|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Circumcision vs FGM - the ethics?
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
I think you're mixing up the problem with the solution to the problem.
IF it is unethical for parents to put a child through a medical procedure that has no benefits for the child (which is my belief), AND there is no clear benefit to infant male circumcision (which appears to be the case) THEN infant male circumcision is unethical.
If most parents are trying to the the best for their child (which is my belief), an educational rather than a critical and punitive approach is probably the most effective way to stop a practice that is unethical.
[ 22. July 2012, 08:06: Message edited by: Haydee ]
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
By using the term "no benefit" you are mixing up "no medical benefit" with "no cultural benefit".
If a child is born with webbing between toes or fingers, their parents generally have it removed immediately - it makes no medical difference, but there is a cultural benefit.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
I think you're mixing up the problem with the solution to the problem.
IF it is unethical for parents to put a child through a medical procedure that has no benefits for the child (which is my belief), AND there is no clear benefit to infant male circumcision (which appears to be the case) THEN infant male circumcision is unethical.
If most parents are trying to the the best for their child (which is my belief), an educational rather than a critical and punitive approach is probably the most effective way to stop a practice that is unethical.
It is unethical to be wrong? If parents mistakenly believe circumcision is in their child's best interests are they acting unethically? Framing it as an "ethical" issue is precisely what is making the approach critical and punitive.
[ 22. July 2012, 14:14: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
agh, I'm really making the same error there-- rather than "is it unethical to be wrong" I should rather say "is it unethical to be mistaken?" or "uninformed?"
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
By using the term "no benefit" you are mixing up "no medical benefit" with "no cultural benefit".
If a child is born with webbing between toes or fingers, their parents generally have it removed immediately - it makes no medical difference, but there is a cultural benefit.
Agreed - which is why in an earlier post I referred to psychological benefits as being benefits.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
agh, I'm really making the same error there-- rather than "is it unethical to be wrong" I should rather say "is it unethical to be mistaken?" or "uninformed?"
But if the procedure itself is ethically neutral then why provide education on the issue?
The only reason for any action (gentle education to legal action) is because at heart the decision they are making is morally wrong. With the best of intentions etc.
If someone genuinely thought that the best way to teach a child was to beat it into unconsciousness every time the child made a mistake, does this make the beating ethical?
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
Plus (and sorry for the triple post) I know as a parent I get things wrong all the time even with the best of information. I am grumpy & cross because I am tired, or I fail to keep to 'innocent until proven guilty' and tell both of them to shut up & go to their rooms etc etc
That's being a parent, you get stuff wrong. I find a 'I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that' gets a hug and foregiveness - thank the Lord.
So to say that something a parent does is wrong doesn't mean I think they should get life with hard labour.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
agh, I'm really making the same error there-- rather than "is it unethical to be wrong" I should rather say "is it unethical to be mistaken?" or "uninformed?"
But if the procedure itself is ethically neutral then why provide education on the issue?
The only reason for any action (gentle education to legal action) is because at heart the decision they are making is morally wrong. With the best of intentions etc.
The decision they are making is practically wrong, not morally wrong. That's an important decision. They have decided to do what is best for their child. That is morally good. They are misinformed as to what is best in this scenario. The problem is an educational one, not a moral one. They (we-- I'm one of them) are (or were) not immoral people, we are misinformed.
It's a huge difference, one that goes to how you approach the problem. If you assume parents are immoral egoists who's driving agenda is to create a mini-me, you'll approach it differently than if you assume that the vast majority of parents want what is best for their children.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
Plus (and sorry for the triple post) I know as a parent I get things wrong all the time even with the best of information. I am grumpy & cross because I am tired, or I fail to keep to 'innocent until proven guilty' and tell both of them to shut up & go to their rooms etc etc
That's being a parent, you get stuff wrong. I find a 'I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that' gets a hug and foregiveness - thank the Lord.
So to say that something a parent does is wrong doesn't mean I think they should get life with hard labour.
The difference being that we know those things are wrong. You didn't get cross because you thought it was the best action in the circumstance, you simply slipped up because you're human and we all do. But you knew that it was wrong when you did it. That is a moral wrong, albeit a small-scale and one common to us all.
