Male Infant Circumcision? YES or NO

I don't care who does it or not - as long as it doesn't become a law for everybody to do it. My previous post are basically my opinions on the topic, if it doesn't represent a health hazard, I won't even think about it. I know of someone that did it for his girlfriend and this is what I have to say to any person who would request something like that from me - if you don't like the product the way it came - return it for full refund!!!

I agree Rayva, it should not be illegal, either or. No law for or against.

Joe,

Given the evidence that "the hygiene argument" is false, I think the only difference between the "circumcision case" and the "swastika case" are the sizes of their support groups (real or hypothetical). Both are an infringement of "the child's rights" based on arguments of "group identity" and "parental rights". But since the concept of "rights" is nebulous and based on political expediency and social pressure, the circumcision=mutilation lobby (with which I sympathize) has little chance at present.

I'm not convinced that the "hygiene argument" is false. It appears that the medical studies are, at this point, inconclusive or contradictory. For the sake of argument, however, I'll accept that the health benefits of circumcision are insignificant.

As for the support groups, I am also unaware of any group loudly advocating swastika tattoos for infants. But then I don't know of any state that allows tattoo artists to inscribe their works on minors, regardless of political content. Now, I don't know if these laws apply only to licensed professionals, or if they would also apply to an amateur inking a swastika on his child (perhaps he could be convicted of practicing tattooistry without a license). Fortunately, for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think we need to pursue this subject.


I have absolutely no clue what is meant by denying someone's rights based on an argument of "group identity." Perhaps you would care to explain?

With regard to the child's rights, I think we have to take into consideration the parents' rights as well (something that you touch upon, albeit briefly). After all, if the only consideration here was the child's rights, then there would be no reason to favor the parents' decisions over those of the state, or even those of some benevolent stranger. Indeed, given its enormous resources, it is difficult to imagine a situation where the state couldn't make better decisions than parents when it comes to raising children.

Most societies, however, give a great deal of deference to parents' decisions regarding the upbringing of their children. That deference, furthermore, is routinely extended to the area of medical decisions. Thus a parent typically has a "right" to determine what is medically in the best interests of the child, and the child has very little say in the matter.

When it is suggested, therefore, that parents, through the act of circumcision, infringe on a child's rights, we also need to consider whether forbidding the parents from making this kind of decision infringes on their rights. And if there is, in fact, a conflict of rights here, then we need to determine whose rights prevail.

Now, if we already have determined that circumcision is not a medical procedure but more of an "esthetic" act akin to tattooing, we may have resolved that conflict. But then again, maybe not. Parents, after all, typically have as much freedom to make esthetic choices for their kids as they have to make medical choices for them. A parent, for instance, can force a child to get braces,* even though the esthetic benefits of straight teeth often outweigh the purely medical benefits of the procedure (if that were not the case, the British people would have perished long ago).

Consequently, identifying circumcision as a purely "esthetic" procedure does not necessarily end the debate. So, fresco, if you are proposing a standard by which children have a "right" not to be circumcised, you'll have to do more than simply say the operation has no medical benefits. Instead, you'll have to explain why the decision to perform this particular procedure should not be left to the discretion of the parents.


*I know that "braces" in the UK are "suspenders" in the US: I have no idea what the orthodontic devices are called in the UK, but then perhaps they are completely unknown there. Here's a website where you can learn more.

These are not tatoos ! ! !

They are skin illustrations . . .

In seriousness, there was gentleman who contended, at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, that there had been a culture, which he named the heliolithic culture, which was identifiable over quite a geographic range. His contention was based upon what he referred to as a "constellation" of cultural practices, among which was circumcision (as well as scarification and tatooing--his contention was that these three formed a part of a fetish of self-mutilation).

Whether or not this theory has currency in the current anthropoligical community is of no interest to me, it is not significant to why i read history. Whether or not, however, the suggestion that circumcision is many millenia old as a practice is suggestive to me of something else. I have long contended that the medical profession far overrates its importance to the community. The comparative longevity which we are able to enjoy over even our recent ancestors comes more from than efforts of civil engineers, plumbers, automobile designers and manufacturers and garbage collectors than it does with the medical professional--which historically, is only briefly removed from the practice of expensive mumbo-jumbo and ill-considered guesswork. The significance to me is that i have always expressed that the human race has thrived and prospered, increasing steadily in numbers and sophistication, for millenia, without the benefit of the medical profession (and incidentally, despite the benefit of clergy). I would point out that the practice of circumcision has seemed not to have notably interferred in the steadily increasing population and prosperity. I consider ranting against it to be unhealthy obsession. If one doesn't wish to do so, don't.

