Is circumcision moral?

[Caravaggio]

So you don't see the difference between end-of-life decisions and circumcision?

You seem to be reduced to meretricious and dissembling posturing. You are simply taking my words and inverting their meaning in a desperate attempt to restore some credibility to your "doctor knows best" conservativism.

Let's take this forensically, one step at a time. If I go wrong or tell a lie, call in the moderator, OK?

In post 143, in reply to you, I said :
" I completely agree with you on end of life euthanasia. But I fail to see the connection between voluntary self-deliverance at the end of life and involuntary, unnecessary, dick-cutting at its beginning"

I am clearly MAKING A DISTINCTION between end of life decisions and universal infant circumcision. Am I not?
(Go and check)
Yet you accuse me of failing to make such a distinction! This is absurd, I could not have been clearer. I introduced you to such a dististinction.
What you are trying to do here is to move towards my argument because you realise yours sounds archaic and ludicrous.

A baby has no language to discuss circumcision, transfusion, incubation, etc. with it's parents and/or doctors.

Precisely, which is why unnecessary surgical rituals should not be performed on babies.
That is exactly why I oppose circumcision.
You want it for every male child, regardless of whether it is beneficial or not.
You have told us that many times now.
You have chosen not to read links to the work of doctors who oppose routine circumcision. This implies that you cannot tolerate counter evidence


YOU are the one advocating the procedure as routine policy, remember?

You cannot oppose my arguments by agreeing with me, can you?

 

[alzan]

You seem to be reduced to meretricious and dissembling posturing. You are simply taking my words and inverting their meaning in a desperate attempt to restore some credibility to your "doctor knows best" conservativism.

Let's take this forensically, one step at a time. If I go wrong or tell a lie, call in the moderator, OK?

In post 143, in reply to you, I said :
" I completely agree with you on end of life euthanasia. But I fail to see the connection between voluntary self-deliverance at the end of life and involuntary, unnecessary, dick-cutting at its beginning"

I am clearly MAKING A DISTINCTION between end of life decisions and universal infant circumcision. Am I not?
(Go and check)
Yet you accuse me of failing to make such a distinction! This is absurd, I could not have been clearer. I introduced you to such a dististinction.
What you are trying to do here is to move towards my argument because you realise yours sounds archaic and ludicrous.

Yes you do make the distinction, my apologies

Precisely, which is why unnecessary surgical rituals should not be performed on babies.
That is exactly why I oppose circumcision.
You want it for every male child, regardless of whether it is beneficial or not.
You have told us that many times now.
You have chosen not to read links to the work of doctors who oppose routine circumcision. This implies that you cannot tolerate counter evidence

Where did I say that I wanted it for every male child whether beneficial or not? Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I said I wanted it to be the parents decision; if they choose to consult with a doctor who may be opposed to it that's up to them.

I don't agree that refusing to perform circumcisions should be decided upon by a few doctors or should be legislated via the government; it's the parent(s) who have the final say. And no, not reading links doesn't imply that I can't tolerate counter evidence; if it implies anything it implies that a) I've already read them or b) that I've read/heard other doctors/health professionals who've formulated their opinion and/or policy regarding circumcision.

YOU are the one advocating the procedure as routine policy, remember?

Please show me where I advocated circumcision as routine policy in this or any other country.

You cannot oppose my arguments by agreeing with me, can you?

You have a right to your opinion just as other people have a right to theirs.

 

[moonbogg]

You have a right to your opinion just as other people have a right to theirs.

Yes, people have a right to their opinions, but do they have a right to remove body parts from healthy babies? I say they don't. Morality is not a given. It evolves. There is nothing objective about morality. Instead, we learn from our mistakes once we collectively agree what those mistakes were. We collectively agree that slavery, although once socially acceptable, was a mistake and we no longer do it. The same will happen with circumcision. We are the arbiters of our own moral truth and that's a job that only we can do, and we are the only ones qualified to serve in that capacity.

