SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[Agorism]

SF Circumcision Ban To Appear On November Ballot

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27941438/detail.html

http://www.ktvu.com/2010/1028/25546340_240X135.jpg


SAN FRANCISCO -- In November, San Francisco voters will be asked to weigh in on what was until now a private family matter: male circumcision.
City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that an initiative that would ban the circumcision of males younger than 18 in San Francisco has received enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The practice would become a misdemeanor.
Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that should not be forced on a young child.
But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.
The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date of a decades-old nationwide movement to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort in Massachusetts last year failed to gain traction.
Copyright 2011 by KTVU.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[doodle]

Here goes another freedom of choice.

[1000-points-of-fright]

San Francisco is anti-Semitic.

[specsaregood]

I told friends and family in san fran to vote for the ban just for the LOLs. They seemed receptive to the idea.

[Dr.3D]

If it passes, wouldn't that just mean some people will leave San Francisco to give birth?

[specsaregood]

If it passes, wouldn't that just mean some people will leave San Francisco to give birth?

Not really. They could still give birth there and just have it done out of san fran later or pay the fine.

[John of Des Moines]

Just don't make me pay for it. Or the psychiatrist later on in life.

[low preference guy]

Here goes another freedom of choice.

yeah, and they did it after removing the freedom of choice to cut off people's heads. what bastards!

[doodle]

LPF, it's a family forum, please watch the terms used that may have dual slang meaning.

[Yieu]

Here goes another freedom of choice.

Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

[aravoth]

The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

So is using the power of the government to enforce a cosmetic standard.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I lol'd at the part saying that cutting an infant's penis is a religious freedom. Anyone that defends the ban is just insecure about being circumcised ;)

[AndrewD]

Im kind of new to this topic, I dont see the problem with circumcision? Unless the argument against it is totally based on morals or principle. Other than that, I say leave it alone and to me its a non issue.

[Dr.3D]

Im kind of new to this topic, I dont see the problem with circumcision? Unless the argument against it is totally based on morals or principle. Other than that, I say leave it alone and to me its a non issue.
It's about giving the child the liberty to make the decision to be circumcised. As an infant, they can not yet exercise that liberty.

[Rocket80]

Isn't there already a 30 page on-going thread on this issue?

Either way, might as well throw in my two cents, I'd vote yes on the ban.

[CrissyNY]

It's a ban on cutting a minor's genitals.

Freedom of choice is when that infant grows into a man and can decide on his own if he wants cosmetic surgery.

This is one of the few bans I support.

[Agorism]

Well there is female circumcision too. It was banned in the U.S. in 1996.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvX5J7lAv4g

[nobody's_hero]

I'm not Jewish but I'm circumcised, the bit about not being inconvenienced to retract the foreskin to thoroughly wash my penis is a nice perk. Urinary tract infections suck.

But, seriously, I'm not particularly in favor of giving the government more authority than parents when it comes to raising a child. I'd likely not vote for a ban if I lived in San Fran. But then again, I wouldn't live in San Fran because hardly anyone else there shares my idea about letting parents raise their kids without government intervening.

[Agorism]

Victorians don't want the teenage males masturbating. That's the reason.

[Yieu]

So is using the power of the government to enforce a cosmetic standard.

While circumcision is unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting minor, you lose a lot more than cosmetic looks -- you lose the most sensitive nerves in the human body. That's a lot at stake, and due to that it is not a decision that a parent can morally make for their child; only the individual can morally and ethically make that decision, when they are old enough to make informed consent to unnecessary cosmetic surgical alterations to their body.

To address your concern about the government though, an outright government ban may not be the most ideal way to go about it, but routine infant circumcision or the decision being left to the parent is certainly a violation of human rights.

[nobody's_hero]

Victorians don't want the teenage males masturbating. That's the reason.

Mine works pretty good, lol. It did in my teenage years, anyway.

[low preference guy]

LPF, it's a family forum, please watch the terms used that may have dual slang meaning.

i'm using the term in the literal meaning

[jkr]

i thought these fughers celebrated diversity and choice!

dust off your sandals folks...


i'm cut.
you gonna go retroactive on us ( once again) and start checking our...oh wait.

?

the question mark was emphasized



have fun touching my yoda azz muncherz

[specsaregood]

//

[aravoth]

While circumcision is unnecessary cosmetic surgery on a non-consenting minor, you lose a lot more than cosmetic looks -- you lose the most sensitive nerves in the human body. That's a lot at stake, and due to that it is not a decision that a parent can morally make for their child; only the individual can morally and ethically make that decision, when they are old enough to make informed consent to unnecessary cosmetic surgical alterations to their body.

To address your concern about the government though, an outright government ban may not be the most ideal way to go about it, but routine infant circumcision or the decision being left to the parent is certainly a violation of human rights.

I agree, an outright ban by the powers that be is certainly not the way to go about. It is a cultural issue. And weather you, me or anyone else agrees with it or not, it is a decision that is made by the parent.

For my part, it is best to be left that way, it is not the purpose of government to ensure a standard for the way children look, nor is it their purpose to stomp on thousands of years of tradition. Circumcision predates San-Francisco and The Untied States, and it will continue to survive long after both of those things are gone.

[Yieu]

And weather you, me or anyone else agrees with it or not, it is a decision that is made by the parent.

I can never agree to that. If the decision to remove important, functional, useful, and the most sensitive part of the body is a choice that can be left up to the parent, then an unnecessary cosmetic surgical removal could be made for ANY body part of the infant at the decision of the parent, including fingers, ears, eyelids, or whatever.

As libertarians we believe we own our body right? That we have a right to it? Then we have a right to our WHOLE body, not just the parts our parents decided we are allowed to keep. No parent has a right to decide how much their child is able to feel down there by removing the most sensitive nerves. All boys have a human right to keep their whole body until they are of age to consent to it and understand the value of what they are losing. It is a violation of human rights, liberty, and dignity to deny a man this right by giving the decision to the parents. Plus a factor of routine infant circumcision is that some doctors pressure parents into it before they fully understand the dangers and just what exactly they are stealing from their son. It is genital mutilation, no different from certain versions of female genital mutilation.

If it is the parents choice to circumcise males, then it must also be the parents choice to circumcise females. No double standards. It is wrong for the parent to make that decision morally, and it is anti-liberty for the parent to make that decision. Only the individual can rightfully make that decision. When the parent makes that decision, they are being against free choice, because they take away the choice from the person who has to actually live with it.

If you believe in liberty and you believe in free choice of the individuals, you cannot be for the individual not being free to make that decision on their own because that is inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and not doing harm to the innocent and non-consenting.

[BlackTerrel]

I put the over/under for yes votes on this at 20%.



Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

So you're saying give a religious test and if Jewish/Muslim then ok but otherwise not ok? How do you plan on determining the religion of the parents?

[Yieu]

I'm not Jewish but I'm circumcised, the bit about not being inconvenienced to retract the foreskin to thoroughly wash my penis is a nice perk.

As I started reading this, I thought you were going to go on to point out how ridiculous it is to say it would be difficult somehow to use soap and water in the shower.


But, seriously, I'm not particularly in favor of giving the government more authority than parents when it comes to raising a child. I'd likely not vote for a ban if I lived in San Fran. But then again, I wouldn't live in San Fran because hardly anyone else there shares my idea about letting parents raise their kids without government intervening.

Circumcising is not authority that parents rightfully have to do over their child unless there is some weird and very rare medical problem, and less invasive measures can be used in most such cases. It is not a part of "raising your children". Only the individual can rightfully and morally make that decision. Not the government, not parents. It is against free choice if the parents make that decision, because it deprives the individual from being able to make it.

[Agorism]

Well we've banned female circumcision, but we need to ban male circumcision as well unless the person himself wants it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

As I started reading this, I thought you were going to go on to point out how ridiculous it is to say it would be difficult somehow to use soap and water in the shower.


Or he can just chop the whole thing off and not worry about having to wash any part of it.

[ghengis86]

I'm for the ban, as long as the ban injections of neurological toxins as well. Oh, immunizations are not up to the liberty of the child? My bad. Let's ban disposable diapers, mandate breast feeding only, prohibit nail clipping and jail any parent that registers their child for a social security number.

[Yieu]

So you're saying give a religious test and if Jewish/Muslim then ok but otherwise not ok? How do you plan on determining the religion of the parents?

No, I don't think the government should be involved at all to be able to give such a test, but parents have no right to make this decision for their child. I only consider the possibility of exception for religions which request it to happen (which is limited to Judaism and Islam) because that takes religion out of the issue. I'm not trying to get into complex arguments about Judaism or Islam, so I won't bother people of those faiths. But there is no reason and no excuse for anyone else to do it. It removes the most sensitive area of the body. I think that in Judaism and Islam, they don't have it done at hospitals anyway, they have priests do it. So if hospitals did not perform the operation, then all males would have more of their rights (and body) Intact when they become an adult and can make an informed consensual choice.

[Yieu]

Well we've banned female circumcision, but we need to ban male circumcision as well unless the person himself wants it.

There is indeed no difference between male circumcision and the most common forms of female circumcision, so we should not view the two any differently.

If "parents can decide" whether male children are "allowed" to have the most sensitive part of their bodies, then "parents can decide" the same for females too. Otherwise it is not logical or consistent.

Because there is no medical or religious reason for people who are not Jewish or Islamic to circumcise their child, all it does is take away from the amount the individual can feel by removing important and healthy functional nerves.


Or he can just chop the whole thing off and not worry about having to wash any part of it.

Might as well. If you can cut the most sensitive part of the body off, then you can use the same logic to cut any part of the body off.


I'm for the ban, as long as the ban injections of neurological toxins as well. Oh, immunizations are not up to the liberty of the child? My bad. Let's ban disposable diapers, mandate breast feeding only, prohibit nail clipping and jail any parent that registers their child for a social security number.

You really equate those harmless things to removing the most sensitive part of the body for no medical reason -- for purely cosmetic purposes? Cosmetic surgery on an infant which removes the most sensitive part of the body is not the same as things that are a part of actually raising your child.

[ghengis86]

Might as well. If you can cut the most sensitive part of the body off, then you can use the same logic to cut any part of the body off.



You really equate those harmless things to removing the most sensitive part of the body for no medical reason -- for purely cosmetic purposes? Cosmetic surgery on an infant which removes the most sensitive part of the body is not the same as things that are a part of actually raising your child.

Just ask the kids with autism, that is if their most sensitive collection of nerves (the brain) is functioning. If you don't believe the autism link, than surely you can accept the likelihood of a Guillian-barre reaction

[Yieu]

Just ask the kids with autism, that is if their most sensitive collection of nerves (the brain) is functioning. If you don't believe the autism link, than surely you can accept the likelihood of a Guillian-barre reaction

You are not making an argument that logically follows. A physical disease such as autism is not the same as healthy, functional nerve and skin tissue. Having your whole body intact is not the same as having a disease. Please try to think this issue through, because it is an issue involving the liberty of an individual to experience their whole body, an inalienable right. It is reactionary to ignore that and equate it with things which are incomparable. Circumcision is more comparable to slavery (note for those who might misread: when I say slavery I do not mean slavery in early American history, I mean the general concept of it) than autism, because it removes a human right to experience all of our body.

[Agorism]

Mom Who Botoxed 8-Year-Old Under Investigation (http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/13/botox-8-year-old-daughter-kerry-campbell-britney-good-morning-america-san-francisco/5/)


The woman who went on "Good Morning America" yesterday and ADMITTED to giving regular Botox injections to her 8-year-old daughter is now being investigated by Child Protective Services.


CPS in San Francisco says their phones rang off the hook yesterday after Kerry Campbell appeared on "GMA" -- and admitted she regularly administered the anti-wrinkle injections ... to give her daughter an edge in the world of child beauty pageants.

[Yieu]

Mom Who Botoxed 8-Year-Old Under Investigation (http://www.tmz.com/2011/05/13/botox-8-year-old-daughter-kerry-campbell-britney-good-morning-america-san-francisco/5/)

People who have no problem with routine infant circumcision should have no problem with this, in order to be consistent.

[ghengis86]

People who have no problem with routine infant circumcision should have no problem with this, in order to be consistent.

As such, you should have no problem BANNING injecting infants with toxic substances, in order to be consistent.

Edit: insert banning

[Yieu]

As such, you should have no problem injecting infants with toxic substances, in order to be consistent.

Again, this logic does not follow. It is a logical fallacy. Because I would not[I] harm my child in one way, means I [I]would harm my child in another? No, I am against all harm.

But if you want to talk about vaccinations, that is not exactly the same as circumcision because while they are harmful in many ways, one might argue (I personally would not because I do not want to vaccinate my children) that vaccination has some medical value, however slight. There is no medical benefit to cosmetic surgical removal of an infant's foreskin -- it is only for looks, and does remove the individual's ability to have as much sensation down there so it is an injustice and a violation of the individual's human rights to perform this never-necessary surgical operation to a non-consenting minor.

Edit: I see your edit, and I also addressed that concern in my second paragraph.

[Flash]

As such, you should have no problem BANNING injecting infants with toxic substances, in order to be consistent.

Edit: insert banning



Who is inserting toxic substances into their kids?

[Flash]

For my part, it is best to be left that way, it is not the purpose of government to ensure a standard for the way children look, nor is it their purpose to stomp on thousands of years of tradition.

Murder was prevalent before the creation of a State. So was rape, circumcision, mutilations, theft, human sacrifices, etc.. these are all ancient practices. Why should da 'gubmint have a role in such matters? Perhaps it's because we need a sort of governance over man to ensure the powerless & innocent are protected from harmful members of society? Circumcision is never moral or justified unless it's for a medical purpose. Pointing out that it's an ancient, primitive tradition does nothing for your argument. So I suspect you have some sort of deep-seeded political motive.

[ghengis86]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to have webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

[Yieu]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to gave webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

Why do you continue to make logical fallacies after it was pointed out that they are logical fallacies? None of those things can be equated with removing the most sensitive part of the male body without consent and for no medical reason.

This type of logical fallacy is called a Non-sequitur. You can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

In addition, the slippery slope logical fallacy was used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

We need to get amy31416 and roxic27 in here for the female opinion on why routine infant circumcision is a violation of human liberty and our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.

[nobody's_hero]

Circumcising is not authority that parents rightfully have to do over their child unless there is some weird and very rare medical problem, and less invasive measures can be used in most such cases. It is not a part of "raising your children". Only the individual can rightfully and morally make that decision. Not the government, not parents. It is against free choice if the parents make that decision, because it deprives the individual from being able to make it.

Parents > government when it comes to their children. That's just how I feel. I'm sorry that so many people on this forum seem to have had some sort of lousy tyrant-slave relationship with their parents, but you seem to have all turned out fine, and I'm glad for that.

Having said that, let me say this. If the ban passes, we'll have one of those 'laboratories of innovation' that Gary Johnson coined the phrase for.

A scientific study:

People in San Francisco will either have really wonderful sex, or increased risk of urinary tract infection, or both, and everyone else can look at the San Fran variable group and assess the data for themselves, and make their own decisions regarding the health of their children.

Having said that, there are already numerous instances of cities, states, and the federal government which have made laws on child health, and whenever someone says that wonderful phrase, "But it's for the children!", I tend to worry for the next generation.

[low preference guy]

Parents > government when it comes to their children. That's just how I feel. I'm sorry that so many people on this forum seem to have had some sort of lousy tyrant-slave relationship with their parents, but you seem to have all turned out fine, and I'm glad for that.

so if a parent kills his children that's fine because parents > government?

[Flash]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to gave webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!

Yeah, not everyone can be protected by the government. So let's just throw our hands up in the air, open the borders to a billion aids-infested africans/asians and say, "you're on your own, everyone. The government has no say in these matters."

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Also, we should ban parents from naming their children. This could pose irreparable emotional harm. Just ask the kid named Richard Weed. Not even a name change at 18 can cure those emotional scars. We must also ban parents from feeding their children high fructose corn syrup. Have you seen what that stuff can do to a liver? They should also mandate HEPA furnace filters, as bacterial spores can cause all sorts of infections that could lead to death. Parents should not be allowed to have webbed fingers and toes surgically remidied either. Think how fast that kid could swim!!
Those are strawman arguments. Naming is superficial. Cutting the penis of a child just born into the world is barbaric.

[Agorism]

The difference is that one has a medical indication. The other does not. It's preference in the case of circumcision as the AMA does not recommend routine circumcision.

Since it's a preference it makes sense to let the person himself decide.

[Yieu]

Parents > government when it comes to their children. That's just how I feel. I'm sorry that so many people on this forum seem to have had some sort of lousy tyrant-slave relationship with their parents, but you seem to have all turned out fine, and I'm glad for that.

Parents > government, I agree. The household is supreme. But there are some things that NO ONE has a right to do to another individual, and removal of healthy, functional body parts is something no one, government nor parent, has the right to do to another individual, regardless of whether it is their child or not. And yes it has negatively affected me, I have deep regrets that my parents allowed my body to be mutilated, it stole my liberty to my whole body. My #1 guiding principle is ahimsa, the non-aggression principle -- and circumcision violates this principle because it does harm.


so if a parent kills his children that's fine because parents > government?

Good point. If one can make the argument that a parent can remove a vital part of their child's body, they can make the argument to remove any part of the child's body. Perhaps even vital organs. "It's the parent's choice," after all.

[ghengis86]

Yeah, not everyone can be protected by the government. So let's just throw our hands up in the air, open the borders to a billion aids-infested africans/asians and say, "you're on your own, everyone. The government has no say in these matters."

Sounds good to me (only Africans and Asians have AIDS? Who knew?)

Also,

Wow

[Yieu]

Yeah, not everyone can be protected by the government. So let's just throw our hands up in the air, open the borders to a billion aids-infested africans/asians and say, "you're on your own, everyone. The government has no say in these matters."

To be fair, this also wasn't that good of an argument... the point could have been made better.

[Flash]

No, but it's extremely prevalent in those continents. Especially in a few countries. Should we have NO say in who immigrates here, no matter if they have a disease? That is infringing on MY liberty.


To be fair, this also wasn't that good of an argument... the point could have been made better

It is to some people like me, who don't believe in mass immigration. That's much more immoral than circumcision. I think it's rather foolish to say government should have NO say in anything..

[ghengis86]

No but it's extremely prevalent in those continents. Especially in a few countries. Should we have NO say in who immigrates here, no matter if they have a disease? That is infringing on MY liberty.

How? (maybe this should be answered in a separate thread before this one is derailed?)

[Flash]

How? (maybe this should be answered in a separate thread before this one is derailed?)

Think about the swine flu epidemic and how Obama refused to close the Mexican-American border, which could've stunted the spread of the disease. There comes a time where the government must restrict basic rights, such as freedom of movement between nations.

