Infant Circumcision

[Izawwlgood]

DSenette: You are suggesting that a 'not insignificant portion' of people experience regret over being circumcised. Citation Needed. We have pointed out to you that the number of people experiencing regret over being circumcised is in fact quite insignificant. You keep shifting the goal posts then to include 'well how can circumcised people know what they are missing'.

So, again, how many people do you propose regret being circumcised, or, more to the point, again, how low does the %'age have to be before you are willing to accept that the figure is insignificant?

Re: Cleft Palates; you should read up on it a bit more carefully; there are absolutely gradations, and it appears that all but the most severe form is quite survivable with minor to insignificant detriment to life quality. One such issue is an increased rate of ear infections; given people's point that circumcision keeping a dick cleaner is a stupid argument, so too I suggest is an increased rate of ear infections in people with cleft palates. Again, the biggest issue is the social detriment. Thankfully, we don't wait for a child's consent in having surgery to restore a cleft palate.

[DSenette]

right, and in states where someone is incapable of giving consent to anything, and will not reasonably be able to do so for the extended future, one should err on the side of preserving their right to give or retract consent

I thought most states err on the side of letting your next-of-kin give consent, since we assume (particularly in the case of marriage!) that they'll know what you'd have wanted. I think that's a reasonable position? Isn't that relationship also extendable between parents and children?

yes, a rare condition where your biology is not in line with what is accepted as generally normal (hence the use of the word, rare, or defect, or condition) is totally not the default state for human anatomy.

humans, by default have certain parts, they don't all look the same, they don't have to all look the same, but as a general rule there is a default part list and a generalized default or expected state for all of them. if there wasn't, then there would be no such thing as an anatomical defect. i have no idea why that's such a contentious statement or position.

the vast majority of people born with penises are born with foreskins on those penises, that constitutes a default, or expected state.

The vast majority of people are born with umbilical cords attached. That constitutes a default, or expected state. Down with doctors crudely cutting our umbilical cords?

technically cutting the umbilical cord is a matter of housekeeping. you could very easily just bundle up the placenta and umbilical cord with the baby and let it remove itself when it's utility has gone away. instead of doing that, we speed the process along, the umbilical cord would eventually separate itself on its own. a foreskin doesn't simply fall off later in life. it's not a modification of something that if left untended would continue as-is to maturity.

The definition of 'defect' is born out of utility, not of reality. Again, homosexality has been described as a defect. It fits the criteria you're using (how many people are born homosexual versus heterosexual? Couldn't we describe 'heterosexual' as the default?), but its utility has evaporated (we [hopefully!] no longer consider homosexuality to be something we need to correct--so we no longer consider it to be a defect). This is what I mean when I say this is a 'word-game'; circumcision is different from changing webbed feet because webbed feet isn't the 'default'?--No, the only real difference is that no one complains about correcting webbed feet.

homosexuality being considered a defect had nothing to do with the frequency of it's occurance. it wasn't listed as a defect because it wasn't the expected default state. it was because of a book that said being homosexual was bad. it's a completely different concept than anatomical normality. sexuality/sexual preference as a whole is considered a default state/trait associated with humans in that the vast majority of humans ever in existence exhibit the characteristics of having a sexuality/sexual preference (even if that preference is null), the actual preference involved is not something that can be assigned a default state.

for anatomical normality, you don't question how many people are born each year with 10 toes and 10 fingers, you question how many human beings through out the entire existence of humanity were ever born with 10 toes and 10 fingers. the overwhelming majority that results from that question means that 10 fingers and 10 toes is an expected default trait of the anatomy of a human being, anything outside of that is an anomaly.

Similarly, not correcting a cleft palate--or even a cleft lip!--when the resources to do so are readily available?--I'm comfortable describing that as child abuse. Nevermind that it's a 'defect'; just the sheer social stigma is enough reason. Parents have every reason to believe that a child with this condition will have their quality of life negatively impacted by it. People who would interfere with this for the sake of preserving the child's 'physical autonomy' are, from my perspective, engaged in abusive behavior.

not fixing a cleft palate or cleft lip that is actually posing a medical issue, such as a speech impediment or swallowing issues or whatever, when you have the ability to fix it is totally child abuse.

not fixing a cleft lip/palate that isn't posing such medical harm, and is PURELY a cosmetic issue isn't. the same for birthmark removal or mole removal or whatever other purely cosmetic procedure you want to list.

the social stigma is what should be targeted

because your suggested metric is how many people are experiencing or at least voicing regret for something. when you're using a base group that can't really adequately express regret instead of a group that can then the metric seems a bit wonky.

What is the end goal of your metric? Is it how positively people feel about themselves and their bodies? If that's the end goal of your metric, the only thing that matters is how people actually feel about themselves and their bodies. If that isn't the end goal of your metric, then I think we're coming from two very different places.

the end goal of my metric is for everyone to be able to feel just as positively about themselves and their bodies as anyone else. and to have their own say in how they get to that point. the end goal is to preserve bodily autonomy as much as possible by not allowing other people to force unnecessary decisions on them

DSenette: You are suggesting that a 'not insignificant portion' of people experience regret over being circumcised. Citation Needed. We have pointed out to you that the number of people experiencing regret over being circumcised is in fact quite insignificant. You keep shifting the goal posts then to include 'well how can circumcised people know what they are missing'.

So, again, how many people do you propose regret being circumcised, or, more to the point, again, how low does the %'age have to be before you are willing to accept that the figure is insignificant?

Re: Cleft Palates; you should read up on it a bit more carefully; there are absolutely gradations, and it appears that all but the most severe form is quite survivable with minor to insignificant detriment to life quality. One such issue is an increased rate of ear infections; given people's point that circumcision keeping a dick cleaner is a stupid argument, so too I suggest is an increased rate of ear infections in people with cleft palates. Again, the biggest issue is the social detriment. Thankfully, we don't wait for a child's consent in having surgery to restore a cleft palate.

quite survivable and purely cosmetic aren't even in the same room


"keeping a dick cleaner" and an increase in ear infections is wholly different. one is a matter of teaching proper hygene, the other is a matter of malformed anatomy causing a condition in which an infection is inherently more likely without actually giving the sufferer a method of preventing the side effect. if you're uncircumcised and you're having issues with a dirty dick, then you can learn to clean your dick better. if you've got a cleft palate and it makes your ears more likely to be infected than anyone else, then you don't really have a way of preventing that state.

the non insignificant portion of people i'm talking about are those who were circumcised later in adult hood...the other topic had the links to the studies. as far as i remember it was above 5% probably much more above, but i don't have the time to look for the link right this second.

