Cicumcision: Does Religious Freedom Trump Child Autonomy or Is It Just Good Parenting

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just a reminder: this thread is about INFANT circumcision. Unless kids these days are becoming sexually active before they're toilet trained, there will be an opportunity to let the child give free and informed consent to having his foreskin removed before any dubious STD effects would matter even if they were real or significant.

 

[metis]

Quite right. This is why it's important to let each person weigh all the factors along with their own personal risks and benefits in order to make a decision for themselves. A baby can't do this.

BTW: if the pain of adult circumcision should be a consideration for us, what about the pain of cosmetic surgery to reconstruct a foreskin?

Whichever decision the parent makes, if the man the boy becomes decides to choose the opposite, there will be significant pain involved in making it happen. If we're not going to give any weight to the personal cost of replacing a foreskin that was removed, why should we give any weight to the personal cost of removing a foreskin that was left alone?

I think you're making way too much of this. As a parent, we make decisions all the time dealing with our kids, and there's no doubt that some common decisions we make will put our kids at some risk, which is what I've posted before. We may not hesitate to drive with our kids in the car 1000 miles on a vacation, which would put them at much more risk than having the boys being circumcised.

The fact of the matter is that there are some advantages to being circumcised, it's an extremely minor procedure, so I see nothing wrong with a parent making this decision. If you think otherwise, fine, then maybe don't circumcise your sons. I'm not going to try and micro-manage what you may do with your children. And I certainly don't want the government to micro-manage how we deal with our kids unless there's clear-cut evidence that a certain procedure is hazardous.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you're making way too much of this. As a parent, we make decisions all the time dealing with our kids, and there's no doubt that some common decisions we make will put our kids at some risk, which is what I've posted before. We may not hesitate to drive with our kids in the car 1000 miles on a vacation, which would put them at much more risk than having the boys being circumcised.

The most recent stats I could find for the US give the average rate of injury collisions at 74 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. At that rate, your odds of being in an injury collision on a 1000 mile trip are 0.074%.

OTOH, the complication rate for circumcision is around 2-3%.

In what sort of funky math is 2 to 3 "much more" than 0.074?

Also, it's not just a matter of risk; there's also benefit. On a family vacation, the benefit is hopefully a fun time for your family. With a ritual circumcision, the effect is to try to usurp your son's freedom of religion, which IMO isn't a benefit at all.

 

[metis]

The most recent stats I could find for the US give the average rate of injury collisions at 74 per 100 million vehicle miles travelled. At that rate, your odds of being in an injury collision on a 1000 mile trip are 0.074%.

OTOH, the complication rate for circumcision is around 2-3%.

In what sort of funky math is 2 to 3 "much more" than 0.074?

Also, it's not just a matter of risk; there's also benefit. On a family vacation, the benefit is hopefully a fun time for your family. With a ritual circumcision, the effect is to try to usurp your son's freedom of religion, which IMO isn't a benefit at all.

I'm afraid you really are missing the point, plus you do not speak for either me, who was circumcised as a baby, nor my son, who was also circumcised as a baby. Therefore, what you feel about circumcision is now quite irrelevant to me.

fini

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm afraid you really are missing the point, plus you do not speak for either me, who was circumcised as a baby, nor my son, who was also circumcised as a baby. Therefore, what you feel about circumcision is now quite irrelevant to me.

fini

You're free to take or leave my opinion as I see fit. As I've said several times now in threads on this topic, I'm not out to get infant circumcision banned. While I disagree with the practice, I think a ban would be unworkable. You have my non-interference, so I don't know what you're after here except maybe my approval, which you're not going to get.

But I think you're missing the point, because the physical effects of ritual circumcision are secondary to the much more important issue: trying to dictate the religion of your child.

This isn't unique to Jewish circumcision - it's built into the rituals of other religions as well, like infant baptism. It's fundamentally hypocritical to appeal to freedom of religion to defend practices like circumcision, because your right to be Jewish and your son's right NOT to be Jewish are the exact same right.