[aravoth]

As libertarians we believe we own our body right?

If you believe in liberty and you believe in free choice of the individuals, you cannot be for the individual not being free to make that decision on their own because that is inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and not doing harm to the innocent and non-consenting.

My belief in liberty is what drives me to say that you me and everyone else has absolutely no right to enforce our moral code on other people. Period.

[ghengis86]

Why do you continue to make logical fallacies after it was pointed out that they are logical fallacies? None of those things can be equated with removing the most sensitive part of the male body without consent and for no medical reason.

This type of logical fallacy is called a Non-sequitur. You can read up on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

In addition, the slippery slope logical fallacy was used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

We need to get amy31416 and roxic27 in here for the female opinion on why routine infant circumcision is a violation of human liberty and our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and happiness.

I would argue that it is not a logical fallacy. One could argue the medical benefits of circumcision as well. Citing the AMA (not yourself in this instance), would be an appeal to authority. There would be contradicting studies (as in the case of vaccines) and it would be up to the parent to decide what is right for their child.

Do you see where I'm coming from at least, or why I'm trying to argue this point? I may be in complete agreement with you on this, but for the sake of fleshing out the correct position, am challenging the both of us to arrive at the most consistent, liberty-endorsed conclusion

[nobody's_hero]

so if a parent kills his children that's fine because parents > government?

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

[ghengis86]

Think about the swine flu epidemic and how Obama refused to close the Mexican-American border, which could've stunted the spread of the disease. There comes a time where the government must restrict basic rights, such as freedom of movement between nations.
Thank you for the clarity and honest. Would all be so genuine as you...

[low preference guy]

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

so you're saying that government > parents? statist!

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I would argue that it is not a logical fallacy. One could argue the medical benefits of circumcision as well. Citing the AMA (not yourself in this instance), would be an appeal to authority. There would be contradicting studies (as in the case of vaccines) and it would be up to the parent to decide what is right for their child.

Do you see where I'm coming from at least, or why I'm trying to argue this point? I may be in complete agreement with you on this, but for the sake of fleshing out the correct position, am challenging the both of us to arrive at the most consistent, liberty-endorsed conclusion

Cutting out their eyeballs prevent them from going blind. Cutting off their feet prevents them from getting athlete's foot.

[ghengis86]

Cutting out their eyeballs prevent them from going blind. Cutting off their feet prevents them from getting athlete's foot.

Is the urethra connected to the foreskin?

[Yieu]

My belief in liberty is what drives me to say that you me and everyone else has absolutely no right to enforce our moral code on other people. Period.

I respect you very much and your views, so please try not to be offended by the statement I'm about to make.

It would still be taking away your child's liberty, whether you have a different moral code or not. I'll make exception if it is a part of your religion (Judaism, Islam) to be fair.

The question then comes up though, that since murder is illegal because it is immoral and does harm to another, and circumcision is immoral (and, if you don't believe it is immoral, it still does take away the liberty of the child) and does harm to another, where is the line drawn? Should murder be legal too? Assault? Again, I am not saying I support a government ban, but this very much takes away the liberty of another person, and taking away the liberty of another person is sometimes referred to as slavery (to a degree).

[CrissyNY]

little baby boys do die from circumcision, not at 75%, but it's senseless all the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

[Golding]

Cutting out their eyeballs prevent them from going blind. Cutting off their feet prevents them from getting athlete's foot.Cutting out their eyeballs actually causes the person to go blind.

I'm a little surprised that people are trying to make these sorts of exaggerated comparisons to actually defend the proposed ban. Circumcision is a parental choice that simply isn't akin to amputation of an extremity. If you don't want it done to your own children, then answer "no" when your doctor asks whether or not you would like your child circumcised. Stop trying to impose your parenting opinions on others.


little baby boys do die from circumcision, not at 75%, but it's senseless all the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.htmlThe website you link to doesn't have very much in the way of frequency of death related to circumcision. Most of the specific anecdotes seem to be related to anesthetic use, and I'm inclined to point out how many of these specific deaths appear to have occurred outside the US. Circumcision is infrequently done with any anesthetic at all, from my observation.

I also have to question the veracity of some of the deaths listed as attributable to circumcision. They list a baby born with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome, accuse the circumcision for the death, and (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) say "the doctors would deny the circumcision had anything to do with the death, wouldn't they?" Common things are common. Children with HLHS commonly die from having HLHS.

It's not to say that circumcision is without its risks. But as with any procedure, there are risks. There are risks to opting for a vaginal delivery over a C-section, and vice-versa. Understanding and accepting/refusing those risks is inherent to having a choice.

[dannno]

Victorians don't want the teenage males masturbating. That's the reason.

Doesn't work.

[affa]

i view it as genital mutilation. that americans defend it is only because it's a regular occurrence here. if another country did it and we didn't we'd all think it is as barbaric as it actually is.

[Yieu]

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

Well, it can cause death, the loss of the entire genital organ, and other scary complications.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

But aside from that, both killing and removal of healthy functional important tissues are doing harm to someone.

[ghengis86]

little baby boys do die from circumcision, not at 75%, but it's senseless all the same.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

So do vaccines

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/Feb_22_02/Scandal5.htm

[nobody's_hero]

so you're saying that government > parents? statist!

Okay, fine. I live in Georgia, and do not forsee a ban on circumcision here any time soon.

I tell you what. I'll let people on the other side of the U.S. use democracy to place a government ban on circumcision 'for the children', and we'll see whose government grows out of control the quickest. Deal?

Georgians, for the most part, have traditionally held the belief that a child's health is a family concern. Californians, tending to be more liberal on average than the typical Georgian, can't remember the last time government didn't intervene in a parent's affairs.

So, let's just see how this works out.

[CrissyNY]

So do vaccines

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/Feb_22_02/Scandal5.htm

I did not anything about vaccines, that's a whole nother thread.

I am saying infant circumcision is a direct and irreversible assault on a minor's genitals.

That occasionally results in death.

[ghengis86]

I wonder what would happen if people put as much effort into an educational campaign to change a behavior instead of an appeal to the state to force someone to what they thought was right? Which would be mire in line with liberty?

[nobody's_hero]

Well, it can cause death, the loss of the entire genital organ, and other scary complications.

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html

But aside from that, both killing and removal of healthy functional important tissues are doing harm to someone.

And urinary tract infections can cause sepsis and death. Since both outcomes suck, depending on whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised, what is getting the government involved going to solve, exactly?

[heavenlyboy34]

No, but it's extremely prevalent in those continents. Especially in a few countries. Should we have NO say in who immigrates here, no matter if they have a disease? That is infringing on MY liberty.



It is to some people like me, who don't believe in mass immigration. That's much more immoral than circumcision. I think it's rather foolish to say government should have NO say in anything..

I disagree. In a truly free society, the government would own 0% of the land (and individuals/business 100%) and landowners would keep out harmful/uninvited people. The government has no legitimate say in anything unless all parties involved request it. To argue otherwise is to assume that the regime owns us. (truly sovereign people are not subject to the arbitrary whims of others, including the government)

[Yieu]

Cutting out their eyeballs actually causes the person to go blind.

I'm a little surprised that people are trying to make these sorts of exaggerated comparisons to actually defend the proposed ban. Circumcision is a parental choice that simply isn't akin to amputation of an extremity. If you don't want it done to your own children, then answer "no" when your doctor asks whether or not you would like your child circumcised. Stop trying to impose your parenting opinions on others.

Cutting out the eyeballs makes the person go blind, and cutting off the foreskin makes the person feel less sexual pleasure. But that example is a bit exaggerated.

I believe he was saying that to show how ridiculous it is to cut off healthy functional nerves and skin to potentially, maybe, reduce the chances of risks of STDs which can be prevented by lifestyle choices (though those studies have been debunked, so there is no medical benefit).

It is not the same as removing an entire limb, or eyes. It is more like singeing the skin of the fingertips so that they feel less sensation, or partially removing the eyelids (the glans is supposed to be covered just like the eye is supposed to be covered). It is a violation of the child's right to life, liberty, and happiness to remove this vital part of their body, so it cannot be a parental choice. It is not a parental choice to do harm to your child or to remove their liberty by force.

[ghengis86]

I did not anything about vaccines, that's a whole nother thread.

I am saying infant circumcision is a direct and irreversible assault on a minor's genitals.

That occasionally results in death.

And not banning vaccines us a direct and irreversible assault on minors brain and body. That occasionally results in death. They are the same because it's the parents choice.

[heavenlyboy34]

Mine works pretty good, lol. It did in my teenage years, anyway.

I assume you used lube of some sort, yes? I can't relate to being cut, so pardon my ignorance. I imagine there would be too much friction without the lube. We intact guys don't need no stinkin lube. :cool:

[Yieu]

I would argue that it is not a logical fallacy. One could argue the medical benefits of circumcision as well. Citing the AMA (not yourself in this instance), would be an appeal to authority. There would be contradicting studies (as in the case of vaccines) and it would be up to the parent to decide what is right for their child.

Do you see where I'm coming from at least, or why I'm trying to argue this point? I may be in complete agreement with you on this, but for the sake of fleshing out the correct position, am challenging the both of us to arrive at the most consistent, liberty-endorsed conclusion

I understand that you are attached to circumcision and perhaps that may be because you don't want to think anything is "wrong" with you by being circumcised. I am not trying to tell you there is something wrong with you, though.

I firmly believe that what I have been saying on this subject is the position of liberty, and non-consenting routine infant circumcision violates the child's right to their body, their life, their liberty, and more.

[CrissyNY]

And not banning vaccines us a direct and irreversible assault on minors brain and body. That occasionally results in death. They are the same because it's the parents choice.

I'm talking about THIS. Right now. Why do you keep bringing up vaccines?

[low preference guy]

I firmly believe that what I have been saying on this subject is the position of liberty, and non-consenting routine infant circumcision violates the child's right to their body, their life, their liberty, and more.

+1

[ghengis86]

It is not a parental choice to do harm to your child or to remove their liberty by force.

Define harm. This is the essence of the argument.

[Yieu]

I tell you what. I'll let people on the other side of the U.S. use democracy to place a government ban on circumcision 'for the children', and we'll see whose government grows out of control the quickest. Deal?

Georgians, for the most part, have traditionally held the belief that a child's health is a family concern. Californians, tending to be more liberal on average than the typical Georgian, can't remember the last time government didn't intervene in a parent's affairs.

It's not 'for the children' -- it's for the rights of the individual. Yes, the child's health is a family concern -- which is why the family should not harm the child through circumcision or through cutting off the tip of their pinky either.

[aravoth]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

[ghengis86]

I understand that you are attached to circumcision and perhaps that may be because you don't want to think anything is "wrong" with you by being circumcised. I am not trying to tell you there is something wrong with you, though.

I firmly believe that what I have been saying on this subject is the position of liberty, and non-consenting routine infant circumcision violates the child's right to their body, their life, their liberty, and more.

I've got an ant eater, for what it's worth.

And I don't deny your conviction. It's your willingness tonimpose that belief on others through the state that is troublesome.

[Yieu]

I wonder what would happen if people put as much effort into an educational campaign to change a behavior instead of an appeal to the state to force someone to what they thought was right? Which would be mire in line with liberty?

In another thread on circumcision, I advocated an educational campaign over a government ban because I prefer to have less laws, but I suppose you wouldn't need a special law to ban circumcision -- isn't mutilation and general harm to the child already illegal? But parents waking up to how much they are taking away from their child through circumcision, through an educational campaign, is the most ideal way in my mind because the less laws the better, in general.

[low preference guy]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

yeah. that's why rapists and killers should be left alone

[ghengis86]

I'm talking about THIS. Right now. Why do you keep bringing up vaccines?

Because it's all the same: what can a parent have done to their child? And who defines it?

[Yieu]

And urinary tract infections can cause sepsis and death. Since both outcomes suck, depending on whether you are circumcised or uncircumcised, what is getting the government involved going to solve, exactly?

Circumcised babies get infections too, so it sucks twice as much because it not only has no medical benefit, but also does harm aside from the harm of removing the most sensitive part of the male body. And I'm not arguing for a government ban.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html#infection

[ghengis86]

In another thread on circumcision, I advocated an educational campaign over a government ban because I prefer to have less laws, but I suppose you wouldn't need a special law to ban circumcision -- isn't mutilation and general harm to the child already illegal? But parents waking up to how much they are taking away from their child through circumcision, through an educational campaign, is the most ideal way in my mind because the less laws the better, in general.

Thank you for the clarification.

Would removing the skin between digits of a child born with webbed hands and feet be mutilation and harmful? (I actually knew a kid growing up who was born with this, and went through numerous surgeries to have the skin removed).

[Yieu]

Define harm. This is the essence of the argument.

If you don't see how removing healthy, natural nerves and skin, which do serve important biological functions to protect the genital organ as well as being the most sensitive part of the body is harm, then I don't know how to explain it to you.

I have already defined how it harms in many ways. It is cosmetic surgery that is unnecessary and provides no medical benefit but has risks of complications, removes the most sensitive nerves... oh, I'll just link the Lost List, it lists everything that you lose from circumcision.

http://www.norm.org/lost.html


I've got an ant eater, for what it's worth.

And I don't deny your conviction. It's your willingness tonimpose that belief on others through the state that is troublesome.

I have stated multiple times that I do not want to use the state.


Thank you for the clarification.

Would removing the skin between digits of a child born with webbed hands and feet be mutilation and harmful? (I actually knew a kid growing up who was born with this, and went through numerous surgeries to have the skin removed).

Only if humans naturally had that feature. And they don't. The foreskin is not a deformity.

[Golding]

I believe he was saying that to show how ridiculous it is to cut off healthy functional nerves and skin to potentially, maybe, reduce the chances of risks of STDs which can be prevented by lifestyle choices (though those studies have been debunked, so there is no medical benefit).

It is not the same as removing an entire limb, or eyes. It is more like singeing the skin of the fingertips so that they feel less sensation, or partially removing the eyelids (the glans is supposed to be covered just like the eye is supposed to be covered). It is a violation of the child's right to life, liberty, and happiness to remove this vital part of their body, so it cannot be a parental choice. It is not a parental choice to do harm to your child or to remove their liberty by force.Honestly, I haven't seen very much literature in the way of "debunking" the disparity of HIV and HPV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised populations. But truth be told, I haven't really come across anyone who actually has used that as a reasoning for circumcision when the question is actually asked. More often than not, it tends to come down to personal preference.

Removing the eyelids of a patient leaves the eyes prone to drying out and becoming damaged. The foreskin, frankly, is not something that can honestly be called "vital", and thus its removal doesn't exactly fall under your description as a theft of liberty. I've seen children who undergo surgery to remove extra fingers that they were born with. Is it a denial of liberty that the parents made the decision for the child before he was old enough to make it himself?

Further muddying this issue in my view is that circumcision has legitimate therapeutic value as the treatment for existing disease (ie: Balanitis). Shall circumcision be banned for such patients?

You have your view of circumcision, that it's "genital mutilation". I totally respect your view, and would not push for the government to legislate against your beliefs.

[nobody's_hero]

It's not 'for the children' -- it's for the rights of the individual. Yes, the child's health is a family concern -- which is why the family should not harm the child through circumcision or through cutting off the tip of their pinky either.

And exactly what health concern would be addressed by 'cutting of the tip of a pinky'?

Would it reduce the risk of UTI's? I can see it now, "parent refuses to amputate child's pinky, septicemia and kidney failure ensues." Really, you're going WAAAY overboard with your analogies here.

[nobody's_hero]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

Thread winner.

[CrissyNY]

But once the genital mutilation is done on an non consenting minor, it can never be undone.

At least if the male waits until he is 18 he has the liberty to make the choice between the surgery and the natural.

[Yieu]

At some point you'll have to realize that government can NOT enforce Liberty.

Correct, only the People can wake up to liberty. And it is my sincere hope that people do wake up do liberty by allowing their child to have Their liberty.

But until people do that, children will continue to be stripped of their liberty by their own parents.

Aren't we supposed to be the champions of liberty and voluntarism? If we are, then in order to be such and be consistent we must support allowing our children to have the liberty to their own body, and for the child to voluntarily make their own choice when they are of age to consent to it.


But once the genital mutilation is done on an non consenting minor, it can never be undone.

At least if the male waits until he is 18 he has the liberty to make the choice between the surgery and the natural.

+1

[Agorism]

And how do you know that circumcision reduces UTI's. Mind you one study may not be conclusive and interpreting and determining the validity of the studies mostly just causes confusion unless you're getting the information from a committee whose job it is to look at the data.

[ghengis86]

Just curious: has any male ever had sex with his foreskin attached, had it removed, and then had sex without it? Not saying people born blind don't know the difference, but just musing...

[Yieu]

And exactly what health concern would be addressed by 'cutting of the tip of a pinky'?

Would it reduce the risk of UTI's? I can see it now, "parent refuses to amputate child's pinky, septicemia and kidney failure ensues." Really, you're going WAAAY overboard with your analogies here.

But there are no medical benefits to circumcision. So I don't understand your argument.

If you can cut off the foreskin for no medical reason, then you can justify cutting anything off.

A more accurate analogy though, would be singeing the pads of the child's fingertips so that he can never feel touch as sensitively as someone without singed fingertips -- because circumcision DOES reduce sensation.

[nobody's_hero]

In another thread on circumcision, I advocated an educational campaign over a government ban because I prefer to have less laws, but I suppose you wouldn't need a special law to ban circumcision -- isn't mutilation and general harm to the child already illegal? But parents waking up to how much they are taking away from their child through circumcision, through an educational campaign, is the most ideal way in my mind because the less laws the better, in general.

Indeed, I would support this.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I found this site http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ good to see Jews that also realize the lies about circumcision.

[Yieu]

Just curious: has any male ever had sex with his foreskin attached, had it removed, and then had sex without it? Not saying people born blind don't know the difference, but just musing...

Yes, but I forget the link to the source. He described sex while he was whole/intact as a 10, then afterwards as a 3, then he restored the skin by stretching it and it said it was about a 7. I think those were the figures. But this is only hearsay without the link to the source, I wish I still had the link. There is a study being conducted, I am not sure if it is completed yet, that was testing the sensitivity of circumcised vs. intact males using controlled stimuli. Finding that study might help here.

[Golding]

http://www.norm.org/lost.htmlA rather deceptive link. The site lists foreskin as a component lost during circumcision, but for some reason also lists histological components of the foreskin along with it. Listing skin with "blood vessels, Langerhans cells, sebaceous glands, apocrine glands, endocrine receptors, lymphatic vessels, immunologic system, and Meissner's corpuscles" is redundant. Listing them tells me a few things. First is that there isn't really a very impressive list of what actually is "lost" in circumcision, necessitating redundancy to make a list look more impressive than it actually is. Second is the deceptive value of implying that sebaceous glands, Langerhans cells, etc. are somehow unique to the foreskin rather than disseminated innumerably throughout the entire integument.