[Izawwlgood]

if you've got a cleft palate and it makes your ears more likely to be infected than anyone else, then you don't really have a way of preventing that state.

Sure you do; just keep your ears cleaner.

the non insignificant portion of people i'm talking about are those who were circumcised later in adult hood...the other topic had the links to the studies. as far as i remember it was above 5% probably much more above, but i don't have the time to look for the link right this second.

Again, pointing to satisfaction with a penis after adult circumcision is not the same as satisfaction with a penis in men who were circumcised at birth. You've already preselected your population to be 'men who are dissatisfied with their penis'.

[lucrezaborgia]

DSenette, correct me if I'm wrong...but you seem to want an absolute answer as to whether or not children have the right to bodily integrity. Is it even possible for there to be an absolute answer here in the real world?

It's one thing to strive for acceptance for intact penises (which is actually becoming a moot point in the US since rates have been declining for years) but I'm not so sure you can put circumcision on the same level as correcting serious deformities.

[DSenette]

if you've got a cleft palate and it makes your ears more likely to be infected than anyone else, then you don't really have a way of preventing that state.

Sure you do; just keep your ears cleaner.

which is totally not how ear infections work, nor is it how a cleft palate can increase your propensity to get ear infections.

preventing a crusty wang is basic hygene. the same hygene that circumcised males need to follow, wash your penis when you wash yourself.

preventing chronic ear infections that are caused by malformed sinus cavities due to a malformed palate is not as simple as using two q-tips instead of one.

so again, "a cleaner penis" isn't actually a medically justified reason to have a circumcision

the non insignificant portion of people i'm talking about are those who were circumcised later in adult hood...the other topic had the links to the studies. as far as i remember it was above 5% probably much more above, but i don't have the time to look for the link right this second.

Again, pointing to satisfaction with a penis after adult circumcision is not the same as satisfaction with a penis in men who were circumcised at birth. You've already preselected your population to be 'men who are dissatisfied with their penis'.

buh? you're preselecting the population for being able to actually judge both states. one doesn't specifically need to be "dissatisfied" with one's penis to have a circumcision done. BESIDES that, the dissatisfaction that these people are expressing isn't with their penis, it's with the procedure of circumcision. it has nothing to do with thinking they don't like they're penis now as an organ. even someone who regrets having a circumcision can then be perfectly fine with their penis, they just would have preferred it the other way

[Izawwlgood]

buh? you're preselecting the population for being able to actually judge both states. one doesn't specifically need to be "dissatisfied" with one's penis to have a circumcision done. BESIDES that, the dissatisfaction that these people are expressing isn't with their penis, it's with the procedure of circumcision. it has nothing to do with thinking they don't like they're penis now as an organ. even someone who regrets having a circumcision can then be perfectly fine with their penis, they just would have preferred it the other way

The Korean study you might be thinking of specifically was looking at men who were seeking circumcision for cosmetic purposes. The majority (I think 70-80% of them?) were satisfied with the surgery. Some portion found an increase in sensitivity, some portion found a decrease in sensitivity. This is a poor way to assess penile sensitivity post circumcision, because you're looking at adults who have had a surgery performed on them as adults, not adults who developed (through adolescence, puberty, and everything) with a circumcised penis.
But wait, now you're claiming it's a the PROCEDURE they/you object to? You'll have to clarify; how exactly does one seek foreskin removal via non-circumcision methods?

[DSenette]

buh? you're preselecting the population for being able to actually judge both states. one doesn't specifically need to be "dissatisfied" with one's penis to have a circumcision done. BESIDES that, the dissatisfaction that these people are expressing isn't with their penis, it's with the procedure of circumcision. it has nothing to do with thinking they don't like they're penis now as an organ. even someone who regrets having a circumcision can then be perfectly fine with their penis, they just would have preferred it the other way

The Korean study you might be thinking of specifically was looking at men who were seeking circumcision for cosmetic purposes. The majority (I think 70-80% of them?) were satisfied with the surgery. Some portion found an increase in sensitivity, some portion found a decrease in sensitivity. This is a poor way to assess penile sensitivity post circumcision, because you're looking at adults who have had a surgery performed on them as adults, not adults who developed (through adolescence, puberty, and everything) with a circumcised penis.
But wait, now you're claiming it's a the PROCEDURE they/you object to? You'll have to clarify; how exactly does one seek foreskin removal via non-circumcision methods?

no, it's the procedure that they express dissatisfaction with. not an objection

a person can have a procedure done, and wish they hadn't had that procedure done while still living well with the results of the procedure. I.E. someone can have a circumcision, and be accepting of the function and appearance of their penis while still regretting the procedure.

[Izawwlgood]

I have no idea what you're getting at; between 70 and 80 percent of adults to seek circumcisions for cosmetic reasons are happy with the result. That to me suggests that the majority (the large majority!) of adults who seek circumcisions are happy with their decision. This doesn't really say anything; they were seeking the circumcision in the first place.
Can you explain what you are trying to say about 'being dissatisfied with the procedure', because I don't understand what you're getting at.

[DSenette]

I have no idea what you're getting at; between 70 and 80 percent of adults to seek circumcisions for cosmetic reasons are happy with the result. That to me suggests that the majority (the large majority!) of adults who seek circumcisions are happy with their decision. This doesn't really say anything; they were seeking the circumcision in the first place.
Can you explain what you are trying to say about 'being dissatisfied with the procedure', because I don't understand what you're getting at.

so 30 to 20 percent aren't happy with the results, that's not an insignificant percentage. which is the only point of bringing up any of this evidence, is that the amount of dissatisfied customers is not a trivial number.

the point about being dissatisfied with the procedure is to illustrate that one can regret having something done, while still being able to live with and accept the results of that something that was done.

[Izawwlgood]

which is the only point of bringing up any of this evidence, is that the amount of dissatisfied customers is not a trivial number.

But the point is, again, that these are men who are ALREADY dissatisfied with their penis. That a surgery didn't fix SOME of adults dissatisfaction isn't proof that the surgery is a Bad Thing, insofar as a 'non-trivial amount of people being unhappy with it'. You would, as I have pointed out already, have to compare circumcised at birth mens satisfaction with their penis to uncircumcised mens satisfaction with their penis. You are already biasing your pool, because these men sought surgery to improve their or their partners perspective of their penis.

