So you think it would be perfectly okay to cut off a baby’s fingers or eyes too?
To protect them from eye cancer, perhaps? Or make it easier to keep fingernails clean?
I think I’ve already offered plenty of guidance. Cutting off a body part for such trifling reasons is absurd.
If social consequences are your guide, you are opening up a can of worms. The “social consequences” for an orthodox Jew of not being circumcised are far more serious to him than having unsighlty teeth. For one, estrangement from his immediate community.
Or are “social consequences” only of significance where the “society” in qusetion is the majority?
I would be “okay” with any procedure shown to have the same risk/benefit profile. I doubt that cutting off eyes and fingers would qualify, but make your case.
I agree it doesn’t rise to the level of conspiracy, but it is difficult to extricate the obvious inherent bias. Not of Jews or insurance hoarders but just of Americans. Do we see studies with this particular focus in countries where they don’t have our weird lingering cultural tradition? It’s not at tobacco industry levels but it does smell deeply of justification.
Circumcision had nothing to do with penile cancer or STDs originally, and I find it hard to believe that more than a bare scattering of parents genuinely have those concerns as their reasons for doing it. It’s a huge red herring.
I don’t doubt the results of the study itself, but it’s important to realize that while the results of a study may be scientific, policy recommendations based on them are not scientific.
I don’t think the study changes anything. As far as STDs, even in countries where AIDs is rampant and one might be desperate enough to consider it, it makes such a small dent compared to other methods of prevention that it shouldn’t be thought of as a useful tool. As far as penile cancer, hygiene seems to be an effective enough measure, and even assuming there were no possible complications or side effects or other considerations, it seems to me that we should not be encouraging preventative amputations.
The cultural judgement is in the application of a different standard of judgement because you have an issue with genitalia. “Disfiguring” is an arbitrary cultural standard. To prevent social consequences … that is not cultural in origin?!? You seem to place a high value on allowing culture for reasons of looking what you hold, based on culture, to be “attractive”, but derisive of a choice made if it even ever had anything to do with religion. So maybe I was wrong, this is not a problem you have with genitalia; its a contempt for anything that has anything to do with religion even if only historically.
Then there is this bit:
The risks of catching Hepatitis B can be easily averted by “proper” behaviors. Should Hepatitis B vaccine be not allowed, let alone encouraged?
Mathus, how big does a benefit need to be for how much cost? Obviously this could be its own thread …
It does cause an impairment in function, it completely changes the mechanics of masturbation or handjobs. I remember a british guy baffled at what the lotion was for in american masturbation jokes, if you watch some porn with intact men the foreskin is glided over the penis up and down.
Cutting off part of the genitals is itself a highly adverse effect.
By your standard, we could probably cut off a few toes from baby’s feet too. They could still walk fine. Would you find that acceptable?
Let’s take a more reasonable example - if someone wanted to cut of a baby girls’ labia, leaving the clitoris intact, and a study showed that there was a low incidence of adverse effects and no impairment of function, would you find that acceptable?
But not according to those who do it. They believe that the function is improved. Women are not supposed to have sexual pleasure. They’re function as baby machines and mothers is improved by cutting off the clitoris.
They are as hopelessly steeped in their own cultural biases as you are.
I’m saying objective factors don’t really exist.
Huh? Are you saying that even condicting the research shows bias?
Because that makes no sense. Where there exists a widespread practice in society, it is simply sensible to research its health impact.
I was reacting to the allegations that the study science was biased. Again, my point is that the same group, based on the science as of 1999, came to a slightly different conclusion. To my mind, that is hardly evidence of bias, rather it is evidence the science has moved on.
Irrelevant. Who cares what the motives were? In the US, they could generally be described as “hygenic”. That has proved more or less correct, albeit not exactly as originally thought. Why is that relevant now?
Abstenence makes perfectly good birth control for underage teenagers. Childen, if taught properly, can get as good results from hygene. Arguments of a feather.
Exactly!
So does this mean you have no problem with female genital mutilation? It’s simply a different cultural standard, right?
A vaccine doesn’t involve cutting off a body part though.
Nobody is cutting out part of the liver just to prevent Hepatitis B.
Its own thread? Hell, its own panel of experts. 
I can’t really give an informed answer, I just have a gut feeling that procedures with relatively minor benefits out not to be paid for … how minor, I’d have to think long and hard about.
