Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[Songbird]

I'm just curious what the objection is about.

The primary one is the alteration of a body part when a person can't give consent. The other objections are surgical risks, the pain afterward, the frequent lack of any anesthetic, and the spike in cortisol - a stress hormone - from the surgery when done without anesthetic that is known to delay development and bonding. I'm vague on the details, but from what I recall when I looked into it when my son was born, newborns who experience pain have a decreased ability to cope with pain later. Another argument I've heard is decreased sexual sensitivity in adulthood, but that's debated.

 

[Bismillah]

Wait seems like these two things are conflicting are they not?

but circumcising a child just in case has no net medical benefit.

There is no definitive evidence on the question yet.

 

[Magic Man]

Not really, cutting off a tip of the finger reduces the functionality of the hand. Circumcision, to the best of my knowledge does not.

Actually it does. It supposedly reduces sensation in the penis. I thought about that before I used the example. I think they're comparable on reducing functionality, since cutting off the tip of the finger doesn't hinder functionality much.

 

[Jainarayan]

Not really, cutting off a tip of the finger reduces the functionality of the hand. Circumcision, to the best of my knowledge does not.

It reduces sensitivity. I'd say that's a pretty major function of the body part.

 

[D-MITCH777]

Circumcision shouldn't be aloud accept for medical reasons.

 

[Alceste]

I am opposed to cutting up infants except when medically necessary. I have no objection to people choosing to be circumcised when they are old enough, like we do with tattoos.

However, I don't think legislation is the answer, because it will only force the practice underground rather than end it. Persuasion would be preferable.

 

[Magic Man]

Wait seems like these two things are conflicting are they not?

Nope. As far as we can tell with the research that has been done, circumcision doesn't have a net medical benefit. Most health organizations worldwide discourage routine circumcisions for this reason.

 

[Levite]

Dutch doctors' group calls for circumcision ban | Reuters

Thoughts?

Just another example of the wave of xenophobia gripping the Netherlands. First they ban Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter, now they're going after circumcision.

It's just the same old anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism, this time clothed in the wrappings of "animal rights" and, bizarrely, "human rights."

As if it has not been the sovereign right of parents since the dawn of time to bring up their children in accordance with their religious beliefs. As if somehow, forcing Jews and Muslims to become criminals for exercising their religious beliefs is different and okay if you do it in the name of secular, politically correct motivations, and it doesn't come diectly from a Christian religious authority.

Already there are movements in Europe to ban Muslims from wearing their religious attire. Can bans on Jews wearing kippot (yarmulkes) or other religious garments be far behind?

Anti-Semitism has been part of European culture for over a thousand years. I suppose it was unreasonable to expect that a couple of hundred years of Enlightenment and a major genocide would cure them of that.... And now they're going to extend the privilege of being oppressed to Muslims, too. How considerate of them.

 

[Bismillah]

Hinduism is the oldest extant religion, going back over 5,000 years in an unbroken line.

Ok, what does have to do with your claim that people are not culturally circumcised? I'd say 3,000 years of circumcision may have influenced cultural tradition.

 

[Magic Man]

However, I don't think legislation is the answer, because it will only force the practice underground rather than end it. Persuasion would be preferable.

This is the biggest problem with a ban, which why I'm glad they covered it in the article. A ban might not be the ideal way to go about it, but the idea should be to take measures to phase out routine circumcision.

 

[Jainarayan]

The Aztecs were stopped from performing their religious ritual of cutting out the still-beating heart of a live sacrificial victim.

 

[Magic Man]

Just another example of the wave of xenophobia gripping the Netherlands. First they ban Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter, now they're going after circumcision.

It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the idea of cutting off parts of your child. I'm assuming the Netherlands doesn't allow parents to beat their kids or scar their faces. Banning circumcisions is no different. It's also not a Jewish or Muslim thing. It's done by many Christians and non-Christians, too.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The primary one is the alteration of a body part when a person can't give consent. The other objections are surgical risks, the pain afterward, the frequent lack of any anesthetic, and the spike in cortisol - a stress hormone - from the surgery when done without anesthetic that is known to delay development and bonding. I'm vague on the details, but from what I recall when I looked into it when my son was born, newborns who experience pain have a decreased ability to cope with pain later. Another argument I've heard is decreased sexual sensitivity in adulthood, but that's debated.

But tubeworms.

 

[Bismillah]

It supposedly reduces sensation in the penis.

Meh depends on who you ask

The sexual effects of circumcision are the subject of much debate. The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.[25] A 2002 review by Boyle et al. stated that "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision, with an inevitable reduction in sexual sensation experienced by circumcised males." They concluded, "intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised".[88] In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [...] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[75] Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation in the shaft and glans during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.[89] In a 2007 study, Sorrells et al., using monofilament touch-test mapping, found that the foreskin contains the most sensitive parts of the penis, noting that these parts are lost to circumcision. They also found that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine-touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis."[90] In a 2008 study, Krieger et al. found that 'compared to before they were circumcised, 64.0% of circumcised men reported their penis was “much more sensitive,” and 54.5% rated their ease of reaching orgasm as “much more” at month 24'.[91]
Reports detailing the effect of circumcision on erectile dysfunction have been mixed. Studies have shown that circumcision can result in a statistically significant increase,[92][93] or decrease,[94][95] in erectile dysfunction among circumcised men, while other studies have shown little to no effect.[96][97][98]

As far as we can tell with the research that has been done, circumcision doesn't have a net medical benefit.

Depends, it is definitly a positive in countries with high incidences of HIV and recommended as an effective countermeasure. Studies in developed countries are not very lucid, I don't think we can really judge what is the net result of circumcision.

 

[YmirGF]

But tubeworms.

Exactly. I keep forgetting that this is an important topic. Learn summin' everyday, I suppose.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok, what does have to do with your claim that people are not culturally circumcised? I'd say 3,000 years of circumcision may have influenced cultural tradition.

My point was that for 200,000 years human males were not circumcised. Apparently it did no harm. Then a Bronze Age culture 197,000 years later decides circumcision is necessary in their religious beliefs. Then another part of the world, which has no connection to that culture picks up the practice, for no apparent reason.

 

[Bismillah]

Levite: Do you think this ban perhaps coincides with a tendency to mitigate religion's role in European society?

Do you think that it is ethical for children to decide whether their children are circumcised or not? What about operations that are botched?

The Aztecs were stopped from performing their religious ritual of cutting out the still-beating heart of a live sacrificial victim.

Come on buddy that is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Also you are changing your argument that circumcision is against cultural norms to cultural norms don't have to be enforced.

It's done by many Christians and non-Christians, too.

I thought that was only common in America?

 

[Songbird]

But tubeworms.

Good thing yer cute.

 

[Bismillah]

My point was that for 200,000 years human males were not circumcised.

Well given that humans differentiated from their hominid ancestors 50k years ago, I'd say check your calculations.

Apparently it did no harm.

I suppose humans progress? We can go back to living in mud huts too and whereas the medical benefits of circumcision are debated in the developed world they definitely existed in Arabia.

no connection to that culture

Wait what? Islam has no connection to Judaism?

 

[Jainarayan]

Come on buddy that is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

No. No I don't.

Also you are changing your argument that circumcision is against cultural norms to cultural norms don't have to be enforced. I thought that was only common in America?

My argument is that it's unnecessary mutilation.