But acting on the best information you have in what you believe to be in your child's best interest is not morally wrong. If the data later turns out to be faulty and there are consequences to that (which, thankfully, there really isn't) you might have a similar apology. But you are not morally culpable for information that was not available to you.
Some parents in Aurora right now are probably blaming themselves for letting their child go to the midnight show. They are probably playing the "what if" game, 2nd guessing the decisions they made. But the fact remains, they are not morally culpable for what they couldn't have known at the time. That's the fearsome thing about parenting-- that we do the best we can in the circumstances, with the limited data we have, knowing that we can't control what we don't know.
[ 22. July 2012, 20:36: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
As I have said a number of times, I believe most parents do what they believe is the best for their child, so I am far from approaching this as a bunch of adults wanting a mini-me.
But at some point there is a morality that concerns what we know. There is any amount of information available about the minimal medical benefit of routine circumcision.
I drive here in SA on my UK licence, and therefore didn't need any knowledge of SA driving regulations to drive here legally. But as I do drive here, it is my responsibility to know the relevant legislation - I can't get out of my speeding fines by claiming ignorance, even if I didn't know the regulations.
This was a crucial issue at the Nuremberg trials - although please note that I am not calling parents war criminals, Nazis etc etc, I am pointing out that it was accepted that there is a moral (and at Nuremberg a legal) dimension to what you could/should have known about.
There was no information available for parents in Aurora about the possibility of their children being shot at a movie screening, so yes, I agree their decisions were completely moral.
[ 23. July 2012, 06:58: Message edited by: Haydee ]
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My point is that I have never heard an argument that came close to convincing me that it is wrong for parents to make the decision to circumcise their newborn sons.
I can see only two possible reasons for saying such a thing:
Either you think routine circumcision is so trivial a thing that it is ethically de minimis, not important enough to call wrong one way or another.
Or you think that it is actually a moral issue, but that there's a good reason for it.
If you take the first option there's no reason to condemn the circumcisers, but also no reason for routine circumcision in the first place. If it isn't worth bothering about, it isn't worth doing, even if it can't be described as wrong'. If you take the second option, it's not unreasonable to ask what that good reason is, and no one's suggested one here.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is unethical to be wrong? If parents mistakenly believe circumcision is in their child's best interests are they acting unethically?
Doing an unethical thing is not necessarily the same as being personally culpable.
In a culture where circumcision is so routine that a responsible parent might authorise it without even questioning whether there was a good reason, hard though it is for outsiders to imagine it, there would be very little culpability. Every culture will have its unchallenged assumptions, and some of them will be wrong. Similarly a parent who is told that the practice is medically beneficial' by a doctor isn't necessarily culpable - we believe a lot of things about health issues on authority.
I think that on this thread it is possible to examine the reasons, on propositions which (once they are clearly stated) few or no people are likely to disagree with.
The first proposition is that a procedure like circumcision should only be done if there is a good reasons.
The second proposition is that what constitutes a good reason should be assessed on the basis that the potential advantages of the procedure (taking into account its risks) are likely to significantly outweigh the advantages of not carrying out the procedure at all.
The third proposition is that there is no significantly discernable difference either way in respect of any of the alleged advantages of circumcision between a largely circumcised population of Americans and a largely uncircumcised population of Britons.
The moral standing of parents who made an unexamined decision to circumcise (or not) isn't in issue. The rightness of the decision itself is - and there has been no cogent case argued for the rightness of routine circumcision without any particular medical or religious reasons.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
As I have said a number of times, I believe most parents do what they believe is the best for their child, so I am far from approaching this as a bunch of adults wanting a mini-me.
But at some point there is a morality that concerns what we know. There is any amount of information available about the minimal medical benefit of routine circumcision.
I drive here in SA on my UK licence, and therefore didn't need any knowledge of SA driving regulations to drive here legally. But as I do drive here, it is my responsibility to know the relevant legislation - I can't get out of my speeding fines by claiming ignorance, even if I didn't know the regulations.
This was a crucial issue at the Nuremberg trials - although please note that I am not calling parents war criminals, Nazis etc etc, I am pointing out that it was accepted that there is a moral (and at Nuremberg a legal) dimension to what you could/should have known about.
There was no information available for parents in Aurora about the possibility of their children being shot at a movie screening, so yes, I agree their decisions were completely moral.