Out of curiosity, how high do you think the satisfaction rate is for women who have received breast implants? Spoiler alert! It's not too far from the circumcision results. While I understand 'increase in libido' isn't exactly 'satisfaction with surgery', I would call the metric to be a reasonably close assessment. Also, that link is NSFW, as it contains images of breasts.

[BattleMoose]

Do you suggest asking them? Considering that penalties for foot binding were implemented in 1912 and was apparently able to strictly enforce outlawing the practice, you will struggle to find many people who have gone through the process. And those that you do find did so while it was illegal and must have really wanted to do it and that would be a sample group with a very strong bias.

I'm confused; are we talking about the people who performed foot-binding, or the people who received foot-binding? I realize that in circumstances like these, you often have overlap between the two groups; was that the case here?

We are talking about the dead people who are dead and cannot answer for themselves, seeing as its a procedure that started in about 1000ad by far the majority of people who performed and were performing the procedure are dead, very very very dead.

And let me be clear, I don't care how you feel about your body. And if everyone did feel the way about circumcision as you do, it would hardly be a problem. So this isn't about you personally or about the group of people who are content about being circumcised.

Then why do you keep bringing us into the discussion? Threatening to post a video that demonstrates the benefits of masturbation between circumcised and uncircumcised penises--who is that aimed at besides circumcised people who are happy with their circumcision? What is that besides an attempt to convince me that there's something 'wrong' with my body, even when I clearly feel otherwise?

I was addressing the argument that the procedure does harm, that it interferes with the way the penis functions. Which has been a consistent argument throughout this thread and one which I should be able to address. I can address that argument and still not care how you feel about your body.

f someone tells me that they're not happy with their circumcision, that's all the information I need. You don't need to explain how, or why, or give me the details--the fact that they have a problem with their circumcision is all the rationale they need. "My circumcision has reduced my quality of life"--that's the only thing they need to say.

Its about the group that do feel mutilated by circumcision and those feelings are real and aren't even being acknowledge by the pro circumcision camp in this thread.

'Pro-circumcision'? Is that fair? Do you think there's a group in this thread who wants everyone to be circumcised regardless of anything?

All the information you need to do what exactly? Because even a mild search on google will yield results, like this one! http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_unhappy.html

Its really not hard to find that there are people who are angry about being circumcised. Now again, that was all the information you would need for what exactly?

More to the point, though: I have acknowledged, time and time again, that those who feel violated by their circumcision have legitimate concerns. Their sense of violation is wholly valid. My sense of non-violation is also wholly valid. Two people can walk away from the same experience with entirely different results. At least one, possibly two, posters here have told me the opposite--that I should feel violated, that my sense of contentment is a delusion, that my experience in this regard is invalid. I find that frustratingly stupid of them, and I wish the dialogue would get dialed back a notch.

So if you can recognize that people can feel violated by circumcision, why would you potentially want to inflict that upon your son?

Its about the group that do feel mutilated by circumcision and those feelings are real and aren't even being acknowledge by the pro circumcision camp in this thread.

'Pro-circumcision'? Is that fair? Do you think there's a group in this thread who wants everyone to be circumcised regardless of anything?

Pro-cirumcision? I use the term to describe the group of people here who support circumcision and not that its a group of people who think all should be circumcised. You know, like the pro-choice group, that supports the idea of abortion but certainly doesn't think that all pregnancies should be aborted. How exactly did you misinterpret that?

And let me be clear, I don't care how you feel about your body. And if everyone did feel the way about circumcision as you do, it would hardly be a problem. So this isn't about you personally or about the group of people who are content about being circumcised.

The pertinent point is that MOST people feel exactly like he, and I, do. That is, we are perfectly happy with our circumcised penises. So, because this isn't about what MOST people think, but rather, what the incredibly small minority of people think, tell me, how low would the %'age have to be before you were willing to ignore it?

No its not, its not a majority issue! You cannot go around willy nilly violating peoples rights and their bodies and then argue that most people are okay with it? Rights don't work like that. If anyone has an issue with being violated its an issue and a violation occurred. And there would have to be less than one person upset about it before I would be willing to ignore it!

[Izawwlgood]

No its not, its not a majority issue! You cannot go around willy nilly violating peoples rights and their bodies and then argue that most people are okay with it? Rights don't work like that. If anyone has an issue with being violated its an issue and a violation occurred. And the percentage would have to be smaller than 1 before I would be willing to ignore it!

The thing is, if you ban circumcision, you have immediately pissed off more people than are dissatisfied with it. So, tell me, what is the solution? To ban a procedure that results in a very small number of dissatisfied people, to render a rather large number of people dissatisfied, or, as I've been saying this whole time, leave it to the parents and do what you can to make the procedure even safer and more painless than it already is to further reduce the infinitesimally small risk to baby boys?
FYI, I believe the %'age is significantly lower than 1. Like, to the tune of 'only .001% of circumcised men will seek foreskin restoration'. But by all means, find data to dispute this. FYI! Linking chat boards from 'Menwhohatebeingcut.com' isn't data!

EDIT: But, again, I recognize that 'status quo' isn't a good enough reason to continue a procedure. So, because the risk of a son being dissatisfied with their penis is incredibly low, I still maintain that a parent deciding on circumcision is making a reasonable decision.

Also, you have mixed terms: 'pro-life' means people who abhor abortions. 'Pro-choice' means you are okay with a woman seeking an abortion. See the difference?

[BattleMoose]

No its not, its not a majority issue! You cannot go around willy nilly violating peoples rights and their bodies and then argue that most people are okay with it? Rights don't work like that. If anyone has an issue with being violated its an issue and a violation occurred. And the percentage would have to be smaller than 1 before I would be willing to ignore it!

The thing is, if you ban circumcision, you have immediately pissed off more people than are dissatisfied with it. So, tell me, what is the solution? To ban a procedure that results in a very small number of dissatisfied people, to render a rather large number of people dissatisfied, or, as I've been saying this whole time, leave it to the parents and do what you can to make the procedure even safer and more painless than it already is to further reduce the infinitesimally small risk to baby boys?
FYI, I believe the %'age is significantly lower than 1. Like, to the tune of 'only .001% of circumcised men will seek foreskin restoration'. But by all means, find data to dispute this.

The exact same argument could be made against the legalization of gay marriage, pisses off a lot of people and the group that would it would serve is relatively small. Its an invalid argument.

And I meant less than 1 person and not actual percentage point, my bad.

