Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Semantic games.

It's not a game. It's a recognition of the fact that parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. The rights of a parent are not absolute.

Children are incapable of informed consent; therefore such decisions are left up to the parents.

I would not choose to have my newborn son circumcised, nor would I pierce my daughter's ears. However, these modifications are not extreme enough to merit intervention. Disapprove all you want, but mind your own business.

It's not just a matter of intervening; it's also a matter of actively accommodating the practice. For circumcision to be legal, you need to have at least one of the following:

- doctors performing circumcisions
- government licencing/certification for mohels
- a specific exemption from government licencing/certification for mohels

Any one of these is an explicit act.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Has anyone watched their son get circumcised? I realize personal stories use emotionalism, so take it as you will.

My husband really wanted our son circumcised, and I really didn't. But I deferred to his desire, because he understands growing up as a boy. I insisted on him watching, though, and making sure the doc used anesthetic. I was going to watch myself, but I had complications from labor and was being treated while the circ occurred. He said they strapped him naked onto a plastic board, hands and feed strapped down. Our baby was making noises of discomfort at this point. The restraint is of course necessary for safety. The doc put a topical anesthetic on, then did the circ about five minutes after. (Not long enough for the anesthetic to be effective.) He said our son screamed and cried, and although he was calmed after 10 minutes, each urination and diaper change was painful for him for about two weeks. Also, the doc nicked him, which bled on and off for about a week.

In the long run, this was a short amount of pain that my son forgot. But it's not clear how neonatal pain affects infants. There are various studies of post-op cortisol levels in newborns after various procedures, and studies of their responses to painful experiences (like immunizations) after undergoing surgery or painful procedures as newborns. Newborns who were circumcised reacted more strongly to future pain. Neonatal intensive care units put a lot of effort into reducing pain and stress in infants, because it helps them heal and develop faster.

Based on circumcision and subsequent reaction to pain:
ScienceDirect - The Lancet : Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination

And from: Experience in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Affects Pain Response
"Greater frequency of invasive procedures is associated with behavioral immaturity..."

Many babies must undergo invasive procedures, but I wouldn't again choose to do one unnecessarily.

It would be interesting to see is there is a correlation between political attitudes and circumcision.
The USA has a very high rate of circumcisions as does Israel and most Islamic countries.

 

[Storm]

The rights of a parent are not absolute.

When did I say they were?

It's not just a matter of intervening; it's also a matter of actively accommodating the practice. For circumcision to be legal, you need to have at least one of the following:

- doctors performing circumcisions
- government licencing/certification for mohels
- a specific exemption from government licencing/certification for mohels

Any one of these is an explicit act.

And how does that differ from tattoos and piercings?

 

[Storm]

It would be interesting to see is there is a correlation between political attitudes and circumcision.
The USA has a very high rate of circumcisions as does Israel and most Islamic countries.

I'm very liberal.

 

[Songbird]

Simple: FGM is not circumcision. Even castration falls short. FGM in the best case scenario is completely destroying a girl's genitalia, making her incapable of sex. THen she's required to have sex anyway once she's married.

Male circumcision is physically equivalent to female prepuce removal, which is the very first stage of Type 1 FGM. FGM typically involves more than that, but technically prepuce removal of either gender is similar.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Male circumcision is physically equivalent to female prepuce removal, which is the very first stage of Type 1 FGM. FGM typically involves more than that, but technically prepuce removal of either gender is similar.

Hehe...

 

[Songbird]

It would be interesting to see is there is a correlation between political attitudes and circumcision.
The USA has a very high rate of circumcisions as does Israel and most Islamic countries.

I don't know...I think it's difficult to change a strong tradition. My husband's reasons for wanting circumcision involved that. But I've never researched political attitudes with circs.

 

[Storm]

Male circumcision is physically equivalent to female prepuce removal, which is the very first stage of Type 1 FGM. FGM typically involves more than that, but technically prepuce removal of either gender is similar.

Right, I couldn't remember the Types, but I did say that in an earlier post.

I also said I have no quarrel with that.

 

[Magic Man]

They had every right as the guardians of a minor incapable of informed consent. It's not different; it's parental duty.

