Should circumcisions be illegal?

[arkirk]

What degree of bodily mutilation are parents allowed.
Male genital mutilation but not female genital mutilation?

How is the surgical removal of any body part from a child -- from tonsils to foreskin -- for other-than-medical reasons allowed?

It's allowed by law not being an attempt to implement somebody's morality. Law is an attempt to get the ruler what he wants. Usually what the ruler wants is to keep the peace. Letting people persist in their cultures' traditional practices, especially when they're religious obligations, is usually highly expedient.

What I find so odd about this practice (infant circumcision) is the Orthodox Jewish traditions is that it is necessary to slice off an actual body part to be righteous...and at the same time the hair on the heads of these characters must not be removed. (reference Sampson also the little dangly curls of orthodox men). These people are allegedly born in "God's image" so they immediately cut off part of that image.

 

[fta]

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported on Thursday that 11 baby boys in New York City were infected with herpes between Nov. 2000 and Dec. 2011 following an ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual called metzitzah b’peh — or oral suction — in which the mohel puts his mouth directly on the newborn’s circumcised penis and sucks away the blood...Ten of the babies were hospitalized, at least two developed brain damage and two died,

Trying a couple of 'em for manslaughter ought to help.

As usual it is interesting how "the religious" care so deeply about fetuses yet are willing to sacrifice any number of children to their gods.

Some people never learn:

July 2014: Two [more] babies get herpes after circumcision ritual

 

[J842P]

It's allowed by law not being an attempt to implement somebody's morality. Law is an attempt to get the ruler what he wants. Usually what the ruler wants is to keep the peace. Letting people persist in their cultures' traditional practices, especially when they're religious obligations, is usually highly expedient.

What I find so odd about this practice (infant circumcision) is the Orthodox Jewish traditions is that it is necessary to slice off an actual body part to be righteous...and at the same time the hair on the heads of these characters must not be removed. (reference Sampson also the little dangly curls of orthodox men). These people are allegedly born in "God's image" so they immediately cut off part of that image.

It's not necessary to be righteous per se. As long as you follow the laws of Noah (and accept that they were handed down by God in the Torah), a Gentile can still be considered righteous and have a place in the (somewhat nebulous) World to Come. The Laws of Noah are meant for all the descendants of Noah, which according to Jewish mythology, is everyone alive today. Circumcision is a part of the Laws of Abraham, meant for the descendants of Abraham.


The Jewish faith has for at least the past couple of thousand years been mostly about adherence to traditions and rituals. God commands that all descendants of Abraham be circumcised a symbol of accepting God's covenant with Abraham.

The God of the Jews, Yahweh, was your prototypical "divine warrior" god that was common to the people of the Levant. Yahweh made a covenant with the ancient Jews that said He would protect Israel as long as Israel worshiped no other Gods. It's not until much later, I think maybe not even until after the Babylonian captivity, that the Israelites rejected the very existence of other gods.



Yeah, it's fucking crazy, but that's religion for you.

 

[fromderinside]

That paper has been heavily criticised by a panel of doctors from Europe and Canada (where circumcision is less common).

Here is an interesting article about the controversy over whether circumcision lowers the risk of HIV/AIDS:
http://www.poz.com/articles/circumcision_debate_2801_24568.shtml

I see the article actually was 'fair'. In the editors notes after the story they included

A journal article released since the print edition went to press found that circumcision in Orange Farm was linked to an estimated reduction in HIV incidence among men of 57 to 61 percent

The article follows: [h=1]Association of the ANRS-12126 Male Circumcision Project with HIV Levels among Men
in a South African Township: Evaluation of Effectiveness using Cross-sectional Surveys http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001509[/h]
Thank you for being the only one to reference stuff. Bloviating can only go so far.

Here is AAP's 2012 Task Force on circumcision Technical Report: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756

This report includes comments and other publications.

Now we have something to discuss rather than just some claim about some fanatic sucking baby cock.

Again. Thanks.

 

[fta]

There are at least three papers which have found that female circumcision appears to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS too:

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses/98/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

If a grown man or woman chooses to have their genitals cut to lower their HIV risk (or for whatever reason) then I guess that is their choice. Whether adults have the right to cut the genitals of children too young to give informed consent is another matter.