Also, you have mixed terms: 'pro-life' means people who abhor abortions. 'Pro-choice' means you are okay with a woman seeking an abortion. See the difference?

So I did, fixed.

[sourmìlk]

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

What is wong is your idea that the child has no rights to violate. The parents are the ones who choose how to exercise the child's right to bodily autonomy, but it remains the child's right. Someone made a comparison with a trust a few pages ago, which I think was apt. As trustee of the child's rights, the parent can exercise those rights only in the interests of the beneficiary (the child), and not for their own purposes. Just as it is theft if a trustee disposes of trust property for their own benefit, so it is a violation of the child's rights if his parent waives his rights purely because they 'felt like it'.

It's only a semantic difference to say that the parents are the trustees of the child's rights, rather than that the child has no rights when it comes to the parents. So, let's say the parents are trustees. Why does this mean that they cannot exercise those rights in any way that doesn't harm the child? What good could that restriction possibly create?

Battlemoose: your long response didn't contradict anything I said.

[Izawwlgood]

The exact same argument could be made against the legalization of gay marriage, pisses off a lot of people and the group that would it would serve is relatively small. Its an invalid argument.

And I meant less than 1 person and not actual percentage point, my bad.

Yes, and in both cases, the argument (to ban) hinges upon the ludicrous notion that circumcision or gay marriage somehow affects anyone aside from those who are being circumcised or married. Since neither seems to cause any significant harm to any one, at all, the argument doesn't work. Basically, flipping the argument on you works just as well; circumcision isn't harming anyone, so, why ban it?

Less than 1 person? That's never going to happen. People are dissatisfied with their bodies when they are untouched; ergo, procreation should be banned because your child may be dissatisfied with having only two arms. Again, (and again and again!) parenting is about making the best decisions you can to improve your childs life to the best of your ability. Since circumcising obviously has some value to some people somewhere, and is only 'hurting' an incredibly tiny number of people, I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to do. If it turned out that, say, the percentage of circumcised men who were dissatisfied with their penises was higher then the percentage of total men who are circumcised, I'd probably start thinking it was unreasonable.

[BattleMoose]

The exact same argument could be made against the legalization of gay marriage, pisses off a lot of people and the group that would it would serve is relatively small. Its an invalid argument.

And I meant less than 1 person and not actual percentage point, my bad.

Yes, and in both cases, the argument (to ban) hinges upon the ludicrous notion that circumcision or gay marriage somehow affects anyone aside from those who are being circumcised or married. Since neither seems to cause any significant harm to any one, at all, the argument doesn't work. Basically, flipping the argument on you works just as well; circumcision isn't harming anyone, so, why ban it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Circumcision is harming people, people who have been circumcised have stated that it has harmed them.

Less than 1 person? That's never going to happen. People are dissatisfied with their bodies when they are untouched; ergo, procreation should be banned because your child may be dissatisfied with having only two arms.

Again this is an invalid argument. The objection is based on surgical interference with an infant. If you perform an action in society you are liable for the results and only very rarely liable for inaction.

Again, (and again and again!) parenting is about making the best decisions you can to improve your childs life to the best of your ability. Since circumcising obviously has some value to some people somewhere, and is only 'hurting' an incredibly tiny number of people, I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to do. If it turned out that, say, the percentage of circumcised men who were dissatisfied with their penises was higher then the percentage of total men who are circumcised, I'd probably start thinking it was unreasonable.

The only group of people who are unhappy with their penises are those who have had circumcision inflicted upon them. Holding out until a rational consent can be made regarding circumcision can allow everyone to be content.

And its totally not okay to knowingly inflict harm in people in todays society, even potentially inflict harm especially without consent. Penises should not be considered a special case for this.

Battlemoose: your long response didn't contradict anything I said.

How about the bit were you are making up rights for parents?

But generally it was about parents making best decisions for their child and how that circumcision does piss off a lot of people and forcing on that kid is therefore not always in that childs best interest and seeing as a parent cannot know how their child will react to circumcision then it is an irresponsible thing to be doing.

[The Great Hippo]

We are talking about the dead people who are dead and cannot answer for themselves, seeing as its a procedure that started in about 1000ad by far the majority of people who performed and were performing the procedure are dead, very very very dead.

I'm sorry, are we miscommunicating? I was saying that the people who experienced footbinding are the ones with the most important opinions pertaining to whether or not we should continue footbinding. The fact that they're dead is irrelevant (the fact that footbinding is no longer practiced makes it so!). Similarly, the people who have been circumcised are the ones I want to listen to--those are the opinions that matter most.

I was addressing the argument that the procedure does harm, that it interferes with the way the penis functions. Which has been a consistent argument throughout this thread and one which I should be able to address. I can address that argument and still not care how you feel about your body.

Well, okay--that's not the way I parsed it, particularly not in the context you framed it. A lot of what you've been saying here reads to me like 'Hippo, you really should feel badly about your circumcision, and the fact that you don't is indicative that you don't really grasp what's been done to you'. Can you understand why that message--whether or not you're actually saying it--would be an incredibly frustrating one to hear?

All the information you need to do what exactly? Because even a mild search on google will yield results, like this one! http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_unhappy.html

All the information I need to agree that their circumcision was a negative experience for them. This is what confuses me--you're assuming that you need to 'legitimize' someone's claim that a circumcision has harmed them--but the statement 'My circumcision harmed me' is enough to convince me. You don't need to post evidence that circumcision is harmful; the fact that people regret their circumcision is evidence enough!

So if you can recognize that people can feel violated by circumcision, why would you potentially want to inflict that upon your son?

I wouldn't, but I can imagine others might--for cultural reasons, religious reasons, or simply not giving it a lot of thought. We do a lot of things to our children without their permission--all of them are irreversible. I'm opposed to the decisions that clearly lead to a negative impact on your quality of life. I haven't seen much evidence against circumcision, so my position is neutral, with slight opposition (because there's a chance the kid might grow to regret it as an adult).

Pro-cirumcision? I use the term to describe the group of people here who support circumcision and not that its a group of people who think all should be circumcised. You know, like the pro-choice group, that supports the idea of abortion but certainly doesn't think that all pregnancies should be aborted. How exactly did you misinterpret that?

Yes. That's why the pro-choice group is called 'pro-choice' and not 'pro-abortion'. Because they don't want to give everyone an abortion. They support the choice. Similarly, I don't want to give everyone a circumcision. I support the choice.

Do you understand my source of confusion now?

