Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[quisquose 10]

Also, still awaiting to hear about Jewish kids who want their foreskin back.

 

You asked for a single example earlier, and I gave you one.

 

You've moved your request to the plural at least, but there are plenty of anti-circ websites run by Jews that regret their loss, and even restoration sites.

 

It was useful attending an all boy boarding school, and whilst the biscuit game was urban myth, there was inevitably a fair amount of comparison, and mutual exploration of awakening sexualities. I can honestly say that there was some curiosity and resentment from the handful of Roundheads, including my best friend who was Jewish, towards the majority of Cavaliers.

[Ian Dome 10]

Oh sorry, I didn't realised you had asked me a question. How the hell should I know how many people want their foreskin back?

.

In other words, you can't find a case. Which makes your crusade all the more odd. In other other words; nobody who has had this practice "imposed" on them, actually agree with you.

[finoni9 10]

Ultimately, it’s a personal decision, but the majority of parents do decide to have it done. Between 1997 and 2000, 61 percent of all newborn males in the U.S. were circumcised. Numerous studies have shown that circumcision can reduce the risk of urinary tract infections in male infants, and in later life can decrease the risk of penile cancer, penile inflammation and transmission of some STDs.

One study of 58,000 infants showed that the rate of hospitalization for bladder infections among circumcised males was 1.9 versus 7.0 for uncircumcised males.

Another recent study out of South Africa involving 3,000 men demonstrated that circumcision of adult men (ouch!) resulted in a decreased risk of infection with HIV after the men had intercourse with infected women. Other studies have looked at HIV risk in men who were circumcised as infants, and a review of 30 such studies found that uncircumcised men were 1.5 to 8.5 times more likely to contract HIV than those who had been circumcised.

Because I’m a gynecologist, I am also inclined to consider the effect of circumcision on the future health of women. Female partners of circumcised men have been shown to have a decreased incidence of cervical cancer. This may be due to reduction in risk of persistent human papillomavirus (HPV) among circumcised men.

Having said all this, I also want to mention the possible side effects of circumcision. The chief one is pain, followed by bleeding and infection. Some vocal anti-circumcision groups are highly incensed by the fact that a little baby cannot consent to the procedure. However, most children don’t consent to any of their healthcare; instead, they “rely” on their parents.

The official word of the American College of Pediatrics is that “existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits to newborn circumcision, but the data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

 

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/11006275/ns/today-today_health/t/should-i-have-my-baby-boy-circumcised/#.T-Mi3xf2bTo

[Riche 10]

Does that mean there will be fewer Schmocks in the world. With out a passport how will Arab terrorists know who to murder first in a plane hyjack. Apparanty the circumcised member is 1 cm shorty when flacid or erect due to scar tissue. I for one need every cm.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Riche

[evildrneil 14]

No it is NOT. As I have said MANY times, my argument is that it VIOLATES BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. It is an act of irreversible physical damage comitted against somebody who has no say in the matter.

 

The argument you are making is that a basic human right has been violated and that basic human right has been violated by the causing of harm but your argument doesn't rely on the causing of harm? Can you see the large problem in your logic?

 

You are going against the definition of harm with this, you continually ignore valid and important questions. You repeatedly bring the POSSIBLE health benefits up as your main argument in a thread in which the topic of religious reasons has no bearing on health matters.

 

Ermmm no I don't - I question whether what claim is causing harm is actually causing harm. If you take the very narrow view that any physical injury is "causing harm" whether it has a beneficial outcome in the long term or not means that the likes of inoculations (you stick a needle in a child and provide an insult to the immune system) would also have to be banned until the child is old enough to give informed consent. As your argument relies entirely on the causing of harm (see above) then it is only logical for a counter argument take the position that the physical injury that takes place during circumcision has a beneficial long term outcome and so is not harm.

 

At this point it has become clear you are simply trolling and I wish you a good time with your continuing efforts on this thread.

 

At this point it is clear you have lost the argument even in your own head and are going home and taking your ball

 

Before I head off to bed I will just remind you of my main two issues and give you another chance to answer them...

 

As your quotes haven't carried through here they are:

 

If my neighbour worshipped me, and he BELIEVED I was a god incarnate ( I don't see how you think this is any more ridiculous than it happening in the bible) and he made a covenant (an agreement/promise) with me to remove his earlobes (those things which have no use and removal helps prevent cancer of the earlobe) and the earlobes of his descendants, without their consent or consultation...

remembering your own words "Just because you don't believe in it doesn't make them wrong"...

