"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[graalbaum]

Right - it's essentially zero-sum with a permanent after-effect.
So the question should be "why bother?" rather than "why not?" - right?

For the record, I'm not talking about it being done on consenting adults, I'm perfectly fine with that.

• we've established cause american men cant wash their pee pees

• plus its good profit for modern medicine, penis cutting=money

• american men cant use condoms, theyd rather have their pee pees mutilated to avoid aids (even though a condom is more effective)

 

[Me Myself]

strawman....

swallowing hydrochloric acid is more harmful than sugar

so what?

Maybe I just dont know what hydrochloric acid is but... If it is like action movie acid then I would be surprised it is as prevalent as either sugar or circumsicion.

There is no strawman. I am asking why you are losing your time with something that doesnt harm anyone (or say what? 99,9999999999% people or more are completely unharmed for as much as we know it?) more than a quick cry when we have something that is making US into a nation dying of heart attacks and diabetes?

I mean obesity is generally the parents fault and is way more grave than circumsicion, yet we dont outlaw sugar. So why bother with something that creates way less damage if any?

I am circumsized and I am perfectly fine.

Lets make a bet, I bet more people are **** up cause their parents gave them sugar than people screwed up because they are circumsized. Any takers?

 

[Koldo]

Maybe I just dont know what hydrochloric acid is but... If it is like action movie acid then I would be surprised it is as prevalent as either sugar or circumsicion.

There is no strawman. I am asking why you are losing your time with something that doesnt harm anyone (or say what? 99,9999999999% people or more are completely unharmed for as much as we know it?) more than a quick cry when we have something that is making US into a nation dying of heart attacks and diabetes?

I mean obesity is generally the parents fault and is way more grave than circumsicion, yet we dont outlaw sugar. So why bother with something that creates way less damage if any?

I am circumsized and I am perfectly fine.

Lets make a bet, I bet more people are **** up cause their parents gave them sugar than people screwed up because they are circumsized. Any takers?

But there are children starving in Africa...

 

[graalbaum]

Maybe I just dont know what hydrochloric acid is but... If it is like action movie acid then I would be surprised it is as prevalent as either sugar or circumsicion.

There is no strawman. I am asking why you are losing your time with something that doesnt harm anyone (or say what? 99,9999999999% people or more are completely unharmed for as much as we know it?) more than a quick cry when we have something that is making US into a nation dying of heart attacks and diabetes?

I mean obesity is generally the parents fault and is way more grave than circumsicion, yet we dont outlaw sugar. So why bother with something that creates way less damage if any?

I am circumsized and I am perfectly fine.

Lets make a bet, I bet more people are **** up cause their parents gave them sugar than people screwed up because they are circumsized. Any takers?

harm is in the eye of the beer holder

there are growing numbers of men thatd disagree... hence grow back your foreskin devices

not to mention complications from thw cutting


what yiu are saying

instead of letting a man wash his pee pee or use a condom we should mutilate him and continue to make profit for the medical industry....

 

[Curious George]

instead of letting a man wash his pee pee or use a condom we should mutilate him and continue to make profit for the medical industry....

I am always astonished when this word mutilate pops up with respect to medical procedures.

Are post-op transexuals paying doctors to mutilate them?

Are children who have phimosis and require a circumcision mutilated?

Is a person who gets stitches mutilated?

Is a person who gets their appendix removed mutilated? What about their wisdom teeth?

We often throw around words to try to fuse the situation with emotional dramatics that are not necessarily connected to reality.

 

[Curious George]

Out of curiosity,

Isn't the right of a person to its own body the main reason as to why abortion is currently legal on USA?

How exactly circumcision fits in with this when it is clearly a violation of this right?

This is precisely from where the right stems. This is why you or any other voter does not have a say in whether a child can or can not get a circumcision. The parents are allowed to exercise their discretion to make elective choices for their children.

The only time we get to step into the equation is when there is a compelling government interest. This same argument is true for abortion. No citizen has a right to make choices for the woman. While arguably, and some put forward this argument, the parents may have a right to intervene in abortion cases of minors- however, the courts have generally found that the young adult is mature enough to understand and make such a medical decision as abortion. Since, there is no argument that a baby can understand or consent for circumcision then the ability to do so falls within the parents rights unless choosing circumcision is unreasonable and harms the child.

 

[Curious George]

If you didnt get the comparison by all means tell me where you get lost.

Giving sugar to kids is useless and there are FAR GREATER PROBLEMS caused by it than just cutting some foreskin. Almost no one gets any problem for it and almost no one cares.

