Talk Elections

In response to what is currently happening in San Francisco, I am asking this question. I'd say No because it is a legitimate and beneficial medical procedure which helps eliminate penile cancer and reduce the risk of an STD infection. Plus, banning it would be against freedom of religion, and circumcision isn't very harmful to your body.

I don't agree with it, but it shouldn't be banned.

no.

Not for males.

No.  Studies have shown that transmission of HIV was reduced by half among men that were circumcised... and medical officials in Africa are now recommending circumcision as a good way to reduce the spread of HIV, especially in areas where there is pressure not to use condoms.

Though I wouldn't mind making it legal only for those who choose to do it once they are old enough to consent.

Nobody should be allowed to force a painful and irreversible medical procedure on an unconsenting other.

Agreed.  What's the point of being circumcised if you can't remember it?

I'm in this line. I certainly don't regret the loss of that part of me when I was a few days old.

Circumcision of infants is a vile practice that shouldn't be permitted, much like you shouldn't tattoo an infant.  I am daily reminded of this symbol of a covenant of Abraham that I reject and want no part of literally cut out of my flesh.  If circumcision is to be practised, let it be done among understanding adults like Abraham and Ishmael, not infants.

I concur. Female circumcision is mutilation but for males there is nothing wrong with it and I think it is better to have it done as early as possible. It would provably be much too painful to have done at age where one can consent. It is also a matter of religious freedom, since it isn't destructive for a male.

It's also much easier and less painful to cut an infant than an 18 year old.  

Besides, like most religious laws, this wasn't done because God just randomly said so because he's a sick .  In a world of clothing and little exposure to open air, the foreskin is dirty, useless and disease prone.  The leaders of these early Jewish communities (who also wrote the texts) could already see the health benefits of circumcision. It was made the covenant because making it the #1 connection to the Lord was the only way to convince the peasants to go through with it.

A matter of religious freedom, Napoleon?  A matter of freedom that I am forced to carry the mark of a religion that I regard with distaste and resentment?  Circumcision is the ultimate act of religious coercion, not freedom.  An infant is not a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, until mature enough to know what that term means and believe or disbelieve from his/her own intellect.  I'm stuck with a "property of the Abrahamic Covenant" symbol etched into my skin that I regard with something bordering on loathing every time I enter a shower.  If Uncle Sam had prevented this wicked and barbaric superstition, I would have been eternally grateful.

Edit:  sorry for the rant, but you've hit one of my very, very few issues that still provokes an emotional response.

Very understandable. Personally, I am glad that I didn't have to wait to consent for circumcision,  it seems too painful to voluntarily go through later in life. It is a difficult issue, I will give you that. How do you view parents who feed meat to their children at young ages that view meat eating as immoral?

People can stop eating meat, but they can't stop being circumcised.

I honest to God prefer that I not remember circumcision, and it really shouldn't have an affect on your life, except for of course helping you to avoid diseases.

There's increasing evidence that the medical benefits of circumcision are VASTLY overstated. Plus nothing in the developed world that can't be prevented by showering, and the foreskin is most certainly not useless.

Since the majority of us in the forum live with running water, electricity, and pretty much all of the things that led to circumcision being taken on in places like Palestine and Egypt (although virtually non-existent in ancient Norther European and Asian cultures)  and not in place.

Of course I live in a country with a 10% cutting rate, and in my age group it's not "normal" to have been circumcised (depending on where you live - basically the higher the education/income level of your parents, the less likely you were to be cut). 

I personally think it's unnecessary, with limited "benefits" - and it's only out of respect for religious practice that I don't think it should be banned.

That doesn't excuse being force fed meat. We have to accept that parents need to make certain decisions for their children at young ages, particularly decisions that don't have significant negative consequences.

No, I don't lament the loss of my foreskin.

^^^

Even disregarding that, there's no compelling medical reason for it the vast majority of cases. Of course some people may wind up needing it removed or decide to do it for religious reasons later in life but barring that I don't see how you can justify it. We're not talking about childhood vaccination or anything like that here.

I think that's the point - the people who are in favour of it are those who don't remember having one, have been culturally or otherwise conditioned to believe that it's dirty or something embarrassment worthy about it, or have had medical issues which required a circumcision.

It is a cultural thing, I remember I took a theatre class and we saw a University production of Six Degrees of Separation (one of my favourite plays) - now there is a scene with a completely nude man running around the apartment. Now when this scene happened in the University production - I didn't bat an eyelid... naked guy, eh moving on. But one girl in my class was traumatised because the guy was uncircumcised and didn't understand what was wrong with it... since the task of explaining it was given to me, the only non-American in the class - she seemed genuinely distressed. I basically had to say, look it hasn't hurt me... I ended up with a stalker because of it ... but as someone for whom the cut penis looks odd (well the penis will always look odd)... it comes to down to culture and religion.

