Circumcision could save your life

[BVS]

That is what I cannot accept from an ethical standpoint. You've taken away their ability to make a choice as to whether they'd want it or not. And once the decision has been made for you, there's really no going back.

 

[randhail]

That is what I cannot accept from an ethical standpoint. You've taken away their ability to make a choice as to whether they'd want it or not. And once the decision has been made for you, there's really no going back.

You could say the same thing about any medical procedure done to a newborn or infant regardless of medical necessity. Should all neonatal procedures be done away with since no neonate is able to sign a consent form?

 

[BVS]

You could say the same thing about any medical procedure done to a newborn or infant regardless of medical necessity. Should all neonatal procedures be done away with since no neonate is able to sign a consent form?

Like what? Are you comparing a life saving procedure to circumcision?

 

[randhail]

No, not life saving procedures - any procedure that is not life saving. Separation of conjoined twins, reconstructive work, etc.

 

[toscano]

And that is your right as an adult. Enjoy.

we do

That is what I cannot accept from an ethical standpoint.

I don't care if you can accept it or not, they're my kids, I do what I think is best for them based upon the available information to me whether it be through medical sources, personal experiences, etc

Strange as it may seem, you just don't get a say in the decision, if you have your own kids, you decide what's best for them.

Not every decision a parent makes for their kids is best left until they reach voting age.

 

[Ormus]

You could say the same thing about any medical procedure done to a newborn or infant regardless of medical necessity. Should all neonatal procedures be done away with since no neonate is able to sign a consent form?

"Regardless of medical necessity." But my point completely hinges on the question of medical necessity and is already established within law.

If a child is diagnosed with cancer, and his parents refuse to treat him, the state will intervene and force the child to be treated.

If a child's parents want to give their child breast implants, the parents would be seen as abusers.

Unnecessary procedures, as a matter of ethics, should be completely forbidden for those who cannot consent (and, for the record, I would include in that category infant ear piercings). While the example regarding infant breast implants is obviously silly, circumcision is just as "medically necessary" as those implants. The only reason that parents who circumcise their children aren't charged with child abuse has everything to do with the bane of human civilization--tradition.

And, as I stated earlier, for those activists looking to stop African FGM, they would probably benefit from studying America's irrational attachment to circumcision, as I think attitudes in both societies are quite similarly tradition stubborn.

 

[BVS]

No, not life saving procedures - any procedure that is not life saving. Separation of conjoined twins, reconstructive work, etc.

Still a bad analogy. A better analogy would be getting an infant ear's pierced.

 

[Ormus]

Strange as it may seem, you just don't get a say in the decision, if you have your own kids, you decide what's best for them.

Not every decision a parent makes for their kids is best left until they reach voting age.

If your parents had thought it best to amputate your otherwise healthy legs at birth, would you be so supportive of a parent's right to unilaterally mutilate their child?

 

[BVS]

I do what I think is best for them based upon the available information to me

Here's the key phrase.

 

[randhail]

Medical necessity constitutes a huge gray area. Who's definition of necessary do you use? What does that include? If a child is born with severe facial deformities, but otherwise completely healthy, are the numerous surgeries that follow truly necessary? If it's truly unnecessary, then I agree that it should not be done, but there really is not clearcut answer to any of it. For every doctor that you find telling you one thing, I could find a doctor that contradicts what yours said.

 

[toscano]

If your parents had thought it best to amputate your otherwise healthy legs at birth, would you be so supportive of a parent's right to unilaterally mutilate their child?

Silly.

Better analogy would be braces on teeth. Medically unnecessary, painful, no choice in the matter they got them.

 

[BVS]

Silly.

Better analogy would be braces on teeth. Medically unnecessary, painful, no choice in the matter they got them.

Braces have no permanant effect.

 

[Ormus]

Better analogy would be braces on teeth. Medically unnecessary, painful, no choice in the matter they got them.

No, a better analogy would be having all of your child's healthy teeth drilled and fitted with crowns. After all, studies say that crowned teeth have fewer cavities.

(And, yes, I'm being facetious with that last sentence; you can't have cavities if your natural teeth aren't exposed, so no "studies" would be needed.)

At least with braces, once you remove the hardware, all your teeth are intact. Once the foreskin is gone, it's forever gone.

I'd also dispute that notion of it being "medically unnecessary," as someone who had teeth that were so bad that I ended up getting $20,000 of "medically necessary" jaw surgery, because the braces weren't enough.

 

[randhail]

I'd also dispute that notion of it being "medically unnecessary," as someone who had teeth that were so bad that I ended up getting $20,000 of "medically necessary" jaw surgery, because the braces weren't enough.

Your own example just demonstrated that medical necessity is not a clearcut answer. Therefore, you can't really use that to justify doing away with circumcision especially when there is literature out there saying that it offers benefits.

 

[anitram]

"Regardless of medical necessity." But my point completely hinges on the question of medical necessity and is already established within law.

If a child is diagnosed with cancer, and his parents refuse to treat him, the state will intervene and force the child to be treated.

Actually that's not exactly true.

It is a complicated issue, but the courts are willing to respect personal autonomy (provided that you can establish the child is making an informed consent). There is a heap of caselaw supporting this outcome. (Just to add, in a lot of these you can argue undue influence by the parents but that has still been seen as a grey area)

 

[Ormus]

Your own example just demonstrated that medical necessity is not a clearcut answer. Therefore, you can't really use that to justify doing away with circumcision especially when there is literature out there saying that it offers benefits.