So we’ve established that you would not object if a team of doctors did a study and said its fine to cut the toes off babies.
Thanks for clarifying.
If you don’t believe in objective factors, then we really do not have any common basis for arguing.
The reason we don’t spray DDT all over the US is because the risks outweigh the benefits. The reason we want to use DDT all over Africa is because it’s cheap and fat, religious wealthy white people in the US have decided on behalf of the blacks that the benefits outweigh the risks. Maybe they do. In Africa.
We still don’t spray DDT all over the US.
But, what the cock cutters in the US are doing is basing their risk vs. benefit on Africans, most of whom were cut when they were older, doing a few “studies” and then taking those “studies” back to the US and trying to convince parents if it’s good for Africans, it’s good for American babies.
That is sneaky, disingenuous, manipulative and has “suspicious agenda” written all over it.
There is a woman politician here in Colorado who feels if rich people can afford cutting, then poor people should get to, too. Too bad politicians don’t feel the same way about adult access to medical care or women having access to reproductive health care.
lance strongarm,
A vaccine involves changing the body’s function in a permanent manner. The immune system is as much of an organ as any other. Cutting out a birthmark involves removal. Orthodontics change shape and function and sometimes involve removal of teeth.
I am still waiting for the answer to my question. Use “Procedure A” rather than a loaded specific hypothetical and offer a standard guidance for when parental decision making should be trumped.
I offer one consistent standard: if the evidence (not some people say they believe) does not suggest greater harm than benefit then parental decision making should be respected. I would give particular deference to matters held as key aspects of a religious faith.
With that said I will take the bait: IF as a parallel hypothetical, there was some procedure to the labia (or for the sake of keeping a good parallel, removal of a portion of the clitoral hood while leaving the the clitoris intact) that had good evidence of no interference with function, was not associated with any significant risks and had medical benefits that outweighed the risks, I would have no problem with people choosing to have it done on their daughters. On what basis would I? To call such a hypothetical procedure “mutilation” would be silly.
So now you play. Offer your universal standard and apply it. Demonstrate a standard that based on evidence of benefits and harms prohibits circumcision but allows removal of a birthmark, or permanent change of immune system, or orthodontics, in children who by definition are unable to give informed consent.
Well, you might have me pegged, there…most especially when it has to do with genital mutilation.
Look, being generous the benefits of circumcision only barely outweigh the risks. I think it’s pretty clear that good hygeine can about balance out the benefit, so let’s say it cancels.
That leaves it as a purely religious rite.
If somebody started to drastically stretch their child’s earlobes as soon as they were born, so that by the time they were of the age of consent they were drastically and irrevocably altered, would anybody find that acceptable? Of course not. Would it matter if they said it was for whatever kooky religion they practice?
So by what standard do you accept orthodontics?
It simply points out that circumcision is a practice in search of a justification.
Hygiene is a loony reason for cutting off a body part. The original motive was to prevent masturbation. We should cast off such a silly and brutal tradition.
Oh, please.
Of an abnormality.
For good reason.
Really? So you think parental decisions should always be respected unless and until there’s a good reason? So I can cut off my child’s feet and its presumed to be ethical until someone gives a good reason why it’s not?
I am not talking about religion.
With that said I will take the bait: IF as a parallel hypothetical, there was some procedure to the labia (or for the sake of keeping a good parallel, removal of a portion of the clitoral hood while leaving the the clitoris intact) that had good evidence of no interference with function, was not associated with any significant risks and had medical benefits that outweighed the risks, I would have no problem with people choosing to have it done on their daughters. On what basis would I? To call such a hypothetical procedure “mutilation” would be silly.
So now you play. Offer your universal standard and apply it. Demonstrate a standard that based on evidence of benefits and harms prohibits circumcision but allows removal of a birthmark, or permanent change of immune system, or orthodontics, in children who by definition are unable to give informed consent.
[/QUOTE]
Gee I dunno. I hear kids get cavities and stuff.
Didn’t I already make that clear? There are obvious benefits to orthodontics; both medical and social. Apart from the discomfort that goes along with them, there are pretty much no negative effects.
Orthodontics are also most effective during development. It makes sense to use them when the child is still growing and ‘pliable’.
I know many adults who have chosen to get orthodontics. I know of none who volunteered to get their foreskin removed.
For that matter, I haven’t ever heard anybody curse their parents for fixing their teeth back before they were of the age of consent.
Excellent summation.