Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?

[Naira]

I have no opinion on whether it is right or wrong but I do have a serious question from a female perspective (since I cannot tell myself ):

Why all this fuss about how clean an uncircumcised penis is? My boyfriend is uncircumcised and I have never seen anything even remotely "unclean" there. And it's not like he is in a shower all day cleaning himself - he showers as most people do, every other day or so.

I don't want to stir up trouble because it seems that many people have strong opinions about this matter but, since we talk about this, do you uncircumcised men have any trouble at all keeping you penis clean?

 

[Davros]

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.

Since the procedure is harmless and some people are required by their religion to undergo it, there is no reason for elected officials to step in and try and ban it. And if the removed material can be used for something that helps people all the better. Nothing slippery about this slope. If you don't want to get your kid circumcised then don't. If other people choose differently it's none of your business.

 

[Arrqh]

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.

I would assert that it would be quite impossible for you to demonstrate long-term harm from circumcisions because no such harm exists. I have brought this up repeatedly, you have consistently failed to concede the point. That is a reframing of the argument.

Comparing this to polygamy or marrying underage children is completely disingenuous: both of those are outlawed because they cause harm. The only possible justification one can have for outlawing a practice is if it causes harm. Additionally, those things are already illegal: saying you're just trying to hold everyone to the same legal standard when you're advocating changing the legal standard without a rational argument for doing so doesn't hold. Using loaded words like "mutilation", which I think I've shown fairly well that circumcision is not, serves to do nothing but create an image of harm where no harm actually exists.

The bottom line is that circumcision is a religious practice. Banning it without a rational justification is counter to the principles that the United States was founded on.

 

[thestrangequark]

^Why should he have to provide proof that long-term harm exists? There is no long-term harm from being uncircumcised either, so the point is moot. The points RJ addresses are whether it is ethical to perform a non-therapeutic procedure on an individual too young to give informed consent, and whether it is ethical to cause temporary pain in an infant for a purely cosmetic procedure. Another major point of consideration is whether the (admittedly very rare, but nevertheless very great) risks associated with the procedure are justifiable.

 

[Pingfah]

I wonder about any definition of harm that doesn't include losing a body part. It may not impact people's lives in a harmful way, but losing a body part is pretty much the definition of coming to harm.

 

[Davros]

I wonder about any definition of harm that doesn't include losing a body part. It may not impact people's lives in a harmful way, but losing a body part is pretty much the definition of coming to harm.

Not if the loss of that body part has no negative result.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I have no opinion on whether it is right or wrong but I do have a serious question from a female perspective (since I cannot tell myself ):

Why all this fuss about how clean an uncircumcised penis is? My boyfriend is uncircumcised and I have never seen anything even remotely "unclean" there. And it's not like he is in a shower all day cleaning himself - he showers as most people do, every other day or so.

I don't want to stir up trouble because it seems that many people have strong opinions about this matter but, since we talk about this, do you uncircumcised men have any trouble at all keeping you penis clean?

I'm uncut and have never had any trouble whatsoever. Never has any effort of any kind been required to maintain cleanliness. The "it's more hygenic" bit sounds like utter bullshit to me.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Why all this fuss about how clean an uncircumcised penis is? My boyfriend is uncircumcised and I have never seen anything even remotely "unclean" there.

As other said, it's just a myth, brought up by people who need to disparage what is different and foreign as "dirty" (like foreign women not shaving or being smelly).

In the desert, with no water available for washing, it's possible that an uncircumcised men would be statistically more prone to infection, due to the moist and protected environment under the prepuce. In today's world, with plenty of water and soap, there is no difference whatsoever.

do you uncircumcised men have any trouble at all keeping you penis clean?

No. Really, no.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Why should he have to provide proof that long-term harm exists? There is no long-term harm from being uncircumcised either, so the point is moot. The points RJ addresses are whether it is ethical to perform a non-therapeutic procedure on an individual too young to give informed consent, and whether it is ethical to cause temporary pain in an infant for a purely cosmetic procedure. Another major point of consideration is whether the (admittedly very rare, but nevertheless very great) risks associated with the procedure are justifiable.

I don't think the loss of pleasurable sensation is justifiable, let alone anything else.

 

[scotpens]

In the desert, with no water available for washing, it's possible that an uncircumcised men would be statistically more prone to infection, due to the moist and protected environment under the prepuce.

Moses invented circumcision because he knew we were going to spend 40 years in the desert and we didn’t want sand getting in there.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Heh. I might be wrong, but I guess it's no coincidence that circumcision spread first among peoples who dwelt mostly in desert areas (Egyptians, Israelites, and other Semitic or African peoples). "Medical" circumcision in the XIX century in the English-speaking world is a different issue, and it's mostly tied to Victorian attitudes towards sex and "dirtiness".