It's a lot different. Parental duty involved doing what's best for your children. Cutting a piece off of them because of your own personal preference doesn't fall into that category. I really can't understand why you think they would have every right to do that. I would understand it from some people, but I'm honestly shocked by that opinion from you.

Then why is it so difficult for me?

I said it was easier when outside the culture. There are still possible reasons why someone like you wouldn't see it that way. I would also expect someone in your position to hold that every human being no matter what age has the right to keep their body the way it is aside from medical necessities or correcting deformities.

Well, that's precisely what *I* see here. Mileage obviously varies.

Wow...I don't know how to respond to that. I honestly don't understand how you see it as the same thing. We're not telling people they can't practice their religion. We're telling them they can practice it inasmuch as it doesn't harm their children.

Children have no such right.

Why not? So, is child porn OK as long as the parent convinces them to do it?

With the exception of physical abuse, what happens to a child's flesh is the decision of their legal guardians. Children are rightly denied the "right" to make their own decisions regarding surgical procedures.

No, the child's flesh is their own to make decisions about. We make exceptions to that general rule in certain situations where the child might not have a full understanding of things, but the default is usually to leave the child alone unless there is good reason to do something to their body. I really don't understand why you think it should be otherwise. I understand that parents have to make decisions about their children, but they have to stay within limits.

 

[Magic Man]

Semantic games.

Children are incapable of informed consent; therefore such decisions are left up to the parents.

Some decisions are left up to them, but they still can't just do whatever they want. They can't just decide to amputate a child's finger or something. We still safeguard the child's right to their own bodies as much as possible with some exceptions.

Disapprove all you want, but mind your own business.

OK, but should I mind my own business when someone is beating their child or cutting off their earlobes? It's not about disapproving. It's about the fact that we consistently don't let parents opt to disfigure their children in any way, except for this one instance. This shouldn't be an exception.

 

[Levite]

I think I am done with this debate.

What it seems to boil down to is that Jews consider brit milah sacred and beneficial, non-Jews consider circumcision offensive and harmful.

Jews consider it a vital part of Jewish culture. Non-Jews don't appear to care about culture, or at least Jewish culture.

Many doctors consider the procedure harmless at worst, or slightly beneficial at best. Some doctors consider the procedure probably comparatively harmless, but unnecessary. A very few consider it quite beneficial, and a very few consider it quite harmful. So there does not appear to be an overwhelming weight of medical evidence in either direction.

But in any case, there has been a consistent refusal in this thread to understand Jewish culture and spirituality, and more often than not, when such minimal understanding of Jewish culture and religion has been demonstrated, it has been dismissively accompanied by outright devaluation and contempt for Jewish culture, or for non-Western cultures in general, or for any culture that does not share precisely the same social, ethical, and secular-atheistic viewpoint on this issue that the posters in question embrace. The voices of tolerance and pluralistic acceptance have been sparsely heard indeed, outside of the Jews and the Muslims who posted.

I have seen so very many threads on this site where atheists, agnostics, and other secularists have complained bitterly about the ways in which religious people invade their privacy and religion in the culture affects them in ways they find oppressive. And now, when the shoe is on the other foot, there is a stunning lack of compassion and empathy from the secularist side....

It has been extremely disappointing to see so much cultural intolerance, and so much xenophobia, cloaked in the garb of human rights language.

 

[Storm]

It's a lot different. Parental duty involved doing what's best for your children. Cutting a piece off of them because of your own personal preference doesn't fall into that category. I really can't understand why you think they would have every right to do that. I would understand it from some people, but I'm honestly shocked by that opinion from you.

Parental duty includes providing them with a community and identity, and Jews are doing precisely that. I'm unfamiliar with the Islamic practice, so won't speak to that.

Furthermore, parental duty goes hand in hand with parental rights. Until the point of abuse, parents have the right to make decisions for their children, ranging from dietary choice to religious indoctrination. Where does duty end and right begin?

I said it was easier when outside the culture. There are still possible reasons why someone like you wouldn't see it that way. I would also expect someone in your position to hold that every human being no matter what age has the right to keep their body the way it is aside from medical necessities or correcting deformities.

I presume you're hinting at my history of abuse? I'm sorry but body mods don't qualify. Also, my history includes unjustified interference with my parental rights.