 

[none]

There are at least three papers which have found that female circumcision appears to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS too:

http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/iph_theses/98/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677

If a grown man or woman chooses to have their genitals cut to lower their HIV risk (or for whatever reason) then I guess that is their choice. Whether adults have the right to cut the genitals of children too young to give informed consent is another matter.

there is always abstinence or prophylactics, they don't seem to maim people either.
suicide is always an option to prevent infection of disease, but that is illegal why not genital mutilation?

 

[fta]

suicide is always an option to prevent infection of disease, but that is illegal why not genital mutilation?

Suicide per se is no longer illegal in many (most?) Western countries, although assisting another person to commit suicide may be.

 

[fromderinside]

suicide is always an option to prevent infection of disease, but that is illegal why not genital mutilation?

Suicide per se is no longer illegal in many (most?) Western countries, although assisting another person to commit suicide may be.

Actually having one who is certified to assist in one's demise in Oregon is preferred, required, actually.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Actually having one who is certified to assist in one's demise in Oregon is preferred, required, actually.

So, what happens to those who want to kill themselves on their own without caring about this requirement?

 

[fta]

What a cheerful thread...

Off-topic, but from what I've found online, unassisted suicide is technically not illegal in Oregon or most states of the USA (Virginia being one notable exception). Assisting another party to end their life is illegal in most states but is now allowed in Oregon if supervised by physicians operating within the rules of that state's Death With Dignity Act.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/

Funny, all the research I've seen suggests the exact opposite. The infections they mention for instance circumcision preventing; they're so rare that AFAIK circumcision kills more babies than it prevents these infections (which are perfectly treatable anyhow). They also mention the HIV/Africa study, which has already been addressed. They mention there's a link between circumcision and decreased risk of rare penile cancer. I mean, duh? Does that mean we should preventively cut off breasts too? Finally, they claim there are no scientific studies that support the claim circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, but this is outright *false*: there are in fact studies that show this can happen, and they show that circumcision can result in problems with orgasming. It is true that studies do not show anything approaching a guaranteed decrease in sensitivity, rather what they show is that there is a wide range of possible results, including no change, decreased sensitivity, and even increased sensitivity; in other words, a far cry from their claim there are no studies that show decreased sexual pleasure being a possible result. A very irresponsible article from CNN if you ask me.

A very responsible article. First CNN presents all sides of the issue. It is reporting the latest guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP reviewed all of the latest medical studies and shows there is value in the procedure. So stop the idiotic genital mutilation crap. There is NO harm from the procedure, aside from this risks of any particular procedure. The benefits far outweigh the risks and should a parent decide to circumcise their child it's their private business. Unless you have scientific studies that prove your point, your acting like a global warming denier. The facts, according to the AAP are clear. There are benefits and they outweigh the risks.

 

[dystopian]

A very responsible article. First CNN presents all sides of the issue.

They most certainly did not. They presented the pro-circumcision position as being the medical consensus, when it clearly is not.

It is reporting the latest guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Which is a position that has been criticized by other experts and pediatric organizations elsewhere in the world; something which CNN neglected to mention.

The AAP reviewed all of the latest medical studies and shows there is value in the procedure.

Which again, has been criticized by other experts disputing their claims.

So stop the idiotic genital mutilation crap. There is NO harm from the procedure, aside from this risks of any particular procedure.

The science is by no means clear on that.

The benefits far outweigh the risks

Not firmly established, as again; other experts have pointed out.

and should a parent decide to circumcise their child it's their private business.

Parents should not have the right to force unneccessary surgical procedures on infants who can not give informed consent. What's the problem exactly with waiting until people are old enough to make their own decision?

Unless you have scientific studies that prove your point, your acting like a global warming denier. The facts, according to the AAP are clear. There are benefits and they outweigh the risks.

There have already been links to such studies and criticisms; and the suggestion that those of us who are skeptical of pro-circumcision claims are akin to global warming denial is as absurd as it is offensive; especially when we're talking about a clearly culturally driven position. Circumcision is not common in most of the world; unsurprisingly, the only pro-circumcision studies/claims tend to originate from countries where circumcision is the norm; which should make anyone immediately suspicious.

