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

[JerryL]

What is it that you imagine I changed?

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

Became

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

I know it was like 1 post ago: but do please try to keep up.

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

Wrongly.

You believe that I cannot logically assert that the age of circumcision isn't relevant to the outcome?

No, that does not follow. Non-sequitur.

Ahh. So you agree that circumcising infants will reduce HIV, HPV, UTI, and several other health issues?

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

I agree that the "condoms are bad" assertion by the Catholic church has done harm. Turns out the circumcision practice has reduced harm. I prefer to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

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.

New Policy Supports Choice for Male Circumcision

Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not : Shots - Health News : NPR

Benefits of infant circumcision outweigh risks, top pediatrics group says - CNN.com

CDC Set to Recommend Male Circumcision | Circumcision

 

[Bunyip]

Became


I know it was like 1 post ago: but do please try to keep up.

That is the same claim - just worded differently. You are not making sense.

Wrongly.


No, that does not follow. Non-sequitur.

Ahh. So you agree that circumcising infants will reduce HIV, HPV, UTI, and several other health issues?


Which explains why Catholic African nations have a lower instance than their non-Catholic neighbors?

I agree that the "condoms are bad" assertion by the Catholic church has done harm. Turns out the circumcision practice has reduced harm. I prefer to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.


New Policy Supports Choice for Male Circumcision

Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not : Shots - Health News : NPR

Benefits of infant circumcision outweigh risks, top pediatrics group says - CNN.com

The very same group has stated that the benefits of circumcision do not warrant recommending it for all baby boys. So it is a proceduremthat is not beneficial enough to warrant them recommening it.

CDC Set to Recommend Male Circumcision | Circumcision

CDC - Recommendations - Male Circumcision - Research - Prevention Research - HIV/AIDS

 

[JerryL]

That is the same claim - just worded differently. You are not making sense.

No. It's clearly not.

The very same group has stated that the benefits of circumcision do not warrant recommending it for all baby boys. So it is a proceduremthat is not beneficial enough to warrant them recommening it.

To get the first part out of the way: you admit your claim one post ago that no doctors were recommending it was complete hogwash?

Which group? The CDC? Please cite the CDC recommending that no boys be circumcised (which is your claim, since you assert it's child abuse).

 

[Bunyip]

No. It's clearly not.


To get the first part out of the way: you admit your claim one post ago that no doctors were recommending it was complete hogwash?

I made no such claim. Read my comment again.

Which group? The CDC? Please cite the CDC recommending that no boys be circumcised (which is your claim, since you assert it's child abuse).

I made no such claim, you are tilting at windmills.

Try to read comments more carefully, it may help.

 

[JerryL]

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.

New Policy Supports Choice for Male Circumcision

Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not : Shots - Health News : NPR

Benefits of infant circumcision outweigh risks, top pediatrics group says - CNN.com

CDC Set to Recommend Male Circumcision | Circumcision[/QUOTE]

So your claim "they [doctors] don't support the idea" is complete hogwash?

 

[Bunyip]

New Policy Supports Choice for Male Circumcision

Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not : Shots - Health News : NPR

Benefits of infant circumcision outweigh risks, top pediatrics group says - CNN.com

Yes, you have posted that citation several times - and yet despite it being pointed out to you each time have not read it. That group states that the benefits are not sufficient to warrant universal circumcision.

CDC Set to Recommend Male Circumcision | Circumcision

So your claim "they [doctors] don't support the idea" is complete hogwash?[/QUOTE]

 

[JerryL]

Yes, you have posted that citation several times - and yet despite it being pointed out to you each time have not read it. That group states that the benefits are not sufficient to warrant universal circumcision.

" the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says they want parents to know that the benefits of the procedure outweigh its small risks."

So your claim "they [doctors] don't support the idea" is complete hogwash?

 

[Bunyip]

" the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says they want parents to know that the benefits of the procedure outweigh its small risks."

So your claim "they [doctors] don't support the idea" is complete hogwash?