 

[ControlD]

Yes, people have a right to their opinions, but do they have a right to remove body parts from healthy babies? I say they don't. Morality is not a given. It evolves. There is nothing objective about morality. Instead, we learn from our mistakes once we collectively agree what those mistakes were. We collectively agree that slavery, although once socially acceptable, was a mistake and we no longer do it. The same will happen with circumcision. We are the arbiters of our own moral truth and that's a job that only we can do, and we are the only ones qualified to serve in that capacity.

So by that definition morality must be subjective. If that is true, there will never be a consensus answer to your original question. It will always depend on the opinion of the person asked.

 

[moonbogg]

So by that definition morality must be subjective. If that is true, there will never be a consensus answer to your original question. It will always depend on the opinion of the person asked.

Is there a consensus on slavery? Of course there is, but there wasn't always and even now 100% of people don't agree. 100% of people will never agree on anything. What matters is the shift of the social tide, and it is rightly shifting away from circumcision.
Sometimes the social tide shifts in a painful direction, and that's something we have to deal with. No god is going to tell us what to do, so we have to do the best we can with what we got, and what we got is eachother and our reasoning abilities. Mine tells me not to cut and mutilate babies. What does yours tell you?

 

[alzan]

Yes, people have a right to their opinions, but do they have a right to remove body parts from healthy babies? I say they don't. Morality is not a given. It evolves. There is nothing objective about morality. Instead, we learn from our mistakes once we collectively agree what those mistakes were. We collectively agree that slavery, although once socially acceptable, was a mistake and we no longer do it. The same will happen with circumcision. We are the arbiters of our own moral truth and that's a job that only we can do, and we are the only ones qualified to serve in that capacity.

It's a decision best left to the parents; society, for all it's "good" intentions should not have a say; nor should a medical procedure be legislated one way or the other.

Let's say that your baby is born with a penis and a vagina; will you consult with a doctor or society to lead you to a decision of which one to keep and which to discard? When the child grows and has a preference to the sex you chose to discard, what now?

 

[ControlD]

Is there a consensus on slavery? Of course there is, but there wasn't always and even now 100% of people don't agree. 100% of people will never agree on anything. What matters is the shift of the social tide, and it is rightly shifting away from circumcision.
Sometimes the social tide shifts in a painful direction, and that's something we have to deal with. No god is going to tell us what to do, so we have to do the best we can with what we got, and what we got is eachother and our reasoning abilities. Mine tells me not to cut and mutilate babies. What does yours tell you?

I don't have a god to ask. As a baby my also non religious parents decided to have me circumcised, so I reject the notion that it is a purely religious argument.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Mine tells me not to cut and mutilate babies. What does yours tell you?

My reason tells me that you are wrapping this in highly emotional language instead of making a rational argument. Once I reject circumcision as 'mutilation' it is not so clear.

 

[Caravaggio]

To Alzan re:152

Alzan, I shall keep this one brief and return to the fray later. The topic is too significant for me to simply walk away.

I thank you for your apology, which I accept, of course.

It takes cojones to apologise and you go up in my estimation for doing so.
Likewise, if I have misrepresented your views I am sorry for that in my turn.

I'm sure we will lock horns later on this thread but we can both step back and reflect for an hour or two.

 

[xaeniac]

A pagan should not be asking of morality

 

[ControlD]

A pagan should not be asking of morality

That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Caravaggio]

To Alazan (and anyone else still interested)

I've been thinking about a couple of issues you raised.
You advocate parental choice in consultation with a doctor, to determine the decision to circumcise.
That sounds so reasonable, almost obvious, but I would like to explore the limits to parental 'rights' in this matter by looking at what can go wrong when :

1) parental judgement is over-influenced by cultural pressures and norms

2) when doctors are themselves over-influenced by ritual traditions (as in the USA)

Also, we could discuss sexually transmitted disease rates? It is always asserted by the circumcisers that circumcision reduces the incidence of STD's. Yet the US, a nation with a very high circumcision rate, has far higher rates of the four major STDs, than Canada, UK, Australia and Sweden, where rates of circumcision are very low. (For data just google STD, US and Canada compared)

You still up for that? Or do you feel you have said all you need to?