It's not dirty, it's not "strange" to be uncircumcised - but while I would never circumcise my son, any more than I would remove tonsils or the appendix in advance (even though they are much more likely to be problematic), I think if you're happy the way YOU are that's great. But I don't think it's a decision that SHOULD be made for someone else, but I am respectful of the fact that it's key to a lot of people's religious practices.

No. But it should not be performed on anyone who is not capable of giving consent; no exceptions.

Blame your mom.......in fact Sunday would be a very cool day to discuss it.

I'm against forcing unnecessary medical procedures whose effects can't be reversed on infants that can't consent.


Most of those decisions are not irreversible. Also, unless you're literally shoving the food down the child's throat I don't know if it can be considered force feeding. (not to mention that it's highly unlikely a very young child would be a vegetarian unless their parents are also vegetarians)

That's the correct answer, afleitch.

I suppose those of us who are circumsized will never know what it could have been like to have been left normal, but I suspect that its a pretty big negative in terms of sensitivity. 

Anyone with five minutes, an Internet connection and an Excel spreadsheet can figure out why this it's stupid as a health policy.

I'm ambivalent about actually illegalizing it -- I don't like the idea of prosecuting benevolent people for bad decisions -- but it's an unjustified preemption of consent and should go away.

No, there is no evident research saying it is bad to get rid of it. I get the whole consent opinion. However, I do not think it affects the child in such a dramtic way that it even matters.

After hearing about how my grandfather had to have it done when he was about 40 because of an infection and was bedridden in pain for about a week afterwards, I'm not too bothered by it or having had it done.

Female circumsion, yes. Male circumision, no.

I should note that I find the religious reasons for it to be nonsense and am not sympathetic to them in the slightest. I'm just not bothered by the fact that it was done on me when I can't remember it.

If most people decided that surgically removing portions of your nipples was good for 'hygiene' or because of some 2,000 year old book they happened to believe in would that be okay? What about some other body part? See how ridiculous this is? And it's not even like circumcision is the norm anymore for babies since in 2009 only 32.5% of parents actually got their kids 'cut.' Unless something radically changes in 20 years people are going to wonder what's wrong with all these white people with weird looking genitals, not the other way around.

So...everyone who thinks circumcision is the only "non-reversible" parental decision concerning a child, please raise a hand.

I see it as much like someone getting their kid's appendix or tonsils removed before any infection or issue to prevent that from being necessary later. Not something I'd do but I'm not too bothered by it. Nor would I be bothered if it was done to me (I still have appendix and tonsils, but don't care.)

I always find it slightly irritating when someone attacks the worst argument in a thread, especially when it's actually the worst argument they presume was made in the thread.

I checked:  The closest anyone's come to "non-reversible is inherently bad" is "unnecessary, non-reversible is bad."  Considering that no one has bothered to ask what these posters meant by "necessary" (probably not just "required to avoid instant death"), it's hard to take this as anything but a strawman or shadowboxing.


We don't routinely remove the appendix or tonsils prophylactically, even though they serve no real functional purpose; that's because prophylactic removal doesn't make any sense as health policy.  I think you can see how little sense it makes to practice routine circumcision to prevent health problems that will eventually require circumcision:  You take your affected population, who are subjected to surgical risk, from 1-2% (liberally) to 100%.  Does that make any sense?  The fact that a policy may turn out well for some people does not make it rational, if it increases risk to many more people.

Besides their stupidity as health policy, the ideas of routine appendectomy and tonsillectomy are probably non-trivial to much fewer people than circumcision is.  I'm not saying it should be non-trivial to you; I'm glad it's trivial to you.  But I generally err against telling people that my opinion of their body takes precedence over theirs.  Because that's batsh**t.

but you see the nipple would be bad seeing as it is to breast feed. However a little excess skin does not change if they can produce semen or not.

For future reference, males do not breast feed and circumcision does not affect the production of semen. Semen also isn't produced via the nipple, at least.. directly..

yes, i know. But apparently you assume that if all the sudden cutting part of the nipple off was hygentic that it would just be for men. I was including women in that. See how breast feeding got in there? And i was merely taking about how it did not affect the semen production. but my typo changed the whole thing. :P

In regards to the original question: no.
If somebody wants to get a circumcision FOR THEMSELVES then it should entirely be their prerogative to get one.  That is the key point of the whole circumcision debate: choice.  While it is argued (and will be argued by me later in this post) that an eight day old boy can not willingly agree to having their "head helmet" cut off, it is entirely rational to expect a 20 year old male to consent to such a procedure.