See, that was my point-- and why I brought up the Aurora tragedy, even though I recognize how fraught it is to bring up something so fresh and tragic.
My point was that at the point I and many parents had their children circumcised the facts you and others here are assuming were not known, at least not to most American parents. The debate was much more murky. And for many American parents, that is probably still the case. Which is why I'm saying it's an educational issue, not an ethical one.
Your point re: gaining knowledge is relevant, we have an obligation as parents to research all our options and make informed decisions on behalf of our kids. But even then we can never know everything. We will always have to make decisions based on limited data. And the data is not always clear. My husband and I did, in fact, research circumcision at the time our boys were born. And, again, the data that was available to us as American parents at that time (more than a decade ago) was much less clear than what is being asserted here. The situation is much clearer in hindsight-- I would make a different decision today. But at the time it was far less clear. And again, in an unclear situation, most of us will default to the known (our own experience) rather than the unknown.
If you know there are not health benefits, that changes the situation considerably. But again (I feel like I'm shouting into the wind here) most American parents n the past (and perhaps to some degree still) decided for circumcision because they believed (albeit falsely) it would benefit their children.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is unethical to be wrong? If parents mistakenly believe circumcision is in their child's best interests are they acting unethically?
Doing an unethical thing is not necessarily the same as being personally culpable.
In a culture where circumcision is so routine that a responsible parent might authorise it without even questioning whether there was a good reason, hard though it is for outsiders to imagine it, there would be very little culpability. Every culture will have its unchallenged assumptions, and some of them will be wrong. Similarly a parent who is told that the practice is medically beneficial' by a doctor isn't necessarily culpable - we believe a lot of things about health issues on authority.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is precisely what I have been saying for days. You are the first person to get it.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
By using the term "no benefit" you are mixing up "no medical benefit" with "no cultural benefit".
If a child is born with webbing between toes or fingers, their parents generally have it removed immediately - it makes no medical difference, but there is a cultural benefit.
Actually no. My beautiful webfooted baby was born in 2010. She was seen by paediatric plastics immediately. Their position was:
- if it were between the big toe and second toe, it has practical consequences (e.g. ability to wear certain styles of shoe, functionality of the foot) and they would therefore correct it immediately.
- since it is between 2nd and 3rd, it does not affect functionality and therefore does not warrant the risk of a general anaesthetic for a small child. If my beautiful girl wants it corrected later either because of teasing or because of her own personal aesthetics, it'll be done then.
While it was not said in so many words, *clearly* the surgeon would have thought it unethical for me to have insisted on having the surgery now, at greater risk to my child, because I wanted my daughter to have "normal" feet.
My beautiful baby girl also has a partial ptosis of the right eye. This one leads to even harder decision-making:
If it starts to affect the development of the vision, we would have it corrected immediately - she deserves a fair shot at growing up with both eyes functioning.
If it is not affecting the vision, when do we have it corrected for aesthetic reasons? This depends first on the decision that to have a drooping eyelid is sufficiently non-normal to justify surgical correction and there is more than one view on this, but I think it's fairly clear that the prevailing aesthetic is for symmetry where possible. Now, the older she gets, the better the operation will be (the larger the muscles, the better the surgeon's chances of getting it absolutely even). However the older she gets, the more likely she is to face teasing. For this reason, 5-7 tends to be the age range most parents opt for, I am told. But to complicate the decision-making further, if we left it until late teens, she could have it done under local, which is clearly far safer.
This decision we're just taking on an appointment by apointment basis depending on her vision. It will get harder for us if she gets to 5 and we have to start thinking about whether she'll thank us for having it corrected now, or want to wait until later. I suppose if we leave it till say, 11, she can think through it herself, but will she already think it is too late?
Now, having to deal with this as a parent, I cannot see why any parent would *choose* to have a perfectly normal part of their child's body operated on. And I think I am entitled to hold the opinion that to do that with no medical benefit is unethical.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
[QUOTE] And I think I am entitled to hold the opinion that to do that with no medical benefit is unethical.
But again... repeating in the vain hope of getting this point across... the parents who are approving it believe, however erroneously, that it will provide a medical benefit. It is more analogous to the dilemma you had re: your daughter's eyelid surgery.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
fyi: my son had the surgery when he was 6. Praying for your daughter. It was painful, but well worth it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
As I have said a number of times, I believe most parents do what they believe is the best for their child, so I am far from approaching this as a bunch of adults wanting a mini-me.