 

[alzan]

To Alazan (and anyone else still interested)

I've been thinking about a couple of issues you raised.
You advocate parental choice in consultation with a doctor, to determine the decision to circumcise.
That sounds so reasonable, almost obvious, but I would like to explore the limits to parental 'rights' in this matter by looking at what can go wrong when :

1) parental judgement is over-influenced by cultural pressures and norms

2) when doctors are themselves over-influenced by ritual traditions (as in the USA)

Also, we could discuss sexually transmitted disease rates? It is always asserted by the circumcisers that circumcision reduces the incidence of STD's. Yet the US, a nation with a very high circumcision rate, has far higher rates of the four major STDs, than Canada, UK, Australia and Sweden, where rates of circumcision are very low. (For data just google STD, US and Canada compared)

You still up for that? Or do you feel you have said all you need to?

Perhaps I'm a little close to the situation to be objective but I highly doubt my parents succumbed to societal pressure. My father was uncut yet his three sons are all cut. Knowing him as I do I believe he and my mother agreed to circumcision for health reasons. I can't really speak to the doctor but I would guess he went with the thinking prevalent in the mid to late 50's.

As far as STD's I couldn't say but I do know that there's lots of ways to pass them whether cut or not. I'm no sexual gadfly but I've never contracted one in my 20+ years of unmarried sexual antics.

 

[sweenish]

"Is there a consensus on slavery? Of course there is."

Well, that's utter BS.

Obviously people still trading slaves today think it's a perfectly good way to make a living. The slave trade is just as alive today as it was 200 years ago.

 

[moonbogg]

"Is there a consensus on slavery? Of course there is."

Well, that's utter BS.

Obviously people still trading slaves today think it's a perfectly good way to make a living. The slave trade is just as alive today as it was 200 years ago.

I misspoke. I meant to say the majority of people agree in this country and almost all other countries. There's always some who won't agree but we don't allow slavery anyway.

 

[piasabird]

Are Tattoos Moral?
Is it moral to have sex before marriage?
It is hard to say if you have no norms and no real morality.

I had a female business Instructor for Bus 131 and she said ethics is what feels right for you and that covered the entire chapter on ethics.

Since I am cut, how would I know what the difference is. Maybe run a circumcision poll.
I am circumcised because of religion
I am not circumcised
I am circumcised and I don't know why
I am female.

 

[Caravaggio]

Perhaps I'm a little close to the situation to be objective but I highly doubt my parents succumbed to societal pressure.

We are all very close to this debate, whether cut or uncut! I am not claiming objectivity about my foreskin.
Most parents want the best for their children so if they cannot judge an issue they will seek advice. It seems to be a medical issue so they will go to a doctor or accept written medical guidance.
The strange thing here is that in Canada you will be advised not to cut (if the boy is normal and healthy) but below the 49th you will be advised to go for circumcision. Canada and the USA are not different worlds.
We need to talk about how that can happen in the modern world?

My father was uncut yet his three sons are all cut. Knowing him as I do I believe he and my mother agreed to circumcision for health reasons. I can't really speak to the doctor but I would guess he went with the thinking prevalent in the mid to late 50's.

Agreed. But did your father ever discuss any problems he had with his uncircumcised penis? Of course, I cannot possibly know, but I am guessing that your Dad would have had his penis 'fixed', if at any time he thought it posed a problem to his fertility or your mother's health?

Do you get where I am coming from?
I am suggesting that a fashion changed and your father was advised to go with the new fashion.
Since then medical science has made an open commitment to "evidential medicine". You don't carry out any procedure unless there are good grounds for doing so.
In the 1950s and 60s pre-frontal Lobotomy was very popular. It is no longer performed.

 

[piasabird]

Well it does not say in the Bible "Thou shalt not circumcise."

This is kind of like asking is it moral to pierce your ears. It use to be use to identify slaves.