In regards to whether parents should willy nilly circumcise their boys after birth?  No, that shouldn't be allowed.  I mean yeah sure I don't miss my foreskin that much, but that doesn't mean that I don't see the ethical conflict that arises when someone makes such an important decision without the consent of the person it affects.  When a boy is 8 days old or whatever they can't really audibly say "yes" or "no" to such an idea.  Yeah yeah, it is less painful when you were 8 days old and you don't remember it blah blah blah blah it's still something you never had a say in.

The real problem becomes when are boys mature enough to make a decision like that?

The real question shouldn't be whether or not circumcision should be banned, but rather should guardian enforced circumcision (ie your parent doing it for you, your grandparent, your uncle, whoever has legal custody over you) be banned.

Of course it shouldn't be banned. But to everyone that believes circumcision is the best option... it's not very hard to teach a child how to wash himself down there, and to pull the skin back while peeing. In a first world country during the twenty-first century, if someone has a medical problem with their foreskin, you can't say that circumcision would've been the best way to avoid it. The person was just irresponsible in regards to hygiene.

The whole circumcised vs. uncircumcised debate is a pretty pointless one though, imo. Circumcised people just don't really know how it feels to be uncut, and the perks that come with it. If I were cut as a baby, I would probably advocate for circumcision too, so it's hard to have an objective debate.

Here's one thing I know for sure: If I wasn't already cut but had to be now for medical reasons, I'd only allow a female doctor to do it.

I actually thought that was the best argument. What argument do you think is better?

I mean, we allow parents to do all sorts of stuff to their kids. Why not this?

Alcon, I don't get your argument.

Below is a compilation of every post I could find where someone speaks in favour of banning it. They all say that it should be ok for adults but that the problem is infants can't consent.

The only argument given (by three people, not one - Dibble, Mikado and Wormguy) for why the consent is an issue is that the decision is irreversible. I mean, infants can't consent to anything and we typically don't ban everything that one can could do to an infant.

So, while perhaps not the best argument it's the only one given.

Gustaf, you just quoted a bunch of posts that were arguing that irreversibility is a bad thing -- not that it was necessarily the lone criteria involved here. :P Only Wormguy's earlier post pushes that line (the "painful" one.)  There is the difference between a problem and the problem.  Indeed, the lack of consent may be what triggers it to be a problem, but that does not mean that a lack of consent is intrinsically bad.

I assume, since Dibble, Mikado, Andrew, et al., are not idiots, that they weren't saying that irreversible+unconsenting makes it intrinsically wrong to do something to a child; but rather that, if you're going to make an irreversible change to someone's body by preempting their consent, there is a moral responsibility for it to be justified/"necessary."  (People haven't really gotten into detail on what justification is yet, because the thread hasn't been that detailed.)

I think it's bizarre that you extended that argument so reflexively, when it seems so inconsistent with the intellects of the people posting here; but yet you're not even touching the "I don't care so it's fine" argument, which doesn't require any extension to be insanely problematic.

I usually don't take issue with dumb arguments from people who never bring anything else to the table (i.e. BRTD). I left that to you.

I also tend to leave it to people to flesh out their thoughts themselves and avoid assuming things about their position. If someone says "circumcision should be banned, I mean, it's irreversible for crying out loud" I'm not going to assume anything about what they mean. I'll ask whether they think circumcision is the only irreversible thing done to kids.

I'll admit that I could have been more polite in asking - I might have been coloured by thinking mostly about Wormguy in that response who isn't particularly deserving of politeness.

Besides, philosophically, people might think irreversible things shouldn't be allowed.

Anyway, my contention is basically that in order to ban something I think you have the burden of evidence. Most things done to kids are in some sense irreversible (which was the point I was making, which I suspect you didn't fully appreciate) and may have negative consequences. Yet we hardly ban anything concerning children (in fact we typically allow things to be done to children that we wouldn't allow for unconsenting adults - mandatory school, grounding, (in some countries) spanking and so on.

There are dichotomy choices that happen whenever you're interacting with people.  I'm going to assume, again, that no one you quoted believes that.  You could probably have asked any one of them to explicate.

I also think there were certainly other posts early on (including mine) that presented more of an argument than the one you're claiming was the only one presented; mine at least included enough caveats so that it couldn't be extrapolated to what you're claiming has been the only argument presented.


