"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Curious George]

There are many things we could do, such as appendectomies to reduce the chance of bad outcomes, but we don't. Safe sex and adequate hygiene also work to greatly reduce UTIs and STIs without resorting to a permanent body modification.

That someone can do something else doesn't really entitle you to dictate that they must do something else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That someone can do something else doesn't really entitle you to dictate that they must do something else.

Actually, I do strongly feel that non-consensual circumcision should be dictated, much like how it is dictated you won't starve or beat your kids. Or like how you have to put them in a car seat. Or get them medical care, regardless of religious beliefs in some places. Like it or not, there already is a lot of parenting that is dictated to parents with mandatory "dos and do nots." Non-consensual body modifications really do need to be a "do not."

 

[Curious George]

Actually, I do strongly feel that non-consensual circumcision should be dictated, much like how it is dictated you won't starve or beat your kids. Or like how you have to put them in a car seat. Or get them medical care, regardless of religious beliefs in some places. Like it or not, there already is a lot of parenting that is dictated to parents with mandatory "dos and do nots." Non-consensual body modifications really do need to be a "do not."

Yet the differences are clear. The instances where we stop parents from engaging in behavior are instances where actual abuse occurs or a parent is negligent in their duty.

So far you have offered that circumcision is not necessary. OK but we don't say someone can't do something because it is not necessary.

You suggest that the parents can achieve the benefits a different way. OK but that doesn't mean they are negligent or abusive because they choose a different way than you would.

You say that the parents choice is permanent. Ok, but parents make choices all of the time with permanent repercussions.

It is not abuse. It is not negligent. That it is different than you would choose or want for the child is not enough. Lots of people believe choices parents make are wrong. That doesn't mean they get to tell the parents they cannot choose that.

I understand you believe permanent body modifications cross a line. But we allow those when we cannot show that there is harm without benefit, or harm such that a reasonable person would not choose the harm for the benefit.

Reasonable people can choose circumcision. It is really that simple. A large numver of medical professionals agree with this. That you don't is ok. But realize that it is your belief. Realize that saying it is unreasonable is more than just saying it is unnecessary. And, realize that you are saying all of those medical professionals, who think it is a reasonable choice for parents to make, are wrong.

To say that you should be able to dictate whether another is allowed to do something is more than saying they should or should not do something. It is a pretty extreme position you are taking.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is not abuse.

Why shouldn't such a procedure, when performed on a non-consenting child, be considered abuse?

It is a pretty extreme position you are taking.

Not really. Rather, it is quite simple and not really that extreme - No body modifications for children. We don't let them get tattoos. Body piercings not until a certain age either. Is it really that "extreme" to require the element of consent to a permanent body modification, with a preference of waiting until adulthood?

 

[Curious George]

Why shouldn't such a procedure, when performed on a non-consenting child, be considered abuse?

Not really. Rather, it is quite simple and not really that extreme - No body modifications for children. We don't let them get tattoos. Body piercings not until a certain age either. Is it really that "extreme" to require the element of consent to a permanent body modification, with a preference of waiting until adulthood?

Except tattoos only have aesthetic benefits.

People do pierce baby's ears.

And there is a medical benefit to circumcision.

I find it surprising that you cannot see how extreme your view is. Do you believe that the doctors in the AAP have lost touch with reality?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

People do pierce baby's ears.

And I am equally as opposed to that.

And there is a medical benefit to circumcision.

As would double mastectomies and appendectomies, but we don't "just do them." Nor do we just remove the tonsils because, hey, they might just get in the way and have to be removed later on anyways.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find it surprising that you cannot see how extreme your view is.

I find it surprising that you think adding and requiring consent to the procedure is "extreme."

 

[Curious George]

And I am equally as opposed to that.

As would double mastectomies and appendectomies, but we don't "just do them." Nor do we just remove the tonsils because, hey, they might just get in the way and have to be removed later on anyways.

Which are differentiated by the level of surgery. Circumcision is a very minor surgery. The examples you have given are not.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Circumcision is a very minor surgery.

Every surgery, regardless, comes with inherent risks. As this procedure is not necessary, parents needlessly expose their children to these possible risks.