 

[ControlD]

Canada and the USA are not different worlds.
We need to talk about how that can happen in the modern world?

Canada and the USA have two very different health care systems. You can take a conspiratorial view in two very different ways depending on how you want to frame the argument.

(1) The doctors in the USA are greedy and want the money that comes from the procedure. The insurance companies and individual deductibles are footing the bill so go ahead and recommend it.

(2) Canada has state run healthcare. Rather than have to foot the bill for potentially every single male child born in the country, advise the parents to forgo the procedure and save the system millions of dollars.

Perhaps there is a little of both to the argument, but I don't think comparing the rates of circumcision is all that easy when differing healthcare models are part of the equation.

 

[alzan]

We are all very close to this debate, whether cut or uncut! I am not claiming objectivity about my foreskin.
Most parents want the best for their children so if they cannot judge an issue they will seek advice. It seems to be a medical issue so they will go to a doctor or accept written medical guidance.
The strange thing here is that in Canada you will be advised not to cut (if the boy is normal and healthy) but below the 49th you will be advised to go for circumcision. Canada and the USA are not different worlds.
We need to talk about how that can happen in the modern world?

Close to my parents I meant. I would guess it was health that led them to their decision; we're not Jewish or Muslim. How it can happen I have no idea. I'm more interested in stopping the wholly barbaric practice of female clitirodectomies; that ritual needs to stop post haste!

Agreed. But did your father ever discuss any problems he had with his uncircumcised penis? Of course, I cannot possibly know, but I am guessing that your Dad would have had his penis 'fixed', if at any time he thought it posed a problem to his fertility or your mother's health?

Dad wasn't much for discussing his uncircumcised penis or any problems with it. He didn't have a fertility problem, myself and my brothers are living proof. Would he have done anything if it risked Mom's health? Hard to say. I believe he took good care of his uncut penis; he was singularly proud of it. Even showed my not yet wife a picture of himself wearing nothing but a fig leaf with the comment "That fig leaf was just barely long enough."

Do you get where I am coming from?
I am suggesting that a fashion changed and your father was advised to go with the new fashion.
Since then medical science has made an open commitment to "evidential medicine". You don't carry out any procedure unless there are good grounds for doing so.
In the 1950s and 60s pre-frontal Lobotomy was very popular. It is no longer performed.

Fashion? Doubtful. Dad prided himself on his love of reading and researching topics of interest; I'm guessing that not only did he check with our pediatricians but also his own doctor and some relatives who were nurses.

 

[Caravaggio]

Canada and the USA have two very different health care systems. You can take a conspiratorial view in two very different ways depending on how you want to frame the argument.

(1) The doctors in the USA are greedy and want the money that comes from the procedure. The insurance companies and individual deductibles are footing the bill so go ahead and recommend it.

(2) Canada has state run healthcare. Rather than have to foot the bill for potentially every single male child born in the country, advise the parents to forgo the procedure and save the system millions of dollars.

Perhaps there is a little of both to the argument, but I don't think comparing the rates of circumcision is all that easy when differing healthcare models are part of the equation.

Dave, thanks, you sum it up clearly. I know nothing about the finer points of the U.S. vs Canadian systems. I am a Brit. But I have cousins in Maine and Vancouver and both seem to complain about health care premiums, or are they making this up? I have free NHS healthcare but I also pay insurance for emergency treatment in case I get something urgent, like a hernia, that I might have to wait a year for on the NHS.
If I was really ill, stroke or motorbike crash, I would rely on NHS, knowing it would be good. I think there is quite a bit of that 'blending' in most cultures. Certainly France and the Netherlands.

But back to foreskins.
If the Canadian system is turning foreskins away and the U.S. is hunting them down, why is Canadian sexual health better than in the US? Given that sexual health benefits were always said to be the clincher argument for circumcision?Yes, I realise that there are likely to be other variables. But what might these be?
Until you can show me some serious factors, then I'm willing to believe that US boys get cut because US parents are told by US doctors, that they should be.
And yes, that does secure a revenue stream for the latter

 

[Caravaggio]

Fashion? Doubtful. Dad prided himself on his love of reading and researching topics of interest; I'm guessing that not only did he check with our pediatricians but also his own doctor and some relatives who were nurses.

