Should circumcision be banned?

[Gustaf]

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

[Gustaf]

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

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.

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.)

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.

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?

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

^^^

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.

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

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

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

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.

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)

[Gustaf]

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. 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.

[Gustaf]

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

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.

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.

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)

[Gustaf]

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. 

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

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

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? 

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.

[Gustaf]

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?

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.