Wow...I don't know how to respond to that. I honestly don't understand how you see it as the same thing. We're not telling people they can't practice their religion. We're telling them they can practice it inasmuch as it doesn't harm their children.

What harm? Slightly decreased sexual pleasure? Sorry, but as much as I disapprove of the choice, it's a matter of personal priority, not abuse.

Why not? So, is child porn OK as long as the parent convinces them to do it?

How many times do I have to say "abuse," for God's sake?!?!?!

No, the child's flesh is their own to make decisions about. We make exceptions to that general rule in certain situations where the child might not have a full understanding of things, but the default is usually to leave the child alone unless there is good reason to do something to their body. I really don't understand why you think it should be otherwise. I understand that parents have to make decisions about their children, but they have to stay within limits.

That's not the default. That's the proposed change to the default. The limits parents must stay within are "don't abuse your kids." The rest is (or should be) up to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When did I say they were?

It's what you seemed to be implying.

Where's the limit, then? What's bad enough to make you say that a parent shouldn't do that to a child?

And how does that differ from tattoos and piercings?

It doesn't.

But tattooing children is illegal in most countries, and I've already stated in this thread that I'm also against ear piercing for infants.

 

[Storm]

Some decisions are left up to them, but they still can't just do whatever they want. They can't just decide to amputate a child's finger or something. We still safeguard the child's right to their own bodies as much as possible with some exceptions.



OK, but should I mind my own business when someone is beating their child or cutting off their earlobes? It's not about disapproving. It's about the fact that we consistently don't let parents opt to disfigure their children in any way, except for this one instance. This shouldn't be an exception.

Quit it with the child abuse strawman. I'm getting sick of repeating myself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How many times do I have to say "abuse," for God's sake?!?!?!

IMO, routine circumcision is abuse.

There are much worse forms abuse, and it's a form of abuse that comes with a long history in several cultures, but I think circumcision is over the line. As a society, we'd have no problem recognizing this if it was an earlobe that was being cut off, so why can't we recognize it for a foreskin?

 

[England my lionheart]

I think I am done with this debate.

What it seems to boil down to is that Jews consider brit milah sacred and beneficial, non-Jews consider circumcision offensive and harmful.

Jews consider it a vital part of Jewish culture. Non-Jews don't appear to care about culture, or at least Jewish culture.

Many doctors consider the procedure harmless at worst, or slightly beneficial at best. Some doctors consider the procedure probably comparatively harmless, but unnecessary. A very few consider it quite beneficial, and a very few consider it quite harmful. So there does not appear to be an overwhelming weight of medical evidence in either direction.

But in any case, there has been a consistent refusal in this thread to understand Jewish culture and spirituality, and more often than not, when such minimal understanding of Jewish culture and religion has been demonstrated, it has been dismissively accompanied by outright devaluation and contempt for Jewish culture, or for non-Western cultures in general, or for any culture that does not share precisely the same social, ethical, and secular-atheistic viewpoint on this issue that the posters in question embrace. The voices of tolerance and pluralistic acceptance have been sparsely heard indeed, outside of the Jews and the Muslims who posted.

I have seen so very many threads on this site where atheists, agnostics, and other secularists have complained bitterly about the ways in which religious people invade their privacy and religion in the culture affects them in ways they find oppressive. And now, when the shoe is on the other foot, there is a stunning lack of compassion and empathy from the secularist side

It has been extremely disappointing to see so much cultural intolerance, and so much xenophobia, cloaked in the garb of human rights language.

Sorry you feel like that Levite,but really disproval from my POV is lack of choice

 

[Storm]

It's what you seemed to be implying.

Then you misread, I'm afraid.

Where's the limit, then? What's bad enough to make you say that a parent shouldn't do that to a child?

The limit is when real harm is done to the child. Slight reduction of still-intense pleasure doesn't qualify.

But tattooing children is illegal in most countries,

I'm unfamiliar with the legal minutia of "most countries," but last I heard tattoos were legal with parental consent in the US.

and I've already stated in this thread that I'm also against ear piercing for infants.

And I've already stated that I'm against circumcision. However, there should be more justification to banning religious practices than "I don't like it."