Then there is a starkly obvious question which presents itself. If your father was so thorough in his research about the alleged benefits of circumcision, why did he not have himself circumcised?

It was not fashionable for his generation but it was for yours.
If the benefits were overwhelmingly positive he would surely want to have himself cut? Doesn't that follow?

Or was he worried about the pain involved?

So how did your careful, scholarly, Dad come to want you circumcised when he saw no reason to have the same procedure himself?

I think it goes something like this. You and I had flared jeans but our Dads would not have been seen dead in them. My Dad was advised that cutting was unnecessary, your Dad was told otherwise.

Our dress norms at that time were universal, whereas the circumcision norm was strongly local in the US and weakening elsewhere.

 

[ControlD]

Dave, thanks, you sum it up clearly. I know nothing about the finer points of the U.S. vs Canadian systems. I am a Brit. But I have cousins in Maine and Vancouver and both seem to complain about health care premiums, or are they making this up? I have free NHS healthcare but I also pay insurance for emergency treatment in case I get something urgent, like a hernia, that I might have to wait a year for on the NHS.
If I was really ill, stroke or motorbike crash, I would rely on NHS, knowing it would be good. I think there is quite a bit of that 'blending' in most cultures. Certainly France and the Netherlands.

But back to foreskins.
If the Canadian system is turning foreskins away and the U.S. is hunting them down, why is Canadian sexual health better than in the US? Given that sexual health benefits were always said to be the clincher argument for circumcision?Yes, I realise that there are likely to be other variables. But what might these be?
Until you can show me some serious factors, then I'm willing to believe that US boys get cut because US parents are told by US doctors, that they should be.
And yes, that does secure a revenue stream for the latter

I am no expert on the Canadian system, but from talking with Canadian colleagues I believe that it is a "semi" state funded system where primary health care is covered by the state but things like prescription drugs are paid for by the individual. I'm sure someone else could explain it better than I can!

For the record, I don't believe the STD argument is a valid reason for circumcision. If that were the only argument for the practice I think we could simply agree and call it a day. But it isn't.

As far as STD rates in the USA vs. Canada, there are probably several reasons. I am an engineer not a sociologist, so this might all be wrong but I have some hunches. First, the population makeup is quite different between the countries. The USA has more dense population areas comprised of poor and/or uneducated people. I believe STD rates are higher in such areas. Also, you have this pervasive puritanical sexual outlook that we have never really gotten past. Kids are still having as much sex as anywhere else, but it's embarrassing to admit to. So, rather than go to Walmart and buy a box of condoms it is easier to just practice less safe methods of birth control (truck driver method, rhythm method, oral only, etc.) which do nothing to prevent STDs.

 

[master_shake_]

Canada and the USA have two very different health care systems. You can take a conspiratorial view in two very different ways depending on how you want to frame the argument.

(1) The doctors in the USA are greedy and want the money that comes from the procedure. The insurance companies and individual deductibles are footing the bill so go ahead and recommend it.

(2) Canada has state run healthcare. Rather than have to foot the bill for potentially every single male child born in the country, advise the parents to forgo the procedure and save the system millions of dollars.

Perhaps there is a little of both to the argument, but I don't think comparing the rates of circumcision is all that easy when differing healthcare models are part of the equation.

300-400 iirc

 

[Caravaggio]

........ So, rather than go to Walmart and buy a box of condoms it is easier to just practice less safe methods of birth control (truck driver method, rhythm method, oral only, etc.) which do nothing to prevent STDs.

I agree with your discussion about the socio-economic differences. The U.S. has greater extremes of wealth and poverty, IMHO.

I am willing to bet that religion plays a part too, as you hint.

BTW, what exactly is the "truck driver method" of birth control?