Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[Storm]

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.

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

And neither do I. So, I don't do it to my son. You're free not to do it to your children. That's as far as our authority extends.

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

"Needlessly" is debatable (obviously).

 

[Songbird]

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.

I'm sorry, Levite.

FWIW, I don't think many here support an outright ban. Debating actual circumcision details has been most of the focus, not whether people should be prohibited from doing it for religious reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

And you keep bringing up the earlobe.

Yes, because it's a piece of relatively useless anatomy that we can all live without, but we have enough emotional distance from it to realize that slicing it off is needlessly cruel.

The difference isn't anatomy, it's culture.

If that means that people have been trained to believe that chopping off foreskins is acceptable in a way that chopping off earlobes isn't, then I agree with you.

I don't think that people have the right to legislate their cultural preferences onto minorities without strong justification.

Unless they're imposing their cultural preferences on children who did not choose them?

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.

There's one big difference: cultural desensitization. We've been conditioned to think that there's nothing wrong with circumcision. We haven't been conditioned this way when it comes to earlobe removal.

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Parental duty is to inform their child about the world, not to indoctrinate them and force them to be part of the parent's culture.

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'd say you hit it. It ends at abuse. I don't see how cutting off a piece of your child is any less abuse them beating them.

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.

I'm sorry, love. No, I wasn't hinting at that. I would hesitate to bring that up unless necessary. I just meant someone who is outside the norm, religion-wise and in general.

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.

In what other context is cutting off a piece of your child for reasons other than medical necessity (or benefit) or correcting a deformity not considered harm?

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

I don't understand. How is someone convincing their child to do porn any different from doing a circumcision on them?

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.

Right, and that means that what I said is the default. It's like trying to make a movie out of book but stay as faithful as possible to the book. There are some things you'll have to change, but you do everything you can to stick to the book. In this case, you do everything you can to preserve the child's right to decide what to do with their own body, but you have to make some exceptions. You just try to keep those exceptions in check.

But yes, the limit is to not abuse your kids. Cutting off pieces of your kids would fit in the "abuse" category, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Needlessly" is debatable (obviously).

I think that to argue that it's anything other than an arbitrary cultural preference, we get into the factual question of whether circumcision really was ordained by God or started by Abraham.

 

[Magic Man]

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

It's not a strawman. In any other context, cutting off a piece of your child would be considered abuse. Why not in this one?

 

[Magic Man]

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.

Exactly. That's why I used the example of punching a kid in the stomach. The kid will be fine after a little while, but I don't think anyone would claim that's acceptable.

 

[Storm]

Sorry, guys... I'm juggling for all I'm worth, and I've got to drop this particular ball. Be back later.

 

[Magic Man]

And neither do I. So, I don't do it to my son. You're free not to do it to your children. That's as far as our authority extends.

This isn't a case of "You don't like it? Don't do it.". Well, it sort of is the other way. "If you like it, do it, but don't do it to someone else".

I don't like people beating their kids, but I'd say society's authority extends far enough to tell them they need to stop.

 

[Magic Man]

Sorry, guys... I'm juggling for all I'm worth, and I've got to drop this particular ball. Be back later.

No problem, love. I'll be back tomorrow. Probably best for us to take a step back anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I'm fine with Jewish culture, but not to the extent where I'd hurt a child over it.

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.

... when you consider only the medical effects: long-term harm/benefit, risk of infection, etc. AFAICT, these sorts of cost-benefit analyses tend not to consider the pain of the circumcision as a cost itself, except to the extent that they affect a person's response to pain later in life.

So we're left with a procedure that has no medical benefit but inflicts some nasty pain on the child. This balance is still tipped in the "against" 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.

Exactly what respect do you think is due for beliefs that, AFAICT, depend on factual claims that no Jew I've ever heard of has actually demonstrated to be true, and IMO sound rather specious?

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.

My position all along has been that while I find infant circumcision to be offensive and a profoundly negative practice, I wouldn't support a legal ban on it. I hate it, but I won't stop you from doing it. I don't see why you would think you have the right to ask more of me.

 

[Alex_G]

This issue clearly stand as 2 parts. One will be the debate as to the legitimacy and moral defensibility of the practice in question, and second is the debate as to whether an outright bad is the best course of action.