Oh please. Probably 99% of circumcisions are done on normal penises and normal foreskins. In the case of that 1%, there are isolated cases where a foreskin is deformed or a cause of disease. The actual number of "medically necessary" circumcisions are minimal. It is, in most every circumstance, an elective procedure, and, as this thread has demonstrated, there are those adults who have elected to have it done and are glad to have been circumcised, and then there are those (like my friend) who hate that it was done to them.

How many children with normal, perfectly straight teeth are forced to have braces? If this was the case, I'm sure the orthodontist would probably want to call a social worker and have the parents' sanity examined.

As I've stated before, if adults wish to mutilate themselves, then, by all means, go for it. There's been cases of men having elective castration too. Whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to those under the age of consent, those kinds of medically unnecessary procedures should be banned in every case, with no allowance for "tradition."

 

[Ormus]

Actually that's not exactly true.

It is a complicated issue, but the courts are willing to respect personal autonomy (provided that you can establish the child is making an informed consent). There is a heap of caselaw supporting this outcome. (Just to add, in a lot of these you can argue undue influence by the parents but that has still been seen as a grey area)

I guess I was literally referring to "children." I do understand that there is a gray area regarding "teenagers," who are minors under the law, but are recognized, in some cases, as being old enough to understand whether or not to refuse treatment for a medical condition.

Regardless, "infants" clearly live well outside the realm of teenagers and the ability to make an informed decision.

 

[toscano]

Still a bad analogy. A better analogy would be getting an infant ear's pierced.

I like mine better.

 

[toscano]

Oh please. Probably 99% of circumcisions are done on normal penises and normal foreskins. In the case of that 1%, there are isolated cases where a foreskin is deformed or a cause of disease. The actual number of "medically necessary" circumcisions are minimal. It is, in most every circumstance, an elective procedure, and, as this thread has demonstrated, there are those adults who have elected to have it done and are glad to have been circumcised, and then there are those (like my friend) who hate that it was done to them.

How many children with normal, perfectly straight teeth are forced to have braces? If this was the case, I'm sure the orthodontist would probably want to call a social worker and have the parents' sanity examined.

As I've stated before, if adults wish to mutilate themselves, then, by all means, go for it. There's been cases of men having elective castration too. Whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to those under the age of consent, those kinds of medically unnecessary procedures should be banned in every case, with no allowance for "tradition."

Hands up everyone anti-circumcision because it causes temporary pain to an infant and is medically unnecessary and the child didn't have a say ?

Ok, now hands up everyone who is anti outlawing the medically unnecessary killing of an unborn child (who also doesn't have a say).

hmmm........interesting.....pain for a few minutes, no, but death, yes ?

 

[randhail]

As I've stated before, if adults wish to mutilate themselves, then, by all means, go for it. There's been cases of men having elective castration too. Whatever floats your boat. But when it comes to those under the age of consent, those kinds of medically unnecessary procedures should be banned in every case, with no allowance for "tradition."

That's all well and good, but how do you determine what's necessary and what's not? Give me a clear way of deciding. You're very eager to say that circumcision is totally unnessary, but what about the literature stating it can offer preventative benefits? Should that be completely disregarded?

 

[toscano]

Braces have no permanant effect.

Yes they do.

 

[BVS]

Yes they do.

On baby teeth? Please explain...

 

[BVS]

Hands up everyone anti-circumcision because it causes temporary pain to an infant and is medically unnecessary and the child didn't have a say ?

Ok, now hands up everyone who is anti outlawing the medically unnecessary killing of an unborn child (who also doesn't have a say).

hmmm........interesting.....pain for a few minutes, no, but death, yes ?

Can't stick with the discussion at hand so you have to bring up this? Sad.

 

[toscano]

On baby teeth? Please explain...

On teenager's teeth. You really don't know what they do ? Who mentioned putting braces on an infant's teeth ?

 

[toscano]

Can't stick with the discussion at hand so you have to bring up this? Sad.

Like ear piercing, or amputations have anything to do with circumcision. Someone doesn't like to be made to look like a hypocrite, I understand........

If medically unnecessary death is apparently OK in your eyes it'll certainly cast the rest of your "argument" in an appropriate light.

 

[BVS]

On teenager's teeth. You really don't know what they do ? Who mentioned putting braces on an infant's teeth ?

We're speaking about infants who don't have a say.

Now your analogy really doesn't work.

 

[BVS]

Like ear piercing, or amputations have anything to do with circumcision.

You are aware of what analogies are, correct? Ear piercing and circumcision both procedure with no medical purpose that are performed on infants who have no say in what they want. Get it?

Someone doesn't like to be made to look like a hypocrite, I understand........

Not sure what you are talking about. Who's being a hypocrite?

 

[toscano]

We're speaking about infants who don't have a say.

Now your analogy really doesn't work.

the analogy works fine, my kids didn't have a say in whether they got braces.

you really should try this site

www.rif.org

 

[toscano]

You are aware of what analogies are, correct? Ear piercing and circumcision both procedure with no medical purpose that are performed on infants who have no say in what they want. Get it?

absolutely.

ear piercings, amputations, killing

they're either all appropriate, or none are. pick one.

Not sure what you are talking about. Who's being a hypocrite?

sensitive ? You are pro-choice to inflict medically unnecessary death, right ?

 

[Irvine511]

firstly, i just knew toscano was an alter ...

but i am baffled as to how circumcision would increase seuxal pleasure. it makes no difference for the receptive partner, and you've lost 80% of your nerve endings.

true, you haven't had a lifetime of the head chaffing against your underware, but give it time.

the only advantage i can see is that the performance of oral sex upon a circumsized penis might be preferable to the performer.

sorry, is my mind in the gutter?



(this is what it comes down to for me: there is no need for circumcision, so why do it?)