No its not, its not a majority issue! You cannot go around willy nilly violating peoples rights and their bodies and then argue that most people are okay with it? Rights don't work like that. If anyone has an issue with being violated its an issue and a violation occurred. And there would have to be less than one person upset about it before I would be willing to ignore it!

Some variable number of people will feel violated no matter what decision you make. I'm all for minimizing that number, but not when the costs become prohibitive.

[sourmìlk]

How about the bit were you are making up rights for parents?

You didn't present any rights that I said parents had that they didn't, as I read it.

But generally it was about parents making best decisions for their child and how that circumcision does piss off a lot of people and forcing on that kid is therefore not always in that childs best interest and seeing as a parent cannot know how their child will react to circumcision then it is an irresponsible thing to be doing.

Actually, a parent can predict with extreme accuracy how their children will react to circumcision.

[BattleMoose]

How about the bit were you are making up rights for parents?

You didn't present any rights that I said parents had that they didn't, as I read it.

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

Where exactly did you pull that gem from? Is it from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Convention on the Rights of the child? Or did you just make it up? Because I think its the latter.

Did you somehow miss this? Or is it that you think that your assertion of as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents is so strong that it doesn't even need to be defended?

I was addressing the argument that the procedure does harm, that it interferes with the way the penis functions. Which has been a consistent argument throughout this thread and one which I should be able to address. I can address that argument and still not care how you feel about your body.
Well, okay--that's not the way I parsed it, particularly not in the context you framed it. A lot of what you've been saying here reads to me like 'Hippo, you really should feel badly about your circumcision, and the fact that you don't is indicative that you don't really grasp what's been done to you'. Can you understand why that message--whether or not you're actually saying it--would be an incredibly frustrating one to hear?

While I do think you were harmed, the fact that you don't perceive it as such largely makes it a non-issue. I am fine with the way you feel about your circumcision and certainly I do get how you could be feeling frustrated.

All the information I need to agree that their circumcision was a negative experience for them. This is what confuses me--you're assuming that you need to 'legitimize' someone's claim that a circumcision has harmed them--but the statement 'My circumcision harmed me' is enough to convince me. You don't need to post evidence that circumcision is harmful; the fact that people regret their circumcision is evidence enough!

Well, there has been a lot of effort in this thread arguing that it is not a harmful procedure so I did feel the need to argue that not only do people feel harmed but that it is actually harmful too. I am glad that you recognize that people are feeling harmed regardless of whether do you actually feel that they were harmed?

So if you can recognize that people can feel violated by circumcision, why would you potentially want to inflict that upon your son?

I wouldn't, but I can imagine others might--for cultural reasons, religious reasons, or simply not giving it a lot of thought. We do a lot of things to our children without their permission--all of them are irreversible. I'm opposed to the decisions that clearly lead to a negative impact on your quality of life. I haven't seen much evidence against circumcision, so my position is neutral, with slight opposition (because there's a chance the kid might grow to regret it as an adult).

This is a reasonable position to hold and I can respect that.

Some variable number of people will feel violated no matter what decision you make. I'm all for minimizing that number, but not when the costs become prohibitive.

Well this is just plainly untrue. No one is going to feel violated about not being circumcised, I can conceive of some possible negative feelings being a Jewish kid and not being circumcised but cannot figure that they could feel violated? I don't even think its semantically possible for a person to be violated through the inaction of someone else?

Regardless I think we are finally beginning to understand each other and that we have more common ground than we perhaps originally realized.

[Izawwlgood]

Well, there has been a lot of effort in this thread arguing that it is not a harmful procedure so I did feel the need to argue that not only do people feel harmed but that it is actually harmful too. I am glad that you recognize that people are feeling harmed regardless of whether do you actually feel that they were harmed?

That some people are harmed by it does not mean it is a harmful procedure. This is akin to claiming that because some people die in routine surgeries (say, an appendectomy), that an appendectomy is a lethal procedure. Furthermore, the evidence that there is no difference between a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis in all metrics aside from presence or absence of a foreskin points to it being non-harmful. So, to flip the question on you, I'm glad you recognize that we've never dismissed those who were harmed, but how do you feel about the fact that the overwhelming majority of people are not harmed by the procedure?

Well this is just plainly untrue. No one is going to feel violated about not being circumcised, I can conceive of some possible negative feelings being a Jewish kid and not being circumcised but cannot figure that they could feel violated? I don't even think its semantically possible for a person to be violated through the inaction of someone else?

Regardless I think we are finally beginning to understand each other and that we have more common ground than we perhaps originally realized.

Through the inaction? Cleft Palate restoration, birth mark removal, syndactyly removal, or orthodontia. Seriously, we've repeated this shit to you ad nauseum now.

At the very least, you've recognized that the position Hippo holds, that is, let the parents choose instead of 'CUT ALL THE COCKS!!!!' is the one we've been arguing for this whole time.

[BattleMoose]

That some people are harmed by it does not mean it is a harmful procedure.

Wow, you just don't get it. A foreskin performs a function not having one deprives that person of the function that the foreskin performs, I interpret this deprivation as harm.

Furthermore, the evidence that there is no difference between a circumcised penis and an uncircumcised penis in all metrics aside from presence or absence of a foreskin points to it being non-harmful.

No. Again, tempted to upload videos of penises being masturbated as an illustrative example.

Well this is just plainly untrue. No one is going to feel violated about not being circumcised, I can conceive of some possible negative feelings being a Jewish kid and not being circumcised but cannot figure that they could feel violated? I don't even think its semantically possible for a person to be violated through the inaction of someone else?

Regardless I think we are finally beginning to understand each other and that we have more common ground than we perhaps originally realized.

Through the inaction? Cleft Palate restoration, birth mark removal, syndactyly removal, or orthodontia. Seriously, we've repeated this shit to you ad nauseum now.

And these people feel violated? An example is required. An no, we have never discussed people feeling violated in response to such procedures not being performed, so this is actually a new line of discussion.

At the very least, you've recognized that the position Hippo holds, that is, let the parents choose instead of 'CUT ALL THE COCKS!!!!' is the one we've been arguing for this whole time.

And no. I respect his position in that he is not going to do it to his sons and recognizes that as an adult the son might regret that he was circumcised. It would be nice if everyone at least recognized the latter point, that their sons may well come to regret that they were circumcised.

And even I reluctantly conceded that I could understand how people could do this to their kids for religious and cultural reasons, a long ago in this thread. :-/

[Izawwlgood]

Wow, you just don't get it. A foreskin performs a function not having one deprives that person of the function that the foreskin performs, I interpret this deprivation as harm.