I think the first question has a clear answer and that is it is not morally defensible in this day and age for the following reasons.

1. The children that are being circumcised are too young to full appreciate complex ideas that surround religious belief, just as they are too young to appreciate political ideas. A child cannot be a religious child, any more that it can be a conservative or socialist child. Its parents projecting their belief system onto a child.

2. Children are innocent and vulnerable, both mentally and physically. They need the protection of their parents. It is parental duty to act in their best interest. Circumcision is completely unnecessary. I think that to push a child to go through with it is a coercion of the worst kind, and the moral failings of it are glaringly obvious. What might be said of a hypothetical situation, whereby a home for mentally retarded people with learning difficulties decided on a policy of genital alteration? My point stands that its an unacceptable presumption regarding the mind of the subject, and an unacceptable coercion on an individual that’s incapable of giving valid informed consent. Circumcision does not exemplify acting in the best interests of the child.

3. It represents a malignant aspect of religion that makes good people do bad things, and it protects these actions that should be reprehensible, and really would be in any other scenario.

4. An argument that it lowers rates of transmission of STD’s is no justification, and is a coincidence that’s shamefully being used retrospectively for an act that’s driven entirely by religious belief. In a normal, healthy individual, there is no meaningful medical advantage that warrants its routine practice.

5. Arguing that no circumcision would result in cultural difficulties for the child within the traditions of the parents’ religion clearly shows a problem with religion and the culture, not that the problem is a child keeping its foreskin.


Whatever the risks involved in the practice of circumcision, be it excessive bleeding, infection, aesthetic problems, functional problems, psychological problems, it wont be as low as the risk of not doing it, as that is 0. Additionally anyone who plays down its severity, saying ‘oh it’s not that bad’, well not that bad compared to what exactly? Clearly its not that bad compared to cutting off an arm, but that just illustrates the ludicrous nature of the defence. It is really bad, if you compare it to not doing it at all.




Now as for how to deal with it I might agree with the ethos behind a ban, but i do see the disadvantages of rapidly introducing such a thing, especially in an area that highly practices it.

I would think that a sensible governance in a society would of course promote parental freedom and liberty, as with most aspects of human life, but function as a regulatory body if not primarily to defend those who cannot or need defending. The innocent and the vulnerable.
I cannot see any honest benefit to cutting the foreskin off of a child’s penis, it isnt in the best interest of the child (provided they haven’t got a medical condition that specifically warrants it such as paraphimosis or balanoposthitis), and clearly if driven by religious zeal, its hardly putting the child first.

If some regulations where to be implemented, it would at least aid in deterring the continuation of a tradition of religious bodily mutilation and the mind-set that goes with it. Its place in the contemporary world is, as far as i can see, only persisting due to the stubbornness of religion and a malignant refusal to adopt reasonable change.
I might advocate some measure of a stepwise reduction, and promoting its discontinuation. A bit of a grace period so that the transition is smooth and they dont just get a sudden spike in the number of 'back alley' jobs, which harbour far more risk.

Alex

 

[Poisonshady313]

So you think that the government should be in the business of licencing mohels?

Aren't they already?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Aren't they already?

Sure... in Israel. AFAICT, not elsewhere.

I can find quite a few Google hits for "certified mohels", but AFAICT, this either refers to mohels who are certified in Israel or ones who adhere to some sort of voluntary certification.

 

[Storm]

My position all along has been that while I find infant circumcision to be offensive and a profoundly negative practice, I wouldn't support a legal ban on it. I hate it, but I won't stop you from doing it. I don't see why you would think you have the right to ask more of me.

Oh.

Why were you arguing with me, then?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh.

Why were you arguing with me, then?

Because I disagreed with the rationale you were giving for your argument.

And FWIW, I don't support a ban because I think that parents have some right to inflict circumcision on their children, but because I think that a ban would be unworkable for practical reasons.

 

[Magic Man]

Because I disagreed with the rationale you were giving for your argument.

And FWIW, I don't support a ban because I think that parents have some right to inflict circumcision on their children, but because I think that a ban would be unworkable for practical reasons.