But at some point there is a morality that concerns what we know. There is any amount of information available about the minimal medical benefit of routine circumcision....
See, that was my point-- and why I brought up the Aurora tragedy, even though I recognize how fraught it is to bring up something so fresh and tragic.
My point was that at the point I and many parents had their children circumcised the facts you and others here are assuming were not known, at least not to most American parents. The debate was much more murky. And for many American parents, that is probably still the case. Which is why I'm saying it's an educational issue, not an ethical one.
Your point re: gaining knowledge is relevant, we have an obligation as parents to research all our options and make informed decisions on behalf of our kids. But even then we can never know everything. We will always have to make decisions based on limited data. And the data is not always clear. My husband and I did, in fact, research circumcision at the time our boys were born. And, again, the data that was available to us as American parents at that time (more than a decade ago) was much less clear than what is being asserted here. The situation is much clearer in hindsight-- I would make a different decision today. But at the time it was far less clear. And again, in an unclear situation, most of us will default to the known (our own experience) rather than the unknown.
If you know there are not health benefits, that changes the situation considerably. But again (I feel like I'm shouting into the wind here) most American parents n the past (and perhaps to some degree still) decided for circumcision because they believed (albeit falsely) it would benefit their children.
I completely agree that in a situation where information is unavailable (or contradictory) then of course it is not an ethical issue. And, if you read what I have said, I completely agree that with education it will probably decrease over time and punitive approaches are not necessary or useful. And I also widen the arguement past physical medical benefits to psychological health.
But for a parent to subject a child to a medical procedure that has no significant benefit, when the parent could quite easily have found the information that it had no significant benefit, then that is unethical.
If I'm prescribed something myself (I have a chronic medical condition) then I do a quick bit of internet research to back up my doctor's advice. If that raises any concerns I discuss it with my doctor, and if neccessary I would get a second opinion. I would do the same for my daughters (so far, thankfully, they've been remarkably healthy).
[ 23. July 2012, 18:01: Message edited by: Haydee ]
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
So today I found myself browsing the BBC news website when I come across a story about how a region in Germany is seeking to ban male circumcision. The story is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145
<sigh> Germany has a long history of anti-Semitism, and this has recently been given new legs by annoyance with Israel (whether deserved or not). What more can I say? Somehow I'm not surprised that a novel initiative to ban circumcision by law should originate there.
On balance, I don't approve of the practice and would be delighted if Judaism and Islam found a way to outgrow it as a requirement for membership. But for the forseeable future, it is quite fundamental to them. Think how we as Christians would feel, if administering Holy Communion in both kinds to anyone under 21 were banned as serving alcohol to minors. Given enough insensitivity to the religious convictions of others, it could be done, and done with an almost undisputed (note I didn't say indisputable) pretext.
If I had a newborn son, I would be inclined to oppose having the operation done. Even in the U.S., as someone has cited above, physicians find no clear enough benefits to warrant it. But a legal ban would be something else again.
To quote from the article:
quote:
The BBC's Stephen Evans in Berlin says opinion in Germany about the issue has been mixed, though one poll showed a majority in favour of the ban.
He says that many readers' comments on newspaper websites have indicated anger that this generation of Germans seems to be being constricted in its actions because of the Holocaust.
This is a despicable red herring, when "constricted in its actions" means being opposed in their novel initiative to constrict the actions of others.
[ 23. July 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again... repeating in the vain hope of getting this point across... the parents who are approving it believe, however erroneously, that it will provide a medical benefit. It is more analogous to the dilemma you had re: your daughter's eyelid surgery.
Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again... repeating in the vain hope of getting this point across... the parents who are approving it believe, however erroneously, that it will provide a medical benefit. It is more analogous to the dilemma you had re: your daughter's eyelid surgery.
Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?
No. But again, I don't believe very many people actually do it for that reason.
[ 24. July 2012, 00:57: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
I (we) did. And so the boys would look like Grandad, their cousins, their Babies House companions, (and later on kindergarten and school mates) and all of Rabbits friends-and-relations. Not to mention consideration for the other people who looked after them all their young lives.
I would do it again too. For that wider social reason.