And then there is the listing of absolute fallacies. I'm not sure what the author is seeing in Netter's Atlas, but the truth is that Dartos Fascia's functional component is within the scrotum. Not the glans.

[nobody's_hero]

But there are no medical benefits to circumcision. So I don't understand your argument.

If you can cut off the foreskin for no medical reason, then you can justify cutting anything off.

A more accurate analogy though, would be singeing the pads of the child's fingertips so that he can never feel touch as sensitively as someone without singed fingertips -- because circumcision DOES reduce sensation.

You believe there are no benefits to circumcision.

I believe there are.

http://www.circinfo.net/

I respect that you have stated that it is preferable NOT to involve government, and that alternatively we should educate others if we wish to see change. I have no issue with that. I have more of an issue with those seeking to find a one-size-fits-all solution to a controversial issue.

[Yieu]

Honestly, I haven't seen very much literature in the way of "debunking" the disparity of HIV and HPV rates between circumcised and uncircumcised populations. But truth be told, I haven't really come across anyone who actually has used that as a reasoning for circumcision when the question is actually asked. More often than not, it tends to come down to personal preference.

Removing the eyelids of a patient leaves the eyes prone to drying out and becoming damaged. The foreskin, frankly, is not something that can honestly be called "vital", and thus its removal doesn't exactly fall under your description as a theft of liberty. I've seen children who undergo surgery to remove extra fingers that they were born with. Is it a denial of liberty that the parents made the decision for the child before he was old enough to make it himself?

Further muddying this issue in my view is that circumcision has legitimate therapeutic value as the treatment for existing disease (ie: Balanitis). Shall circumcision be banned for such patients?

You have your view of circumcision, that it's "genital mutilation". I totally respect your view, and would not push for the government to legislate against your beliefs.

Here are links to rebuttals to the HIV/HPV/STD studies:

http://www.circumstitions.com/index.html#disease
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer-cervNEJM.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html#fergusson

Yes, removing the eyelids would dry out the eyes and keratinize them. Just like how removing the foreskin dries it out and keratinizes it (hardens it with keratin), causing it to feel much less sensation, in addition to the loss of the most sensitive nerves which are in the foreskin. The glans is naturally an internal organ that is designed to be soft and moist, like the inside of your cheek or your eyelid.

It does violate an individuals liberty to have this important body part removed without consent, as it serves a multitude of natural functions, including preventing infections. I hope this helps.

[Yieu]

A rather deceptive link. The site lists foreskin as a component lost during circumcision, but for some reason also lists histological components of the foreskin along with it. Listing skin with "blood vessels, Langerhans cells, sebaceous glands, apocrine glands, endocrine receptors, lymphatic vessels, immunologic system, and Meissner's corpuscles" is redundant. Listing them tells me a few things. First is that there isn't really a very impressive list of what actually is "lost" in circumcision, necessitating redundancy to make a list look more impressive than it actually is. Second is the deceptive value of implying that sebaceous glands, Langerhans cells, etc. are somehow unique to the foreskin rather than disseminated innumerably throughout the entire integument.

And then there is the listing of absolute fallacies. I'm not sure what the author is seeing in Netter's Atlas, but the truth is that Dartos Fascia's functional component is within the scrotum. Not the glans.

Listing those things may seem redundant to someone who already knows about them. But the list is supposed to show what is lost, and those things are lost, and not everyone may know about them. But the most important thing is the nerve tissue that is lost. There are other useful features removed in there that you did not mention as well. The amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card, and it is full of densely packed nerves -- nerves that you can not feel with because they are not there. That means a reduction in sensation. And the glans also dries, hardens, and thus also loses sensation. Depriving someone of the natural sensations of their body is depriving them of their liberty.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Listing those things may seem redundant to someone who already knows about them. But the list is supposed to show what is lost, and those things are lost, and not everyone may know about them. But the most important thing is the nerve tissue that is lost. There are other useful features removed in there that you did not mention as well. The amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card, and it is full of densely packed nerves -- nerves that you can not feel with because they are not there. That means a reduction in sensation. And the glans also dries, hardens, and thus also loses sensation. Depriving someone of the natural sensations of their body is depriving them of their liberty.
Losing foreskin is like losing your eyelids, you aren't protected anymore. Then it will become callused and brittle by the time you're in your 40s.

[Roxi]

I'm going to say no. If circumcisions killed people, there'd be about 75-80% less males in the U.S. population.

Somewhere between 100 and 300 children do die every year from complications from circumcision.

Also, there is no scientific evidence to support the "increased risk of UTI" myth

[heavenlyboy34]

You believe there are no benefits to circumcision.

I believe there are.

http://www.circinfo.net/

I respect that you have stated that it is preferable NOT to involve government, and that alternatively we should educate others if we wish to see change. I have no issue with that. I have more of an issue with those seeking to find a one-size-fits-all solution to a controversial issue.

This is not a trustworthy site^^. It makes claims of "medical benefits" to circumcision, but the studies to date that have tried to "prove" this have been refuted-these "benefits" have always been and always be urban legends. There is not a single national or international medical association that claims there are health benefits to warrant routine infant circumcision.

Besides, if it wasn't intended to be there, nature would not have put it there. ;)

[Golding]

Listing those things may seem redundant to someone who already knows about them. But the list is supposed to show what is lost, and those things are lost, and not everyone may know about them. But the most important thing is the nerve tissue that is lost. There are other useful features removed in there that you did not mention as well. The amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card, and it is full of densely packed nerves -- nerves that you can not feel with because they are not there. That means a reduction in sensation. And the glans also dries, hardens, and thus also loses sensation. Depriving someone of the natural sensations of their body is depriving them of their liberty.The fact that I already know about them is what gave away the deception in the link. That's sort of my point. The link listing "lost" components of the foreskin is utilizing the average patient's poor understanding of anatomy in order to deceive. The alleged damage by "losing" Langerhans cells and lymphatics to the foreskin is the most obvious of the deceit. There is no immunocompromise related to circumcision.

You mention that the amount of skin lost is about the same as the size of an index card. Not sure how many circumcisions you've observed, but I've observed a few. I've yet to see an infant with the glans length and circumference of an index card. Seems to be an exaggerated statement on your part.

Up to now, you've dwelled a bit on the alleged "loss of sensation" related to circumcision. Indeed, I've found some studies that support your claim. But I have also found studies that suggest the exact opposite -- that there is an increase in sensation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593). But the majority of papers I have found on the subject actually seem to point towards there being no difference in regards to sensation between the two populations.

The suggestion that circumcision causes the glans to "dry out" (keratinize) isn't well-supported. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098294)

[Agorism]

three major societies say


The Canadian Paediatric Society issued this statement "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns"


The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) established a task force and said the following "existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these the data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision". They also noted that cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions could be considered in addition to medical factors, and that pain control should be provided. Although this statement was reaffirmed in 2005, the AAP is reviewing this position, given recent evidence of the protective effect of circumcision against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supported AAP Conclusions

[Yieu]

Losing foreskin is like losing your eyelids, you aren't protected anymore. Then it will become callused and brittle by the time you're in your 40s.

Yes, indeed it is.

[nobody's_hero]

Besides, if it wasn't intended to be there, nature would not have put it there. ;)

I was waiting for that to pop up (no pun intended). Just remember that sentiment if you ever get a staphylococcus aureus infection.


"Nature."

Anyway, this is the point in which internet debates ultimately devolve to the point where people make their personal decisions to believe the sources they want to believe, and citations, regardless of how numerous, could not resolve this stalemate. Everyone is guilty of it, myself included.

All I can say is, believe what you want to believe, that is your right.

Ron Paul, 2012 ;)

[Agorism]

Anyway, this is the point in which internet debates ultimately devolve to the point where people make their personal decisions to believe the sources they want to believe, and citations, regardless of how numerous, could not resolve this stalemate. Everyone is guilty of it, myself included.

That's why I used only reputable sources unlike the other sources posted.

[Golding]

Here are links to rebuttals to the HIV/HPV/STD studies:

http://www.circumstitions.com/index.html#disease
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical
http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer-cervNEJM.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html#fergusson

Yes, removing the eyelids would dry out the eyes and keratinize them. Just like how removing the foreskin dries it out and keratinizes it (hardens it with keratin), causing it to feel much less sensation, in addition to the loss of the most sensitive nerves which are in the foreskin. The glans is naturally an internal organ that is designed to be soft and moist, like the inside of your cheek or your eyelid.

It does violate an individuals liberty to have this important body part removed without consent, as it serves a multitude of natural functions, including preventing infections. I hope this helps.Thanks for providing those links. Any actual studies that are peer reviewed, however? I have no doubt that I could find websites making claims of "shonky" statistics published in "Voodoo Science" magazine, but I otherwise can't take their word any more than I can simply believe your heuristic claims solely on the faith that you're probably a nice guy.

Removing the eyelids would most certainly keratinize the eyes and lead to vision impairment because the eyes require constant lubrication. As noted in my reply just before this, studies do not support the claim that the glans keratinizes any more in circumcised populations than uncircumcised populations.

There are pros and cons inherent to circumcision as there are for any procedure. Leaving the foreskin in place does have its own health risks, as does removing the foreskin. It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child. While I respect your position against circumcision, I do not respect any use of that position to legislate against those who do not agree with your position. That's simply what makes this proposed ban wrong.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the use of circumcision as a treatment option for certain disease (Balanitis, again, is the specific disease I have in mind), and the effects of a ban on the healthcare needs of a patient population.

[heavenlyboy34]

I was waiting for that to pop up (no pun intended). Just remember that sentiment if you ever get a staphylococcus aureus infection.


"Nature."

Anyway, this is the point in which internet debates ultimately devolve to the point where people make their personal decisions to believe the sources they want to believe, and citations, regardless of how numerous, could not resolve this stalemate. Everyone is guilty of it, myself included.

All I can say is, believe what you want to believe, that is your right.

Ron Paul, 2012 ;)
Piss poor counter-argument. Nature does not give you a staph infection as part of one's nature. Staph is not a natural part of the human anatomy, unlike the foreskin.

[Golding]

three major societies sayTake the time to understand what the three groups you cite are saying. They do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. A routine procedure is a procedure that is done across the board for every child. For example, it is "routine procedure" by to screen children for Phenylketonuria. Indeed, the risks and benefits are rather evenly balanced for circumcision (both quite minimal), to the point where they will not endorse circumcision for every child.

That is why, for these societies, circumcision is left to the discretion of the parents. They are (as a whole) neither benefiting nor harming their child in either decision they make.

[Yieu]

Besides, if it wasn't intended to be there, nature would not have put it there. ;)

Yes, if God did not want us to have a foreskin, we would be born without them. He designed us to have one, because He wants it to be that way.

That alone is good enough for me, but the fact that it does harm in multiple ways (removal of tissue, reduction of sensation) is also reason enough for it to be anti-liberty to remove it from someone without their adult consent.

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks for providing those links. Any actual studies that are peer reviewed, however? I have no doubt that I could find websites making claims of "shonky" statistics published in "Voodoo Science" magazine, but I otherwise can't take their word any more than I can simply believe your heuristic claims solely on the faith that you're probably a nice guy.

Removing the eyelids would most certainly keratinize the eyes and lead to vision impairment because the eyes require constant lubrication. As noted in my reply just before this, studies do not support the claim that the glans keratinizes any more in circumcised populations than uncircumcised populations.

There are pros and cons inherent to circumcision as there are for any procedure. Leaving the foreskin in place does have its own health risks, as does removing the foreskin. It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child. While I respect your position against circumcision, I do not respect any use of that position to legislate against those who do not agree with your position. That's simply what makes this proposed ban wrong.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the use of circumcision as a treatment option for certain disease (Balanitis, again, is the specific disease I have in mind), and the effects of a ban on the healthcare needs of a patient population.

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."
-PEDIATRICS, Volume 103, Number 3, Pages 686-693, March 1, 1999.

"As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer. The American Cancer Society does not consider routine routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers.
Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades.
Likewise, research claiming a relationship between circumcision and penile cancer is inconclusive. Penile Caner is an extremely rare condition, effecting one in 200,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries which do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer.
Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Hugh Shingleton, M.D.
National Vice President
Detection & Treatment


Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D.
Vice President
Epidemiology & Surveillance Research

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, Chicago, Illinois, July 6, 2000. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99) (http://www.nocirc.org/position/ama2000.php)

"It is considered to be inappropriate and unnecessary as a routine to remove the prepuce, based on the current evidence available." -The Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons

And many, many, many more.

[Golding]

Yes, if God did not want us to have a foreskin, we would be born without them. He designed us to have one, because He wants it to be that way.

That alone is good enough for me, but the fact that it does harm in multiple ways (removal of tissue, reduction of sensation) is also reason enough for it to be anti-liberty to remove it from someone without their adult consent.Out of my most legitimate curiosity (and I asked this in a previous post, but it was unfortunately not addressed), if a child is born with superfluous digits, do you see it as the same denial of liberty for the parent to have them surgically removed? By the same argument, if God didn't want the child to have additional fingers, the child would not have been born without them.

And indeed, the removal of extra digits would be maligned by removal of viable tissue, each with their own sensation, blood supply, lymphatic system, Langerhans cells, risk of affecting neighboring digits. Would that make this procedure anti-liberty?

[heavenlyboy34]

Take the time to understand what the three groups you cite are saying. They do not recommend circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns. A routine procedure is a procedure that is done across the board for every child. For example, it is "routine procedure" by to screen children for Phenylketonuria. Indeed, the risks and benefits are rather evenly balanced for circumcision (both quite minimal), to the point where they will not endorse circumcision for every child.

That is why, for these societies, circumcision is left to the discretion of the parents. They are (as a whole) neither benefiting nor harming their child in either decision they make.
But your whole argument (the objective part of it, at least-not the even weaker argument that the parents' subjective whim is enough) is that it offers "medical benefits". There is simply no evidence to support your claim.

[heavenlyboy34]

Out of my most legitimate curiosity (and I asked this in a previous post, but it was unfortunately not addressed), if a child is born with superfluous digits, do you see it as the same denial of liberty for the parent to have them surgically removed? By the same argument, if God didn't want the child to have additional fingers, the child would not have been born without them.

This isn't a very good analogy to make in the first place, as a foreskin is NOT superfluous. That aside, it is not legitimate to amputate these extra fingers if there is no medical reason to. (The extra fingers may even prove to be a benefit someday-playing piano, for example) It's also poor reasoning to use genetic defects counter the argument regarding the natural state of the foreskin as being intact. (you are trying to make an analogy where there is none)

[Yieu]

Thanks for providing those links. Any actual studies that are peer reviewed, however? I have no doubt that I could find websites making claims of "shonky" statistics published in "Voodoo Science" magazine, but I otherwise can't take their word any more than I can simply believe your heuristic claims solely on the faith that you're probably a nice guy.

Removing the eyelids would most certainly keratinize the eyes and lead to vision impairment because the eyes require constant lubrication. As noted in my reply just before this, studies do not support the claim that the glans keratinizes any more in circumcised populations than uncircumcised populations.

There are pros and cons inherent to circumcision as there are for any procedure. Leaving the foreskin in place does have its own health risks, as does removing the foreskin. It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child. While I respect your position against circumcision, I do not respect any use of that position to legislate against those who do not agree with your position. That's simply what makes this proposed ban wrong.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the use of circumcision as a treatment option for certain disease (Balanitis, again, is the specific disease I have in mind), and the effects of a ban on the healthcare needs of a patient population.

The glans most certainly keratinizes. This effect makes the glans no longer moist and soft like it is supposed to be (I assume that it is supposed to be moist and soft rather than hardened and dry, from what I read), and supposedly intact males have sensitive glans (I assume the glans is supposed to be sensitive, from what I read), but I don't really know if the glans is really supposed to be sensitive because I am not intact, but people say it is supposed to be, so I would assume that means sensation is lost. The loss of nerves isn't an arguable point -- that definitely equates to less sensation. Less nerves = less sensation.

I did not mean the foreskin in an infant is the size of an index card, I meant in an adult male it is.

If there is a rare medical need for the procedure due to a rare disease, then it is medically justifiable, although I feel they might be able to take less skin than they do or use a less invasive procedure. Otherwise there is no medical reason for it.

If an adult male decides they voluntarily want to be circumcised, I have no problem with that, it is their body and it is their right to do what they please to it. But where you said "It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child." -- No, wrong. It is the responsibility of the individual to make a personal, informed decision for themselves. We own our own bodies, at least until we die -- or unless we're a slave. If a parent decides they don't want you to feel as much touch-sensation on the pads of your fingertips, that doesn't make it right to singe them. Similarly, if the parent wants to reduce the touch-sensation of their child's genitals, that doesn't make it right to cut the most sensitive part off.

[Golding]

But your whole argument (the objective part of it, at least-not the even weaker argument that the parents' subjective whim is enough) is that it offers "medical benefits". There is simply no evidence to support your claim.That's actually inaccurate. Even by the acknowledgment of the AAP and CAP as cited above, there indeed are medical benefits that can evenly justify the risks. The decreased prevalence of specific STI's in the circumcised population is fairly well-documented, and with apologies to Yieu and the links that he provided, I don't see very much authentic literature that suggests otherwise.

Granted, the medical benefits are minor. So are the risks. That is what makes circumcision a situation suitable for the parents' decision-making. It's not a "subjective whim", as you suggest. It is an informed decision to be made.

[Yieu]

Out of my most legitimate curiosity (and I asked this in a previous post, but it was unfortunately not addressed), if a child is born with superfluous digits, do you see it as the same denial of liberty for the parent to have them surgically removed? By the same argument, if God didn't want the child to have additional fingers, the child would not have been born without them.

And indeed, the removal of extra digits would be maligned by removal of viable tissue, each with their own sensation, blood supply, lymphatic system, Langerhans cells, risk of affecting neighboring digits. Would that make this procedure anti-liberty?

I am pretty sure that you know the normal human body has 10 fingers, 10 toes, and 1 foreskin. This is the natural state of a human body. It is not the same to remove digits that are not natural to the human body and to remove the foreskin, which performs sexual functions of sensation. If the digits aren't harming the child, I don't see a problem with leaving them there, but cutting off a normal part of the body (a foreskin) is different. I am not saying that I advocate cutting off extra digits, do not misconstrue what I am saying as that -- I am not advocating that. I am merely stating that cutting the foreskin is worse and does more harm. Cutting off extra digits does not cause one to not be able to fully experience what the most sensitive part of their body is supposed to naturally feel like. And saying that is also not the same as advocating cutting off digits, either. What's that oath... first, do no harm? Unless the digits were causing a medical or physical problem, I would leave them. Same goes for the foreskin, except that it is extremely rare for there to be an actual medical issue with it, and less invasive measures can be taken instead.