 

[metis]

But I think you're missing the point, because the physical effects of ritual circumcision are secondary to the much more important issue: trying to dictate the religion of your child.

This isn't unique to Jewish circumcision - it's built into the rituals of other religions as well, like infant baptism. It's fundamentally hypocritical to appeal to freedom of religion to defend practices like circumcision, because your right to be Jewish and your son's right NOT to be Jewish are the exact same right.

That is completely absurd. I was not brought up Jewish, plus I had my kids experience different religions even when young, plus I taught comparative religions whereas I also took my family "church hopping", plus I have never touted the "my way or the highway" approach when it comes to religion. To suggest that parents shouldn't bring up their children in a religious faith is nothing short of totalitarian nonsense that's about as far from being "liberal" as one could possibly be.

I am now Jewish, but was brought up in a fundamentalist Protestant church. My son is agnostic and yet was baptized and brought up Catholic. My older daughter and her kids converted to Judaism about 10 years ago. My younger daughter is still Catholic. Just because someone may be circumcised or baptized certainly doesn't mean they can't eventually choose on their own later.

The hypocrisy is yours, as you have conveniently stereotyped the situation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So in the Jewish tradition, circumcision isn't meant as an outward sign that a man is Jewish?

Edit: you touched on baptism. My ex was Catholic - when we started making plans to have children (which didn't happen, in retrospect thankfully), I did a lot of reading on the meaning of baptism and reflection on the issue. In the end, I decided that my conscience wouldn't let me part in a ceremony to declare a newborn baby a little Catholic.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Any kind of genital mutilation is child abuse, and no parent has the "right" to physically abuse their child.
It bothers me that this barbaric practice still goes on.

 

[metis]

So in the Jewish tradition, circumcision isn't meant as an outward sign that a man is Jewish?

First of all, let me apologize for my harsh words as I shouldn't allow myself to get that hyped up.

As to the question above, Jewish circumcision is viewed as such, but circumcision in general isn't. However, even if one is circumcised Jewish, that certainly isn't a compulsion that they must adhere to the faith in any way. Even if they remain Jewish, they may be even so far out as to be in my lunatic-left-wing brand of Judaism.

Sorry again, and take care.

 

[JerryL]

- If the stats you're using are the ones I think they are, then they're specifically for men circumcized as adults in high-HIV areas of Africa. They don't actually help the case for infant circumcision (since they suggest that you still get the benefits they describe if circumcision is delayed), and they're not directly applicable to other areas with lower HIV rates and better condom use.

Are you asserting that there's a special thing that happens if you are circumcised as an adult that doesn't happen if you are circumcised as a child that prevents HIV?

Or are you asserting that no one under the age of 18 has HIV?

- infant circumcision actually increases the risk of UTIs in the short term. I'll have to provide a link later (I'm on my phone ATM), but studies have shown that when circumcision is performed at less than 30 days of age (i.e. the time when the vast majority of infant circumcision is performed), there's a significantly increased rate of UTIs in the first year of life.

I look forward to the link. What are the numbers for the next 17 years afterwards though?

 

[JerryL]

Any kind of genital mutilation is child abuse, and no parent has the "right" to physically abuse their child.
It bothers me that this barbaric practice still goes on.

Any kind of medical intervention which prevents illness without harming long-term happiness is good parenting; and every parent has the "responsibility" to do what is best for their child.


You logical fallacy is "Assuming the consequent"

 

[Bunyip]

Any kind of medical intervention which prevents illness without harming long-term happiness is good parenting; and every parent has the "responsibility" to do what is best for their child.


You logical fallacy is "Assuming the consequent"

No. Your logical fallacy is that any of the advantages of circumcision necessitate performing it on infants.

 

[JerryL]

No. Your logical fallacy is that any of the advantages of circumcision necessitate performing it on infants.