Anyway, there's always the question of smegma . . .


Although a life-long Giants fan (even after the bastards left New York), i would still be delighted to see the Cubbies conquer all before them right through the Fall Classic.

Joe,

Thanks for those comments. ("Braces" for teeth also in UK). What you do not cover in your argument is that parents are inflicting pain on the child or risking its physical health by an elective procedure.
Why should that be different from say outlawing physical chastisement as is the case in some European countries?

Fresco
You talk of pain and risking physical health. Have you ever witnessed a circumcision? A little wine on the lips eases whatever pain there may be. And as for the risking of health. There is none. In addition IMO it is no ones business other than the child's parents

au1929, a friend of mine used to joke that he pees on a slant because his moyel was drunk at the time of his circumcision.
Of my two brothers and I, one of us is not circumcised. The other two used to kid him with the nickname, "Sleevy." We never told outsiders what it meant--a modicum of civility.
If it were demonstrated that the pain of circumcision had a long term traumatic effect on the psyche of the individual, THEN I might become concerned.

JLNobody
It always seemed to me that the uncircumcised were peeing through the torn finger of a glove.

If pain infliction were the only concern, then you would presumably have no objection to circumcision under anesthesia.


Physical chastisement is a rather different subject, since it also brings into consideration the proper limits of punishment. Unless a parent is threatening a child with circumcision if, for instance, he doesn't clean his room, I don't really see the parallel.

Joe,

I have witnessed several Jewish circumcisions.

...the taking of the child from its mother (wisely) in another room...the chanting....the scream as the blood spurts...the crescendo of voices.....and once the calling of the ambulance because the blood would not stop....

For me this is clearly a fertility right not much different from the circumcision of African females at puberty. Indeed the biblical references link it to "fruitfulness" (Genesis).

I wonder what the takeup rate would be if the operation could only be performed with the adult subject's consent !

blood is not the part, but taking the child from its mother, screaming, crescendo of voices...etc...are scenes often seen in Catholic baptising of infants, as well.

Generally I disagree with circumcisions on a same level on which I disagree with baptising of unaware individual. And I think all such things should be left for person to decide when he or she reaches certain age. However, I don't think that my moral views should be generally accepted and therefore I doubt that I would vote for a law that would make any religious ceremony involving children illegal.

It is performed on an 8 day old infant. Which is very much different than an adult. I believe the Moslems do it when the child has reached the age of 12 or 13.[ Not sure]

I think a bit before, but definitely in school-age (at least that's how it is in Bosnia)

I think these remarks were intended for au1929, not me. I never asked if you had witnessed a circumcision, and frankly I don't care.

This is an ironic argument as circumcision is an imposition of opinion by physical force.

The whole "imposition" argument makes a lot more sense against circumcision than for it.

I've been ignoring this thread til now, because for this topic most people bring preconceived notions to argue for and I don't recall anybody coming away any different at the end in the other like discussions. I just wish to say that in my family the oldest boys are not circumcised while the younger are. Out of seven, three were not and four were. I have not noticed that it effected any of our lives in the slightest. We all grew up without disease or related sexual problems. In short, it's a lot of fuss over nothing.

Ok, so how about the ethical argument. Here you have a procedure where there are some risks and some benefits. Weighing those, no major medical organization in the world says that the benefits outweigh the risks. Shouldn't the weight of evidence for circumcising be on the shoulders of the medical community? By circumcising an infant, you are making an irreversible decision without medical cause.

We are not talking about a tattoo or piercing the ears here... you are talking about taking a knife to an infants genitals and removing a large chuck of sensitive skin. You are changing the way the male sex organ was designed to function. You are removing the "gliding action" of the shaft skin/foreskin and you are leaving the glans exposed to the elements.

Doctors are supposed to live by a code of ethics: First do no harm. A doctor's first level of responsibility is to the needs of the patient (child) and THEN to the desires of the parent. Don't you think that a child has an inherent right to be genitally intact unless there is overwhelming evidence showing otherwise?

No pain???? That would be hard to prove, methinks!

Whose business?

Hmmm - some might argue that the child had some business with the decision. Of course, it is a little early for the child to make known their position in a forceful manner.

I would be amongst these people.