Also this:


This isn't a very good analogy to make in the first place, as a foreskin is NOT superfluous.

[Yieu]

That's actually inaccurate. Even by the acknowledgment of the AAP and CAP as cited above, there indeed are medical benefits that can evenly justify the risks. The decreased prevalence of specific STI's in the circumcised population is fairly well-documented, and with apologies to Yieu and the links that he provided, I don't see very much authentic literature that suggests otherwise.

Granted, the medical benefits are minor. So are the risks. That is what makes circumcision a situation suitable for the parents' decision-making. It's not a "subjective whim", as you suggest. It is an informed decision to be made.

Cutting off the most pleasurable part of the body to maybe, potentially, perhaps, slightly reduce the risk of diseases that can be avoided by lifestyle decisions does not sound very reasonable or logical. This type of logic is similar to the logic behind cutting off the penis at birth because they might, perhaps, maybe rape someone when they grow up. Teaching the child good behavior is much more reasonable than doing him real harm -- reducing the sensation he can feel for the rest of his life -- for fears of things that are preventable by actions and choices. Might as well cut off your hands -- you might steal something.

Or, to adapt an argument that I loved that Ron Paul used in the recent debate to this situation (the heroin answer): "Who here would suddenly become so promiscuous that they get an STD if their parents didn't have them circumcised? Oh, yeah, if my parents didn't cut off my foreskin I'd go around sleeping with all kinds of girls getting STDs, so I need this circumcision to protect myself from myself!!"

[Golding]

The glans most certainly keratinizes. This effect makes the glans no longer moist and soft like it is supposed to be (I assume that it is supposed to be moist and soft rather than hardened and dry, from what I read), and supposedly intact males have sensitive glans (I assume the glans is supposed to be sensitive, from what I read), but I don't really know if the glans is really supposed to be sensitive because I am not intact, but people say it is supposed to be, so I would assume that means sensation is lost. The loss of nerves isn't an arguable point -- that definitely equates to less sensation. Less nerves = less sensation.I respect your disagreement with the peer-reviewed study that I linked you to. If you can support your claim that the glans keratinizes significantly more in the circumcised population compared to the uncircumcised population, I certainly welcome it.

Your argument certainly makes sense as a logical approach. Indeed, loss of nerves means there are less impulses firing. The question is whether the difference is actually noticeable to the male. People who undergo abdominal surgery frequently have a transient loss of sensation that largely goes unnoticed. In the same fashion, I agree that there is quantitative sensation loss, but not significant qualitative sensation loss. For someone undergoing sexual activity, it's qualitative sensation loss that matters to the male.


I did not mean the foreskin in an infant is the size of an index card, I meant in an adult male it is.Understood.


If there is a rare medical need for the procedure due to a rare disease, then it is medically justifiable, although I feel they might be able to take less skin than they do or use a less invasive procedure. Otherwise there is no medical reason for it.I appreciate your answer. My follow-up question is what you think the implications of a circumcision ban, written by politicians who largely consist of lawyers (with limited medical understanding, likely to overlook the possibility of a therapeutic value to circumcision), would be.

Of course, I'm likely beating a dead horse with that point, since I've already noticed your posts acknowledging that legislation isn't as desirable as public education. I just feel inclined to make the point why I feel this ban proposal is a poor idea.


If an adult male decides they voluntarily want to be circumcised, I have no problem with that, it is their body and it is their right to do what they please to it. But where you said "It's the responsibility of the parent to make a personal, informed decision for their child." -- No, wrong. It is the responsibility of the individual to make a personal, informed decision for themselves. We own our own bodies, at least until we die -- or unless we're a slave. If a parent decides they don't want you to feel as much touch-sensation on the pads of your fingertips, that doesn't make it right to singe them. Similarly, if the parent wants to reduce the touch-sensation of their child's genitals, that doesn't make it right to cut the most sensitive part off.To be frank, parents are indeed responsible for their child's health decisions. Indeed it's the responsibility of the individual to make personal informed decisions for themselves. In a child, that is not an option. I would argue that the risks of circumcision are actually higher as an adult than they are as children, largely for reasons that were outlined in a link you provided earlier. While my experience in infant circumcision has been that anesthetic is not used, my experience in observing adult circumcision is that generalized anesthetic (with its complications inherent) is always used. As you mentioned, the amount of tissue removed in an adult is larger than the infant, making infection and bleeding a higher risk. While there are arguable pros and cons to circumcision as an infant, there is definitive less risk in doing the procedure as an infant over doing the procedure as an adult.

[Yieu]

I respect your disagreement with the peer-reviewed study that I linked you to. If you can support your claim that the glans keratinizes significantly more in the circumcised population compared to the uncircumcised population, I certainly welcome it.

Your argument certainly makes sense as a logical approach. Indeed, loss of nerves means there are less impulses firing. The question is whether the difference is actually noticeable to the male. People who undergo abdominal surgery frequently have a transient loss of sensation that largely goes unnoticed. In the same fashion, I agree that there is quantitative sensation loss, but not significant qualitative sensation loss. For someone undergoing sexual activity, it's qualitative sensation loss that matters to the male.

I don't think you quite got what I was trying to say subtly (said subtly because it is awkward to say). I was speaking from personal experience in that quote you were quoting. The glans is not a part that is very sensitive, but I hear that it is sensitive for intact males. I can thus conclusively state that it causes there to be less sensation.


To be frank, parents are indeed responsible for their child's health decisions.

Yes, parents are responsible for their child's health decisions. But surgical removal of a healthy foreskin is as much of a health decision as singeing fingertips or removing eyelids. It is not a health decision. It is a personal, individual preference decision; a decision not related to health, but to cosmetic preference -- and that fact makes it a decision that only the individual can make, and not their parents. I do not believe parents have the right to make permanent alterations to their child's body based on cosmetic preference, as it may not even be the child's cosmetic preference, and it reduces their sensation.

Did you know this? That circumcision was pushed in the early 1900's as a 'cure' for masturbation, because they figured if the person feels less down there, they're less likely to masturbate. So they removed the most sensitive part, with the intent that the child would not feel the natural sensation that God intended them to.

[Roxi]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584 Penn and Tellers episode on circ.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuDhkiDdns

[low preference guy]

Even objectivists are against child mutilation.

Link (http://www.peikoff.com/2011/04/25/do-you-think-the-legal-guardians-of-a-male-child-have-the-right-to-circumcise-him-before-he-is-old-enough-to-refuse/)

[Golding]

I am pretty sure that you know the normal human body has 10 fingers, 10 toes, and 1 foreskin. This is the natural state of a human body. It is not the same to remove digits that are not natural to the human body and to remove the foreskin, which performs sexual functions of sensation. If the digits aren't harming the child, I don't see a problem with leaving them there, but cutting off a normal part of the body (a foreskin) is different. I am not saying that I advocate cutting off extra digits, do not misconstrue what I am saying as that -- I am not advocating that. I am merely stating that cutting the foreskin is worse and does more harm. Cutting off extra digits does not cause one to not be able to fully experience what the most sensitive part of their body is supposed to naturally feel like. And saying that is also not the same as advocating cutting off digits, either. What's that oath... first, do no harm? Unless the digits were causing a medical or physical problem, I would leave them. Same goes for the foreskin, except that it is extremely rare for there to be an actual medical issue with it, and less invasive measures can be taken instead.Who is saying that the natural state of the human body is ten fingers and ten toes? Is it God, or is it you attempting to interpret God? Your argument is that the child is born with viable tissue with cells that provide functionality, and that to remove these viable tissue without the consent of the child as an adult would be anti-liberty. If God has given a child an extra digit, is the parent at liberty to have it surgically removed?

And much like foreskin, indeed, there's minimal medical benefit to removing the extra digits. There's also minimal risk (which satisfies the oath of "Do no harm"). And similarly, waiting until adulthood increases the risk of the actual procedure. Is it really "doing no harm" to wait?

I would also like to make mention that it's not all that "extremely rare" for there to be a medical issue requiring circumcision. As a comparative example, Wegener's Granulomatosis is a commonly tested disease for doctors in training, but I have yet to see a case of it in person (and indeed, it is a rare disease). Balanitis is a disease that I've never really been tested on, but I've seen quite a few cases of it. It composes 10% of urology clinic visits, which is a pretty significant amount.

[Roxi]

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm062279.htm

[Roxi]

50 Reasons to leave it alone

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/3/post/2010/11/50-reasons-to-leave-it-alone.html

[Roxi]

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/10/post/2011/1/urinary-tract-infections-utis-circumcision.html

[Yieu]

Who is saying that the natural state of the human body is ten fingers and ten toes? Is it God, or is it you attempting to interpret God? Your argument is that the child is born with viable tissue with cells that provide functionality, and that to remove these viable tissue without the consent of the child as an adult would be anti-liberty. If God has given a child an extra digit, is the parent at liberty to have it surgically removed?

And much like foreskin, indeed, there's minimal medical benefit to removing the extra digits. There's also minimal risk (which satisfies the oath of "Do no harm"). And similarly, waiting until adulthood increases the risk of the actual procedure. Is it really "doing no harm" to wait?

I would also like to make mention that it's not all that "extremely rare" for there to be a medical issue requiring circumcision. As a comparative example, Wegener's Granulomatosis is a commonly tested disease for doctors in training, but I have yet to see a case of it in person (and indeed, it is a rare disease). Balanitis is a disease that I've never really been tested on, but I've seen quite a few cases of it. It composes 10% of urology clinic visits, which is a pretty significant amount.

Are you saying that most humans do not have 10 fingers, and 10 toes?

If this 'extra digit' was what allowed them to experience sexual pleasure, then maybe it would be comparable -- but as it is, the argument is not comparable.

Even if there is 'minimal risk' in circumcision, it still removes the ability to feel the normal amount of sensation, and that alone makes it unacceptable. I'd even be brave enough to go so far as to say the real and ultimate reason for circumcision behind all the propaganda 'medical' excuses (not reasons) is to reduce sexual sensation. And I consider that doing harm.

[Roxi]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230518_194573663920588_121502171227738_534608_8683 49_n.jpg

[Yieu]

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/230518_194573663920588_121502171227738_534608_8683 49_n.jpg

LOL! Saved. +Rep when I get more ammo, I gave some out to a few in this thread already.

[Golding]

I don't think you quite got what I was trying to say subtly (said subtly because it is awkward to say). I was speaking from personal experience in that quote you were quoting. The glans is not a part that is very sensitive, but I hear that it is sensitive for intact males. I can thus conclusively state that it causes there to be less sensation.Understood. Your personal experience is your own, and shapes your opinions. Your experience is that your glans is not that sensitive. In this regard, however, I might suggest that you are expecting more sensitivity from an uncircumcised penis than there really is. Speaking from my own personal experience, it's not the stimulation of the foreskin that derives sensation.


Yes, parents are responsible for their child's health decisions. But surgical removal of a healthy foreskin is as much of a health decision as singeing fingertips or removing eyelids. It is not a health decision. It is a personal, individual preference decision -- and that fact makes it a decision that only the individual can make, and not their parents.I simply cannot agree with your comparisons after having looked up the data. Your comparison to removing eyelids is based on the belief that a circumcised penis keratinizes more than an uncircumcised penis. Based on the publication I provided, this does not appear to be a substantiated claim. Your comparison to singing fingertips is based on the belief that a circumcised penis has a qualitative decrease in sexual sensation. Again, based on publications provided, this is at best debatable.

What it truly is, is a procedure that has minimal risk attached to it, but with equally minimal medical benefit. The risks and benefits are to be weighed to make a proper decision, and that sort of decision-making individualizes the choice in such a way that legislating it is most certainly anti-liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's actually inaccurate. Even by the acknowledgment of the AAP and CAP as cited above, there indeed are medical benefits that can evenly justify the risks. The decreased prevalence of specific STI's in the circumcised population is fairly well-documented, and with apologies to Yieu and the links that he provided, I don't see very much authentic literature that suggests otherwise.

Granted, the medical benefits are minor. So are the risks. That is what makes circumcision a situation suitable for the parents' decision-making. It's not a "subjective whim", as you suggest. It is an informed decision to be made.

Actually, the "benefits" you mention are not well documented. To the contrary, actually. That is why no major, reputable medical organization recommends the procedure routinely. It is in fact a subjective whim. This is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any other country in which neo-natal circumcision is "normalized". There exists NO medical reason for the procedure except for EXTREMELY rare complications.

[Yieu]

Speaking from my own personal experience, it's not the stimulation of the foreskin that derives sensation.

Your comparison to singing fingertips is based on the belief that a circumcised penis has a qualitative decrease in sexual sensation.

Of course, it is not the only aspect to what derives sexual sensation. But it is an aspect, nonetheless. I do have sensation, but I suspect it would be more had I not been harmed.


The risks and benefits are to be weighed to make a proper decision, and that sort of decision-making individualizes the choice in such a way that legislating it is most certainly anti-liberty.

Legislating it may be anti-liberty to a degree, but performing routine infant circumcision (and RIC is the kind I've been talking about the whole time here) is even more anti-liberty, because it deprives the individual of the right to his own body. And usually that right is deprived from the child by their own parents! This can cause one to think emotions other than 'love' or 'my best interest' were involved in this harming process, even though most of the parents who have it done do not think about it, they just figure 'eh, it's what people do' and then do it, casually.

[Golding]

Are you saying that most humans do not have 10 fingers, and 10 toes?

If this 'extra digit' was what allowed them to experience sexual pleasure, then maybe it would be comparable -- but as it is, the argument is not comparable.

Even if there is 'minimal risk' in circumcision, it still removes the ability to feel the normal amount of sensation, and that alone makes it unacceptable. I'd even be brave enough to go so far as to say the real and ultimate reason for circumcision behind all the propaganda 'medical' excuses (not reasons) is to reduce sexual sensation. And I consider that doing harm.Ah, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not said "that most humans do not have 10 fingers, and 10 toes". What I have said is that some children are born with more. Who are you to tell me that God did not give these children an additional digit? You are merely taking an observation based on frequency in other children, and somehow interpreting that as God's will. Is that appropriate?

I don't think that dismissing the comparison because it does not involve sexual pleasure is at all an accurate move. You make the comparison yourself to singing fingers, acknowledging that fingers are a part of the body with a high density of sensory innervation. By your own attempts at making an analogy, you acknowledge that mine has to at least be as comparable.

Your basis against circumcision in this post continues to be on the alleged "decrease in sensation" caused by circumcision. Again, studies do not strongly support this claim. Indeed there are studies that do come to that conclusion, but (as I have already provided) there are studies that come to the opposite conclusion. The majority of studies on the subject come to the conclusion that there is no difference. If this is what you base your argument on what makes circumcision "unacceptable", I have to make the point that the evidence isn't there to back it up.

[Yieu]

Actually, the "benefits" you mention are not well documented. To the contrary, actually. That is why no major, reputable medical organization recommends the procedure routinely. It is in fact a subjective whim. This is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any other country in which neo-natal circumcision is "normalized". There exists NO medical reason for the procedure except for EXTREMELY rare complications.

Yes, this is correct. We are arguing against RIC here -- routine infant circumcision. I don't have a problem with it being done for legitimate (and rare) medical complications or for religious purposes (which is limited to Judaism and Islam -- it is not a part of Christianity, Christ ended that practice for Christians).

[Yieu]

Ah, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not said "that most humans do not have 10 fingers, and 10 toes". What I have said is that some children are born with more. Who are you to tell me that God did not give these children an additional digit? You are merely taking an observation based on frequency in other children, and somehow interpreting that as God's will. Is that appropriate?

I don't think that dismissing the comparison because it does not involve sexual pleasure is at all an accurate move. You make the comparison yourself to singing fingers, acknowledging that fingers are a part of the body with a high density of sensory innervation. By your own attempts at making an analogy, you acknowledge that mine has to at least be as comparable.

Your basis against circumcision in this post continues to be on the alleged "decrease in sensation" caused by circumcision. Again, studies do not strongly support this claim. Indeed there are studies that do come to that conclusion, but (as I have already provided) there are studies that come to the opposite conclusion. The majority of studies on the subject come to the conclusion that there is no difference. If this is what you base your argument on what makes circumcision "unacceptable", I have to make the point that the evidence isn't there to back it up.

My intent was not to put words in your mouth, if that is how it was perceived. I'm just a little surprised. You don't think that there is a common layout for the human body, and that common, intended layout (not rare outliers or differences from the normal) includes 10 fingers and 10 toes. I had assumed everyone accepted this. It is surprising to see someone say that it is not the normal for a human to have 10 fingers and 10 toes, that really is a different perspective. If you don't feel that the normal human body layout includes 10 fingers and 10 toes, I'm not sure what to tell you.

My basis is both the decrease in sensation, and the fact that it is surgical removal of healthy tissue. Surgical removal of healthy tissue sure sounds like harm to me. Surgical removal of a healthy index finger would sound strange to people, but surgical removal of the foreskin, which can feel a lot more sensation, is not (yet) accepted as strange by many. It is more comparable to removal of one of the 'normal' 10 fingers, than to an 'extra' finger, because it is not an 'extra' body part, it is a standard body part. I see you don't accept that there is a common layout for the human body (which can have outliers), so you likely won't accept my argument, but that is what I have to say about it.

[Golding]

Actually, the "benefits" you mention are not well documented. To the contrary, actually. That is why no major, reputable medical organization recommends the procedure routinely. It is in fact a subjective whim. This is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any other country in which neo-natal circumcision is "normalized". There exists NO medical reason for the procedure except for EXTREMELY rare complications.To the contrary. There are several documented studies suggesting medical benefits of circumcision.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21214659
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844437
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353563
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20519264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19911990

However, the protective effects are not absolute, and indeed there are also conflicting reports that exist as well. That is why I acknowledge that there are minimal medical reasons (akin to the minimal risks for the procedure) for circumcision. To take the extra step and say that there are absolutely no medical benefits would be as deceiving as if I were to suggest that there are no risks to the procedure.

[Yieu]

You know a good way not to contract STDs? Not having sex with a person who has STDs. Or wearing a condom.

Is it really reasonable, considering the facts above, to cut off the most pleasurable part, just to maybe, perhaps, slightly reduce the risk of some STDs... when you can still contract them anyway?

The way to not get an STD is to not have sex with someone who has an STD. Or do we need someone to intervene because we can't be trusted with our own personal responsibility? Circumcising to prevent an STD (which you can still get if you're circumcised just as much) is like having laws against heroin "because if we didn't have these laws, we'd all be doing heroin!!" -- it is an intervention/punishment against the individual, much like an intervention/punishment against the individual by the state.