I don't think you get it; you simply keep restating that foreskins perform a function, and not having one is harmful. I keep pointing out that people without foreskins have a penis that functions EXACTLY the same as a penis with a foreskin. Ergo, it is a safe assumption that the foreskin isn't doing anything necessary, and not having one cannot be considered 'harm'. Now, to be clear, that doesn't mean some people aren't harmed by the procedure. But it certain means that the procedure is, in and of itself, not harmful.

No. Again, tempted to upload videos of penises being masturbated as an illustrative example.

Upload all the videos you want. It won't illustrate your point.

And these people feel violated? An example is required. An no, we have never discussed people feeling violated in response to such procedures not being performed, so this is actually a new line of discussion.

Hippo pointed this out pages ago; the absence of action when you have the resources to do so could be construed as child abuse. If my kid was born with any form of cleft palate, or syndactyly or a birthmark next to their mouth in the shape of a giant cock, you better believe I'd send them to a surgeon without their consent. You also better believe I'll be putting my kids in braces. Because I don't want my kid at any time before the age of 18 to look at me and ask why I didn't care enough to make a decision for them. Similarly, I can understand why a kid could learn about their heritage and customs, and ask their parents why they didn't feel the need to include them.

And no. I respect his position in that he is not going to do it to his sons and recognizes that as an adult the son might regret that he was circumcised. It would be nice if everyone at least recognized the latter point, that their sons may well come to regret that they were circumcised.

Uh, sure, I don't think anyone is at any point in time arguing against this. What I/we're trying to make you understand is that the overwhelming majority of sons WON'T, and deciding to circumcise is a pretty reasonable thing to do if that's what you want.

[BattleMoose]

Wow, you just don't get it. A foreskin performs a function not having one deprives that person of the function that the foreskin performs, I interpret this deprivation as harm.

I keep pointing out that people without foreskins have a penis that functions EXACTLY the same as a penis with a foreskin.

Only it doesn't.

And these people feel violated? An example is required. An no, we have never discussed people feeling violated in response to such procedures not being performed, so this is actually a new line of discussion.

Hippo pointed this out pages ago; the absence of action when you have the resources to do so could be construed as child abuse. If my kid was born with any form of cleft palate, or syndactyly or a birthmark next to their mouth in the shape of a giant cock, you better believe I'd send them to a surgeon without their consent. You also better believe I'll be putting my kids in braces. Because I don't want my kid at any time before the age of 18 to look at me and ask why I didn't care enough to make a decision for them. Similarly, I can understand why a kid could learn about their heritage and customs, and ask their parents why they didn't feel the need to include them.

And I agree with Hippo with respect to arguments for child abuse. But note how I am talking about feelings of violation and even when constructing my argument about feelings of violation I deliberately used the word, semantically. I'll even quote it for you.

I don't even think its semantically possible for a person to be violated through the inaction of someone else?

And no. I respect his position in that he is not going to do it to his sons and recognizes that as an adult the son might regret that he was circumcised. It would be nice if everyone at least recognized the latter point, that their sons may well come to regret that they were circumcised.

Uh, sure, I don't think anyone is at any point in time arguing against this. What I/we're trying to make you understand is that the overwhelming majority of sons WON'T, and deciding to circumcise is a pretty reasonable thing to do if that's what you want.

As has been actually discussed ad nauseum so far is that actions of parents have to be made in the best interests of the child. Performing a circumcision because a parent wants to is not appropriate and there is actually a legal framework for that argument as has also been discussed ad nauseum.

An argument for circumcision if it is to carry any weight whatsoever has to be constructed from the viewpoint that it is what is best for the child and is what the child wants.

[sourmìlk]

How about the bit were you are making up rights for parents?

You didn't present any rights that I said parents had that they didn't, as I read it.

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

Where exactly did you pull that gem from? Is it from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Convention on the Rights of the child? Or did you just make it up? Because I think its the latter.

Did you somehow miss this? Or is it that you think that your assertion of as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents is so strong that it doesn't even need to be defended?

I just don't see it as relevant, seeing as aside from stating that I was wrong, you never actually provided any reason for it.

[Izawwlgood]

Only it doesn't.

Since we've provided peer reviewed medical data supporting the fact that it does, the only response I'll bother giving you here is "Yes it does".

And I agree with Hippo with respect to arguments for child abuse. But note how I am talking about feelings of violation and even when constructing my argument about feelings of violation I deliberately used the word, semantically. I'll even quote it for you.

So, you agree with Hippo and myself that NOT performing a procedure can also be problematic.

As has been actually discussed ad nauseum so far is that actions of parents have to be made in the best interests of the child. Performing a circumcision because a parent wants to is not appropriate and there is actually a legal framework for that argument as has also been discussed ad nauseum.

Why isn't it an appropriate reason? Why is 'not liking the birthmark on your child's [bodypart]' or 'not liking the webbing between a couple of your child's toes' or 'wanting your kid to have straighter teeth' acceptable? Again and again we've pointed out that 'best interest for the child' can be beyond the physical, and that inclusion into a custom has value as well. We've even pointed out that because there is zero net physical gain/loss to circumcision (queue you pointing out foreskin loss), and indeed, some of the aforementioned procedures, that they are effectively cosmetic, and, like many other things, at the parents discretion.

An argument for circumcision if it is to carry any weight whatsoever has to be constructed from the viewpoint that it is what is best for the child and is what the child wants.

This would certainly be one course of discussion. I don't see why it's a terribly difficult one to demonstrate; a child wants to feel like they are part of their parents customs/beliefs. They themselves feel drawn to the customs/beliefs. Ergo, being circumcised helps cement for them, their place and belonging in said customs and beliefs.

This is just one way to pose an argument for why circumcision is a perfectly justifiable procedure. I disagree that it is the ONLY one that holds weight, but sure. There you have it.

[BattleMoose]

Only it doesn't.

Since we've provided peer reviewed medical data supporting the fact that it does, the only response I'll bother giving you here is "Yes it does".

Yeah no you didn't.

Let me lay it out for you in exhaustive detail because it seems that you need this.

During stimulation of the erect penis, vaginally, anally or by hand, the foreskin slides up and down the head of the penis, stimulating it. During vaginal or anal intercourse this stimulation is also provided by the actual vagina or anus, however during masturbation it is much more relevant. The movement of the foreskin over the head of the penis stimulates it, this is not something that be simulated by use of a hand, further all the actual nerve endings in the foreskin itself.