How so? They don't. They do not believe the benefits are sufficient to recommend it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

I suspect the health benefits question is a red herring here anyway. The real question is about whether genital mutilation is justified on religious grounds.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

No, I'm saying that any relationship between sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision, even if real and significant, is irrelevant when choosing between circumcizing a boy as a baby and circumcizing him when he's older but before he becomes sexually active.

I look forward to the link.

I remembered it a bit wrong: the increase in UTI rates was for the first month of life for children circumcized according to Jewish custom (i.e. at 8 days old):

An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision [51]. The incidence of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision (from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the rest of the year.

Neonatal circumcision revisited | Position statements and practice points | Canadian Paediatric Society

What are the numbers for the next 17 years afterwards though?

Overall, the risk of complications from circumcision outweigh any benefit at preventing urinary tract infection:

Chessare [116] developed a model for decisions concerning circumcision of newborn male infants to prevent UTIs.
[...]
For the set of values assigned to the possible outcomes, the highest expected benefit was obtained from the choice not to circumcise. The choice would remain not to circumcise even if none of the infants circumcised had complications as a result of the procedure and would change only if the probability of a UTI in the first year of life was 29% or greater.

Thompson [21] interpreted the published data by considering a hypothetical cohort of 2000 newborn male infants, half of whom were circumcised and half of whom were not. Given an incidence of UTI of 0.1% in the circumcised boys and of 1.0% in the uncircumcised ones during the first year of life, he calculated that there would be nine more UTIs for every 1000 newborns who were not circumcised. Thus, 99.9% of the circumcised infants would not experience a UTI, whereas 99.0% of the uncircumcised group would not have a UTI. Given a complication rate of 0.2% [91], Thompson estimated that, whereas 9 boys out of 1000 circumcised would benefit from circumcision, 12 would have moderately severe complications. At a complication rate of 4.0%, 41 boys would have moderately severe or worse complications. He concluded that the potential benefit to 9 in 1000 boys would be more than offset by the rate of moderately severe or worse complications, even if this rate was as low as 0.2%.

Neonatal circumcision revisited | Position statements and practice points | Canadian Paediatric Society

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you want consent from what? A 9 year old?

I'd take a similar approach to tattooing: some jurisdictions require the person getting the tattoo to be at least 18; others allow teenagers to be tattooed with a parent's permission.

To perform this process when there is a higher likelihood of complications and a longer recovery time?

... or not perform the process at all and look for other ways to achieve any benefit that circumcision might provide.

You know, that's how medicine usually works: doctors don't go around saying "here's a technique we've come up with - let's do it to everyone if we can identify any benefit at all"; they say "here's a medical condition - what's the best way to treat or prevent it?" Your approach to circumcision is backward.

And you are just going to ignore the things that aren't HIV/HPV that happen.

Exactly what do you think I'm ignoring?

Where are the mobs of circumcised men marching to end this? Where are the "abuse support" groups that specialize in this?

Here are a few:

Circumcision is Medically Unnecessary, Painful, Risky, and Unethical: Intact America
http://www.nocirc.org/
Jews Against Circumcision

I'm really looking for evidence of harm; but I don't see anything.

Of course you don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?)

It's not so much logically fallacious as it is unthoughtful. You have to be very careful trying to apply conclusions from one population (e.g. one with a high HIV infection rate and low condom use) to a different one (e.g. one with a low HIV rate and high condom use).

This gets even more tricky when you consider just who those studies actually considered. Some examples:

- clients of prostitutes in Kenya
- STD clinic patients in Zambia
- men with genital ulcer disease in Kenya

Source: Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention?

These groups are very different from the typical North American, and those differences are relevant to risk. Even if circumcizing a Kenyan man who frequents prostitutes who have genital ulcers from previous STDs would be beneficial, we can't infer from this circumcising a monogamous New Englander who's diligent about condom use will have the same benefits... or even any benefits at all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'd take a similar approach to tattooing: some jurisdictions require the person getting the tattoo to be at least 18; others allow teenagers to be tattooed with a parent's permission.