As for me? I prefer advocating personal responsibility over advocating permanent unnecessary surgical alteration done to you without your consent.

Personal responsibility > Force through surgical intervention/punishment

I abhor the use of force. That is why I abhor circumcision. It is the use of force against the non-consenting innocent, who is helpless to fight back against this tyrannical removal of their ability to feel the natural amount of sensation God intended for them. I find this position to be entirely consistent with libertarian values and the non-aggression principle.

[Golding]

My intent was not to put words in your mouth, if that is how it was perceived. I'm just a little surprised. You don't think that there is a common layout for the human body, and that common, intended layout (not rare outliers or differences from the normal) includes 10 fingers and 10 toes. I had assumed everyone accepted this. It is surprising to see someone say that it is not the normal for a human to have 10 fingers and 10 toes, that really is a different perspective. If you don't feel that the normal human body layout includes 10 fingers and 10 toes, I'm not sure what to tell you.

My basis is both the decrease in sensation, and the fact that it is surgical removal of healthy tissue. Surgical removal of healthy tissue sure sounds like harm to me. Surgical removal of a healthy index finger would sound strange to people, but surgical removal of the foreskin, which can feel a lot more sensation, is not (yet) accepted as strange by many. It is more comparable to removal of one of the 'normal' 10 fingers, than to an 'extra' finger, because it is not an 'extra' body part, it is a standard body part. I see you don't accept that there is a common layout for the human body (which can have outliers), so you likely won't accept my argument, but that is what I have to say about it.No worries. But again, I think you are (certainly not intentionally) misinterpreting what I am saying. I'm not saying that I don't feel that the "normal" human body layout includes 10 fingers and 10 toes.

Here is where I am having trouble following: A few pages back, you were justifying the existence of the foreskin as God's will on the basis that the child was born with it, so why remove it? I posed a question that involved something else that the child is born with that parents might want removed. The condition, seen in 1/500 patients, is actually not all that uncommon. It seems that one of the root reasons for your position is obedience to God's will, which is perfectly reasonable in my view. But what I'm seeing in this example is a shift in exactly what "God's will" actually is. What once was a declaration that God gave the child what he is born with, so leave it alone... has now become "God's format for the human body is what we most commonly see". The former I can somewhat understand, the latter I simply find presumptuous and amounting only to a convenient interpretation of what God's will actually is.

I feel inclined to also mention that an index finger has a higher density of free nerve endings than the foreskin. So the statement that "the foreskin can feel a lot more sensation" is an inaccurate one.

[Golding]

You know a good way not to contract STDs? Not having sex with a person who has STDs. Or wearing a condom.

Is it really reasonable, considering the facts above, to cut off the most pleasurable part, just to maybe, perhaps, slightly reduce the risk of some STDs... when you can still contract them anyway?

The way to not get an STD is to not have sex with someone who has an STD. Or do we need someone to intervene because we can't be trusted with our own personal responsibility? Circumcising to prevent an STD (which you can still get if you're circumcised just as much) is like having laws against heroin "because if we didn't have these laws, we'd all be doing heroin!!" -- it is an intervention/punishment against the individual, much like an intervention/punishment against the individual by the state.

As for me? I prefer advocating personal responsibility over advocating permanent unnecessary surgical alteration done to you without your consent.

Personal responsibility > Force through surgical intervention/punishment

I abhor the use of force. That is why I abhor circumcision. It is the use of force against the non-consenting innocent, who is helpless to fight back against this tyrannical removal of their ability to feel the natural amount of sensation God intended for them. I find this position to be entirely consistent with libertarian values and the non-aggression principle.I agree that not having sex with someone who has STD's is a fantastic way to not contract STD's. But similar to how circumcision is imperfect in its protective effects from catching STD's, that self-made commitment is also often imperfect. I've seen a great deal many patients in clinic who have contracted STD's having believed that their partner was safe (many STD's present asymptomatically). I've had a few patients who came for STD testing because their condoms broke. Even better than a unifocal approach is a multifocal approach (a claim that is supported by the literature), which some parents may very well find suitable for their children.

I should correct your statement suggesting that circumcision removes "the most pleasurable part" of the penis. Circumcision removes the foreskin, not the glans. As mentioned, the highest density of free nerve endings (and thus the most sensitive part) in the penis is indeed in the glans penis. As previously mentioned, the suggestion that the glans "dries" and keratinizes to the point of dulling these nerve endings is unsupported by any evidence. As also previously mentioned, the suggestion that sensation is qualitatively decreased in circumcised males versus uncircumcised males is also highly debatable, with most research suggesting that there is no significant difference.

I certainly respect your decision not to circumcise your child, and that you view it as "tyrannical" and "punishment". But I do not believe that others should follow suit simply because of what you believe. I think that armed with reasonable information (that is, evidence-based information rather than gut instinct) to make a well-informed personal decision, parents are perfectly capable of making this choice. Having seen circumcisions, what it can help against and what can go wrong, I personally do not consider it "tyrannical", "punishment", or at all "anti-liberty". I certainly don't see it as any worse than other surgery with largely cosmetic benefit (akin to the removal of an extra digit). But again, that's what personal decision making is all about. Liberty, indeed.

[YumYum]

In the Old Testament God created man perfect with foreskin, then decided later that man has to cut it off. Is foreskin a flaw in design?

[Yieu]

In the Old Testament God created man perfect with foreskin, then decided later that man has to cut it off. Is foreskin a flaw in design?

No, God did not create such a flaw. God created us with a foreskin because He wanted us to have it.

Some parents must think they know better than God. Jesus Christ ended the practice of circumcision for all Christians.


And on a separate note, earlier it was mentioned that the government cannot enforce liberty. It cannot, but parents can violate the liberty of their children by circumcising them (non-consensual use of force), in the same way that a police state can violate a person's liberty with the non-consensual use of force.

Stated differently, it violates the non-aggression principle.

[Yieu]

What once was a declaration that God gave the child what he is born with, so leave it alone... has now become "God's format for the human body is what we most commonly see". The former I can somewhat understand, the latter I simply find presumptuous and amounting only to a convenient interpretation of what God's will actually is.

I did not mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with removing extra digits, just that circumcision is worse than removing extra digits. I don't see an inconsistency in that.


I agree that not having sex with someone who has STD's is a fantastic way to not contract STD's. But similar to how circumcision is imperfect in its protective effects from catching STD's, that self-made commitment is also often imperfect. I've seen a great deal many patients in clinic who have contracted STD's having believed that their partner was safe (many STD's present asymptomatically). I've had a few patients who came for STD testing because their condoms broke. Even better than a unifocal approach is a multifocal approach (a claim that is supported by the literature), which some parents may very well find suitable for their children.

I should correct your statement suggesting that circumcision removes "the most pleasurable part" of the penis. Circumcision removes the foreskin, not the glans. As mentioned, the highest density of free nerve endings (and thus the most sensitive part) in the penis is indeed in the glans penis. As previously mentioned, the suggestion that the glans "dries" and keratinizes to the point of dulling these nerve endings is unsupported by any evidence. As also previously mentioned, the suggestion that sensation is qualitatively decreased in circumcised males versus uncircumcised males is also highly debatable, with most research suggesting that there is no significant difference.

I certainly respect your decision not to circumcise your child, and that you view it as "tyrannical" and "punishment". But I do not believe that others should follow suit simply because of what you believe. I think that armed with reasonable information (that is, evidence-based information rather than gut instinct) to make a well-informed personal decision, parents are perfectly capable of making this choice. Having seen circumcisions, what it can help against and what can go wrong, I personally do not consider it "tyrannical", "punishment", or at all "anti-liberty". I certainly don't see it as any worse than other surgery with largely cosmetic benefit (akin to the removal of an extra digit). But again, that's what personal decision making is all about. Liberty, indeed.

If you circumcise someone and they feel that gives them some special immunity toward STDs over intact men, they might take more risks and get more STDs. Being circumcised does not protect you from STDs; you will still get an STD if you have unprotected sex with someone who has an STD.

If you claim the most sensitive part is the glans, then circumcision must have taken much more sensitivity from me than I thought, because it's not sensitive, which works against your argument that there isn't much difference in sensation. The most sensitive part is the part near the scar, indicating that the rest of the most sensitive part would be the part cut off.

You mentioned personal decision making being about liberty -- it certainly is. Personal decision making means the decision was made by the individual, not the parents. The parents, or the government, deciding to circumcise you is against the non-aggression principle and libertarian philosophy. I'm not saying others should follow suit simply because of what I believe. I invite them to examine the libertarian philosophy and find that letting the child decide when he is at the age of consent is most in-tune with libertarian philosophy and the non-aggression principle.

[Golding]

No, God did not create such a flaw. God created us with a foreskin because He wanted us to have it.

Some parents must think they know better than God. Jesus Christ ended the practice of circumcision for all Christians.In the same way that you accuse parents of "thinking that they know better than God", I question whether you recognize that you may very well be doing the same thing. You mention that God did not state such a flaw as extra digits, yet people are born with them every day all around the world. Are you truly savvy to what God does, or are you just presuming to be? I'm not trying to be insulting when I ask that, but I feel it is an important distinction to make whenever you invoke God's will into a discussion.

[EndDaFed]

No, God did not create such a flaw. God created us with a foreskin because He wanted us to have it.

Some parents must think they know better than God. Jesus Christ ended the practice of circumcision for all Christians.


Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

[Roxi]

Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

I still have all those things. My argument here isn't one based on religion. Mine is based on freedom. I don't understand how any liberty loving person, or any pro life person can support the removal of something on a child's body without their consent. What is wrong with waiting til they're older, when they can make the decision for themselves? At least when they are older they CAN have anesthesia and pain meds, whereas as an infant, they generally have neither.

[Dr.3D]

I still have all those things. My argument here isn't one based on religion. Mine is based on freedom. I don't understand how any liberty loving person, or any pro life person can support the removal of something on a child's body without their consent. What is wrong with waiting til they're older, when they can make the decision for themselves? At least when they are older they CAN have anesthesia and pain meds, whereas as an infant, they generally have neither.

When asked about that, the physician will tell you, the infant has not developed enough to feel that pain. Of course I'm sure they asked each and every one of them if they could feel it.

[Flash]

Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

I don't think anyone is arguing circumcision should be 100% illegal. If it's for a medical reason, that's a totally different issue.

[jmdrake]

Actually, the "benefits" you mention are not well documented. To the contrary, actually. That is why no major, reputable medical organization recommends the procedure routinely. It is in fact a subjective whim. This is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any other country in which neo-natal circumcision is "normalized". There exists NO medical reason for the procedure except for EXTREMELY rare complications.

Well, while I'm no fan of the WHO, they do count in mainstream circles as "reputable", they disagree with your position, and they're backed up by the latest scientific research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

[YumYum]

When asked about that, the physician will tell you, the infant has not developed enough to feel that pain. Of course I'm sure they asked each and every one of them if they could feel it.

I felt it. It hurt like hell and it left a nine inch scar.

[Dr.3D]

Well, while I'm no fan of the WHO, they do count in mainstream circles as "reputable", they disagree with your position, and they're backed up by the latest scientific research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection
As I recall, that has already been debunked. I'm not going to look for a link to the debunking, but I recall seeing it here on these forums.

I suspect the WHO does it's "scientific" research the same way the climate change "scientists" do theirs.

[jmdrake]

Even objectivists are against child mutilation.

Link (http://www.peikoff.com/2011/04/25/do-you-think-the-legal-guardians-of-a-male-child-have-the-right-to-circumcise-him-before-he-is-old-enough-to-refuse/)

So the same folks who would allow a mother to "choose" to kill an 8 month old fetus don't want the parents to be able to choose to cut off a piece of skin. Interesting.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, while I'm no fan of the WHO, they do count in mainstream circles as "reputable", they disagree with your position, and they're backed up by the latest scientific research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

So? There's just as much (if not more) up to date research that disagrees with the WHO on that. That's why, as I've repeatedly said, NO major medical organization in the entire WORLD recommends routine circumcision-it has no known proven health benefits. (there's plenty of rumors and hearsay and conjecture, but that's not evidence)

[jmdrake]

As I recall, that has already been debunked. I'm not going to look for a link to the debunking, but I recall seeing it here on these forums.

I suspect the WHO does it's "scientific" research the same way the climate change "scientists" do theirs.

That's irrelevant to my point. Heavenlyboy said that no reputable medical organization agrees with the procedure. That's different from saying some do, but they are wrong. Using your climate change analogy, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that no reputable climate scientists believe in main made global warming. Some do, or at least they say they do. I think they're wrong and there are other reputable scientists who agree with me.

[Dr.3D]

That's irrelevant to my point. Heavenlyboy said that no reputable medical organization agrees with the procedure. That's different from saying some do, but they are wrong. Using your climate change analogy, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that no reputable climate scientists believe in main made global warming. Some do, or at least they say they do. I think they're wrong and there are other reputable scientists who agree with me.

Well, the big difference is you don't work for the same people as the WHO and the Climate Change people do. This is why you are willing to disagree. If they disagree, they lose their funding.

[jmdrake]

So? There's just as much (if not more) up to date research that disagrees with the WHO on that.

The link I posted is the most up to date research.



That's why, as I've repeatedly said, NO major medical organization in the entire WORLD recommends routine circumcision-it has no known proven health benefits. (there's plenty of rumors and hearsay and conjecture, but that's not evidence)

And your statement, as written, is wrong. Sorry, it just is. You might think that the evidence against routine circumcision outweighs the evidence for it. You might not like or even trust the WHO. I certainly don't. But that doesn't change the fact that they are reputable. You've oversold your argument. That's all I'm saying.

[Brian4Liberty]

In one sense, this ballot issue may highlight (and counter) the pushing of circumcision by the medical-industrial complex. A friend of mine had a son born in SF a couple of years ago. He said he was put under immense pressure by the doctors and his family to circumcise. Is the doctor acting as an "authority" when they push for this? Is that authority acting as "the law", forcing you to take an action?

[jmdrake]

Well, the big difference is you don't work for the same people as the WHO and the Climate Change people do. This is why you are willing to disagree. If they disagree, they lose their funding.

Again, that's a different argument. Forgive me for nitpicking, but this is one nit that deserves to be picked. You and I agree 100% on climate change. But I wouldn't put myself out on a limb and saw it off behind me by making a claim that could easily be shot down with a Google search. I'll talk about how Al Gore lied about the IPCC recommendations being unanimous. I'll talk about the whole "Hide the decline" email scandal. I just won't say that all reputable scientists agree with my position. Maybe they secretly do. Maybe none of the ones that disagree deserve to be reputable.

[YumYum]

So? There's just as much (if not more) up to date research that disagrees with the WHO on that. That's why, as I've repeatedly said, NO major medical organization in the entire WORLD recommends routine circumcision-it has no known proven health benefits. (there's plenty of rumors and hearsay and conjecture, but that's not evidence)

It prevents a build up of bacteria, otherwise known as "cheese" or "butter". Some men get circumcised later in life for sanitary reasons. Also, there are cases where the skin is too tight and has to be cut. Again, this begs the question:, why in the Old Testament, if everything God made was good, did he decide man had to get cut? Is it a defect in design, according to what is taught in the Old Testament (and not other religious text)?

[Brian4Liberty]

When asked about that, the physician will tell you, the infant has not developed enough to feel that pain.

Yeah, that's what the barbarians say. "No need for anesthesia while clamping and cutting, he can't feel anything. Watch, I'll flick the kid in the face with my finger and there will be no reaction." :rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

It prevents a build up of bacteria, otherwise known as "cheese" or "butter". Some men get circumcised later in life for sanitary reasons. Also, there are cases where the skin is too tight and has to be cut. Again, this begs the question:, why in the Old Testament, if everything God made was good, did he decide man had to get cut? Is it a defect in design, according to what is taught in the Old Testament (and not other religious text)?

It was the symbol of a covenant between God and the people of Israel.

Edit: And smegma is actually antibacterial.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's irrelevant to my point. Heavenlyboy said that no reputable medical organization agrees with the procedure. That's different from saying some do, but they are wrong. Using your climate change analogy, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that no reputable climate scientists believe in main made global warming. Some do, or at least they say they do. I think they're wrong and there are other reputable scientists who agree with me.

That's because there are none. The WHO came to their conclusion by studying backwards third world nations with little to no sanitation and absurd beliefs in regards to issues of sex (some believe that having sex with a virgin cures STDs, etc).

Even Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415074940.htm) has published articles that reach conflicting conclusions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415074940.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm

[YumYum]

It was the symbol of a covenant between God and the people of Israel.

Edit: And smegma is actually antibacterial.

And how exactly does that work out in a covenant?

[Dr.3D]

And how exactly does that work out in a covenant?

I suggest you read the Bible.

Genesis 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Genesis 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

[heavenlyboy34]

It prevents a build up of bacteria, otherwise known as "cheese" or "butter". Some men get circumcised later in life for sanitary reasons. Also, there are cases where the skin is too tight and has to be cut. Again, this begs the question:, why in the Old Testament, if everything God made was good, did he decide man had to get cut? Is it a defect in design, according to what is taught in the Old Testament (and not other religious text)?

1) as others have noted, smegma is anti-bacterial, and you would not be here if your ancestors didn't have it. 2) the old testament references to "circumcision" did not mean a full removal of the foreskin-only a small tab of it(and this is only a Jewish rite, never intended for gentiles). The modern notion of removal of the entire foreskin is simply a legacy of quackish people like Dr Kellogg who believed it would stop masturbation.

[heavenlyboy34]

I suggest you read the Bible.

I suggest you learn what that passage actually means in its historical context. Jews who later converted to Christianity gave up the physical circumcision in favor of figurative "spiritual" circumcision, as Paul talks about.

[jmdrake]

It prevents a build up of bacteria, otherwise known as "cheese" or "butter". Some men get circumcised later in life for sanitary reasons. Also, there are cases where the skin is too tight and has to be cut. Again, this begs the question:, why in the Old Testament, if everything God made was good, did he decide man had to get cut? Is it a defect in design, according to what is taught in the Old Testament (and not other religious text)?

That's a good question. If you accept the premise of God creating a perfect couple and giving them virtual immortality through the tree of life, then mundane things like bacteria didn't matter. After being kicked out the garden that's a different story. But then circumcision isn't mentioned until thousands of years later with Abraham. Also note that God didn't ask all of His followers to be circumcised, but only the descendants of Abraham. Remember that Moses didn't initially circumcise his boys when he was living among the Midianites, yet his father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Yaweh.

[jmdrake]

That's because there are none. The WHO came to their conclusion by studying backwards third world nations with little to no sanitation and absurd beliefs in regards to issues of sex (some believe that having sex with a virgin cures STDs, etc).