 

[Storm]

IMO, routine circumcision is abuse.

There are much worse forms abuse, and it's a form of abuse that comes with a long history in several cultures, but I think circumcision is over the line. As a society, we'd have no problem recognizing this if it was an earlobe that was being cut off, so why can't we recognize it for a foreskin?

I disagree. It's a legitimate option that we would not choose.

And you keep bringing up the earlobe. The difference isn't anatomy, it's culture. I don't think that people have the right to legislate their cultural preferences onto minorities without strong justification.

There is no difference in principle between an earlobe and a foreskin. There's a huge difference in principle between a rite of enormous cultural/ religious significance and random acts of violence.

 

[Magic Man]

I think I am done with this debate.

What it seems to boil down to is that Jews consider brit milah sacred and beneficial, non-Jews consider circumcision offensive and harmful.

Jews consider it a vital part of Jewish culture. Non-Jews don't appear to care about culture, or at least Jewish culture.

What it boils down to is that, objectively speaking, circumcision is a violation of the child's rights and shouldn't be done unless it is conclusively found to be beneficial or until the child is old enough to give informed consent.

Many doctors consider the procedure harmless at worst, or slightly beneficial at best. Some doctors consider the procedure probably comparatively harmless, but unnecessary. A very few consider it quite beneficial, and a very few consider it quite harmful. So there does not appear to be an overwhelming weight of medical evidence in either direction.

The net harm is not as much as some other things, but ultimately it's a violation of the child's rights. A parent punching a kid in the stomach without damaging them internally isn't harmful by this standard, but I'm guessing you'll agree that doesn't mean it should be allowed.

But in any case, there has been a consistent refusal in this thread to understand Jewish culture and spirituality, and more often than not, when such minimal understanding of Jewish culture and religion has been demonstrated, it has been dismissively accompanied by outright devaluation and contempt for Jewish culture, or for non-Western cultures in general, or for any culture that does not share precisely the same social, ethical, and secular-atheistic viewpoint on this issue that the posters in question embrace. The voices of tolerance and pluralistic acceptance have been sparsely heard indeed, outside of the Jews and the Muslims who posted.

I understand that this is what you've seen, but this is not what's going on. There has been no refusal to understand Jewish culture. We all understand that this is an important part of Jewish culture. No one is denying that. That's why the argument is that Jewish culture should not be an acceptable excuse for doing something that would otherwise be illegal.

Look, it's not that we're against Jewish culture. Jews would still be welcome to practice their culture in any way they want, as long as they're not harming their children (or anyone else). That's a pretty standard rule for societies.

I have seen so very many threads on this site where atheists, agnostics, and other secularists have complained bitterly about the ways in which religious people invade their privacy and religion in the culture affects them in ways they find oppressive. And now, when the shoe is on the other foot, there is a stunning lack of compassion and empathy from the secularist side

It has been extremely disappointing to see so much cultural intolerance, and so much xenophobia, cloaked in the garb of human rights language.

And I'm very sorry you choose to see it that way, instead of seeing the reality of it. Banning others from same-sex marriage, or firing someone for being an atheist is completely different than telling someone they can't harm their child, even if it is part of their culture. I'm perfectly tolerant of other cultures and religions. Practice them all you want. Just don't harm anyone in the process. And don't go messing with anyone's body without their consent just because it's your preference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The limit is when real harm is done to the child. Slight reduction of still-intense pleasure doesn't qualify.

Are long-term effects the only valid type of harm? Circumcision means subjecting a child to a very painful event and a painful recovery. Even if he ends up with no lasting effects at all, that's real harm all by itself.

I'm unfamiliar with the legal minutia of "most countries," but last I heard tattoos were legal with parental consent in the US.

Hmm... apparently, I was mistaken about the law here, too:

While there is no law that says that you must be over the age of majority to use a piercing or tattoo service, many parlours insist that those under 18 provide written permission from a parent or guardian.

CBC News Indepth: Tattoo

Nevertheless, my position on the issue is consistent: I don't want babies to be tattooed, pierced or circumcised.

And I've already stated that I'm against circumcision. However, there should be more justification to banning religious practices than "I don't like it."

And I've given more: "it needlessly hurts children", for starters.