Stimulation of a circumcised penis focuses more on the movement along the actual shaft than direct stimulation of a moving surface over the head.

They operate quite differently. Do you get it now or do you need a video?

And I agree with Hippo with respect to arguments for child abuse. But note how I am talking about feelings of violation and even when constructing my argument about feelings of violation I deliberately used the word, semantically. I'll even quote it for you.

So, you agree with Hippo and myself that NOT performing a procedure can also be problematic.

I have never argued that performing such procedures could be problematic and actually have argued, with a lot of effort in support of such procedures, in this thread. Its a marvel you missed it.

I was arguing, which you unsurprisingly have missed, that they wouldn't feel violated by the omission of such procedures. Feelings of violation are very profound and generally taken quite seriously in todays society, as they should.

As has been actually discussed ad nauseum so far is that actions of parents have to be made in the best interests of the child. Performing a circumcision because a parent wants to is not appropriate and there is actually a legal framework for that argument as has also been discussed ad nauseum.

Why isn't it an appropriate reason? Why is 'not liking the birthmark on your child's [bodypart]' or 'not liking the webbing between a couple of your child's toes' or 'wanting your kid to have straighter teeth' acceptable? Again and again we've pointed out that 'best interest for the child' can be beyond the physical, and that inclusion into a custom has value as well. We've even pointed out that because there is zero net physical gain/loss to circumcision (queue you pointing out foreskin loss), and indeed, some of the aforementioned procedures, that they are effectively cosmetic, and, like many other things, at the parents discretion.

You argued explicitly along the lines of it being something that the parent wanted to do, I'll quote it for you.

What I/we're trying to make you understand is that the overwhelming majority of sons WON'T, and deciding to circumcise is a pretty reasonable thing to do if that's what you want.

An argument for circumcision if it is to carry any weight whatsoever has to be constructed from the viewpoint that it is what is best for the child and is what the child wants.

This would certainly be one course of discussion. I don't see why it's a terribly difficult one to demonstrate; a child wants to feel like they are part of their parents customs/beliefs. They themselves feel drawn to the customs/beliefs. Ergo, being circumcised helps cement for them, their place and belonging in said customs and beliefs.

This is just one way to pose an argument for why circumcision is a perfectly justifiable procedure. I disagree that it is the ONLY one that holds weight, but sure. There you have it.

For the third time so far in this thread, but whose counting, I can understand circumcising for cultural reasons. I don't like it but can understand how that would be best for the child although I do recognize it would be better for everyone concerned if the practice just be wholesale abandoned.

[BattleMoose]

I just don't see it as relevant, seeing as aside from stating that I was wrong, you never actually provided any reason for it.

Rights are largely legal frameworks, existing within the Bill of Rights of a Nation or the Nation's Constitution or with Internationally Recognized Treaties. They really do need a legal backing or framework.

You cannot just make them up, which is exactly what you did.

[Izawwlgood]

Yeah no you didn't.

Let me lay it out for you in exhaustive detail because it seems that you need this.

Oh good, we're back to someone explaining how sex works in an effort to prove that the foreskin is absolutely required to enjoy the act. Again, for the quadrillionth fucking time in this thread, show me MEDICAL data that examines a circumcised at birth penises sensitivity to an uncut penises sensitivity, and finds a statistical difference between the two. I will not accept videos of you jacking off, footage of people boinking from 'circumcisionmutilatesboysanddestroyssex.com', or your explanation of how 'foreskin stimulation is required during sex. This is PRECISELY the point Hippo was trying to underline for you; claiming that cut penises are broken, lesser, ***HARMED*** is an incredibly obnoxious and ineffective way of going about this discussion, because A ) we don't think they are, and B ) you have no proof that they are.

I was arguing, which you unsurprisingly have missed, that they wouldn't feel violated by the omission of such procedures. Feelings of violation are very profound and generally taken quite seriously in todays society, as they should.

Then how are you still not getting this? You are legitimately claiming that children with, say, cleft palates or birthmarks that they don't like, being told 'Yeah, we decided to wait for you to decide' would never, ever, impossibly feel violated that their parents made them suffer through having those conditions? You simply CANNOT envision a scenario, where a kid might say 'Gee, I wish you had simply had that done when I was an infant'?

You argued explicitly along the lines of it being something that the parent wanted to do, I'll quote it for you.

Yes. If the parent feels it is in the best for the kid, they should go ahead and do it. What are you arguing now?

For the third time so far in this thread, but whose counting, I can understand circumcising for cultural reasons. I don't like it but can understand how that would be best for the child although I do recognize it would be better for everyone concerned if the practice just be wholesale abandoned.

Oh ok, just to be clear, it's ok when it's for cultural reasons, but not ok when it's for... what? Shits and giggles? Where exactly do you think there are parents getting drunk and deciding to flip a coin on whether or not their kid gets circumcised? How exactly is this a realistic or even reasonable hypothetical?

[sourmìlk]

Rights are largely legal frameworks, existing within the Bill of Rights of a Nation or the Nation's Constitution or with Internationally Recognized Treaties. They really do need a legal backing or framework.

What right did I make up? Do you disagree that decisions about an infant's body are made by his parents?

[BattleMoose]

Yeah no you didn't.

Let me lay it out for you in exhaustive detail because it seems that you need this.

Oh good, we're back to someone explaining how sex works in an effort to prove that the foreskin is absolutely required to enjoy the act. Again, for the quadrillionth fucking time in this thread, show me MEDICAL data that examines a circumcised at birth penises sensitivity to an uncut penises sensitivity, and finds a statistical difference between the two. I will not accept videos of you jacking off, footage of people boinking from 'circumcisionmutilatesboysanddestroyssex.com', or your explanation of how 'foreskin stimulation is required during sex. This is PRECISELY the point Hippo was trying to underline for you; claiming that cut penises are broken, lesser, ***HARMED*** is an incredibly obnoxious and ineffective way of going about this discussion, because A ) we don't think they are, and B ) you have no proof that they are.

These things are not the same, they work different, they are different. Your denial on this is on the order that could only come from religion.

I was arguing, which you unsurprisingly have missed, that they wouldn't feel violated by the omission of such procedures. Feelings of violation are very profound and generally taken quite seriously in todays society, as they should.