Even Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415074940.htm) has published articles that reach conflicting conclusions.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090415074940.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172820.htm

Great. Fine. Wonderful. You have studies that agree with your position. There are studies that disagree. And the WHO is, according to the MSM, a "reputable" medical association. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that your conclusion is wrong, just this one premise that you have oversold.

Edit: And here's the CDC saying the same thing as the WHO.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Note that I do not trust the CDC either. But I'm not going to say the CDC isn't reputable.

Let's look at it another way. Say if San Fransisco was banning all infant vaccinations. Or say if San Fransisco passed a law not only taking flouride out of the water, but also punishing parents who used flouride toothpaste. Would the same people agreeing with this law agree with that? (I'm not saying you agree with this law as I haven't read the entire thread). And would anybody say "No reputable medical groups say that flouride is good for children's teeth or that vaccines are good for kids"? I question the safety of vaccines and flouride, but I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that nobody approves of it or that the choice should be totally taken away from parents. If the government just quit pushing this stuff that would be enough for me.

[Dr.3D]

I suggest you learn what that passage actually means in its historical context.

Well, please inform me. I must have missed that in school.

[Yieu]

When asked about that, the physician will tell you, the infant has not developed enough to feel that pain. Of course I'm sure they asked each and every one of them if they could feel it.

I heard somewhere (I know, I don't feel like looking for sources) that babies might actually be hypersensitive to the pain thus making it even more traumatic.


In the same way that you accuse parents of "thinking that they know better than God", I question whether you recognize that you may very well be doing the same thing. You mention that God did not state such a flaw as extra digits, yet people are born with them every day all around the world. Are you truly savvy to what God does, or are you just presuming to be? I'm not trying to be insulting when I ask that, but I feel it is an important distinction to make whenever you invoke God's will into a discussion.


Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

Misinterpretetions of my argument based on a perceived flaw in it due to not fully understanding the argument, which I have repeated multiple times. Removal of the most sensitive part of the body, which was designed to be that way, is not the same. It's partially a matter of degree. It is worse to remove the most sensitive part of the body than to remove diseased tonsils or teeth that came in crooked. And I accept that God may well have used evolution as a tool to create us, and bring us toward the 'human template', which does include a foreskin and which cannot be argued to be a useless vestige of previous evolutionary design by any means, so it is not comparable, so the perceived flaw is just that -- perceived.

My position is one of non-violence, and non-violence is a religious position. Non-violence is the cornerstone of almost all of my positions.


So the same folks who would allow a mother to "choose" to kill an 8 month old fetus don't want the parents to be able to choose to cut off a piece of skin. Interesting.

I am strongly pro-life for religious reasons, and cutting off this 'piece of skin' for non-medical non-religious reasons is comparable as cutting off other body parts which are healthy. Neither are logical or reasonable, but removal of the most sensitive part is a lot more harmful because it deprives the individual of that experience. I don't see anyone arguing that parents have the decision to make their child a eugunch if they 'feel it's right for the health of the child', yet removal of the most sensitive part leaves only the less-feeling parts of it behind. These analogies must be made to show the ridiculousness and harm that routine infant circumcision is.


In one sense, this ballot issue may highlight (and counter) the pushing of circumcision by the medical-industrial complex. A friend of mine had a son born in SF a couple of years ago. He said he was put under immense pressure by the doctors and his family to circumcise. Is the doctor acting as an "authority" when they push for this? Is that authority acting as "the law", forcing you to take an action?

Yes, this is one of the greatest injustices to the individuals that have to live with this problem, done to them by means of non-consenting Force. Often the doctors pressure unwitting parents into it, and then the individual has no choice but to live with it. That is against freedom of choice of the individual.


Some men get circumcised later in life for sanitary reasons.

I am sorry that they are so much under the impression that it is especially difficult to wash themselves with soap and water for a few seconds while already in the shower that they are willing to remove a sizable amount their ability to feel.


1) as others have noted, smegma is anti-bacterial, and you would not be here if your ancestors didn't have it. 2) the old testament references to "circumcision" did not mean a full removal of the foreskin-only a small tab of it(and this is only a Jewish rite, never intended for gentiles). The modern notion of removal of the entire foreskin is simply a legacy of quackish people like Dr Kellogg who believed it would stop masturbation.

This quote was simply brilliant and needed to be repeated again due to its importance to the discussion. Every concept in the quote.

[Dr.3D]

I heard somewhere (I know, I don't feel like looking for sources) that babies might actually be hypersensitive to the pain thus making it even more traumatic.
It probably is, I never said I agreed with what the physician said.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, please inform me. I must have missed that in school.

I touched on it earlier in this thread. The Jews against circumcision site has much more information than I have time to type out for you, which I happen to agree with. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

[jmdrake]

I am strongly pro-life for religious reasons, and cutting off this 'piece of skin' for non-medical non-religious reasons is comparable as cutting off other body parts which are healthy. Neither are logical or reasonable, but removal of the most sensitive part is a lot more harmful because it deprives the individual of that experience. I don't see anyone arguing that parents have the decision to make their child a eugunch if they 'feel it's right for the health of the child', yet removal of the most sensitive part leaves only the less-feeling parts of it behind. These analogies must be made to show the ridiculousness and harm that routine infant circumcision is.


I was specifically referring to the objectivist/atheist position that "low preference guy" was referencing and pointing out that inconsistency. That said, comparing circumcision to castration is a little ridiculous to me. Maybe not to you or to others, but it is to me. My sexual feeling is just fine thank you very much. And I can't tell you what it felt like before that because I was too young. It's over the top analogies like "it's castration" which hurts the anti-circumcision camp in my opinion. Anyway, they are doing studies now on adult circumcision and HIV, so maybe we can get some actual hard data on that.

[Dr.3D]

I suggest you learn what that passage actually means in its historical context. Jews who later converted to Christianity gave up the physical circumcision in favor of figurative "spiritual" circumcision, as Paul talks about.


I touched on it earlier in this thread. The Jews against circumcision site has much more information than I have time to type out for you, which I happen to agree with. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
Well, so far you have forced me to reread this entire thread, and the contents of that link and I am still at a loss as to what you are talking about.

Yes, Christianity did give up the physical circumcision for a spiritual one, but that doesn't change what was meant in those passages in Genesis. There were no Christians at that time.

[Yieu]

I was specifically referring to the objectivist/atheist position that "low preference guy" was referencing and pointing out that inconsistency. That said, comparing circumcision to castration is a little ridiculous to me. Maybe not to you or to others, but it is to me. My sexual feeling is just fine thank you very much. And I can't tell you what it felt like before that because I was too young. It's over the top analogies like "it's castration" which hurts the anti-circumcision camp in my opinion. Anyway, they are doing studies now on adult circumcision and HIV, so maybe we can get some actual hard data on that.

I wasn't arguing against your post, I quoted it to go on to speak on the relevant subjects, so I apologize if it sounded like I misunderstood what you meant due to going off on a tangent (I tend to go off on tangents like that). I'm not saying that you can't feel (I can feel too), but if nerve tissue is removed then the potential sensation must have been reduced at least to some extent from what it would have been without circumcision, even if only slightly; that's not to say you are flawed in any way, it is just acknowledgement of the effects of the removal of nerve tissue. Circumcision is not the same as castration, no, would be a little ridiculous to make such an argument. There is still some feeling left after the most sensitive parts are removed via circumcision, but I was trying to accentuate the point that there is reduced sensation, and sometimes it seems going a little over the top can help some people understand the point, that something of value is being lost. Being circumcised at such a young age, we can never know what the full potential of sensation would have been -- it certainly is not as diminished as castration, but it's also not the same as being intact. Also, I personally do not care if circumcision has any positive effect towards reducing HIV risk. I do not feel that is a good enough reason to remove a large part of the nerves that feel down there, even if it significantly reduced the risk. Unless it is a voluntary choice made by the individual, that individual's liberty to make the decision on their own is being stripped of them, and so is a portion of what they would have been able to feel.

By the way, I'm with you on what you were saying about there being no studies from reputable sources. I'll admit, there are studies from organizations which are considered reputable -- but I do not agree with their conclusions and I believe their methodology may have been flawed enough to flaw the study and any possible results that could come from them.

[JCLibertarian]

It's about giving the child the liberty to make the decision to be circumcised. As an infant, they can not yet exercise that liberty.

Babies have no liberties, they cannot conceptualize or exercise their liberties, thus all responsibilities, including health and religious issues, fall on the parents. Murray Rothbard did an extensive piece on this in which he described babies as potential self-owners, but that rights of ownership by natural law are conferred on the parents until the child becomes an adult an can conceptualize their rights by leaving the home.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

[Yieu]

Babies have no liberties, they cannot conceptualize or exercise their liberties, thus all responsibilities, including health and religious issues, fall on the parents. Murray Rothbard did an extensive piece on this in which he described babies as potential self-owners, but that rights of ownership by natural law are conferred on the parents until the child becomes an adult an can conceptualize their rights by leaving the home.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

Even so, they will grow into full adults one day, and as a full adult they are entitled to their full body, including their foreskin. If they, upon reaching an age at which they can consent to such a surgical removal, decide that they want circumcised -- more power to them, they're free to do so, they're at liberty to do so. But if the parent steals that liberty from the child before their are an adult, they have taken away that individual's adult liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

Babies have no liberties, they cannot conceptualize or exercise their liberties, thus all responsibilities, including health and religious issues, fall on the parents. Murray Rothbard did an extensive piece on this in which he described babies as potential self-owners, but that rights of ownership by natural law are conferred on the parents until the child becomes an adult an can conceptualize their rights by leaving the home.
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
1) this essay is about abortion
2) Rothbard says that parents are caretakers of children, not owners of them (to do with the children whatever they want)

"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus."
He doesn't delve into the issue of newborn babes here in enough detail for us to determine that he would agree with your summary of his narrative. I would advise you against putting words into Murray's mouth. ;)

[mtj458]

What if my choice later in life would be to have the circumcision at an age where I won't remember it at all rather have the horrible memory of part of my penis being cut off? You can say not allowing parents to give there children circumcision is maximizing there choice, but you're taking away one the choice that I think most circumcised people would want. You'd at least be taking away the choice I would want which is to have it done at a young age where I won't remember. Leave it to the parents, giving them some control over their children is unavoidable and they have a better idea of how to raise their kids than you do.

[Dr.3D]

What if my choice later in life would be to have the circumcision at an age where I won't remember it at all rather have the horrible memory of part of my penis being cut off? You can say not allowing parents to give there children circumcision is maximizing there choice, but you're taking away one the choice that I think most circumcised people would want. You'd at least be taking away the choice I would want which is to have it done at a young age where I won't remember. Leave it to the parents, giving them some control over their children is unavoidable and they have a better idea of how to raise their kids than you do.
Suppose you never wanted to be circumcised ever? Kind of late if it's already been done.

[Golding]

I did not mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with removing extra digits, just that circumcision is worse than removing extra digits. I don't see an inconsistency in that.Fair enough, but I see a few inconsistencies in it, personally. Aside from the moving goalpost from a religious point of view that I previously discussed, I also feel there is inconsistency inherent to the argument that a circumcision is "anti-liberty". It seems as though you are more open to a parent having a child's extra digits (which as previously discussed, seemed to revolve around an individual's interpretation on how "God's will" is discerned), even though it shares so many of the same characteristics of infant circumcision that you decried as fundamental to necessitating the child's own consent -- that is, removal of viable and sensitive tissue with cells that may provide some level of functionality. Given the similarities in this manner, the inconsistency seems clear enough to me that the nature of the tissue isn't what really leads you to label its removal as "anti-liberty". Rather, it seems that you simply have preformed opinions based largely on personal experience on the results of circumcision. This is fine for you, and should indeed guide your decision-making when the time comes for you as a parent. But for as many people like you that there may be, there are also as many that are indeed satisfied with the results of their circumcision and underwent less risk attaining it as an infant than they would as an adult.


If you circumcise someone and they feel that gives them some special immunity toward STDs over intact men, they might take more risks and get more STDs. Being circumcised does not protect you from STDs; you will still get an STD if you have unprotected sex with someone who has an STD.

If you claim the most sensitive part is the glans, then circumcision must have taken much more sensitivity from me than I thought, because it's not sensitive, which works against your argument that there isn't much difference in sensation. The most sensitive part is the part near the scar, indicating that the rest of the most sensitive part would be the part cut off.

You mentioned personal decision making being about liberty -- it certainly is. Personal decision making means the decision was made by the individual, not the parents. The parents, or the government, deciding to circumcise you is against the non-aggression principle and libertarian philosophy. I'm not saying others should follow suit simply because of what I believe. I invite them to examine the libertarian philosophy and find that letting the child decide when he is at the age of consent is most in-tune with libertarian philosophy and the non-aggression principle.The data isn't necessarily there one way or another to support your belief that circumcision will lead to riskier sexual activity, but that independent belief of yours is certainly an appropriate hypothesis to weigh when you become a parent. Again, the most valuable component to deciding on infant circumcision is informed decision-making. You may believe that your child would take the circumcision as a pass. I'd believe that it is a slight advantage that, along with proper sexual hygiene, would offer superior results compared to sexual hygiene alone. This once more highlights why circumcision is appropriate as a parent's health choice for their children.

I feel that much of your position revolves around your personal experience as a circumcised male, and a perhaps misguided belief on how much you feel like you should be feeling. Studies largely show no significant difference in sensation between circumcised males and uncircumcised males. The fact that you are disappointed in the lack of sensation you feel in your own glans says nothing for how much you allegedly "lost". Truth is that you most likely would have had comparably similar sensation as an uncircumcised child. Unfortunately, your personal experience does little to deflect the literature.

The problem with invoking the non-aggression principle is that you are mischaracterizing circumcision as an aggressive act based on your own personal biases. Circumcision is a procedure that is no more aggressive than the multitude of pediatric surgeries that require parental consent -- even those non-emergent and largely cosmetic operations like removing an extra digit. I can appreciate your determination to non-violence, but not when it is applied inappropriately to a procedure that is truthfully not violent.


Misinterpretetions of my argument based on a perceived flaw in it due to not fully understanding the argument, which I have repeated multiple times. Removal of the most sensitive part of the body, which was designed to be that way, is not the same. It's partially a matter of degree. It is worse to remove the most sensitive part of the body than to remove diseased tonsils or teeth that came in crooked. And I accept that God may well have used evolution as a tool to create us, and bring us toward the 'human template', which does include a foreskin and which cannot be argued to be a useless vestige of previous evolutionary design by any means, so it is not comparable, so the perceived flaw is just that -- perceived.

My position is one of non-violence, and non-violence is a religious position. Non-violence is the cornerstone of almost all of my positions.To be fair, I have not misrepresented your argument. I have made a concerted effort to understand your position and represent it fairly. I think there is some issue that despite evidence to the contrary, you occasionally revert to repeating some inaccurate comments that really don't have much support (for example: that the foreskin is "the most sensitive part of the body", when not only is the foreskin not the most sensitive part of the body, it is not even the most sensitive part of the penis).

You invoke God as having created a design that should not be tampered with, with the reasonable basis that the child was born with the anatomy that God wanted. But when a child is born with something that you personally consider outside of normal (your individual interpretation of "God's design"), the goalpost moves back a bit and suddenly God didn't want what the child was born with. It's not a "misrepresentation" to ask where you get your insight regarding God's will. It is actually a perfectly reasonable follow-up question whenever you make your own judgment as to what is necessary and what is not, and try to make the claim that God agrees with you.

Non-violence is certainly a nice fundamental guide to follow. But for someone who is apparently concerned about misrepresentation, you seem to be okay with misrepresenting a procedure you simply disapprove of as somehow "violent". Characterizing non-violent acts as "violent" will unfortunately draw you to fight fights astray from an actual liberty position, which I feel it has done in this circumstance.

[JCLibertarian]

Even so, they will grow into full adults one day, and as a full adult they are entitled to their full body, including their foreskin. If they, upon reaching an age at which they can consent to such a surgical removal, decide that they want circumcised -- more power to them, they're free to do so, they're at liberty to do so. But if the parent steals that liberty from the child before their are an adult, they have taken away that individual's adult liberty.

They do not have full rights to their body as an infant, as they are not capable of sustaining their body independently, and as a dependent cede rights to their parents, you can't steal a liberty that does not exist. Your arguments could be used for vaccinations and dental issues to name a few.

[heavenlyboy34]

They do not have full rights to their body as an infant, as they are not capable of sustaining their body independently, and as a dependent cede rights to their parents, you can't steal a liberty that does not exist. Your arguments could be used for vaccinations and dental issues to name a few.

Oh, really? If what you say is true, then the natural rights theory that most RPFers believe in (being critical to Constitutionalist theory) is bunk. (natural rights theorists posit that rights come from self-ownership) By your reasoning, the baby has no right to live either ("They do not have full rights to their body as an infant"), and infanticide is not a crime. It's true that minors do cede some rights to their parents since they are economically dependent, but ownership of the body is not one of these. The law does not recognize parents as "owners"-they are "guardians". You ought to rethink your position, it seems.

[Yieu]

They do not have full rights to their body as an infant, as they are not capable of sustaining their body independently, and as a dependent cede rights to their parents, you can't steal a liberty that does not exist. Your arguments could be used for vaccinations and dental issues to name a few.

If that were true, then removal of any healthy body part at all could be justified with the same logic, yet people would consider such a thing a horrible crime. Therefore I see that position as inconsistent in logic, inconsistent with liberty, and inconsistent with the libertarian concept of self-ownership. Regardless of whatever arguments you might make of their "rights" as an infant -- as an adult, they would still have a right to own their whole body. There are some rights that cannot rightfully be transferred to the parents, otherwise it is inescapable that the very same logic could be used to apply to any body part. As a parent, you have the right to take care of your child and make certain decisions on his behalf, but you cannot go around just cutting on them without violating their rights.

As for the comparison to removal of an extra digit, it is not a fair comparison because the foreskin is not 'extra'.

[heavenlyboy34]

If that were true, then removal of any healthy body part at all could be justified with the same logic, yet people would consider such a thing a horrible crime. Therefore I see that position as inconsistent in logic, inconsistent with liberty, and inconsistent with the libertarian concept of self-ownership. Regardless of whatever arguments you might make of their "rights" as an infant -- as an adult, they would still have a right to own their whole body. There are some rights that cannot rightfully be transferred to the parents, otherwise it is inescapable that the very same logic could be used to apply to any body part. As a parent, you have the right to take care of your child and make certain decisions on his behalf, but you cannot go around just cutting on them without violating their rights.

As for the comparison to removal of an extra digit, it is not a fair comparison because the foreskin is not 'extra'.
qft & +rep

[Yieu]

qft & +rep

Thanks, yours earned a rep too. :D

[cubical]

Cutting off the most pleasurable part of the body to maybe, potentially, perhaps, slightly reduce the risk of diseases that can be avoided by lifestyle decisions does not sound very reasonable or logical.

