"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Koldo]

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.

As for me, how anyone calls it is no concern of mine.
What is important is banning medical procedures being forced into infants where there is no clear net gain to the child, such as routine circumcision.

 

[Curious George]

As for me, how anyone calls it is no concern of mine.
What is important is banning medical procedures being forced into infants where there is no clear net gain to the child, such as routine circumcision.

This would include banning vaccines

 

[Revoltingest]

Female Genital Mutilation in US law....
18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation

This is interesting language. The genitalia are described in detail, yet only for female. It uses the term "person", but the application is solely towards females. The law is written to appear general in application, but protection is only afforded females. I've found no US law placing any restrictions upon altering male genitalia. Moreover when SF tried to ban circumcision, Californiastan banned such local laws.
When matters affect both genders, the law typically makes no gender distinction. So this is unusual because genital cutting affects both, only varying in that there are different parts being excised. This strikes me as denying equal protection.

There is case law regarding circumcision....
Circumcision and law - Wikipedia
When reasons are given in court, they're often based upon religion.
Looking at objection to circumcision bans around the world, religion
again figures strongly, with Jews & Muslims being the most vocal.

I see several factors in treating FGM differently from male circumcision....
- Most FGM is severe. This horrendous severity precludes allowing di minimis alteration because all varieties are under the "FGM" label.
- Male circumcision is di minimis, & so common in the west as to be considered standard even among the non-religious. Thus there are no restrictions upon the extent of genital modification.
- FGM is primarily from backward African & mid-east countries, so it's not part of western culture, & therefore not respected.
- Political power of Jews, Muslims & some Xian sects have lobbied hard to keep circumcision legal.
Religious male circumcision - Wikipedia

In case anyone is concerned that I'm blaming their religion,
yes, if your religion supports non-therapeutic genital cutting
without permission of the one cut, then I blame your religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I don't understand.
There is medical benefit for what?

 

[Revoltingest]

This would include banning vaccines

Vaccines are demonstrably therapeutic, & not comparable to circumcision.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it a bit desperate when some seem to think that their whole religion is under threat because some would prefer that any procedures undertaken are carried out when the particular individual is able to fully consent. Here in the UK we had one Giles Fraser, an Anglican priest almost frothing at the mouth on a radio programme (The Moral Maze) saying, 'You are effectively banning a religion from this country', because of the Iceland situation. He had just had his young baby circumcised so this might have made it more pertinent!

BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, Religious orthodoxy versus liberal values ... The Moral Maze: Religious orthodoxy versus liberal values

Not sure if it is available to others.

 

[Koldo]

This would include banning vaccines

Do you mean there is no net gain to vaccines ?

 

[Revoltingest]

I find it a bit desperate when some seem to think that their whole religion is under threat because some would prefer that any procedures undertaken are carried out when the particular individual is able to fully consent. Here in the UK we had one Giles Fraser, an Anglican priest almost frothing at the mouth on a radio programme (The Moral Maze) saying, 'You are effectively banning a religion from this country', because of the Iceland situation. He had just had his young baby circumcised so this might have made it more pertinent!

BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, Religious orthodoxy versus liberal values ... The Moral Maze: Religious orthodoxy versus liberal values

Not sure if it is available to others.

It plays for me.

 

[Curious George]

Do you mean there is no net gain to vaccines ?

There is no "clear net gain" to an individual vaccination. You are only discussing a reduction in likelihood of getting an illness.

There is certainly a collective net gain to vaccinations. But when we discuss the individual, we are not discussing the collective net gain.

Similarly, circumcision provides a cheap low risk way to reduce the likelihood of many potential health risks.

 

[Curious George]

Vaccines are demonstrably therapeutic, & not comparable to circumcision.

Demonstrably therapeutic? They are preventative, not curative.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no "clear net gain" to an individual vaccination. You are only discussing a reduction in likelihood of getting an illness.

Reducing the likelihood of getting an illness sounds pretty positive to me.
The issues....
- How much of a reduction.
- Illness severity avoided.
- Risks of being vaccinated.
Thinking specifically of the polio vaccine, I say it's quite clearly a net benefit.
Ref....
A Look at Each Vaccine: Polio Vaccine | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
The same cannot be said for circumcision, which has no clear health benefit, but carries horrible risks.

At this point, I can confidently pronounce circumcision as a religious & cultural practice only.
It it is no different from female genital mutilation other than extend of mutilation.
In the interest of bodily autonomy, we need to rein in some religions & cultures.
They'll kick & scream, but I can live with that, & so can they.

 

[Revoltingest]

Demonstrably therapeutic? They are preventative, not curative.

Think of preventing a disease as having therapeutic value.
But if using this word offends thee, then I hereby smite it
from further posts, lest it distract from the point.

 

[Koldo]

There is no "clear net gain" to an individual vaccination. You are only discussing a reduction in likelihood of getting an illness.

I will need you to substantiate this statement. Reducing the likelihood of getting an illness is positive.
What is the negative and the positive aspect you see in vaccinations ?
How do you determine there is no clear net gain considering those aspects ?

There is certainly a collective net gain to vaccinations. But when we discuss the individual, we are not discussing the collective net gain.

Best case scenario: I accept your argument and concede that collective net gain sometimes trumps individual net gain.
Now, what does this have to do with circumcision ?