 

[Pingfah]

I wonder about any definition of harm that doesn't include losing a body part. It may not impact people's lives in a harmful way, but losing a body part is pretty much the definition of coming to harm.

Not if the loss of that body part has no negative result.

I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

You can't just redefine terms to suit you, what you mean is that the physical harm that was done to your body has not impacted your life negatively. I understand and don't dispute that point, so if you could drop the defensiveness and just acknowledge reality for a moment, that would be great.

 

[Switch]

I wonder about any definition of harm that doesn't include losing a body part. It may not impact people's lives in a harmful way, but losing a body part is pretty much the definition of coming to harm.

Not if the loss of that body part has no negative result.

I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

You can't just redefine terms to suit you, what you mean is that the physical harm that was done to your body has not impacted your life negatively. I understand and don't dispute that point, so if you could drop the defensiveness and just acknowledge reality for a moment, that would be great.

I wonder about any definition of 'harm' that would include having one's appendix removed, cutting one's fingernails, or using a pumice stone.

 

[The Borg Queen]

I'm glad I'm circumcised. My dad had it done to me, not for religious reasons (we're Lutheran), but for the medical and cleanliness benefits. And he's a doctor, so he would know.

Yeah, but didn't doctors also used to say that smoking was good for you?

Medical science advances when people learn more. Or do you still use leeches?

 

[Pingfah]

Not if the loss of that body part has no negative result.

I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

You can't just redefine terms to suit you, what you mean is that the physical harm that was done to your body has not impacted your life negatively. I understand and don't dispute that point, so if you could drop the defensiveness and just acknowledge reality for a moment, that would be great.

I wonder about any definition of 'harm' that would include having one's appendix removed, cutting one's fingernails, or using a pumice stone.

Yeah, those are all directly comparable, you must have given that a lot of thought

 

[Miss Chicken]

I wonder about any definition of 'harm' that would include having one's appendix removed, cutting one's fingernails, or using a pumice stone.

There is usually a medical necessity when an appendix is removed. Cutting one's nails doesn't hurt and they grow back. I don't think many people use a pumice stone on small children.

 

[Switch]

I think you completely missed the point of what I was saying.

You can't just redefine terms to suit you, what you mean is that the physical harm that was done to your body has not impacted your life negatively. I understand and don't dispute that point, so if you could drop the defensiveness and just acknowledge reality for a moment, that would be great.

I wonder about any definition of 'harm' that would include having one's appendix removed, cutting one's fingernails, or using a pumice stone.

Yeah, those are all directly comparable, you must have given that a lot of thought

So what's your criteria for bodily harm, exactly? It apparently isn't a requirement that it actually have a negative (or even discernible) effect on one's life or be regarded in a negative fashion by the individual concerned. Given that preposterous critera, what sort of definition are you proposing that doesn't extend to the loss of skin cells one suffers whilst walking around the room?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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

"Soylent Green is FORESKINS!!!"

They use them for skin grafts? Eeeeeeewwwwwwwww.....

 

[Pingfah]

I wonder about any definition of 'harm' that would include having one's appendix removed, cutting one's fingernails, or using a pumice stone.

Yeah, those are all directly comparable, you must have given that a lot of thought

So what's your criteria for bodily harm, exactly?

Losing a healthy body part by the hand of another, without your consent and for cosmetic or cultural reasons rather than medical necessity seems like a good one. Although I realise that those are not the only reasons for the procedure, there are medically necessary reasons too.

It apparently isn't a requirement that it actually have a negative (or even discernible) effect on one's life or be regarded in a negative fashion by the individual concerned. Given that preposterous critera, what sort of definition are you proposing that doesn't extend to the loss of skin cells one suffers whilst walking around the room?

The lack of discernable impact on somebody's life is merely the reason why I don't oppose the practice strongly enough to want to make it illegal. Nonetheless, it is a forced and irreversible cosmetic change that is indisputably injurious to the body. You can jump through as many hoops as you want, but that won't change.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm glad I'm circumcised. My dad had it done to me, not for religious reasons (we're Lutheran), but for the medical and cleanliness benefits. And he's a doctor, so he would know.

Yeah, but didn't doctors also used to say that smoking was good for you?

No idea. They don't say it now, though, so what's the big deal? If my doctor does a 180 and says circumcision is wrong, then we'll talk.

Medical science advances when people learn more.

I'm sure it does. But in this case, it hasn't been decided to my satisfaction.

Not that it matters anyway, since I am circ'ed and am OK with it, and I don't want kids so I will never have to make the decision.

If I was not circ'ed and was just now finding out that the procedure existed, I'd probably be rather pissed (pardon the pun ) since I'm sure it hurts a LOT more for adults...and they remember the pain.