As Lucia and I have said up-thread; circumcision is done (oops!) in many and, more importantly, varied cultures at different ages with ceremony and celebration. And has been for thousands of years.
If it had transpired that this was too dangerous a practice surely it would not have continued. Anthropologically speaking.
If, today, there was enough "western medical evidence" on one side or the other most of us would be convinced. There isn't.
I would add that as a feminist I cannot imagine why men would do "something awful" to their sons' penises. I can, however, totally imagine why men would do "something awful" to their daughters.
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Galilit, in most cultures that practice FGM, this is something done by mothers, grandmothers aunts etc to the daughters.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I (we) did. And so the boys would look like Grandad, their cousins, their Babies House companions, (and later on kindergarten and school mates) and all of Rabbits friends-and-relations. Not to mention consideration for the other people who looked after them all their young lives.
I would do it again too. For that wider social reason.
That's unethical.
It is clearly unethical to perform an irreversible procedure for one's own personal aesthetic reasons on somebody else without their consent.
It is also clearly unethical for a parent to give the message that conformity is so important that body parts can and should be removed to ensure it. And by "unethical" I really mean "shockingly irresponsible".
I don't know what the hell you mean by "consideration for the other people who looked after them all their young lives". You are aware that even though British parents don't usually circumcise, we can still get babysitters, aren't you? We don't even have to pay them danger money for the risk of exposure to foreskin. What on earth are you talking about here?
quote:
I would add that as a feminist I cannot imagine why men would do "something awful" to their sons' penises. I can, however, totally imagine why men would do "something awful" to their daughters.
If that is meant as a general observation about men, then as the father of a son and a daughter, it is one that I find grossly offensive.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
True; so that men will agree to their sons marrying them.
But don't let's get started on that tack.
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I was circumcised as a new-born, and we had Dlet done at the same age. Until this thread, it's not something I had really thought much about, and certainly not with the strength of some of the anti-ciccumcision posts above. Everyone in my year at school was done also; Dlet says that in his year it was about 50/50.
Obviously, there were different strands of thought between this here and in the US, and those in the UK.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
My father-in-law was circumcised for medical reasons as a young boy; my husband at age 4. When our son was born, my father-in-law suggested circumcision soon after birth as a "just-in-case" to avoid future painful surgery.
We didn't do it, and fortunately our son hasn't needed it. But if he had, I know I'd have been wracked with guilt for not having had it done as a baby.
It's not easy being a parent.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?
No. But again, I don't believe very many people actually do it for that reason.
I don't either. The people I work with are in fact choosing circumcision despite the fact it means the child won't look like dad.
We're all trying to do the best we can, you know. If you think we're wrong, educate us. No need to flip out and lodge charges of self-serving mutilation.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I was circumcised as a new-born ... Until this thread, it's not something I had really thought much about, and certainly not with the strength of some of the anti-ciccumcision posts above.
Likewise. It's simply never been an issue at any point in my life, excepting those rare times (such as this thread) when other people start calling me things like "maimed" and "mutilated". That can make me quite angry.
I don't think people should circumcise their babies, but neither do I think they shouldn't. It's genuinely a complete non-issue to me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
<sigh> Germany has a long history of anti-Semitism, and this has recently been given new legs by annoyance with Israel (whether deserved or not). What more can I say? Somehow I'm not surprised that a novel initiative to ban circumcision by law should originate there.
While such a knee-jerk reaction is entirely predictable, it remains ill-informed. There really is no hidden anti-semitic agenda, and the main arguments being exchanged in Germany are just the same as found on this thread: they centre on the question of the human rights and dignity of the child vs. the rights of parents and the freedom of religion. Consequently, the most influential voices for a ban of circumcision are currently more of the left-wing and liberal kind. If there is a bias, then it is more a general secular bias against religion, not one specifically targeted at Jews or Muslims.
Furthermore, this is actually an unresolved problem in many countries. For example in France circumcision is formally a crime, which however in practice is never prosecuted. In the USA the courts seem to be fairly inconsistent. Etc.
A significant problem in all this happens to be the Muslim community, because circumcision is for Muslim neither absolutely required nor absolutely necessary at an early age. So any law that tries to introduce an exception for the Jews is faced with the difficulty of defining with precision just how religiously required circumcision must be in order to be legal. "We will let the Jews do it, but nobody else," surely would lead to a massive outcry from the strong Muslim community in Germany.
