Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?

[iguana_tonante]

Is it really appropriate to call the foreskin a "body part?" That just strikes me as trying to be overly hyperbolic.

God, you are priceless.

It's a cosmetic change the affects nothing more than a flap of skin. They're not "cutting off a body part" they're remove a bit of "excess skin."

I guess you are also ok with removing eyelids, lobes, lips and any other "excess skin". Sorry Trekker, this is just a stupid thing to say. The fact that you don't have it doesn't make it "excess skin". You can be ok without it, and I have no strong feelings about it, and I will probably be against efforts to outright ban it, but your arguments are just incredibly sloppy.

That 1 in 100,000 rate of botched circumcisions doesn't count as there's risks with any surgical procedure.

So it would be sensible to have one surgical procedure less, no? I can kinda understand people that are in favour of it for cultural or religious reasons. But this whole "durr daddy did it to me I'm ok so do it to everybody else durr" attitude is really baffling to me. Strikes to me as weirdly defensive.

 

[Roger Wilco]

there's risks with any surgical procedure.

Exactly. Which is why no procedure should be done carelessly and without good reason.

 

[ByrdMan]

I guess you are also ok with removing eyelids, lobes, lips and any other "excess skin". Sorry Trekker, this is just a stupid thing to say. The fact that you don't have it doesn't make it "excess skin". You can be ok without it, and I have no strong feelings about it, and I will probably be against efforts to outright ban it, but your arguments are just incredibly sloppy.

Seriously? I realize you're trying to make a point, but I don't think anyone would consider eyelids and lips superfluous.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Easier maintenance and slightly less chance of disease. Nothing dramatic but no down side at all. The way some people are acting here they act like doctors are cutting off the whole thing.

Actually, easier maintenance is mostly a myth too. But I do agree about the rest.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

There is also no harm in letting things continue as they are now. Passing laws banning this harmless procedure is a massive waste of time that will achieve nothing in a time when we have far more important things to worry about.

I dunno, the merit of a law shouldn't really be concerned with whether or not there are more important laws. I don't know how harmful circumcision really is other than anecdotal evidence, but isn't it at least something worth examining? Just because something has been done, as a tradition, doesn't really mean that it should continue to be done.

A few men have posted saying they've had it done and aren't the worse for it, but are there any actual benefits? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I really just don't know much about the issue.

It used to be thought that not performing a circumcision put boys at high risk of urinary infections, certain STDs, and phimosis. At that time, you could kind of justify it as a preventative measure.

But there's been additional research done that has shown with adequate hygiene there's no increased risk of infection, and phimosis is relatively rare. I don't recall if the STD issue is still true, but then that's why we have condoms.

Bottom line, it used to be considered a medically necessary preventative, and now we know better, so we shouldn't be doing it routinely. I am loathe to outlaw it, though. This seems like one of those issues where better education and culture pressure would be more effective than legislation.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I realize you're trying to make a point, but I don't think anyone would consider eyelids and lips superfluous.

I agree. On the other hand, I wouldn't think anyone would consider the prepuce "superfluous", yet here we are. The eyelids in particular are flaps of skin designed to keep a particularly sensitive area of the body moist and protected. Sounds familiar? Now, I know people can be perfectly fine with their foreskin removed (contrary to eyelids), and as I said I feel no particular need to decry the practice (people do all kind of crazy shit for religious or cultural reasons), but arguing that the foreskin is "useless" is simply specious, and I have no love for specious arguments.

 

[Arrqh]

I don't care one way or the other about religious practices. What we're talking about is the surgical removal of a body part that is not indicated by medical necessity.

And yet, after several back and forths, you've been consistently unable to demonstrate how male circumcision actually causes long term harm from said surgical procedure. No matter how many times you attempt to reframe the argument, what you are ultimately supporting is banning a religious practice without being able to justify it rationally.

However I don't think circumcision of a baby boy can ever be put into this category.

By the way - are cases such as this one proof of harm?

No, a single case is not proof of harm. What is the overall complication rate of circumcisions? How many complications result in death? There are different methods used to perform circumcision, is there anything that can be done procedurally different to mitigate risk? Every surgical procedure, medically indicated or not, carries with it some amount of risk, but without quantifying that risk it isn't justification for banning a procedure.

I can't speak from any other perspective, but from the Jewish side of things the reason why people don't wait is because the Torah says not to. It is typically done on the 8th day after birth and is only postponed if there are medical reasons... in other words, if there is potential to cause harm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah

 

[F. King Daniel]

Easier maintenance and slightly less chance of disease

Are you fucking kidding me? How much harder is it to "maintain" an uncircumsized penis? Exactly what effort do we have to go to that circumsized guys don't?

As for disease, that's like saying you can prevent toothache by having all your teeth pulled.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

As for disease, that's like saying you can prevent toothache by having all your teeth pulled.

No, it's not. I'm neutral on the issue, but that's a terrible analogy. The hyperbole by some on both sides of this issue doesn't help people make their point, it just sounds hysterical.

 

[Switch]

Is it really appropriate to call the foreskin a "body part?" That just strikes me as trying to be overly hyperbolic

 

[Robert Maxwell]

As for disease, that's like saying you can prevent toothache by having all your teeth pulled.

No, it's not. I'm neutral on the issue, but that's a terrible analogy. The hyperbole by some on both sides of this issue doesn't help people make their point, it just sounds hysterical.