How is that a straw man, and do you think it would be acceptable for his great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandsons to have their earlobes removed without their consent, as infants?

 

It's a straw man because you have taken an event and ignoring all the massive cultural, religious and spiritual significance and equated it to the event as a stand alone entity. The two events cannot be compared as once stripped of context they become meaningless.

 

and

 

This is not a valid agreement between the child and the god. The parents deciding to commit irreversible damage to the child, with no rational reason for it, is a violation of human rights. Do you disagree?

 

It's not up to me to disagree - nor is it up to you to tell believers that there is no valid agreement between the child and god. The parents have a perfectly good reason for performing a circumcision - they believe it is in the best interests of the child. Now obviously you don't believe this but that doesn't mean that you can instruct people who believe differently in another way.

 

.. this last one, to make it easier for you to wrestle with, "do you think that forced circumcision on an unwilling participant DOESN'T violate human rights?"

 

That's a completely different question as you have introduced an unwilling participant. If you mean do I disagree that male circumcision is a violation of human rights then no I don't. In the Jewish context circumcision is an entry into the faith and community and many studies have shown that community membership is psychologically very healthy and that people who are religious consistently report higher levels of happiness and live longer than those who don't. That (along with the cultural significance of the event) I would say outweigh the physical injury. Add to that current medical evidence which is that circumcision is physically beneficial and it becomes an even more positive thing.

[evildrneil 14]

Evil Doctor, would you be so strong in your defense if you didn't have a belief in a deity?

 

I didn't think I was being particularly strong in my defence - however to answer your question. We are talking about a set of religious and cultural mores that I don't buy into as while I entertain the notion of a god I don't consider religions to be anything more than a socially and culturally appropriate framework for the discussion of god and don't buy into any of them. That being the case then no any belief I have in a deity has no effect on my argument other than that I wish to see people free to pursue their religions without unwarranted intervention and I believe that this proposed ban is an unwarranted intervention.

[evildrneil 14]

You seriously need to ask whether the rights of a child not to be mutilated trumps the right of a parent to follow religious beliefs? What if they believe that they should chop a leg off, or sacrifice the baby, would you still be asking which right is paramount?

 

Nice appeal to emotion there. We are not talking about mutilation we are talking about a minor surgical procedure which has potential long term benefits in both the psychological and physical spheres. To try and compare it to lopping of leg is indeed loopy - I'm glad you saw the idiocy of your comment.

Edited June 21, 2012 by evildrneil

[Cyclone 10]

When is intervention warranted then, is it when the cultural mores require that they chop off something larger, a finger maybe, or how about an arm?

 

It's not a fallacy, removing parts of a body is correctly called mutilation, attempting to characterise it as something else is an attempt to avoid having to justify mutilation.

 

You're claiming psychological benefits now in addition to potential physical ones.

[Ian Dome 10]

I believe that this proposed ban is an unwarranted intervention.

 

i believe some peoples attitudes here have less to do with childcare and more to do with sticking it to religion, be it Judaism, Islam, or both. And of course bash the Americans at the same time.

[Cyclone 10]

The argument you are making is that a basic human right has been violated and that basic human right has been violated by the causing of harm but your argument doesn't rely on the causing of harm? Can you see the large problem in your logic?

Are you claiming that non consensual surgery to remove a part of the body for no medical reason isn't harm?

[Riche 10]

As the son of a Jewish farther and COE mother my dad against his families express wishes did not lob my schmock off. He felt it my choice when old enough to choose my religion if any. As it is I am undecided either way. On a trip to Isreal as a child I attended what you would describe as summer school during which I attended my cousins bar mitzvah. Whilst showing after swimming other noticed my intact weapon which caused much discussion amongst my relatives. I if I choose to be religious I would not touch the damn thing.

[evildrneil 14]

When is intervention warranted then, is it when the cultural mores require that they chop off something larger, a finger maybe, or how about an arm?

 

How about when it uniquivocally causes harm?

 

t's not a fallacy, removing parts of a body is correctly called mutilation, attempting to characterise it as something else is an attempt to avoid having to justify mutilation.

 

Mutilate:

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.

3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts

 

The penis is still fully functional and perfectly workable post circumcision and as to disfiguring that is personal choice but many express a preference for a "cut" penis. Looks like you have the wrong word then...

 

You're claiming psychological benefits now in addition to potential physical ones.

 

Yes - as I pointed out in another post circumcision in the Jewish experience circumcision is the entry into the Jewish community and religion. It's well known from many papers that membership of a community is good for the mental health and that the religious report higher levels of happiness and live longer.