This is your judgement of the situation and you are doing exactly what you say the parents are doing to their child. To say sex would be more pleasurable for me if I wasn't circumcised is not a fact and to say I wouldn't have caught an STD if I wasn't circumcised is also not a fact. Facts are I love sex and I have no STDs.

I have never heard of anyone I know having a problem being circumcised, but I know problems do arise. But hundreds of people are also killed each year from using aspirin, but that doesn't mean we should ban it. Even if you thought aspirin did nothing, it shouldn't be up to you(or the government), unless there was obvious facts stating you were right. In this case I don't see it. If someone wants to circumcise their child for whatever reason and believes it helps their child, and there isn't obvious facts stating otherwise, we should stay out.

It's not black and white, but I would error on the side of family liberty as opposed to government mandates.

[Yieu]

Just keep in mind that in order to defend circumcision, you must also defend cutting into or removing any other body part too. I don't see a difference. There is no medical reason to circumcise, and there is no medical reason to remove the tip of the pinky, but both involve the removal of healthy tissue that there is no reason to remove, for cosmetic purposes, like they are "designer babies".

Family liberty means giving the child his own choice when he is ready. You are arguing against a government ban, but I am not arguing for one. I am only arguing for the child's liberty.

[cubical]

Just keep in mind that in order to defend circumcision, you must also defend cutting into or removing any other body part too. I don't see a difference. There is no medical reason to circumcise, and there is no medical reason to remove the tip of the pinky, but both involve the removal of healthy tissue that there is no reason to remove, for cosmetic purposes, like they are "designer babies".

Well there was data on previous pages citing benefits so if there is even a semi-valid argument on the subject, we shouldn't mandate everyone be on one side.

But believing you have a covenant with God who wants you to do this is the main reason it is done. Respecting God's commands is surely a benefit. I will admit, I am a Christian and I am circumcised, and I honestly don't know why.

EDIT I also agree it can be done later in life if it was simply a religious argument, if that is allowed. I don't know all the Jewish or Muslim laws on the matter though.

[Yieu]

Oh, I do not have a problem with it being done for religious reasons -- but that is confined to Judaism and Islam only. Jesus ended that covenant for Christians, so there is no religious reason for Christians to circumcise. But there is a thing called "routine infant circumcision" where the doctors pressure unwitting parents into it before they've thought it through, and I have a problem with that. I am not concerned with religious circumcision -- I am concerned with routine infant circumcision, or RIC.

Also, a few people mentioned they think there are less complications if it is done to a newborn as opposed to an adult. I believe there are less complications if done as an adult, because the skin as grown to its full potential and only the skin the individual does not want can be removed, and it can be done professionally by a cosmetic surgeon. I think there are more benefits to having it done later in life than as an infant, but especially because of the issue of consent over your own body.

[heavenlyboy34]

Happened across this today, and it reminded me of this thread.
http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866


AbstractThe World Health Organization and UNAIDS have supported circumcision as a preventive for HIV infections in regions with high rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV; however, the circumcision solution has several fundamental flaws that undermine its potential for success. This article explores, in detail, the data on which this recommendation is based, the difficulty in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public, the impact of risk compensation, and how circumcision compares to existing alternatives. Based on our analysis it is concluded that the circumcision solution is a wasteful distraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. By diverting attention away from more effective interventions, circumcision programs will likely increase the number of HIV infections.




IntroductionAt the XVIII International AIDS conference held in Vienna, there was a strong push to gather funding to circumcise 38 million men in sub-Saharan Africa within the next five years. The belief is that male circumcision provides the best hope of decreasing the spread of HIV infection there. We believe these efforts are misguided.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS have supported circumcision as an HIV preventive in regions with high rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV, the circumcision solution has several fundamental flaws that have been glossed over by its proponents within these organizations. These proponents, who have been touting the “benefits” of circumcision for decades, have developed plans to circumcise Africa on behalf of WHO and UNAIDS.1 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#1) If their goal is to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa, circumcision will only serve to divert resources away from effective measures.
In this paper, we will expose the lack of scientific evidence, biological plausibility, and epidemiological evidence that provides the foundation for the circumcision solution. We will demonstrate how circumcision will likely increase the number of heterosexually transmitted HIV infections. Finally, we will discuss how poorly circumcision compares with other interventions.
Lack of scientific evidenceThe results of three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are often presented as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that male circumcision prevents HIV infection.2 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#2) After all, RCTs are the gold standard of medical experimentation. However, such accolades only apply to well-designed, well-executed trials. The three RCTs were neither.
The trials were nearly identical in their methodology and in the number of men in each arm of the trial who became infected. The trials shared the same biases, which led to nearly identical results. All had expectation bias (both researcher and participant), selection bias, lead-time bias, attrition bias, duration bias, and early termination that favored the treatment effect the investigators were hoping for.3 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#3) All three studies were overpowered such that the biases alone could have provided a statistically significant difference.
The common hypothesis for these trials was that male circumcision would decrease the rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV infections. A basic assumption adopted by the investigators was that all HIV infections resulted from heterosexual transmission, so no effort was made to determine the source of the infections discovered during the trial. There is strong evidence that this assumption was not valid.
In the South African trial, men who reported at least one episode of unprotected sex accounted for 2498 person-years and 46 HIV infections during the trial. Among the remaining men, who accounted for 2076 person-years, 23 become infected although they either had no sexual contact or always used a condom. These men, who had infection rate of 1.11/100 person-years (95%CI=0.74-1.67), presumably became infected through non-sexual means. The men at sexual risk of infection had an infection rate of 1.84/100 person-years (95%CI=1.38-2.46). It would be expected that all men in the trial shared the same baseline risk of non-sexual transmission and any additional risk could be attributed to sexual transmission. The infections attributed to sexual contact would be the difference between the total rate and the non-sexually transmitted rate (0.73/100 person-years). Consequently, only 18 (0.0073 infections per person-year * 2498 person-years) of the 69 infections in the South African trial can be attributed to sexual transmission.4 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#4)
Similarly, in the Ugandan trial, men who consistently used condoms had the same rate of infection as those who never used condoms (Consistent condom use: 1.03/100 person-years; No condom use 0.91/100 person-years; RR=1.13, 95%CI=0.54-2.38, P=0.74). Men who reported no sexual partners for the duration of the trial accounted for 1252.1 patient-years and 6 infections (0.48/100 persons-years, 95%CI=0.22-1.07). If this rate is subtracted from the rate in sexually active men, at most 35 of the 67 infections in the Ugandan trial can be attributed to sexual transmission.5 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#5)
Finally, in the first three months of the Kenyan trial, five men became HIV-positive who reported no sexual activity in the period before the seroconversion (0.73/100 person-years, 95%CI=0.30-1.76). If this rate is subtracted from the overall rate of infection in the trial, at most 36 of the 69 infections in the Ugandan trial can be attributed to sexual transmission.6 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#6) Conservatively for the three trials, 89 of the 205 infections (43.1%) were sexually transmitted. Without knowing which infections were sexually transmitted, it is impossible to test the hypothesis of whether circumcision reduces the rate of sexually transmitted HIV. Basing policy on studies that were unable to answer their own research question is unwarranted.
Lack of biologic plausibilityHow does cutting off the foreskin prevent the transmission of HIV? This question remains unanswered. Proponents of the circumcision solution have speculated that the interior mucosa of the prepuce is thinner and more prone to tearing, but mucosa of the inner and outer prepuce have been shown to be of the same thickness.7 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#7) Proponents also speculate that HIV is more likely to be transmitted through the foreskin because it has a high concentration of Langerhans cells, which they believe are the entry point for HIV. Research has shown that Langerhans cells are quite efficient in repelling HIV and explains why the transmission rate of HIV is one per 1000 unprotected coital acts.8 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#8) The inner foreskin secretes langerin, which kills viruses.9 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#9) Langerhans cells also protect against other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), which may explain why circumcised men are at greater risk for getting an STI (unpublished data). In general, mucosal immunity provides a stronger barrier to infection than the skin. Finally, to support their plausibility argument, circumcision proponents have identified the sub-preputial space as a harbor for sexually transmitted viruses. Meta-analyses assessing the susceptibility to genital infections with herpes simplex virus and human papilloma virus have not shown an association with circumcision status.10 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#10),11 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#11),12 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#12) Unfortunately, these speculations have been repeated so often in the medical literature that many physicians and public health officials consider them factual. There is, however, no direct scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the foreskin is a predisposing factor for infection.
Lack of consistent epidemiological evidenceIf the RCTs are to be believed and circumcision provides 50% to 60% protection from sexually transmitted HIV infection, then the impact of circumcision should be readily apparent in the general population. This is not the case. In Africa, there are several countries where circumcised men are more likely to be HIV infected than intact men, including Malawi, Rwanda, Cameroon, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, and Tanzania.13 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#13),14 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#14),15 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#15) Even in South Africa, where one RCT was undertaken, 12.3% of circumcised men were HIV-positive, while 12.0% of intact men were HIV-positive.16 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#16) If the national survey data that are available from 19 countries are combined in a meta-analysis (Table 1 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewFile/44/html_9/422)) the random-effects model summary effect for the risk of a genitally intact man having HIV is an odds ratio of 1.10 (95%CI=0.83-1.46), indicating that on a general population level, circumcision has no association with risk of HIV infection. Among developed nations, the United States has the highest rate of circumcision and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV.17 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#17) Within the United States, blacks have the highest rate of circumcision18 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#18),19 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#19),20 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#20),21 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#21) and the highest rate of heterosexually transmitted HIV.22 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#22) Among English-speaking developed nations there is a significant positive association between neonatal circumcision rates and HIV prevalence (data currently under submission, Scot Anderson). On a population level, circumcision has not been found to be an effective measure and may be associated with an increase in HIV risk.




http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewFile/44/html_9/421 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewFile/44/html_9/422)

Table 1. Meta-analysis of population survey results from 19 countries15 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#15),16 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#16)comparing HIV prevalence based on circumcision status using fixed-effects and random-effects models on exact odds ratios and confidence intervals.11 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#11)



Risk compensationRisk compensation occurs when people believe they have been provided additional protection (wearing safety belts) they will engage in higher risk behavior (driving faster). As a consequence of the increase in higher risk behavior, the number of targeted events (traffic fatalities) either remains unchanged or increases.23 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#23),24 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#24) When modeling HIV infections in San Francisco, Blower and McLean found that if an HIV-vaccine offered 50% protection, but reduced condom usage, or increased other risky behaviors, it would likely result in higher HIV infection rates.21 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#21)
Risk compensation will accompany the circumcision solution in Africa. Circumcision has been promoted as a natural condom,25 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#25) and African men have reported having undergone circumcision in order not to have to continually use condoms. Such a message has been adopted by public health researchers. A recent South African study assessing determinants of demand for circumcision listed “It means that men don’t have [to] use a condom” as a circumcision advantage in the materials they presented to the men they surveyed.26 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#26) If circumcision results in lower condom use, the number of HIV infections will increase.
African men, on average, have coitus once a week,27 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#27) and use condoms in 48% of their sexual encounters with women.5 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#5) Assume that 20% of sexually active women are HIV-positive, partners were contacted randomly, condoms are 98% effective when used, the baseline circumcision rate is 5%, and circumcision reduced the transmission rate of HIV infection by 50%. Since the transmission rate of HIV from females to males is one per 1000 unprotected coital acts, the HIV infection rate in men in this scenario would be 0.537 per 100 person-years (which is far below the rate reported in the three RCTs). If the circumcision rate increases from 5% up to 75%, the infection rate would decrease to 0.344 per 100 person-years. If in the baseline scenario with a 5% circumcision rate condom use increased from 48% up to 67.9% of sexual encounters, the infection rate would be 0.344 per 100 person-years. Consequently, the impact of a fifteen-fold increase in the rate of circumcision could be accomplished by a relative 41% increase in the use of condoms.
The leap of faithInterventions and medications that demonstrate efficacy in a research setting are often failures in a clinical setting. Circumcision will provide another example of this. The results from the RCTs are of questionable value, and it is unknown how they will translate to the real world. Numbers gathered from general populations are outside the 95% confidence intervals generated by the RCTs.
Research results often fail to translate to other settings because the research population differs considerably from the targeted population. For example, to save money in a trial of a new antihypertensive medication, participants with the highest blood pressure will be recruited for the trial, because it is easier to show effectiveness in those with more severe disease. The new medication may do well with the participants, but when the medication is released for general use, it may not be beneficial for those with mild hypertension, let alone those who are normotensive.
The men attracted by a free circumcision to enroll in the RCTs are not representative of the general population. The RCT participants were required to want to be circumcised. A faithful monogamous man with a faithful spouse would have little motivation to seek a free circumcision. This selection bias may have resulted in enrollment of men more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors. The free circumcision and financial inducements may have added to the selection bias.
If the selection bias resulted in more men at high risk of infection being in the trial, then the results would apply only to men who engage in high-risk behaviors. This would be consistent with the observational studies finding that the association between circumcision status and HIV infection was present primarily in studies of high-risk men.
Instead of targeting sexually active men at high risk of HIV infection, the circumcision solution proposes circumcising all males (of all ages), which would be equivalent to recommending the above antihypertensive medication to everyone regardless of their blood pressure. In addition to the national survey data (Table 1 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewFile/44/html_9/422)), observational studies of general populations have for the most part failed to show an association between circumcision status and HIV infection.28 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#28),29 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#29),30 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#30) There is no scientific reason to believe that the RCT results would necessarily apply to the general population. It is quite likely that applying research results from a high risk population to the general population will lead to failure. Using the scenario above, if it is assumed that circumcision has only a 10% protective in the general population then increasing the circumcision rate from 5% up to 75% would decrease the infection rate from 0.548 to 0.509 per 100 person-years. Increasing condom use from 48% up to 51.8% would result in the same gains. So a fifteen-fold increase in the circumcision rate would have the same impact as a 3.8% absolute increase in the use in condoms.
Attractive, less invasive, less expensive, more effective alternativesBefore Africans address sexually transmitted HIV, a concerted effort to eliminate the iatrogenic spread of the virus is needed. As the numbers from the RCTs indicate, most infections can be attributed to non-sexual transmission. While this indictment of the medical system is unsettling, ignoring iatrogenic sources of infection will only allow the African epidemic to flourish.31 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#31)
When it comes to sexually transmitted HIV infections, proponents of circumcision have consistently failed to compare the effectiveness and cost of circumcision to currently available alternatives, which include condoms, aggressive surveillance and treatment of STIs, and antiretroviral therapy (ART).
ART is a secondary preventive measure. When those infected with HIV are treated with ART, the viral counts can decrease to where the patient is no longer contagious. HIV-infected patients on ART with no currently active STI no longer need to use condoms to protect their partners.32 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#32) A recent model predicted that a “test and treat” model in a sub-Saharan setting could reduce the number of new HIV infections by 55-73.2%,33 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#33) making this approach attractive in Africa, San Francisco, and Washington, DC.34 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#34) This intervention directs prevention at those most likely to benefit: those exposed to the virus. With the circumcision solution, the vast majority of men who are circumcised will not benefit from the procedure (Figure 1 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/viewFile/44/html_9/423)). Secondary prevention is a more efficient use of resources and many HIV experts consider primary prevention extremely wasteful and ineffective.8 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#8) The “test and treat” approach is effective regardless of whether the infection was sexually or iatrogenically transmitted. Such an approach would not be limited to ART, as the use of other medications proven to decrease viral counts, such as decitabine and gemcitabine, may also become available.35 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#35)
Aggressive surveillance and treatment of STIs has been shown to reduce the number of HIV infections by 40%36 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#36) at a cost of $217.62 per HIV-1 infection averted.37 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#37) This is more cost-effective than models for circumcision, which extrapolate the data collected from the 21 to 24 months of the RCTs to over 20 years, have predicted. These models, which incorporated major assumptions of questionable validity, presented circumcision as favorably as possible. In addition to being more cost-effective, aggressive surveillance and treatment of STIs have the advantage of treating and preventing the spread of STIs and avoiding the damage caused by removing the most sensitive portion of penis.38 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#38) Part of the success of STI treatment research may be due to a reduction of iatrogenically transmitted HIV, as the STIs were treated in research facilities.
In studies of discordant couples, condoms have been shown to be more than 99% effective in preventing infection.39 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#39) Condoms, in a public health setting, cost 2.5¢ each.40 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#40)A safe circumcision performed under sterile conditions in Africa using local anesthetic costs approximately $75,41 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#41) so for the cost of an adult circumcision, 3000 condoms, at 2.5¢ per condom, can be purchased. The nearly complete protection provided by condoms is a bargain compared with circumcision. In the first hypothetical scenario outlined above, the 0.193 infections per 100 person-years decrease in HIV infection rate brought by circumcision costs $52.50 per person. The cost per person of the additional condoms (at 2.5¢ each) for one year to achieve the same impact on the infection rate would total 25.87¢. To have the same effect for one year, circumcision costs 202.9 times more than condoms. Proponents for circumcision would argue that circumcision is a one-time expenditure, while condoms would be an ongoing expense. Using the scenario above with 3% discounting and assuming an average of weekly sexual contact over 45 years, the lifetime difference in the cost of condoms would be $6.13 per person. With 5% discounting the lifetime difference in cost would be $4.83. If circumcision is only 10% effective, with a 3% discount, the lifetime difference in cost of condoms would be $1.25.
One complaint has been that the 2.5¢ condoms are not attractive, which may explain why they are underused. Based on this analysis, if a man is having sex weekly for 45 years, an upgrade to condoms that cost ten times as much would be cost neutral (assuming a discount rate of 3%). Of course, if sexual contact was less frequent or a man was in a mutual monogamous relationship, further condom upgrades could be justified.
This is, however, a false comparison because, unlike circumcision, condoms can provide nearly complete protection.
Circumcision proponents believe that circumcision is the only proven effective preventive tool for HIV infection and have argued that condoms are ineffective.42 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#42),43 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#43) Condoms would be expected to be ineffective in regions where the majority of infections are from non-sexual transmission. Abstinence, be faithful, and condoms (ABC) should remain the focus of primary prevention for sexually transmitted HIV, but more resources need to be focused on the non-sexually transmitted infections, which is a much more efficient means of transmission.31 (http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9?mid=54866#31)
How rational is it to tell men that they must be circumcised to prevent HIV, but after circumcision they still need to use a condom to be protected from sexually transmitted HIV? Condoms provide near complete protection, so why would additional protection be needed? It is not hard to see that circumcision is either inadequate (otherwise there would be no need for the continued use of condoms) or redundant (as condoms provide nearly complete protection). The argument that men don’t want to use condoms needs to be addressed with more attractive condom options and further education that sex without a condom and without a foreskin is potentially fatal, while sex with a condom and a foreskin is safe. No nuance is needed. Offering less effective alternatives can only lead to higher rates of infection.
Rather than wasting resources on circumcision, which is less effective, more expensive, and more invasive, focusing on iatrogenic sources and secondary prevention should be the priority, since it provides the most impact for the resources expended. The second tier would be primary prevention that focuses on the ABCs.
Resources are not unlimited. With the push for circumcision, public health workers in Africa are finding that resources that previously paid for condoms are now being redirected to circumcision. With every circumcision performed, 3000 condoms will not be available. For every circumcision performed, a health care provider is prevented from caring for someone in need of medical care. With trained medical providers busy performing circumcisions, patients will be forced to seek medical care provided in settings where sterility of equipment is less likely and HIV is more likely to be spread iatrogenically. For every circumcision performed, there are fewer resources that can be put into ART and other chemotherapies. Male circumcision is an unnecessary distraction that depletes the limited resources available to address the HIV epidemic. It also fails to address the underlying causes for the epidemic in Africa.
References1.World Health Organization, UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. 2007. Available at: http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf
2. World Health Organization, UNAIDS. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and programme implications. 2007. Available at: http://www. unaids.org/en/media/unaids/contentassets/dataimport/pub/report/2007/mc_recommendations_en.pdf
3. Halperin DT, Bailey RC. Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting. Lancet 1999; 354:1813-5.
4. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, et al. Randomized, controlled intervention trial of male circumcision for reduction of HIV infection risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med 2005;2:e298.
5. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-66.
6. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:643-56.
7. Dinh MH, McRaven MD, Kelley Z, et al. Keratinization of the adult male foreskin and implications for male circumcision. AIDS 2010;24:899-906.
8. Chin J. The AIDS pandemic: the collision of epidemiology with political correctness. 2007. Radcliffe Publ., Abingdon, OX,UK
9. de Witte L, Nabatov A, Pion M, , et al. Langerin as a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells. Nat Med 2007;13:367-71.
10. Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:101-10.
11. Van Howe RS. Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis. J Infect 2007;54:490-6.
12. Van Howe RS, Storms MR. Circumcision to prevent HPV infection. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:746-7.
13. Garenne M. Long-term population effect of male circumcision in generalised HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa. Afr J AIDS Res 2008;7:1-8.
14. Demographic and Health Surveys. HIV Prevalence and Associated Factors (Chapter 15). In: Rwanda National Health and Demographic Survey for 2005. Available at: http://www.measuredhs.com/ pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
15. Mishra V, Medley A, Hong Ret al. Levels and Spread of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors: Evidence from National Household Surveys. 2009. DHS Comparative Reports No. 22. Macro International Inc., Calverton, MD, USA.
16. Connolly C, Shanmugam R, Simbayi LC, Nqeketo A. Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: Results of a national survey in 2002. S Afr Med J 2008;98:789-94.
17. UNAIDS, World Health Organization. Global HIV/AIDS and STD Surveillance Project: Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic 1998. Available at: http://www. unaids.org/hivaidsinfo/statistics/june98/global_report/index.html.
18. O'Brien TR, Calle EE, Poole WK. Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985-1986. South Med J 1995;88:411-5.
19. Xu F, Markowitz LE, Sternberg MR, Aral SO. Prevalence of circumcision and herpes simplex type 2 infection in men in the United States: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2004. Sex Transm Dis 2007;34:479-84.
20. Mor Z, Kent CK, Kohn RP, Klausner JD. Declining rates in male circumcision amidst increasing evidence of its public health benefit. PLoS ONE 2007;2:e861.
21. Mansfield CJ, Hueston WJ, Rudy M. Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay. J Fam Pract 1995;41:370-6.
22. US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Racial/ethnic disparities in diagnoses of HIV/AIDS - 33 states, 2001-2005. MMWR Morb Mort Wkly Rep 2007;56:189-93.
23. Blower SM, McLean AR. Prophylactic vaccines, risk behaviour change, and the probability of eradicating HIV in San Francisco. Science 1994;265:1451-4.
24. Richens J, Imrie J, Copas A. Condoms and seat belts: the parallels and the lessons. Lancet 2000;355:400-3.
25. Bonner K. Male circumcision as an HIV control strategy: not a 'natural condom'. Reprod Health Matters 2001;9:143-55.
26. Bridges JFP, Selck FW, Gray GE, et al. Condom avoidance and determinants of demand for male circumcision in Johannesburg, South Africa. Health Policy Planning 2010; e-pub ahead of print.
27. Sawers L, Stillwaggon E. Concurrent sexual partnerships do not explain the HIV epidemics in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence. J Int AIDS Soc 2010; 13: 34.
28. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9:927-34.
29. O'Farrell N, Egger M. Circumcision in men and the prevention of HIV infection: a "meta-analysis" revisited. Int J STD AIDS 2000;11: 137-42.
30. Van Howe RS. Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Int J STD AIDS 1999;10:8-16.
31. Gisselquist D. Points to consider: responses to HIV/AIDS in Africa, Asia and Caribbean. 2008. Adonis & Abbey Publ. Ltd, London, UK.
32. Vernazza P. La prévention du sida devient plus simpl, mais aussi plus complexe! Bull Med Suisses 2008;89:163-4.
33. Bendavid E, Brandeau ML, Wood R, Owens DK. Comparative effectiveness of HIV testing and treatment in highly endemic regions. Arch Int Med 2010;170:1357-54.
34. Charlebois ED, Havlir DV. “A Bird in the Hand...”: a commentary on the test and treat approach for HIV. Arch Int Med 2010;170:1354-6.
35. Clouser CL, Patterson SE, Mansky LM. Exploiting drug repositioning for discovery of a novel HIV combination therapy. J Virol 2010;84:9301-9.
36 Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. Impact of improved treatment of sexually transmitted diseases on HIV infection in rural Tanzania: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1995;346:530-6.
37. Gilson L, Mkanje R, Grosskurth H, et al. Cost-effectiveness of improved treatment services for sexually transmitted diseases in preventing HIV-1 infection in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. Lancet 1997;350:1805-9.
38. Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int 2007;99:864-9.
39. de Vincenzi I. A longitudinal study of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by heterosexual partners. European Study Group on Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. N Engl J Med 1994;331:341-6.
40. Shelton JD, Johnston B. Condom gap in Africa: evidence from donor agencies and key informants. Br Med J 2001;323:139.
41. Krieger JN, Bailey RC, Opeya J, et al. Adult male circumcision: results of a standardized procedure in Kisumu District, Kenya. BJU Int 2005;96:1109-13.
42. Potts M, Halperin DT, Kirby D, et al. Reassessing HIV prevention. Science 2008;320:749-50.
43. Klausner JD, Wamai RG, Bowa K, et al. Is male circumcision as good as the HIV vaccine we’ve been waiting for? Future HIV Ther 2008;2:1-7.