 

[Curious George]

Every surgery, regardless, comes with inherent risks. As this procedure is not necessary, parents needlessly expose their children to these possible risks.

That is the problem. It is not needless. There are medical benefits.

Playing fast and loose with the definition of "needless" by pointing out the benefits can be obtained another way is needless. A surgery is not needless if it provides benefits. Moreover, the risk is small. Parents subject their children to needless risks when they put them in a car as well. That you deem a risk to be "needless" just means that you wouldn't choose it for your child. And that is an ok belief. Other parents do not share your belief. And that is ok as well.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I find it's much more peaceful to read the rational responses to someone I have on ignore.

 

[Curious George]

I find it's much more peaceful to read the rational responses to someone I have on ignore.

I find it funny that you would choose to ignore me, then spend not one but two posts discussing it. Sounds like I really upset ya there Bob.

 

[taykair]

I was "snipped" in the hospital, shortly after my birth. This was not due to any religious requirement, but rather because, at the time, the practice was considered (wrongly, I think, but I could be mistaken) to be a health measure. I don't consider myself to have been mutilated in any way. Neither have any of my partners. Just the opposite, in fact.

Still... Iceland, huh? Just thinking of that very cold blade near my naughty bits gives me a shiver.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And read where I entered the conversations. My posts were concerned with the labeling of circumcision as abuse or mutilation. Doing so should necessitate one have reasoning for doing so.

If no one has any reason to call circumcision abuse or mutilation, great.

And we're agreed. No one is calling medically necessary circumcision abuse or mutilation.

Compare, if you will, the difference between a parent consenting to a medically necessary appendectomy and a parent requesting an appendectomy because they think their kid will look cool with an abdominal scar.

I do not think it is hotly contested, I think it is hotly contested whether there is a net benefit or whether the harms outweigh the benefit.

Well now I know you're being obtuse for obtuseness sake.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is the problem. It is not needless. There are medical benefits.

As has been pointed out, there are other procedures with medical benefits that we don't do, as well as ways to obtain the benefits of circumcision without circumcision.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I am equally as opposed to that.

I agree, but at least ear piercing is reversible.

As would double mastectomies and appendectomies, but we don't "just do them." Nor do we just remove the tonsils because, hey, they might just get in the way and have to be removed later on anyways.

The appendix isn't so certainly useless anymore....
What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?

 

[Koldo]

I agree, but at least ear piercing is reversible.

The appendix isn't so certainly useless anymore....
What is the function of the human appendix? Did it once have a purpose that has since been lost?

While true, that doesn't change the nature of the argument.
There is a medical benefit, if we are going to use the term the same way it has been used in this thread, if you remove the appendix. However, that is certainly not sufficient to just start imposing it upon infants.

 

[Koldo]

I was "snipped" in the hospital, shortly after my birth. This was not due to any religious requirement, but rather because, at the time, the practice was considered (wrongly, I think, but I could be mistaken) to be a health measure. I don't consider myself to have been mutilated in any way. Neither have any of my partners. Just the opposite, in fact.

Still... Iceland, huh? Just thinking of that very cold blade near my naughty bits gives me a shiver.

Once upon a time in China, foot binding, which is clearly detrimental to the person, probably wasn't considered a form of mutilation by a lot of people either. This just goes to show how we are often blinded by our own cultural ( and religious ) bias.

 

[Curious George]

And we're agreed. No one is calling medically necessary circumcision abuse or mutilation.

Compare, if you will, the difference between a parent consenting to a medically necessary appendectomy and a parent requesting an appendectomy because they think their kid will look cool with an abdominal scar.Well now I know you're being obtuse for obtuseness sake.

No. As far as I am concerned mutilation is emotional rhetoric. That you distinguish the two appendectomy surgeries based on intent but you distinguish circumcision based on circumstance, indicates you are being obtuse for obtuseness sake.

 

[Curious George]

As has been pointed out, there are other procedures with medical benefits that we don't do, as well as ways to obtain the benefits of circumcision without circumcision.

Which are distinguished by amount of risk and level of surgery... we have been down this road.