The legal advisory board to the Bundestag (German Lower House) has told parliament that they have no idea how to successfully navigate all the many legal difficulties with a new law, and that they advice to simply do nothing - partly because the Cologne court classed the bodily injury of circumcision such that the state has no obligation to prosecute unless the injured party requests it, and that would be in this case the parents of the child!
--------------------
Theyll have me whippd for speaking true; thoult have me whippd for lying; and sometimes I am whippd for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: my son had the surgery when he was 6. Praying for your daughter. It was painful, but well worth it.
Thank you. You are so kind. I'm a bit tortured by all the possible decisions sometimes, and how we can know that we're really doing what's best, and I think that maybe does make me more reactive on this issue. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?
No. But again, I don't believe very many people actually do it for that reason.
I don't either. The people I work with are in fact choosing circumcision despite the fact it means the child won't look like dad.
We're all trying to do the best we can, you know. If you think we're wrong, educate us. No need to flip out and lodge charges of self-serving mutilation.
Exactly.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's simply never been an issue at any point in my life, excepting those rare times (such as this thread) when other people start calling me things like "maimed" and "mutilated". That can make me quite angry.
I think this is a good point and I'm aware that some western doctors now refer to "female genital cutting" rather than "mutilation" because it is of no help to the victims of the practice - and can be of positive harm to their regaining self-esteem and, therefore where possible and desired, having corrective procedures - to describe them as "mutilated."
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: my son had the surgery when he was 6. Praying for your daughter. It was painful, but well worth it.
Thank you. You are so kind. I'm a bit tortured by all the possible decisions sometimes, and how we can know that we're really doing what's best, and I think that maybe does make me more reactive on this issue.
Yes, we were in that same place, and of course, no one can tell you precisely when/if it's best for your daughter, although the experts will weigh in. Just wanted you to know in the midst of the argument that I know some of what you're going through, the fraught decision that it is. May God lead you.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
This, Marvin, was the attitude of German law until recently. There was an article published a few years back in a legal magazine but nobody took much notice until the court in Cologne decided to argue along its lines. Now the court upheld the principle but acquitted the surgeon who will therefore not appeal. So the decision will stand and a non-issue has become an issue.
In recent years we generally have a tendency towards legal decisions going against religions. So this case is part of a wider development with religious freedom no longer automatically over-ruling most other fundamental rights if in conflict.
Therefore the simple insistence on "religious freedom is more important than a small physical impairment" tends to be no longer enough in court. Observers are not sure that the Cologne decision would be overturned by the Constitutional Court should it go there.
But all other arguments seem problematic.
Judaism and Islam have been doing it for millennia? The same is true for many dubious cultural and religious traditions incl. FGM. Size of a religious community is irrelevant, too (the "These are world religions, not cults!" approach). Justice should precisely not depend on whether you are big/small, rich/poor or powerful/weak. If the decision had been against Jehovah's Witnesses public support for them would have been minimal I am sure.
The argument that it would be psychologically and socially harmful for a Jewish boy to be uncircumcised (for Muslims it is slightly different - there is no prescription they have to be circumcised as infants). Over the last decade in legal matters the questions of the child's well-being has become the leading principle, inter alia for custody and access rights. Well-being can be furthered by having an intact body - and it can be furthered by being a member of your religious and cultural community which would outweigh the harm of being slightly mutilated and put at risk with a medically unnecessary operation. This argument however seems slippery slope, too, as the same could be argued with respect to FGM. In the societies in question women not undergoing it are marginalised to the point of having no social place in it.
But Jews and Muslims do not use medical, cultural, social-integration arguments and all the other secondary explanations (desert people want to avoid sand under the foreskin :-). They invokereligious obligation (which for Jews at least it undoubtedly is). Can a court over-rule God? So all this is not about circumcision but about the relative rank of religious freedom in the hierarchy of basic human rights.
Would people have seen this case differently if the complainant had been a young man on his own behalf rather than the state on behalf of a Muslim infant? I wonder whether now there will be sons using the "I've been harmed" approach to strengthen their case in family feuds in court.