[PierzStyx]

Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

Boo hoo hoo. Just another place where true libertarian philosophy is screwy.

Circumcised and proud of it. Don't have any complaints and never got any.

[heavenlyboy34]

Also this: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/abstractAbstractObjective: To conduct a critical review of recent proposals that widespread circumcision of male infants be introduced in Australia as a means of combating heterosexually transmitted HIV infection.

Approach: These arguments are evaluated in terms of their logic, coherence and fidelity to the principles of evidence-based medicine; the extent to which they take account of the evidence for circumcision having a protective effect against HIV and the practicality of circumcision as an HIV control strategy; the extent of its applicability to the specifics of Australia's HIV epidemic; the benefits, harms and risks of circumcision; and the associated human rights, bioethical and legal issues.

Conclusion: Our conclusion is that such proposals ignore doubts about the robustness of the evidence from the African random-controlled trials as to the protective effect of circumcision and the practical value of circumcision as a means of HIV control; misrepresent the nature of Australia's HIV epidemic and exaggerate the relevance of the African random-controlled trials findings to it; underestimate the risks and harm of circumcision; and ignore questions of medical ethics and human rights. The notion of circumcision as a ‘surgical vaccine’ is criticised as polemical and unscientific.

Implications: Circumcision of infants or other minors has no place among HIV control measures in the Australian and New Zealand context; proposals such as these should be rejected.

From
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public HealthVolume 35, Issue 5, (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/azph.2011.35.issue-5/issuetoc)pages 459–465, October 2011

[PierzStyx]

Well there was data on previous pages citing benefits so if there is even a semi-valid argument on the subject, we shouldn't mandate everyone be on one side.

But believing you have a covenant with God who wants you to do this is the main reason it is done. Respecting God's commands is surely a benefit. I will admit, I am a Christian and I am circumcised, and I honestly don't know why.

EDIT I also agree it can be done later in life if it was simply a religious argument, if that is allowed. I don't know all the Jewish or Muslim laws on the matter though.

Jewish religious commandment demands it be done no later than 8 days after birth. And I believe Islam is similar. Its not something that can just be done on whimsy later in life.

[heavenlyboy34]

Boo hoo hoo. Just another place where true libertarian philosophy is screwy.

Circumcised and proud of it. Don't have any complaints and never got any.
:rolleyes: Read the thread. That's been dealt with. It's BS. Your ethics are upside down by any rational standard (religious or not). ETA: Are you srsly stating your subjective opinion as evidence to back your argument? :eek: And you claim libertarian philosophy is screwy. :rolleyes:

[PierzStyx]

SF Circumcision Ban To Appear On November Ballot

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27941438/detail.html

http://www.ktvu.com/2010/1028/25546340_240X135.jpg

Living in the Bay Area, I've been following this closely. This fight comes down to atheists vs. religious people. Its just another progressive push to use the government to tell you how you have to believe, and how you have to raise your children.

The argument that it is "genital mutilation" is a shallow one. Male circumcision doesn't effect the ability of the person so circumcised to have sex, to feel sexual pleasure, to use the restroom, or anything else. It simply changes the appearance of the tip of the organ itself. Whether you like that appearance is up to you. But just because you think an uncircumcised penis is either "more natural" or "more appealing" is pure opinion that shouldn't be foisted on others who believe otherwise. Some people view a circumcised penis as much more appealing. The fact that neither side can be proven, and no real hard facts can be used against it, "mutilation" is a misnomer. Indeed there are several statistical studies that show male circumcision is an overall medically beneficial act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

On the other hand, it is a hard fact that circumcision is a central tenet of Jewish belief. So much so that adult males who convert to Judaism still have to be circumcised if they weren't before. Islam seems to be a toss up with some leaders saying it is obligatory and some saying it isn't. For those Muslims who do view it as obligatory, and for all of Judaism, this law directly attacks their religious beliefs.

[PierzStyx]

I suggest you learn what that passage actually means in its historical context. Jews who later converted to Christianity gave up the physical circumcision in favor of figurative "spiritual" circumcision, as Paul talks about.

They were never commanded NOT to circumcise, just told they were no longer commanded TO circumcise.

[PierzStyx]

That's a good question. If you accept the premise of God creating a perfect couple and giving them virtual immortality through the tree of life, then mundane things like bacteria didn't matter. After being kicked out the garden that's a different story. But then circumcision isn't mentioned until thousands of years later with Abraham. Also note that God didn't ask all of His followers to be circumcised, but only the descendants of Abraham. Remember that Moses didn't initially circumcise his boys when he was living among the Midianites, yet his father-in-law Jethro was a priest of Yaweh.

And remember what almost happened to Moses' family when he didn't circumcise his boy child. Exodus 4:18-26. Moses almost lost his life because he was lazy about circumcision.

[heavenlyboy34]

They were never commanded NOT to circumcise, just told they were no longer commanded TO circumcise.

Kinda-sorta.

"Are you so foolish, that, whereas you began in the Spirit, you would now be made perfect by the flesh?" Galatians 3:3
"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." Galatians 5:2

[idiom]

Smegma for everybody!

So, killing infants is okay but trimming them isn't?

Are they going to ban 'emergency' sex changes on infants too?

[heavenlyboy34]

And remember what almost happened to Moses' family when he didn't circumcise his boy child. Exodus 4:18-26. Moses almost lost his life because he was lazy about circumcision.
The Old Covenant doesn't apply to gentiles, and the practice is questioned and/or denounced by many modern Jews and other Semites.

[HigherVision]

Just keep in mind that in order to defend circumcision, you must also defend cutting into or removing any other body part too. I don't see a difference. There is no medical reason to circumcise, and there is no medical reason to remove the tip of the pinky, but both involve the removal of healthy tissue that there is no reason to remove, for cosmetic purposes, like they are "designer babies".

Family liberty means giving the child his own choice when he is ready. You are arguing against a government ban, but I am not arguing for one. I am only arguing for the child's liberty.

A government ban on circumcision would be no different than a government ban on rape or assault, which we already have. It's perfectly consistent with having a limited government that only exists to protect individuals and their liberty. It would be not an infringement on liberty, quite the contrary.

[AGRP]

Look for a nice black market in california to sprout up. Now circumcision specialists in california can retire early.

[SpicyTurkey]

Freedom of choice means being able to chose whether you are circumcised. That is not possible if that choice was taken away from you by your parents. Parents circumcising their children is anti-freedom of choice -- it takes the choice away from the individual. The libertarian position is to give the individual maximum choice, so routine infant circumcision (that is, at the least, circumcision done to infants who are unable to consent when not Jewish or Muslim) is at odds with libertarian philosophy.

Kids don't like immunization/shots either. Hell my siblings are terrified of shots, and would prefer they not take them, but we make them anyway. I am neither against nor for circumcision. Sometimes it is necessary to respect a parents choice, and allow them to do has they see fit. This falls within the domain of the parents judgement, and if you feel strongly against circumcision, then I suggest you try to change their minds through education.

[HigherVision]

I was specifically referring to the objectivist/atheist position that "low preference guy" was referencing and pointing out that inconsistency. That said, comparing circumcision to castration is a little ridiculous to me. Maybe not to you or to others, but it is to me. My sexual feeling is just fine thank you very much. And I can't tell you what it felt like before that because I was too young. It's over the top analogies like "it's castration" which hurts the anti-circumcision camp in my opinion. Anyway, they are doing studies now on adult circumcision and HIV, so maybe we can get some actual hard data on that.

Maybe they should actually do a study on how many heterosexual people who have never shot up drugs or had a blood transfusion have ever actually contracted HIV from heterosexual sex. And then maybe we should rethink whether it's worth cutting off the foreskin and half ruining the penis for the sake of preventing this. It's comparable to say never going outside ever and living your whole life indoors because if you don't you might get hit by lightning.


Kids don't like immunization/shots either. Hell my siblings are terrified of shots, and would prefer they not take them, but we make them anyway. I am neither against nor for circumcision. Sometimes it is necessary to respect a parents choice, and allow them to do has they see fit. This falls within the domain of the parents judgement, and if you feel strongly against circumcision, then I suggest you try to change their minds through education.

The problem with that is that your foreskin doesn't just grow back once you turn 18. You have to live your whole life with this because of this sacred 'parent's choice'.

[Voluntary Man]

San Fransiscans will not deprived of even an ounce of dick.

[Anti-Neocon]

I agree with a ban on circumcision.

[HigherVision]

Look for a nice black market in california to sprout up. Now circumcision specialists in california can retire early.

I've heard that there's also a black market for child porn and snuff films so going by your logic we better legalize pedophilia and murder.

[HigherVision]

The argument that it is "genital mutilation" is a shallow one. Male circumcision doesn't effect the ability of the person so circumcised to have sex, to feel sexual pleasure

Yes it very much does, and in fact that's the point. Here are quotes from doctors stating as such and advocating for it in the years before circumcision was a widespread practice in America:

“I refer to masturbation as one of the effects of a long prepuce; not that this vice is entirely absent in those who have undergone circumcision, though I never saw an instance in a Jewish child of very tender years, except as the result of association with children whose covered glans have naturally impelled them to the habit.” [M. J. Moses, The Value of Circumcision as a Hygienic and Theraputic Measure, NY Medical Journal, vol.14 (1871): pp.368-374.]

“A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.” [John Harvey Kellog, creator of the Corn Flake, Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa: P. Segner & Co. 1888, p. 295.]

“Measures more radical than circumcision would, if public opinion permitted their adoption, be a true kindness to patients of both sexes.” [Jonathan Hutchinson, On Circumcision as Preventative of Masturbation, Archives of Surgery, vol. 2 (1891): pp. 267-268.] Note that he is actually suggesting that castration would be good!

“Clarence B. was addicted to the secret vise practiced among boys. I performed an orificial operation, consisting of circumcision… He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures.” [N. Bergman, Report of a Few Cases of Circumcision, Journal of Orificial Surgery, vol. 7 (1898): pp.249-251.]

“Finally, circumcision probably tends to increase the power of sexual control. The only physiological advantage which the prepuce can be supposed to confer is that of maintaining the penis in a condition susceptible to more acute sensation than would otherwise exist. It [the foreskin] may increase the pleasure of intercourse and the impulse to it: but these are advantages which in the present state of society can well be spared. If in their loss increase in sexual control should result, one should be thankful.” [Editor, Medical News. Our London Letter. Medical World,(1900).vol.77:pp.707-8] (Note that by “sexual control,” he means having less sex, not control by the man of his sexual response during sex.)

“It has been urged as an argument against the universal adoption of circumcision that the removal of the protective covering of the glans tends to dull the sensitivity of that exquisitely sensitive structure and thereby diminishes sexual appetite and the pleasurable effects of coitus. Granted that this be true, my answer is that, whatever may have been the case in days gone by, sensuality in our time needs neither whip nor spur, but would be all the better for a little more judicious use of curb and bearing-rein.” [E. Harding Freeland, Circumcision as a Preventative of Syphilis and Other Disorders, The Lancet, vol. 2 (29 Dec. 1900): pp.1869-1871.]

“Another advantage of circumcision… is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing… This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extreamly sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision … lessens the sensitiveness of the organ… It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs of hygiene and medical, to urge its acceptance.” [Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): p. 231.]

“Circumcision not only reduces the irritability of the child’s penis, but also the so-called passion of which so many married men are so extreamly proud, to the detriment of their wives and their married life. Many youthful rapes could be prevented, many separations, and divorces also, and many an unhappy marriage improved if this unnatural passion was cut down by a timely circumcision.” [L.W. Wuesthoff, MD. Benefits of Circumcision. Medical World, (1915) Vol.33. p.434.]

And there's been modern research done that proves that circumcision substantially reduces sexual pleasure:

“The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce [ridged band, removed in all circumcisions] is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.“ [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847]

http://www.moralogous.com/2012/04/29/the-purpose-of-circumcision-is-to-ruin-male-sexuality/