Similarly, circumcision provides a cheap low risk way to reduce the likelihood of many potential health risks.

Although there is only a small risk of things going wrong after the procedure, there is also a small benefit attached to it. This is why there is no net gain.

We are only talking about first world countries and the likes where having a proper hygiene is not an issue, right ?

 

[Curious George]

Reducing the likelihood of getting an illness sounds pretty positive to me.
The issues....
- How much of a reduction.
- Illness severity avoided.
- Risks of being vaccinated.
Thinking specifically of the polio vaccine, I say it's quite clearly a net benefit.
Ref....
A Look at Each Vaccine: Polio Vaccine | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
The same cannot be said for circumcision, which has no clear health benefit, but carries horrible risks.

At this point, I can confidently pronounce circumcision as a religious & cultural practice only.
It it is no different from female genital mutilation other than extend of mutilation.
In the interest of bodily autonomy, we need to rein in some religions & cultures.
They'll kick & scream, but I can live with that, & so can they.

And that includes collective benefits, we are discussing "clear individual benefits" now.

If we are discussing decreased likelihood of health risks:

"Benefits include protection against urinary tract infections,6 penile inflammation, inferior hygiene, phimosis, and paraphimosis.2,7 Such protections continue through life and in adulthood are supplemented by protection against oncogenic HPVs, genital herpes, some other sexually transmitted infections, candida, penile cancer, prostate cancer,2,7 and in women cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections and bacterial vaginosis."

-Supra.

If we are going to say that these are not clear benefits to a person than neither are the individual benefits of vaccines clear.

 

[Revoltingest]

And that includes collective benefits, we are discussing "clear individual benefits" now.

If we are discussing decreased likelihood of health risks:

"Benefits include protection against urinary tract infections,6 penile inflammation, inferior hygiene, phimosis, and paraphimosis.2,7 Such protections continue through life and in adulthood are supplemented by protection against oncogenic HPVs, genital herpes, some other sexually transmitted infections, candida, penile cancer, prostate cancer,2,7 and in women cervical cancer, sexually transmitted infections and bacterial vaginosis."

-Supra.

If we are going to say that these are not clear benefits to a person than neither are the individual benefits of vaccines clear.

Collective benefits are good too.
But even doctors don't acknowledge clear net benefits to circumcision,
ie, the risks aren't necessarily less than the benefits. There's no getting
around the fact that circumcision is driven largely by religion & culture.
The infant hasn't picked a religion yet.
Letting him decide when he's older is his right.
To those worrying that allowing this right will destroy their religion, fiddlesticks!

 

[Curious George]

I will need you to substantiate this statement. Reducing the likelihood of getting an illness is positive.
What is the negative and the positive aspect you see in vaccinations ?
How do you determine there is no clear net gain considering those aspects ?

And reducing likelihood of getting an illness is one of the benefits of circumcision as well.

Best case scenario: I accept your argument and concede that collective net gain sometimes trumps individual net gain.
Now, what does this have to do with circumcision ?

Then you choose your words more carefully and either acknowledge that circumcision has a clear benefit to the person or you qualify your statement.

Although there is only a small risk of things going wrong after the procedure, there is also a small benefit attached to it. This is why there is no net gain.

We are only talking about first world countries and the likes where having a proper hygiene is not an issue, right ?

We are discussing first world countries and I cannot guarantee that having proper hygiene is not an issue.

I am willing to accept that it is debatable whether there is a net benefit such that the benefits outweigh the risks.

It is this fact that makes it unreasonable for you to make the choice for someone else.

 

[Curious George]

Collective benefits are good too.
But even doctors don't acknowledge clear net benefits to circumcision,
ie, the risks aren't necessarily less than the benefits. There's no getting
around the fact that circumcision is driven largely by religion & culture.
The infant hasn't picked a religion yet.
Letting him decide when he's older is his right.
To those worrying that allowing this right will destroy their religion, fiddlesticks!

Incorrect. All doctors do not acknowledge a net benefit, many doctors do.

 

[Revoltingest]

Incorrect. All doctors do not acknowledge a net benefit, many doctors do.

You meant to say "Not all doctors do...".
(Different meaning.)
Looking at their organizations, I spoke of the group.
Certainly some doctors will claim great benefit, eg, making God/Allah happy.

 

[Curious George]

.
The infant hasn't picked a religion yet.
Letting him decide when he's older is his right.
To those worrying that allowing this right will destroy their religion, fiddlesticks!

I wasn't aware that circumcision precluded one from choosing a religion. Which religion does not allow people who are circumcised?

 

[Koldo]

And reducing likelihood of getting an illness is one of the benefits of circumcision as well.

Sure, but there is more negative to circumcision than vaccines.
Which is why there is a net gain in vaccines and not in circumcision.

Then you choose your words more carefully and either acknowledge that circumcision has a clear benefit to the person or you qualify your statement.

I don't understand how this relates to what I have said in that quote.
Can you clarify ?

We are discussing first world countries and I cannot guarantee that having proper hygiene is not an issue.

In what way could having a proper hygiene be an issue in a first-world country ? Explain what you mean.

I am willing to accept that it is debatable whether there is a net benefit such that the benefits outweigh the risks.

It is this fact that makes it unreasonable for you to make the choice for someone else.

There is no "net benefit such that the benefits outweigh the risks" in circumcisions.
It is this fact that makes it reasonable to ban circumcision.