Exactly. If a ban would work with no real complications (like getting them done by unlicensed people in shady circumstances), I'd support it. The only reason I don't is the real-world application of it.

 

[Falvlun]

So, the conversation came up with my fiance, and I stated that I have no intention of circumcising any possible future sons. He was quite surprised and took issue with it (so apparently something we are going to have to discuss. )

His issues, namely were:
1) The build-up of "gunk" that needs to be cleaned out.
2) The fact that he is circumcised, so he wouldn't know how to mentor his uncircumsized son about the mechanics of cleaning said gunk, or peeing, or whatever else it is guys need to impart to their sons.
3) That the kid would be ostracized, especially due to locker room experiences.

All seem pretty legitimate concerns to me. What do you all know about this "gunk"? Does that increase likelihood of infections? What of ostracization and father-son talks?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Exactly. If a ban would work with no real complications (like getting them done by unlicensed people in shady circumstances), I'd support it. The only reason I don't is the real-world application of it.

Throughout human history regulation has a much better track record of successfully resolving or ameliorating differences over whether or not a given practice should be allowed than prohibition.

And, so long as it is understood that the "lack of practicality" is not merely a matter of governmental authority (government has no business interfering in what is essentially a personal or civil matter) and also contains elements of logistics (exactly how would you enforce this ban? How much money would this cost) and municipal structure (would you allow for black market hospitals? Do you zone areas for "religious hospitals only?"), then I don't think there is a lot of room for disagreement.


The amount of medical benefit, lack thereof, or medical detriment is not sufficiently distinct in order to rise to the level of an "epidemic." And as such people should be free to choose and act as they do. As a circumcised male I don't resent my parents for having the procedure done, and I don't seriously expect that that opinion would change measurably if I had my foreskin regrown. I don't pretend like my relative level of satisfaction/dis-satisfaction should be indicative of a standard for others, but it does seem to me strong evidence that the amount of immorality involved in the issue cannot possibly rise to the level of a strong concern such that regulation is warranted let alone needed.

MTF

 

[Breathe]

1) The build-up of "gunk" that needs to be cleaned out.

Smegma. It's a white substance made up of skin oils, moisture, etc. It is pretty bleh in itself, but it does have some purposes like acting as a natural lube. It's if one does not wash it away that it becomes dried and gross - and I don't think that'd be easy to do. If you wash it after intercourse, no problem. How do you wash it away? Pull skin back, wash with water. No soap is needed, but some may like a mild soap.

Women can also get smegma - so should we cut away the labia? Of course not. I see little distinction between cutting away the labia and foreskin and they should only be done for medical reasons or by one's choice when they are old enough.

I'm uncut and I've never, ever had smegma.

2) The fact that he is circumcised, so he wouldn't know how to mentor his uncircumsized son about the mechanics of cleaning said gunk, or peeing, or whatever else it is guys need to impart to their sons.

Hold willy, pull skin back if necessary, pee. It's not like it's rocket science.
To clean: pull skin back, wash with water.

Easy.

3) That the kid would be ostracized, especially due to locker room experiences.

"Ha ha ha! You have an unmangled penis! Nyah nyah nyah-nyah!"
Seriously? If someone said that, is that even worth bothering with? If someone said it to me when I was a kid, I'd've just laughed. Considering a growing percentage of Americans and Canadians are not being circumcised, it's not going to be that shocking.

All seem pretty legitimate concerns to me.

They seem rather... silly to me. Silly and ignorant of what it's actually like.

What do you all know about this "gunk"? Does that increase likelihood of infections?

Supposedly keeps the glans moist during intercourse, (as opposed to needing lube) which is why one should wash their penis after sex.

It only would increase the likelihood of infections if you've got disgusting hygiene habits.

Also, you don't get it as a kid. (Source) So, that's no reason to cut off a perfectly natural penis part. There's myths that it causes cancer and stuff - but there's absolutely no evidence to back that up at all.

Again, to prevent it: pull skin back, wash penis with water.

What of ostracization and father-son talks?

I never had any talks and I've come off alright but I wrote how simple it is to talk about it: the only difference is "pull your foreskin back", pretty much.

It's not like the penis has suddenly been replaced with a bonsai tree or anything, it's just in its natural state.