I can bet my nuts there are far more people hating their parents for the eating habits they were taught than because they circumsized them, so I am just saying parents make WAY MORE IMPORTANT choices for their kids than this.

This isn't completely true. Sugars are actually a generic term for a class of chemicals. We all need sugars to survive as surely as we need salts and proteins.

 

[Curious George]

Right - it's essentially zero-sum with a permanent after-effect.
So the question should be "why bother?" rather than "why not?" - right?

For the record, I'm not talking about it being done on consenting adults, I'm perfectly fine with that.

And that is a perfectly good argument for persuading people not to choose circumcision. But it is a very poor argument for the establishment of a law barring people from circumcising their sons.

 

[graalbaum]

I am always astonished when this word mutilate pops up with respect to medical procedures.

Are post-op transexuals paying doctors to mutilate them?

Are children who have phimosis and require a circumcision mutilated?

Is a person who gets stitches mutilated?

Is a person who gets their appendix removed mutilated? What about their wisdom teeth?

We often throw around words to try to fuse the situation with emotional dramatics that are not necessarily connected to reality.

ok surgicaly remove part of the epidermis around the genitalia......for profit

better?

 

[Curious George]

ok surgicaly remove part of the epidermis around the genitalia......for profit

better?

Much.

 

[Koldo]

This is precisely from where the right stems. This is why you or any other voter does not have a say in whether a child can or can not get a circumcision. The parents are allowed to exercise their discretion to make elective choices for their children.

The only time we get to step into the equation is when there is a compelling government interest. This same argument is true for abortion. No citizen has a right to make choices for the woman. While arguably, and some put forward this argument, the parents may have a right to intervene in abortion cases of minors- however, the courts have generally found that the young adult is mature enough to understand and make such a medical decision as abortion. Since, there is no argument that a baby can understand or consent for circumcision then the ability to do so falls within the parents rights unless choosing circumcision is unreasonable and harms the child.

I am sorry, but you are effectively violating the infant's right to its own body by allowing the parents to consent to circumcision on his place.

What you are saying is that since the infant can't consent to anything, the infant doesn't have a right to his own body. It belongs to the parents.

 

[Curious George]

I am sorry, but you are effectively violating the infant's right to its own body by allowing the parents to consent to circumcision on his place.

Sure, if you want to spin it that way.

But a parent is effectively violating a infants right to its own body by choosing to vaccinate or to send their child to school.

Parents are effectively violating children's right to Liberty constantly, but there is no hubbub about that. Is grounding your child or even sticking them in a crib, for that matter, false imprisonment?

Since the child cannot consent- this is important, not from a lack of want but a lack of ability- we allow parents to make choices for the child. These are parental rights. If you do not like such a system you should be arguing for a communal raising of children. But, remember, most swords cut both ways. If you share in the parental rights you must also share in the parental liability.

We have chosen to acknowledge parental rights because of a priori arguments about nature. Sure different arguments exist. But in order to get where you want you must revolutionize society not simply one law. The law by itself would be unconstitutional in the U.S.

 

[Koldo]

Sure, if you want to spin it that way.

But a parent is effectively violating a infants right to its own body by choosing to vaccinate or to send their child to school.

Parents are effectively violating children's right to Liberty constantly, but there is no hubbub about that. Is grounding your child or even sticking them in a crib, for that matter, false imprisonment?

Since the child cannot consent- this is important, not from a lack of want but a lack of ability- we allow parents to make choices for the child. These are parental rights. If you do not like such a system you should be arguing for a communal raising of children. But, remember, most swords cut both ways. If you share in the parental rights you must also share in the parental liability.

We have chosen to acknowledge parental rights because of a priori arguments about nature. Sure different arguments exist. But in order to get where you want you must revolutionize society not simply one law. The law by itself would be unconstitutional in the U.S.

It is important to draw a distinction between cases where there is an actual considerable benefit such as the vaccines ( and going to schools examples ) and the ones where this benefit doesn't exist or is negligible such as circumcision ( or getting a tattoo on the back of the child ).

While there is a justification to the former, the same justification does not apply to the latter.

 

[Curious George]

It is important to draw a distinction between cases where there is an actual considerable benefit such as the vaccines ( and going to schools examples ) and the ones where this benefit doesn't exist or is negligible such as circumcision ( or getting a tattoo on the back of the child ).

While there is a justification to the former, the same justification does not apply to the latter.

There are many vaccines which people assert are not only not necessary but the benefits are negligible. Moreover, similar to the whole UTI argument chance of contracting influenza can be greatly decreased by proper hygiene (regular hand washing, and cleaning surfaces). While you suggest that their are considerable benefits, you forget that others suggest their are considerable benefits to circumcision. While I am not one of those that do argue such things, I certainly don't ignore such claims. Moreover, what exactly is the considerable benefit to ear piercing?

