskin. We can't compare removing a foreskin to removing breasts, it would be much more appropriate to compare it to removing wisdom teeth or tonsils.

This was an analogy; I was obviously not equating them.  My point was that "it has prophylactic benefit" alone is not an argument, and you keep repeating it as if it were dismissing my responses.  I can't help but noticing that we don't remove tonsils or wisdom teeth at birth, only if they cause trouble, and they completely lack a practical function.

The strap device is one way of doing it, I suppose surgery could make it happen much faster. It would be more expensive to circumcise adults than infants, but seriously, you might as well leave it up to the parents. Besides, circumcised or not, parents have to take care of the tip of their boy's penis to avoid diaper rashes anyway.

1. "Seriously," whether it's left up to the parents or not, they shouldn't do it.  Seriously.

2. As I've already said, the surgery you refer to is experimental, has no scientific testing, isn't effective in restoring any nerve structure (it's burn victim skin basically) and is insanely expensive.  Do another ten-second Google.

3. It may be more expensive, but over 1,000 times more expensive?  'Cause, remember, you're advocating hundreds upon hundreds of surgeries that would never end up being necessary.

Cost-benefits? Since when should you think you know best for how parents should be spending their money? Cost-benefits is a non-issue if parents want to spend their money that way. Functionality is arbitrary, because there are happy and unhappy men both cut and natural, and I find your argument of morality amusing...usually morality correlates with religion (Faith), yet Jews, Muslims and many Christians (especially Catholics) endorse circumcision! It seems fairly arbitrary to argue that circumcision is immoral when many people considered to be moral do it. The parental proxy is a whole issue of its own, and it's generally accepted in North American society, so if you want to argue this as a secular ethical/moral issue, then you're leading us into the relativism of socio-cultural trends.

Right, if cultures do it, it's clearly moral.  Nevermind that plenty of decent Muslims perform FGM, a much more heinous and clearly immoral procedure.  Those are some of the most devout people on earth, after all.  And since "morality correlates with religion," we might as well just assume that's what's moral and stop asking questions.  (If you're about to point out that FGM and male circumcision are not the same thing, yes I know, again: analogy.)

"Functionality" is not arbitrary.  How are you even using "arbitrary" in that sentence?  The idea is to provide the most people with the chance, hopefully readily accessible, for satisfaction with their own bodies.  Performing a functionally irreversible surgery doesn't lose its moral implications because "there are both happy and unhappy men."  That is arbitrary, not anything I said.

I'm leading us into moral relativism by providing moral arguments that aren't religious?  Either you're arguing that no one has the right to maintain moral causes without a religious claim, or I officially have no idea what the hell you're talking about anymore.

[titaniumtux]

With no disrespect to the Muslims, science disagrees on infant pain.  You need anesthetic.  Otherwise, the child may go into shock.  Period.  If you had Googled that for ten seconds you would have found this and many corroborating studies.

You're still refusing to address context.  You're saying "it would suck to have to be circumcised as an adult and remember it."  Yeah, except circumcision is almost never, ever necessary as an adult; even phimosis has a treatment rate of 99%+.   Here, dude, stop and do the math.  Condition affecting 10% of adult male population (highest estimate I could find) + 95% resolution rate through non-surgical methods (lowest estimate I could find with regiment of steroidal treatments).

That's 1,000 full circumcisions to prevent one preputioplasty, which is a simple Z-cut procedure that heals in a matter of a few days.  And that's likely a gross underestimate of the number of redundant surgeries that would require.  About $75,000 to prevent a $50 procedure that has a lower sequalae rate (counting dissatisfaction or otherwise) than the preventive surgery you're advocating.

You're fundamentally arguing we should ignore individual preference in deference to cost-benefits...except then we shouldn't think about whether the cost wouldn't be better-spent for more benefit elsewhere.  How does that work?

Granted circumcision is rarely necessary. We do a lot of things that are unnecessary. Breast implants are not necessary yet people are willing to spend big money on unnecessary things. I'm not going to stop people from spending their money however they like. At least circumcision has way more benefits than breast implants. Besides, if parents are paying for circumcision (I'm against public medicare anyway), if your tax dollars are not paying for these "probably unnecessary surgeries"...what do you care how people earn their money?

This was an analogy; I was obviously not equating them.  My point was that "it has prophylactic benefit" alone is not an argument, and you keep repeating it as if it were dismissing my responses.  I can't help but noticing that we don't remove tonsils or wisdom teeth at birth, only if they cause trouble, and they completely lack a practical function.