 

[fta]

A very responsible article. First CNN presents all sides of the issue. It is reporting the latest guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP reviewed all of the latest medical studies and shows there is value in the procedure. So stop the idiotic genital mutilation crap. There is NO harm from the procedure, aside from this risks of any particular procedure. The benefits far outweigh the risks and should a parent decide to circumcise their child it's their private business. Unless you have scientific studies that prove your point, you're acting like a global warming denier. The facts, according to the AAP are clear. There are benefits and they outweigh the risks.

As mentioned previously: according to medical authorities in the rest of the Western world, the AAP got its facts wrong. Brian Earp has a good review of such criticisms of the AAP report, with lotsa links.

 

[fromderinside]

Actually having one who is certified to assist in one's demise in Oregon is preferred, required, actually.

So, what happens to those who want to kill themselves on their own without caring about this requirement?

At best it'll be messy and you'll probably implicate some professional anyway in the form of weaseling a prescription.

Either you will mess things up for most of those who love you or you'll mess up your suicide since most don't have a clue how to do it without being in pain or causing a big banging sound without consulting a professional. I'm in favor of having a professional there legally to get it done right.

 

[4321lynx]

A very responsible article. First CNN presents all sides of the issue. It is reporting the latest guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. The AAP reviewed all of the latest medical studies and shows there is value in the procedure. So stop the idiotic genital mutilation crap. There is NO harm from the procedure, aside from this risks of any particular procedure. The benefits far outweigh the risks and should a parent decide to circumcise their child it's their private business. Unless you have scientific studies that prove your point, you're acting like a global warming denier. The facts, according to the AAP are clear. There are benefits and they outweigh the risks.

As mentioned previously: according to medical authorities in the rest of the Western world, the AAP got its facts wrong. Brian Earp has a good review of such criticisms of the AAP report, with lotsa links.

Great post and great link fta.

 

[George S]

I am for infant circumcision to the same degree I am for infant clitorectomy and infant toe removal (even just the little toe). Only when immediately medically necessary.

 

[+or-1]

Yes.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

As mentioned previously: according to medical authorities in the rest of the Western world, the AAP got its facts wrong. Brian Earp has a good review of such criticisms of the AAP report, with lotsa links.

Great post and great link fta.

No it's not. It's from an anti-circumcision web site. I'll sick with the AAP. And as a parent I decide what's good for my children. Also, anything comparing circumcision to clitorodectomy us a red hering

 

[NobleSavage]

No it's not. It's from an anti-circumcision web site. I'll sick with the AAP. And as a parent I decide what's good for my children. Also, anything comparing circumcision to clitorodectomy us a red hering

I would not dismiss it as just a "anti-circumcision website". it's was posted by a research fellow at Oxford University on Oxford's domain. Not your average crank with a website.

Why is comparing a clitorodectomy to circumcision a red herring? From the NIH:

Abstract

WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: The sensitivity of the foreskin and its importance in erogenous sensitivity is widely debated and controversial. This is part of the actual public debate on circumcision for non-medical reason. Today some studies on the effect of circumcision on sexual function are available. However they vary widely in outcome. The present study shows in a large cohort of men, based on self-assessment, that the foreskin has erogenous sensitivity. It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost. In the debate on clitoral surgery the proven loss of sensitivity has been the strongest argument to change medical practice. In the present study there is strong evidence on the erogenous sensitivity of the foreskin. This knowledge hopefully can help doctors and patients in their decision on circumcision for non-medical reason.

And there is this thread http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?677-Your-Clitoris-Is-the-Size-of

Quoting from the linked article:

Unless you’ve been paying particularly close attention to the gynecological literature, you’re probably not going to say C. And yet that is the correct answer. Sure, the externally visible part of the clitoris is puny, but that is literally the tip of an iceberg that extends deep beneath the pubis, five inches down either wall of the vagina, consists of six separate parts, and carries more nerve endings than the penis.

 

[fta]

I would not dismiss it as just a "anti-circumcision website". It was posted by a research fellow at Oxford University on Oxford's domain. Not your average crank with a website.

Indeed. See also the recent issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics devoted to the circumcision debate. It features contributions from Brian Earp, the AAP, and others. (You may need an institutional subscription to view some of the content. Otherwise some of the articles are freely available online elsewhere.)