Yes, which I think is why most of the people posting earlier were making moral appeals more than legal appeals.  It's a tough and nuanced thing to get the government involved in.  But what exactly is "the burden of evidence" -- is doing something that is, in aggregate, harmful, that's fine, until it is severely harmful?  I'm not sure we've ever nailed this down in U.S. law.  Other countries draw this hazy line elsewhere (apparently circumcision is illegal before 16 in South Africa -- who knew.)

Honestly, I think that debate has more to do with philosophy of our laws than the morality of circumcision, and I assume people aren't going into great detail over that because it would make the topic a lot broader than the original material.

It seems like you don't want to discuss this. :(

Part of the debate in this thread was about whether circumcision was good or not, but the title is "Should circumcision be banned". No one has said it should be banned for consenting adults so it seems to come down to what one views as prerequisites for banning things for non-consenting children (or children who cannot give consent).

Several people seem to think irreversibility was an important aspect in that discussion. I was arguing that this was exaggerated. I'd be interested in hearing the counterpoint there, since you seem to have one.

(and I don't have much of a horse in this topic - I'm not circumcised myself and I don't care that much one way or another)

I'm sorry.  It's not that I don't want to present my whole argument, it's that it's 4:30 AM here and I've had six hours of sleep in the last three days.  Insomnia is kind of ruining my life.  :P  The fact that I can string together sentences at this point surprises me.

I'll get there (same with the Religion Discussions topic.)

So let's compare circumcision to other permanent irreversible things.  Vaccination not only has the health benefits circumcision wishes it did, but (modern vaccination) leaves no permanent disfiguring mark.  Unless you're one of the whackjobs that thinks vaccination causes autism, then it has a very limited downside (some people get sick from vaccines, but it's a tiny number).

I think circumcision is less like vaccination and more like tattooing.  Should it be legal?  For adults, of course.  Should you do it to 6 day olds?  Probably not. 

See the thing is, I did have it done when I was 6 days old, and I simply can't muster being bothered or caring at all about it.

I appreciate that. What I'm saying is rather that everything that happens to you is in some sense irreversible. Most kids are ed up by their parents, one way or another, and I'm not convinced this is that much worse.

I think it should be done on adults and not babies. 
I think it can also reduce promiscuity because your unit is physically damaged and not as effective.

Whataya mean, not effective? >:(

I don't think it's possible to have sex for a while (months?) after being circumcised. Or rather, it's difficult. But it's still "effective" after healing, even though the sensation is different and less pleasurable.

Well, as a gay man, I don't think it should be banned because I'm just shallow and prefer my guys to be cut. They look nicer and all the uncut guys who I've been with have stunk down there. Personally, it's just a turnoff when I see or know a guy is uncut, but I'm glad my mother chose to have me circumcised to where I wouldn't have to go through it at an older age.

You just hook up with guys who don't wash themselves...

Yes, it should be banned. It is cruel to treat a newborn this way. If someone wants to do it anyway, let them take their baby to another country. It does not violate a person's religious belief as long as they can take their baby somewhere else.

Please don't agree with me.

I think that was the oddest post so far. Moral outsourcing is a very strange concept.

Circumcision is a barbaric backwards superstitious ritual.  I don't understand the American obsession with that practice.  Other modern civilized democracies to not practice this ritual and they have lower rates of STDs then we do (This is a FACT).

Who gets penile cancer anyway?  Does anyone actually know anyone that has gotten penile cancer?  Do you have any idea how much it costs to do a circumcision the right way with anesthesia?  Thousands of dollars.  It has been estimated that penile cancer occurs at a rate of 800 new cases a year in the United States.  It has also been estimated that 40% of these cases can be attributed to HPV infection.  There is a safe and effective HPV vaccine available.  The HPV vaccine also prevents genital warts and is effective at reducing the rate of vaginal and cervical cancer.

So we have a safe effective NONINVASIVE means of reducing penile cancer, vaginal cancer, cervical cancer, and HPV infections.  Yet people still insist on exposing their babies' developing brains to general anesthesia and mutilating their genitals.  All to prevent what 800 cases a year of penile cancer?  320 of which can be prevented with a vaccine.  Anyone that thinks this whole circumcision thing is not just a primitive throwback ritual is really kidding themselves.

Here in Texas Governer Rick Perry signed an executive order making vaccinating all young lady's with the HPV vaccine mandatory.  Of course the Republican religious zealots blocked the measure because "It would encourage young girls to have sex."  Of course chopping off little boys' penises is ok.  Welcome to the USA.

Anyway when you're considering cutting Medicare benefits for seniors on a fixed income should you really be spending thousands of dollars a pop penis sculpting 150 million people?  Think about it.

Tell that to the Jews. And Muslims I believe.

I support Circumcision. Religion is protected by the Constitution. This is a religious practice.