Right, but foreskins aren't "practical", either.

1. "Seriously," whether it's left up to the parents or not, they shouldn't do it.  Seriously.

2. As I've already said, the surgery you refer to is experimental, has no scientific testing, isn't effective in restoring any nerve structure (it's burn victim skin basically) and is insanely expensive.  Do another ten-second Google.

3. It may be more expensive, but over 1,000 times more expensive?  'Cause, remember, you're advocating hundreds upon hundreds of surgeries that would never end up being necessary.

1. Oh, and you claim to know what's best for parents' decisions? That's fairly obnoxious, you know

2. I wouldn't endorse that surgery, but it's certainly within a man's liberties to have it done. Guys should probably just content themselves with what they have, and if they don't like it, then have it otherwise for their sons.

3. I think it should be up to the parents. You're not paying for those circumcisions, so what do you care about cost?

Right, if cultures do it, it's clearly moral.  Nevermind that plenty of decent Muslims perform FGM, a much more heinous and clearly immoral procedure.  Those are some of the most devout people on earth, after all.  And since "morality correlates with religion," we might as well just assume that's what's moral and stop asking questions.  (If you're about to point out that FGM and male circumcision are not the same thing, yes I know, again: analogy.)

It's just some groups of Muslims that do FGM, whereas two of the world's religions do circumcision on all males and a good part of the largest world religion has no objection and many within that group encourages it. FGM AFAIK is not mandated by the Qu'ran, it's just a group of fanatics, so I'm not arguing that the operation is different (as we already know) but the motives are different, which is why I argue that it's not a very relevant analogy.

"Functionality" is not arbitrary.  How are you even using "arbitrary" in that sentence?  The idea is to provide the most people with the chance, hopefully readily accessible, for satisfaction with their own bodies.  Performing a functionally irreversible surgery doesn't lose its moral implications because "there are both happy and unhappy men."  That is arbitrary, not anything I said.

I'm arguing that about the same number of natural men would rather be circumcised as circumcised men who'd rather have the egg roll, so your earlier argument that people are upset about their state (being circumcised) is irrelevant because there will always be complainers.

See, I don't perceive any functionality of a foreskin. Circumcised men can do all the same things as natural men, so I don't see any additional functionality of having an egg roll. Maybe you could enlighten me.

I'm leading us into moral relativism by providing moral arguments that aren't religious?  Either you're arguing that no one has the right to maintain moral causes without a religious claim, or I officially have no idea what the hell you're talking about anymore.

Moral arguments that are not backed by a religious institution are relative.

Here's a prime example: many people believe that piracy is theft. AFAIK, all governments consider piracy to be "copyright infringement" (as opposed to theft), so no institution legitimizes the belief that piracy is theft (people can be charged under copyright infringement for piracy, but not theft). To those who believe piracy is theft, there is no way of convincing them otherwise, but if someone claims that "piracy is theft", I'm not going to believe them just because they say so. I'll let them believe what they want and I am thankful they are not the ones in charge of copyright laws, but that's a whole other story.

Just to say that you claim that circumcision is unethical...No religious institution seems to claim this as well (nor does any government, etc.). You and may other individuals may believe this, but from an ethical standpoint, you don't have much credibility. Hence I am arguing that secular morals and ethics are relative, and if you really had a case, you'd have long won it over with the governments and/or religious institutions. By the way, if you claim that some Protestant pastor or very small denomination is against circumcision, that still doesn't stand (I'm sure you could find some if you search for it, Mr. 10-second-google-search). That's like some Muslims being for FGM, which isn't enough to even convince most (serious/practicing) Muslims.

If you want to compare to other practices in the past where consent had not been granted, say slavery for instance, there were always governments and religious authorities against slavery.

To be fair, I'm not opposed to slavery as a concept, especially modern day slavery (I have no objection to people being slaves to financial institutions from credit card debts, mortgages, etc. for instance).

[Alcon]

Granted circumcision is rarely necessary. We do a lot of things that are unnecessary. Breast implants are not necessary yet people are willing to spend big money on unnecessary things. I'm not going to stop people from spending their money however they like. At least circumcision has way more benefits than breast implants. Besides, if parents are paying for circumcision (I'm against public medicare anyway), if your tax dollars are not paying for these "probably unnecessary surgeries"...what do you care how people earn their money.