Btw I am sure that a circumcision would have deprived me of quite a lot of feeling and pleasure on the penis. Unlike a circumcised man I can try out the alternative and compare. I disagree when people claim it is a minor difference.
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Sylvander , how can you say:
quote:
Btw I am sure that a circumcision would have deprived me of quite a lot of feeling and pleasure on the penis. Unlike a circumcised man I can try out the alternative and compare. I disagree when people claim it is a minor difference.
Like me, you have never experienced the other. True, you can now be circumcised and experience that condition, but it is irreversible. I most certainly can never experience being uncircumcised, but I don't feel "maimed" or "mutilated"; I just am as I am. I have never worried about it. The anger some circumcised men feel towards their parents for having been snipped seems to me to be far more a facet of an already bad relationship than anything else.
On a light note. Paddy went down to the pub gloriously happy and when asked why, said his wife had just given birth to a 24 lb boy. The others queried this, and Paddy replied that his family were all strong. A week later, he was back and asked how the baby was - he was fine, but now down to 21 lb. Why the loss of weight, he was asked. Paddy said "We had him circumcised".
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
As for er, trying out the opposite--
this isn't likely to result in a true comparison because human skin trains itself (or is trained by the brain?) to react differently depending on conditions. For example, a woman (or man, I suppose!) who shaves her legs and a woman who does not both have similar tactile sensations if touched on the skin of the leg. But let the non-shaver decide to shave and suddenly her leg is far less touch sensitive, at least for a time--the brain is used to having the hairs transmit most of the touch sensation, and with them gone and the skin nerves not yet used to picking up the slack, it takes the brain a while to reacclimate. Though it will, yes indeed. (yes, this comes from some study about a decade ago, citation stuff irretrievably lost in my brain)
I suspect the same may be true of pre vs. post circumcision sensitivity, though you'd have to get up a study to be sure. (Imagine trying to recruit people for that one!)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect the same may be true of pre vs. post circumcision sensitivity, though you'd have to get up a study to be sure. (Imagine trying to recruit people for that one!)
Proposed methodology:
Stage one: Take one uncircumcised man. Have him pull back his foreskin to expose fully the head of his penis, then put on ordinary underpants and trousers. Knock his hat off in a high wind and ask him to chase it. Observe.
Stage two: Look at some Jews/Muslims/Americans moving about. Do they walk or run like that?
Predicted result: No, they certainly don't. They walk quite normally, not like someone's hung a large cactus between their legs.
Anticipated conclusion: Infant circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
... a small physical impairment ... an intact body
Do you even realise how offensive I find such comments?
I am not impaired.
I do have an intact body.
You are talking crap.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Too much logic, Eliab. That's not wanted on this thread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect the same may be true of pre vs. post circumcision sensitivity, though you'd have to get up a study to be sure. (Imagine trying to recruit people for that one!)
Proposed methodology:
Stage one: Take one uncircumcised man. Have him pull back his foreskin to expose fully the head of his penis, then put on ordinary underpants and trousers. Knock his hat off in a high wind and ask him to chase it. Observe.
Stage two: Look at some Jews/Muslims/Americans moving about. Do they walk or run like that?
Predicted result: No, they certainly don't. They walk quite normally, not like someone's hung a large cactus between their legs.
Anticipated conclusion: Infant circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity.
Do you think people with lip piercings have less sensitive lips ? And would you be able to tell comparing someone with a lip piercing several years old and someone whose lip you'd just hole punched ?
[ 25. July 2012, 16:55: Message edited by: ThinkČ ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
Do you think people with lip piercings have less sensitive lips ? And would you be able to tell comparing someone with a lip piercing several years old and someone whose lip you'd just hole punched ?
How does this challenge what he said? This is just changing the subject.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Infant circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity.
I think you could safely conclude that the bit of skin dropped in the bucket or laid theatrically at Moses' feet has lost sensitivity. But I'm not sure that the experiment of observing what happens with foreskin retraction is analogous. For instance, foreskin retraction if left can result in urinary obstruction and (ironically enough) the medically indicated need for a circumcision. That doesn't happen on circumcision. Hence the two can't be regarded as equivalent.
I noted some discussion about STD transmission earlier in the thread. I think that it's widely accepted that the data show a reduction in heterosexual HIV transmission in the circumcised, but not on homosexual HIV transmission. I realise there are biases involved, but they've been looked at carefully and that seems to be the consensus.