A better analogy would be performing an appendectomy on all newborns since the appendix serves no vital function and for some people winds up being a breeding ground for bacteria, resulting in appendicitis. Given how advanced we are with laparascopic surgery these days, there's very little risk in performing appendectomies, but we still don't routinely perform them as preventatives.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Every surgical procedure, medically indicated or not, carries with it some amount of risk, but without quantifying that risk it isn't justification for banning a procedure.

This is about the only operation that is non-therapeutic that is carried out on people who are unable to give consent. That is what the main problem is. Because there is a risk with all surgery I think it is wrong to carry non-therapeutic surgery unless it is the wish of the person having the operation. It doesn't matter if the risk is only small, what matters is that risk is being forced onto a person who cannot give consent for no good reason.

I believe that the risk of complications is between about 2-10% at least according to an 1993 article in the British Journal of Surgery (sorry I haven't had time to find anything newer). Most complications are minor, at least they are in the West.

 

[bassomatic]

I have no idea about the two previous posters [from the beginning of the thread] who seemed to aggravate you - but I too got the foreskin loped off, as did, let me think ...... everyone I know that was born a male. We don't remember, we don't care, if it hurt - i don't care - it has not affected me one bit in my development - the folks of the - 'don't cut your son cult' really piss me off. I had a girl, A GIRL!!!! - and the assholes tried to force their way into my room to tell me what an awful person I was, I have a GIRL remember. So, to sum up, I looked at the link and I read the information. I would like to see things the way these people do, but I can't get my head that far up my ass.

 

[iguana_tonante]

the folks of the - 'don't cut your son cult' really piss me off.

If we are talking about "cults", you have it backwards.

I had a girl, A GIRL!!!! - and the assholes tried to force their way into my room to tell me what an awful person I was, I have a GIRL remember.

Uh. What?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Again: Non-indicated surgical removal of a body part.

So what? It causes no harm and wasting time passing laws banning it will help nobody.

Because, again, it is the non-indicated surgical removal of a body part. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Is it really appropriate to call the foreskin a "body part?" That just strikes me as trying to be overly hyperbolic.

No, generally anything that is a part of the body is considered a body part.

It's a cosmetic change the affects nothing more than a flap of skin. They're not "cutting off a body part" they're remove a bit of "excess skin." It's no more "cutting off a body part" than trimming your nails is. I mean it's not like they're removing an imporant or vital piece of the body like a digit or limb.

No, nails grow constantly and must be kept in check somehow. That's how they're designed. Just like the foreskin was designed to protect the penis.

Show me that cutting off the foreskin causes harm real and true harm and I'll get on this bandwagon. But right now calling it "major surgery" or "cutting off a body part" and things of that nature just strikes me as being extreme for the sake of being extreme. Similar to how a group of a few dozen cells on a uterine wall is a "life" or "a baby."

That depends on whether you're talking about random epithelial cells or an embryo; one isn't and one is.

It has to cause real harm to everyone involved or at least a majority. That 1 in 100,000 rate of botched circumcisions doesn't count as there's risks with any surgical procedure.

No, you have it backwards. A surgical procedure needs to have medical indication, not just a lack of negative indications.

And yet, after several back and forths, you've been consistently unable to demonstrate how male circumcision actually causes long term harm from said surgical procedure. No matter how many times you attempt to reframe the argument, what you are ultimately supporting is banning a religious practice without being able to justify it rationally.

I've never tried to demonstrate long-term harm from circumcisions, not have I attempted to reframe any arguments. I don't need to. Nor am I supporting banning any religious practices. Religious freedom does not include breaking the law. If your religion involves polygamy or marrying underage children, you will not be able to do this in the United States. That's not religious persecution; it's holding everybody to the same legal standard.

 

[Davros]

Easier maintenance and slightly less chance of disease. Nothing dramatic but no down side at all. The way some people are acting here they act like doctors are cutting off the whole thing.

Actually, easier maintenance is mostly a myth too. But I do agree about the rest.

No myth at all, just not a huge difference.

Again: Non-indicated surgical removal of a body part.

So what? It causes no harm and wasting time passing laws banning it will help nobody.

Because, again, it is the non-indicated surgical removal of a body part. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

But since it is a harmless procedure that nobody is forcing you to have done to your children how does it warrant a law banning it? Don't our legislatures have more important things to deal with other than banning something that doesn't hurt anybody and with the skin grown from this material that can be used for skin grafts is not a program we should be abandoning any time in the future.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Easier maintenance and slightly less chance of disease. Nothing dramatic but no down side at all. The way some people are acting here they act like doctors are cutting off the whole thing.

Actually, easier maintenance is mostly a myth too. But I do agree about the rest.

No myth at all, just not a huge difference.

That's why I said mostly a myth. Marginal to the point of being meaningless.

 

[Josh Kelton]

And I don't think it's taboo... just laughable that it's gone this distance, lol.

Maybe, although there was one that I created several years ago that was almost 30 pages

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=83707

 

[RJDiogenes]

So what? It causes no harm and wasting time passing laws banning it will help nobody.

Because, again, it is the non-indicated surgical removal of a body part. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

But since it is a harmless procedure that nobody is forcing you to have done to your children how does it warrant a law banning it? Don't our legislatures have more important things to deal with other than banning something that doesn't hurt anybody and with the skin grown from this material that can be used for skin grafts is not a program we should be abandoning any time in the future.

Neither of those is an argument in favor of allowing unnecessary surgery. It would be foolish for legislators ignore legislation that they don't deem important enough, and justifying unnecessary surgery by saying the removed parts can be used elsewhere takes us down a slippery slope.

 

[scotpens]

. . . justifying unnecessary surgery by saying the removed parts can be used elsewhere takes us down a slippery slope.

"Soylent Green is FORESKINS!!!"