1. Oh, and you claim to know what's best for parents' decisions? That's fairly obnoxious, you know

2. I wouldn't endorse that surgery, but it's certainly within a man's liberties to have it done. Guys should probably just content themselves with what they have, and if they don't like it, then have it otherwise for their sons.

3. I think it should be up to the parents. You're not paying for those circumcisions, so what do you care about cost?

If it's unnecessary, and it's an irreversible choice, and the resources could be spent better elsewhere, and it's someone else's body, it's wrong.  I never argued for the government forcing the parents to make the ethical choice -- just that the parents should.

Save the faux libertarianism.  I'm arguing that it's an unethical decision.  You're arguing that it's ethical.  We're both evaluating its ethicalness, and issuing an ethical judgment.  Playing the "it's not your business here!" card is a lot more convincing if you don't argue in the next sentence that parents should make the decisions by assuming that their son would want his dick to match his father's preference.  Is that...genetic now?

Right, but foreskins aren't "practical", either.

[...]

See, I don't perceive any functionality of a foreskin. Circumcised men can do all the same things as natural men, so I don't see any additional functionality of having an egg roll. Maybe you could enlighten me.

I'd really love to avoid making this topic into middle school locker room stuff, but if you seriously believe that there is no reasonable preference that way, I guess I have to.  I don't mean that it can do something that the other can't, since obviously that's not the only standard for preference, and you've implied as such throughout the topic.  So, do you make that claim, or not?

And, seriously, I would find another place to get Chinese food if I were you.

It's just some groups of Muslims that do FGM, whereas two of the world's religions do circumcision on all males and a good part of the largest world religion has no objection and many within that group encourages it. FGM AFAIK is not mandated by the Qu'ran, it's just a group of fanatics, so I'm not arguing that the operation is different (as we already know) but the motives are different, which is why I argue that it's not a very relevant analogy.

[...]

To be fair, I'm not opposed to slavery as a concept, especially modern day slavery (I have no objection to people being slaves to financial institutions from credit card debts, mortgages, etc. for instance).

And these moral rules are relative, as opposed to religions, where clearly there is no problem with "convincing people otherwise."

So, you're saying there are no valid ethical claims unless that ethical claim is already backed by the majority of a large religious group.  I say "large" because there are plenty of Eastern Asian traditions that see body modification at mutilation, as well as Native American cultures.  There are also countries where the practice of non-medical infant circumcision is illegal, but I guess that's "all relative" to you.  Apparently, an a priori claim is only valid if you also claim that God told you so.  If you can't prove that God said so, or a majority of the people of your self-identified sect don't agree, or your sect is considered minor by some guy in Ontario, you can never make an ethical or moral argument?

Meanwhile, I assume any non-divine claims about the ethicalness/morality of individual liberties, or happiness, or autonomy, or anything, are trash to you because they do not invoke God and/or capture the popular spirit of a certain religious group.  Thus, it's all trash to you.  Is that what you're arguing, my Enlightenment-rejecting friend?

Anyway, kudos on inexplicably starting a sentence with "To be fair, I'm not opposed to slavery as a concept."  I'm not exactly sure what you're being fair to with that, but it's good that you're being fair to something.

[titaniumtux]

If it's unnecessary, and it's an irreversible choice, and the resources could be spent better elsewhere, and it's someone else's body, it's wrong.  I never argued for the government forcing the parents to make the ethical choice -- just that the parents should.

Save the faux libertarianism.  I'm arguing that it's an unethical decision.  You're arguing that it's ethical.  We're both evaluating its ethicalness, and issuing an ethical judgment.  Playing the "it's not your business here!" card is a lot more convincing if you don't argue in the next sentence that parents should make the decisions by assuming that their son would want his dick to match his father's preference.  Is that...genetic now?

Ah, you would still leave that "ethical" choice up to parents? Fair enough, as long as parents have the option to circumcise their infant boys if they so choose. If I'm not mistaking, you wouldn't have the law changed on infant circumcision, but you would just advise parents against having their boys circumcised, then I'm surprised we're still arguing about this!

I'd really love to avoid making this topic into middle school locker room stuff, but if you seriously believe that there is no reasonable preference that way, I guess I have to.  I don't mean that it can do something that the other can't, since obviously that's not the only standard for preference, and you've implied as such throughout the topic.  So, do you make that claim, or not?