Here is a summary.
I'm not claiming those benefits as an argument-clinching winner in favour of circumcision, and they are likely to be slight for most Europeans or Americans, one could argue that candidate circumcisees would be better off making their own choice as an adult (although teenage transmission is a worry), but I think it is reasonable for some parents to site that as a factor in their decision.
[ 25. July 2012, 17:12: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think you could safely conclude that the bit of skin dropped in the bucket or laid theatrically at Moses' feet has lost sensitivity. But I'm not sure that the experiment of observing what happens with foreskin retraction is analogous.
He wasn't comparing them at all. Just making an observation concerning sensation.
quote:
For instance, foreskin retraction if left can result in urinary obstruction and (ironically enough) the medically indicated need for a circumcision. That doesn't happen on circumcision. Hence the two can't be regarded as equivalent.
Huh? He wasn't saying they're equivalent. He was making a point about sensitivity. That's all. Sensitivity. Can you refute his point?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The point I'm trying to make is that the pain and discomfort that results from retracting the foreskin may not be present if the foreskin is removed rather than retracted.
Hence the fact that people find it painful having their foreskin retracted doesn't necessarily mean that absence of foreskin would produce the same pain were it not for desensitisation.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
So you're saying that men circumcised at birth don't feel discomfort with their glans rubbing in their underwear because they had a circumcision, not because they've become desensitized, and if instead they drew back their foreskin every day and walked around, they would still be as uncomfortable as the intact man who draws back his foreskin after 20 years of having his glans protected by it?
Is that what you're saying? It's because it was cut off, not merely drawn back, that the glans can stand rubbing around in the BVDs?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Suffice it to say that there really is no one who can answer the question of whether infant circumcision leads to a loss of sensation. There is a very small sample size who can even speak to the difference of sensation before and after an adult or childhood circumcision, but no one at all able to speak knowledgeably to the difference before and after an infant circumcision (which is, I understand, a much less invasive procedure so one might expect the healing to be different, as well as the differing impact of going thru puberty w/ and w/o foreskin). So we just don't/ can't know.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
Do you think people with lip piercings have less sensitive lips ? And would you be able to tell comparing someone with a lip piercing several years old and someone whose lip you'd just hole punched ?
How does this challenge what he said? This is just changing the subject.
Essentially that his thought experiment has too many variables to be useful. Comparing something the instant after it happened with years after it happened is not helpful, and a piercing (perhaps I should have suggested a Prince Albert) in a sensitive body may initially appear as it should either always be painful or must reduce sensitivity - but this is not in fact the case. We can't make that extrapolation for circumcision either.
Infant circumcision will change how your brain is wired as you grow up. And your brain will change its body mapping even in adulthood in response to a change of that type.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
Comparing something the instant after it happened with years after it happened is not helpful
You've completely misunderstood, I'm afraid.
The comparison is not intended to compare the process of circumcision now as opposed to years ago. It is to compare the current state of irritability of the glans, between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
We know that circumcised men don't much notice their unprotected glans banging about inside their underwear - that's obvious, because they get through life every day without noticing or walking funny. But let an uncircumcised man try it without the snug cushioning of a foreskin, and he'll find it highly uncomfortable, simply because he isn't used to it. Sure, he could get used to it, probably quite quickly, but right now he isn't, and in consequence his penis just is more sensitive.
This is an observable fact. It doesn't necessarily imply very much about quality of life, or sexual function, or anything else, only that the occasionally exposed glans of an uncircumcised penis is more sensitive to contact than the constantly exposed glans of a circumcised one.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And you, I think, have missed my point. Being habituated to one form of touch, does not necessarily mean being habituated to another form of touch.
You might think a lip piercing would mean - for it to stop being painful - you would lose sensitivity, but this does not happen. Same with nipple piercing.
I just don't think you can make the assumption - based upon the thought experiment you have suggested.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
And since the only form of sensitivity people are concerned about losing (or so it seems to me!) is the sexual, the thought experiment doesn't work. You can't assume that comfort wearing underwear in a foreskin-less condition equates to less sexual pleasure. Unless you think that all touch is the same, and generated and experienced in exactly the same way. which doesn't seem to be the case for other parts of the body.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