Then how are you still not getting this? You are legitimately claiming that children with, say, cleft palates or birthmarks that they don't like, being told 'Yeah, we decided to wait for you to decide' would never, ever, impossibly feel violated that their parents made them suffer through having those conditions? You simply CANNOT envision a scenario, where a kid might say 'Gee, I wish you had simply had that done when I was an infant'?

Violation by definition requires an interfering action. So semantically speaking they cannot feel violated because no interfering action was taken. Words have definitions.

You argued explicitly along the lines of it being something that the parent wanted to do, I'll quote it for you.

Yes. If the parent feels it is in the best for the kid, they should go ahead and do it. What are you arguing now?

I can only argue with what you say and I did.

For the third time so far in this thread, but whose counting, I can understand circumcising for cultural reasons. I don't like it but can understand how that would be best for the child although I do recognize it would be better for everyone concerned if the practice just be wholesale abandoned.

Oh ok, just to be clear, it's ok when it's for cultural reasons, but not ok when it's for... what? Shits and giggles? Where exactly do you think there are parents getting drunk and deciding to flip a coin on whether or not their kid gets circumcised? How exactly is this a realistic or even reasonable hypothetical?

When its in the best interests of the child, this has been a constant and consistent theme, when its in the best interest of the child. :-/

[BattleMoose]

Rights are largely legal frameworks, existing within the Bill of Rights of a Nation or the Nation's Constitution or with Internationally Recognized Treaties. They really do need a legal backing or framework.

What right did I make up? Do you disagree that decisions about an infant's body are made by his parents?

I even put it in italics for you. /sigh Maybe I should bold it too.

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

Where exactly did you pull that gem from? Is it from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Convention on the Rights of the child? Or did you just make it up? Because I think its the latter.

[Izawwlgood]

These things are not the same, they work different, they are different. Your denial on this is on the order that could only come from religion.

Orrrr, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you, my position could be from medical data. But hey, considering your lack of supporting evidence, maybe your hatred of circumcision comes from anti-semitism?
See how pointless baseless claims are?

Violation by definition requires an interfering action. So semantically speaking they cannot feel violated because no interfering action was taken. Words have definitions.

I think you should look up 'violate' if you want to maintain that it requires 'interfering action'. Pay attention to the 4th definition on dictionary.com.

I can only argue with what you say and I did.

Except you just agreed with my stance. So. Do you want to reassess?

When its in the best interests of the child, this has been a constant and consistent theme, when its in the best interest of the child. :-/

Yes. And who decides what is in the best interest of the child?
Now, obviously, if a parent thought throwing their infant in the dishwasher was 'in their best interest' we'd have reason to stop them. But, as we've pointed out again and again, circumcising causes no harm, has more than acceptably low rate of risk, and has value to some people. So tell me; how is it culturally acceptable to circumcise, but 'otherwise not'? What POSSIBLE scenario can you envision where a parent decides to circumcise a child for non-cultural reasons?

[BattleMoose]

These things are not the same, they work different, they are different. Your denial on this is on the order that could only come from religion.

Orrrr, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you, my position could be from medical data. But hey, considering your lack of supporting evidence, maybe your hatred of circumcision comes from anti-semitism?
See how pointless baseless claims are?

You were just provided with a description on the functional and qualitative differences between a circumcised and non circumcised penis. Yet you continue your denial that they are the same. This is hardly a baseless claim but indeed based on functional differences, which you deny.

[Malice]

These things are not the same, they work different, they are different. Your denial on this is on the order that could only come from religion.

Orrrr, as I've repeatedly pointed out to you, my position could be from medical data. But hey, considering your lack of supporting evidence, maybe your hatred of circumcision comes from anti-semitism?
See how pointless baseless claims are?

You were just provided with a description on the functional and qualitative differences between a circumcised and non circumcised penis. Yet you continue your denial that they are the same. This is hardly a baseless claim but indeed based on functional differences, which you deny.

Take a deep breath, people. BattleMoose here is making the accurate (yet largely irrelevant) point that cut and uncut dicks do not quite operate the same way. They are different in the way that left-handed and right-handed pairs of scissors are different. While that is a true and literal comparison, it's irrelevant to the discussion unless you take the next step and suggest that one of these configurations is better or worse than the other. From where I'm sitting, they both cut paper.

Izawwlgood, unless I've missed something, BattleMoose hasn't yet said that uncircumcised penises are better; just that they have foreskins, and when you have a foreskin you do things a little differently. We don't need science in order to agree on that one, right?

[sourmìlk]

I even put it in italics for you. /sigh Maybe I should bold it too.

Please answer my question directly.

[Torchship]

ironically, during the time period when foot binding was "the thing to do" your quality of life was increased tremendously by having your feet bound. in fact, you couldn't be part of high society with regular people's feet. your ability to walk was not exactly increased, but your overall quality of life was increased because your status was increased. add to that the fact that a very large amount of women with bound feet didn't actually have to walk (they were carried a lot), then you've got a balance on loss of mobility and increased status.

I actually think this is an extremely interesting and relevant point that never really got the attention it deserves. Any social benefits to circumcision (all of which the pro-circumcision people here have gone over in thorough detail) must inevitably translate directly into social problems for the uncircumcised, because advantage is purely relative. Such uncircumcised discrimination will be quite low-key in general, but it is a long-term effect meaning that the issue will be a significant one over long enough time-scales. Obviously banning circumcision will simply reverse this effect for no real gain, but there are still plenty of other methods to disrupt the popularity of circumcision for the sake of the uncircumcised.

[BattleMoose]

I even put it in italics for you. /sigh Maybe I should bold it too.

Please answer my question directly.

, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents),

I challenge your assertion that Parents have the right to bodily autonomy with respect to their infants.

[sourmìlk]

Well, without that right, parents wouldn't be able to choose food for their children, or send them to the doctor, or require them to undergo operations, or make any medical decisions form them.

[BattleMoose]

Well, without that right, parents wouldn't be able to choose food for their children, or send them to the doctor, or require them to undergo operations, or make any medical decisions form them.

Curious then that they don't have it. Perhaps you should write to the UN and inform them of their error.

[morriswalters]

Parents have limited legal rights to curtail a child's autonomy. A child isn't capable of asserting it himself. They can raise him in the Religion of their choice. Restrict his contact with the world, choose what he eats, what he wears, how his hair is cut. They can choose what cultural practices to expose him to.(circumcision) To change that it would be helpful to show that the practice, in some significant way, is detrimental to a boys future. Absent that this is a case of some individuals feeling that their perception of the practice is sufficient to interfere with parental rights.