San Francisco has proven again why it's a liberal sh**thole!

SanFran has a comic called Foreskin man. Disgusting as hell.

"Evil rabbi gonna kill ur son's dick!!!!!111"

This is a violation against my religious rights. If SF bans Circumcision, than imo our Consitution becomes null.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/

Thats the link to the comic. Disgusting....

Um, there's plenty of people in the thread against both practices.

That's actually extremely funny.

That said, circumcision shouldn't be banned. I still find it grotesque and abusive, however.

I don't feel abused :P

I do. If I had been sensate while an infant, I would have demanded the nurse drop the cheese grater and let me remain a whole man.

This thread largely consists of penis envy.
Also, to invoke Godwin's Law, NAZIS BANNED CIRCUMCISION, etc., etc.

Well, it is a little hard on the (what's the name of your guy who cuts off the parts of the penis?).. but that doesn't help us decide whether this practice is child abuse.

No.

I don't care if your religion is Judaism, Islam, or Voodoo.  The Constitution does not protect EVERY religious act.

So you're a big supporter of female circumcision?

Anyway despite my tone I respect you.  I can discuss making allowances for Jews or Muslims.  I'm glad you told me it was a religious belief instead of insulting my intelligence with psuedo science.  That I can respect.

First Amendment does not allow every religious act.  I can't commit a ritualistic bull sacrifice in my hypothetical back yard.

No (normal).

You can, however, commit ritualistic bull sacrifice elsewhere.

You can't commit ritualistic bull sacrifice if it violates animal abuse laws, so...doesn't that kind of defeat your point?  Assuming you had one?  :P

Gustaf: I still owe you a reply here, which I'll get to once I figure out how to print things on stickers.  So, probably like a week.

Ok, but just so you know, a regular post here in the thread is fine by me.

Its a local level issue, but I personally think it shouldnt, though I dont get the Jewish ritual of doing a few days after birth.

Unsure, though I disagree with the procedure.

I didn't, so it doesn't.

No one would ever consent to doing it once they're old enough to feel and remembering, no matter how beneficial.  Thus, pre-memory is the only time it can really be done.

Doesn't that imply that it's not something that should be done?  I mean, if no one (and that's a bit of an exaggeration: adult circumcision has existed in several places) would be willing to do it if consent is an issue, doesn't that imply that they find having their genitals mutilated an inherently problematic practice?

Well, if this were a new procedure, I'd agree with you, but it has been a well-established procedure for literally thousands of years and has been shown (arguably, I know) to have benefits.  Also, I never see men who were circumsized as infants complaining about it as adults.  It's just a no-big-deal kind of issue.

Also, calling infant male circumcision "mutilation" seems to make light of the real horrors of female genital mutilation in other countries.  Not even close to comparable there.

As someone with a penis I can and do compare the two.

And yes there are most certainly men who were circumcised against their will as children who complain about it.  You just choose not to listen.  Ever heard of a guy call Howard Stern?

And yes, once again there are alternatives such as vaccines which are far cheaper for our already bankrupt health system.  Vaccines are economical, have fewer side effects, and are infinitely more human and civilized.

Vaccines were never intended as a replacement or "alternative" to circumcision.

Yes but they ARE a safe, cost effective, humane way to avoid genital mutilation... for the few deluded people that hang their hat on the dreaded penile cancer argument.

This is demonstrably false considering it actually happens.

Of course, it can have some undesired side-effects, just ask Shechem if you don't believe me.

I'd disagree with that. There are a lot of things that people wouldn't agree to in the moment that they might still consider good in the long term. Time inconsistency makes liberalism a sad panda bear.

I would be perfectly fine with circumcision being banned for infants. It's a ridiculous procedure.

Citizen X is the voice of reason on this thread. Think about that for a moment.

Lately I've been going through the Bible and jotting down my thoughts on various passages for my own reflection, and I got to the story of Tsiporah at the inn. (Exodus 4:24-26)  That caused me to think of a question I hadn't before, and which a quick search was unable to answer. What is done with what is removed?  I doubt the example of Tsiporah is followed, at least I hope not.

You mean throwing the foreskin at her husband and calling him a "bloody husband?"  No, that's not a part of the traditional practice.

Also, what translation calls Zipporah "Tsiporah?"

I didn't think so, but that what isn't done doesn't tell me what is done.


Mine. ;) More seriously, since I consult more than one translation while doing this, rather than follow any single translation's decision on how to Romanize the Hebrew, I follow my own, and I chose to Romanize the tsade "צ" consistently as "ts".  It's not the most common choice of how to Romanize the name.  In my notes, "z" always represents a zayin "ז"