You clearly don't know what a "logical fallacy" is.

 

[Bunyip]

You clearly don't know what a "logical fallacy" is.

Yeah, you say that whenever your logical failures get pointed out - I have read the thread mate. It is a remarkably weak evasion.

 

[JerryL]

Yeah, you say that whenever your logical failures get pointed out - I have read the thread mate. It is a remarkably weak evasion.

I'll call your bluff. *which* logical fallacy is it? Name it.

 

[Bunyip]

I'll call your bluff. *which* logical fallacy is it? Name it.

Sure. Non-sequitur.

You gave the statistics for African men circumcised as adults to argue for infant circumcision.

 

[JerryL]

Your logical fallacy is that any of the advantages of circumcision necessitate performing it on infants.

Sure. Non-sequitur.

You gave the statistics for African men circumcised as adults to argue for infant circumcision.

Notice that you just changed what you claimed was actually logically fallacious? And you wonder why no one respects your posts?

Though points for the attempt.

Let's look at your new claim. Circumcised adults get HIV at a lower rate than uncircumcised adults. (or are you asserting we cannot extrapolate studies on Africans to non-Africans without being logically fallacious?).

You believe that I cannot logically assert that the age of circumcision isn't relevant to the outcome? Which means you believe it's possible/likely that only when circumsized as an adult does it reduce HIV?

That would put a pretty big burden of proof on you. There's no support for it.

And there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence for the same result from Childhood circumcision. The reason these studies were done in the first place is because we noticed a correlation between Catholic communities that circumcised their infants and reduced HIV (in Africa)

 

[JerryL]

Just a reminder: this thread is about INFANT circumcision. Unless kids these days are becoming sexually active before they're toilet trained, there will be an opportunity to let the child give free and informed consent to having his foreskin removed before any dubious STD effects would matter even if they were real or significant.

So you want consent from what? A 9 year old? To perform this process when there is a higher likelihood of complications and a longer recovery time? And you are just going to ignore the things that aren't HIV/HPV that happen.

Where are the mobs of circumcised men marching to end this? Where are the "abuse support" groups that specialize in this? I'm really looking for evidence of harm; but I don't see anything.

 

[Bunyip]

Notice that you just changed what you claimed was actually logically fallacious? And you wonder why no one respects your posts?

Actually I got a lot of positive feedback, particularly from this thread. What is it that you imagine I changed?

Though points for the attempt.

Let's look at your new claim. Circumcised adults get HIV at a lower rate than uncircumcised adults. (or are you asserting we cannot extrapolate studies on Africans to non-Africans without being logically fallacious?).

LOL Nope. I am pointing out that there is nothing in the statistics you quoted that argues for infant circumcision.

You believe that I cannot logically assert that the age of circumcision isn't relevant to the outcome? Which means you believe it's possible/likely that only when circumsized as an adult does it reduce HIV?

No, that does not follow. Non-sequitur.

That would put a pretty big burden of proof on you. There's no support for it.

I made no such claim - you are addresjng your own non-sequitur.

And there's quite a bit of circumstantial evidence for the same result from Childhood circumcision. The reason these studies were done in the first place is because we noticed a correlation between Catholic communities that circumcised their infants and reduced HIV (in Africa)

The sad reality there is that Catholicism is largely what has caused the African aids epidemic by demonising contraception.

 

[Bunyip]

So you want consent from what? A 9 year old? To perform this process when there is a higher likelihood of complications and a longer recovery time? And you are just going to ignore the things that aren't HIV/HPV that happen.

Where are the mobs of circumcised men marching to end this? Where are the "abuse support" groups that specialize in this? I'm really looking for evidence of harm; but I don't see anything.

Where are the mobs of doctors saying that we should circumcise for health reasons? Oh...hang on, they don't support that idea do they? The position of the medical profession is that the benefits do not warrant universal circumcision.