And, seriously, I would find another place to get Chinese food if I were you.

I would argue that the foreskin does not have functionality of its own, but rather conditions (at most) the functionality of the penis. With or without, the penis can do all of the same things.

And these moral rules are relative, as opposed to religions, where clearly there is no problem with "convincing people otherwise."

So, you're saying there are no valid ethical claims unless that ethical claim is already backed by the majority of a large religious group.  I say "large" because there are plenty of Eastern Asian traditions that see body modification at mutilation, as well as Native American cultures.  There are also countries where the practice of non-medical infant circumcision is illegal, but I guess that's "all relative" to you.  Apparently, an a priori claim is only valid if you also claim that God told you so.  If you can't prove that God said so, or a majority of the people of your self-identified sect don't agree, or your sect is considered minor by some guy in Ontario, you can never make an ethical or moral argument?

Meanwhile, I assume any non-divine claims about the ethicalness/morality of individual liberties, or happiness, or autonomy, or anything, are trash to you because they do not invoke God and/or capture the popular spirit of a certain religious group.  Thus, it's all trash to you.  Is that what you're arguing, my Enlightenment-rejecting friend?

AFAIK, many Native American cultures did modify/mutilate their bodies (tattoos, etc.) as did many Eastern Asians in the same way. Feel free to quote sources that claim otherwise, especially the mention of countries where the practice of infant circumcision is illegal.

I'm not claiming that such claims are only valid if instructed by a god, but seriously though, if not a single government or religious institution agree with your claim of circumcision being unethical, you don't have much credibility (especially considering circumcision being a really old practice...if it were some post-Internet era ethical issue I would allow religious and government institutions to figure it out, but circumcision has been around for so long). BTW, I don't consider Ontarian sects to be sources of any authority.

[Alcon]

Ah, you would still leave that "ethical" choice up to parents? Fair enough, as long as parents have the option to circumcise their infant boys if they so choose. If I'm not mistaking, you wouldn't have the law changed on infant circumcision, but you would just advise parents against having their boys circumcised, then I'm surprised we're still arguing about this!

I've said I'm not advocating illegalization several times already.

We're still arguing because you think it's an ethical decision and I don't.  (Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it were restricted to medical reasons; I just don't see what a reasonable punishment would be for something I find objectively unethical but not malicious.)

I would argue that the foreskin does not have functionality of its own, but rather conditions (at most) the functionality of the penis. With or without, the penis can do all of the same things.

"Conditions" doesn't have any medical meaning that makes sense in that context.  Your definition of "functional benefit" seems to restrict itself only to mutilations, which is ridiculous -- unless you only believe that individual body preferences are reasonable if they involve critical body functions.  Considering you've already said it's wrong to "compromise [a child's] moral compass" with a body modification, you obviously don't believe that.  So, again, what is your standard?

AFAIK, many Native American cultures did modify/mutilate their bodies (tattoos, etc.) as did many Eastern Asians in the same way. Feel free to quote sources that claim otherwise, especially the mention of countries where the practice of infant circumcision is illegal.

I'm not claiming that such claims are only valid if instructed by a god, but seriously though, if not a single government or religious institution agree with your claim of circumcision being unethical, you don't have much credibility (especially considering circumcision being a really old practice...if it were some post-Internet era ethical issue I would allow religious and government institutions to figure it out, but circumcision has been around for so long). BTW, I don't consider Ontarian sects to be sources of any authority.

I don't know where to start.  Maybe by pointing out that grouping Native American spiritual beliefs is like equating early Christianity and Judaism because they shared an ethnic group.

So, basically:  I don't have credibility until a country endorses my opinion legally, even if my opinion isn't exclusively legal.   A country should not endorse my opinion legally until I can prove I have credibility.  Getting initial credibility requires not a good ethical argument, but having my ethical opinion endorsed by the majority of a faith group (of x size?), which inherently indicates that it's probably ethical.

Instead of arguing how completely ridiculous that standard is, and how you've just single-handedly rejected every Enlightenment ethics system as if it were objective truth, I'll just point out that Sikhs prohibit circumcision.   As for more secular credibility:  Royal Australian College of Pediatrics, Australian Medical Association, Australian Pediatric association, Canadian Pediatric Society, College of Physicians and Surgeons of several Canadian provinces, the Finnish children's medical board, the nation of South Africa, and others.

So, now that we've cleared that up, maybe you can reply to the substance of my argument.