The problem with your argument as I have already stated is philosophical. Parents do not have to act in the best interest of the child, they just cannot act contrary to the interests of the child. As long as the choice is risk neutral or only slightly risky there is no means of legally infringing on the parental rights.

 

[Koldo]

There are many vaccines which people assert are not only not necessary but the benefits are negligible.

Such as?

Moreover, similar to the whole UTI argument chance of contracting influenza can be greatly decreased by proper hygiene (regular hand washing, and cleaning surfaces). While you suggest that their are considerable benefits, you forget that others suggest their are considerable benefits to circumcision. While I am not one of those that do argue such things, I certainly don't ignore such claims.

Who said there are considerable benefits to circumcision ( on USA )?

Moreover, what exactly is the considerable benefit to ear piercing?

None at all.

The problem with your argument as I have already stated is philosophical. Parents do not have to act in the best interest of the child, they just cannot act contrary to the interests of the child. As long as the choice is risk neutral or only slightly risky there is no means of legally infringing on the parental rights.

Do you at least see the conflict between rights on this matter?

While parental rights exist, a person has the right to its own body.
It just takes a Supreme Court decision to say that the latter takes precedence over the former on the case of circumcision, and it is settled.

 

[metis]

[We] are effectively violating the infant's right to its own body by allowing the parents to consent to circumcision on his place.

The minute you take a child and drive him somewhere, you're putting that child in some risk. Put that child in a social setting, there are even more risks because of the possibility of catching a virus or bacteria. Feed him a sugary snack, you might send him on the way to develop type 2 diabetes.

There are pros and cons to just about anything that we could think of, and circumcision is just one of many. For us, it's a matter of religious observance that, in the vast majority of cases, has no harmful effect, and it can sometimes actually be beneficial.

As I posted before, if one wants their son to have a risk-free life, then let me suggest packing them in cotton, putting them in a padded room, and hope their son isn't allergic to either.

 

[dawny0826]

I am sorry, but you are effectively violating the infant's right to its own body by allowing the parents to consent to circumcision on his place.

What you are saying is that since the infant can't consent to anything, the infant doesn't have a right to his own body. It belongs to the parents.

By this logic, a parent is violating an infant's right "to its own body" if they agree to life saving surgery which leaves scars. They can't consult the infant in adult form to know if such scarring will infringe upon their self image or cause other problems which the adult would object to.

I know that circumcision and such a surgery aren't comparable in importance . In either scenario, a parent is making what they feel, is an important decision for their child.

For the umpteenth thousandth time, circumcision numbers are declining in the United States. It is presented as an option, not provided as routine procedure. Parents are encouraged by the American Pediatrics Association AND the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to make educated and informed decisions. There's no push to do anything.

However, both organizations do cite health benefits. In fact, the AAP cites that circumcision yields more benefits vs. risks and that American parents, should in fact, be able to confidently make decisions regarding circumcision, without the type of worry and scrutiny that those of you in opposition insist upon. The decision SHOULD be left up to the parent.

An infant has rights. But, a parent has parental rights to make decisions that they feel are in the best interest of their child.

I would approach this subject differently if the procedure yielded greater risks and statistical complication and if more MEN in the United States, in adulthood, regretted their parents' decision to have the procedure done. When your personal peer group - all circumcised, have no issue - it's hard to understand where those of you who oppose so passionately are coming from - particularly those of you who have no experience with circumcision and circumcision within the direct aupices of the American health care system, from the perspective of a parent.

 

[DallasApple]

A vaccine is not a bodily mutilation..circumcision is.

There is a difference to me in cutting off a piece of a normal healthy child's body that BELONGS there..and vaccines to prevent deadly diseases such and polio and measles...etc....

One that makes me laugh is it "helps prevent the spread of aids"..Well so would cutting out a girls vagina..Maybe we should start slicing boys and girls anuses out..that would really help prevent it...(roll eyes)...I KNOW we can help prevent the spread of mono nucleosis by cutting off every new borns lips..that way they can never get "kissing disease".

 

[DallasApple]

By this logic, a parent is violating an infant's right "to its own body" if they agree to life saving surgery which leaves scars.

Circumcision is not "life saving surgery"...Its done to healthy infants..

 

[DallasApple]

A better comparison? Is remove all breast tissue of all infant girls to prevent one day she might get breast cancer.And we have formula to feed the infants so the tissue isn't necessary..