Yes, any form of genital mutilation should be an adult choice, not something imposed on a young child who has no say in the matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, any form of genital mutilation should be an adult choice, not something imposed on a young child who has no say in the matter.

I agree. In that respect, circumcision shouldn't be different from tattooing or scarification: it's culturally significant to some people, and almost all the people who have undergone it have gone on to live full and complete lives, but here in the West, we don't do it to kids.

 

[JerryL]

No, I'm saying that any relationship between sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision, even if real and significant, is irrelevant when choosing between circumcizing a boy as a baby and circumcizing him when he's older but before he becomes sexually active.

So mutilate the genitals of 12-year-olds? When the procedure is more painful, takes longer to heal, and has a higher likelihood of complications?

As well as ignore the other (previously listed) benefits?

I remembered it a bit wrong: the increase in UTI rates was for the first month of life for children circumcized according to Jewish custom (i.e. at 8 days old):

Yea. The first year UTI rate is actually 90% lower in circumcised boys.

Neonatal circumcision revisited | Position statements and practice points | Canadian Paediatric Society

"Given an 85-year life expectancy, these investigators calculated that the expected lifetime cost of routine neonatal circumcision was $164.61 per patient, and the quality-adjusted survival was 84.999 years. For those not circumcised, the expected mean lifetime cost was $139.26 per patient and the quality-adjusted survival was 84.71 years. The investigators therefore concluded there was no medical indication for circumcision or contraindication against it. "

It seems like circumcised men live just a little bit longer.

Overall, the risk of complications from circumcision outweigh any benefit at preventing urinary tract infection:

Unless you are looking solely at UTIs, you don't agree with the conclusion of the Canadian Pediatric Society you quoted above.

I'd take a similar approach to tattooing: some jurisdictions require the person getting the tattoo to be at least 18; others allow teenagers to be tattooed with a parent's permission.

Tattoo are not medical procedures. (and, I suspect, if there was a religion that tattooed, it would be allowed under the 1st amendment)

... or not perform the process at all and look for other ways to achieve any benefit that circumcision might provide.

So should we also "stop chemotherapy and look for other ways to fight cancer"?

I'm pretty sure you are supposed to find other ways *before* stopping the current ways.

You know, that's how medicine usually works: doctors don't go around saying "here's a technique we've come up with - let's do it to everyone if we can identify any benefit at all"; they say "here's a medical condition - what's the best way to treat or prevent it?" Your approach to circumcision is backward.

Like immunizations? The best way to treat or prevent the flu is to avoid contact with people with the flu; but we give flu vaccines.

Also: moving goalposts.

Exactly what do you think I'm ignoring?

• Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Here are a few:

Circumcision is Medically Unnecessary, Painful, Risky, and Unethical: Intact America
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers Intactivists
Jews Against Circumcision

So I looked at some of those pages. Here's a gem: "Fallible men devised circumcision as a way to curb masturbation. "

There's little indication that any of these are actually circumcised men opposing that they were circumcised. It's hard to even take the last one seriously.

Do you have some real data?

It's not so much logically fallacious as it is unthoughtful. You have to be very careful trying to apply conclusions from one population (e.g. one with a high HIV infection rate and low condom use) to a different one (e.g. one with a low HIV rate and high condom use).

This gets even more tricky when you consider just who those studies actually considered. Some examples:

- clients of prostitutes in Kenya
- STD clinic patients in Zambia
- men with genital ulcer disease in Kenya

Source: Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention?

These groups are very different from the typical North American, and those differences are relevant to risk. Even if circumcizing a Kenyan man who frequents prostitutes who have genital ulcers from previous STDs would be beneficial, we can't infer from this circumcising a monogamous New Englander who's diligent about condom use will have the same benefits... or even any benefits at all.

So enlighten me. What do New Englanders who get HIV do differently than Africans that get HIV do that would cause circumcision to affect one and not the other?

And I love the use of the prejudicial term "mutilate". It is technically correct; but in the same way that a barber "mutilates" hair.