But the religious don’t do it for purely medical reasons do they? That is post-hoc rationalisation that may or may not be true. If it is then certainly the same benefits can be gained by carrying out the procedure at a later age and with full patient consent and understanding.
I could show you the evidence that my treatment would, by definition, reduce the amount of skin cancer on that part of the body to little or no detriment or pain to the infant.
I would suspect it would be evidence equally as strong (or even stronger) than that for circumcision.
Given that, and that the outer ear is hardly a critical part of one’s body, why wouldn’t the doctors support me? I can show a definite health benefit and minimal trauma to fairly inert part of the body and I’m looked upon as strange, Circumcision has weaker evidence for health benefits and takes sensitive skin from the genitals and yet is not given a second thought. Why?
Of course I know why…cultural and religious bullshit but my suggested bodily modification is no different in principle and yet you and seem loathed to endorse it. Well if you know why you don’t like my idea then you’ll know why I don’t like yours.
I’d say that you have to choose as an adult. If you like you could make it a part of the coming of age ceremony. But of course you’d have people then having a mind of their own and running the risk of saying “no” and we can’t have that can we? Got to brand them while they are young, preferably while they are unaware of their surroundings and don’t put up so much of a fight.
Oh, well that makes it okay then. Did you know that often the clitoris overly sensitive, and that stimulation of the hood is preferred. According to the following site (PDF warning), the removal of ONLY the hood is fairly rare, and almost always involves partial or total removal of the clitoris itself. (And even in that case, direct stimulation of the clitoris can be uncomfortable, due to over-sensitivity, so that stimulation outside the hood is preferred)
If you have another cite, cough it up.
I never said I supported routine male circumcision. But the very idea of saying it’s equal or even worse than FGM is a disgustingly misogynistic argument.
In fact, unlike male circumcision, where there are at least SOME health benefits, the exact opposite is true for even the mildest form of FGM. Infections, scarring, and increased birth complications.
Comparing the two is an extremely ignorant. And disgusting.
But can you still function sexually? Does it hurt when the head of the penis is touched? Do you have an increased risk of infection?
How many times do I have to say: I am NOT arguing in support of male circumcision, only that it’s NOT comparable to FGM.
Legally, the first issue is whether the action amounts to a “harm” such that the state ought to prevent it.
That determination of necessity requires an objective cost/benefit analysis, and presumably the state should only get involved where the harms clearly outweigh the benefits, and where those harms are reasonably substantial. Doesn’t matter at this stage why the action was performed - whether for religious or cultural reasons, or for alleged health reasons. The issue is whether the action is “harmful”.
Only if it is demonstrated to be “harmful” do we get to whether the action is somehow privileged because it is religious. There, I’d likely agree that a truly “harmful” act should not be privileged because it is religiously motivated.
I don’t think the various analogies presented could pass this test. In the case of circumcision, you don’t even get to an analysis of religious justification, because it would not be necessary - the harms do not clearly outweigh the benefits and in any event the harms are not substantial. In the case of ear piercings the harms outweigh the benefits as there are no benefits, but the harms are not substantial. In the case of female circumcision the harms outweigh the benefits as there are no benefits and whether those harms are substantial or not depends on the procedure - in most cases, they are.
Stripping skin off of ears, the harms almost certainly outweigh the benefits and presumably the harms would be substantial, given you are using a hole-punch to do it.
How is it post-hoc? Do the scriptures not exist? Are the scriptures not ancient? Is there not a clear, long history of faith in the truth of these scriptures? You may choose to believe or disbelieve, but it’s certainly not “post-hoc.”
No it can’t. That would be contrary to what the religion in question believes G-d said to do.
I know why you don’t like mine. Tough luck, you don’t get to tell me what I should believe, in the realm of beliefs that lies beyond scientific ability to prove or disprove. You know what? If you believed that some deity said that he would shower blessing upon your household and all your descendants if you stripped the skin off your kids’ earlobes, I couldn’t say with any certainty (aside from my own particular faith) that you’re wrong about it either. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.
Nice of you to say/offer. But that’s not my religion.
Now whose reasoning is post-hoc?
Steophan:
Only if you don’t believe the benefit outweighs the harm. Which you clearly don’t, but I (and other believers in Judaism) do.
I think that you’d find fault in any analogous procedure so I suspect my attempts to help you look at this objectively will fall on stony ground.
I have no axe to grind here (sort-of-pun intended). I neither know nor care whether I’ve had the procedure done and I have no religious affiliation. All I can do is be objective and see it for what it is, a procedure that is often medically unnecessary, non-consensual and permanently modifies the body of a child on a cosmetic whim or social convention or the say-so of a selectively interpreted 4000 year old manuscript. None of which strike me as a good reason.
The medical reasoning is post-hoc. Any benefits uncovered now are being used to say “look we were right all along let us keep doing it”.
I said any medical benefits could be just as easily achieved by waiting until the person in question is able to choose. Nothing to do with the religious aspect.
Oh! you can believe what the heck you want, I just think that the implications of your belief should stop before they impact someone else’s body. But that’s just me, liberal to a fault.
People tend to get very free and easy with the concept of “freedom of religion” It ends up meaning what they want it to mean. I think “freedom of belief” is a better concept. But nobody has the right to act on those religious beliefs with impunity, because society’s view is (thankfully) fluid on the impact of such acts and religion ends up having to bend and compromise. Which is a good thing, otherwise we’d still be living under bronze-age rules and that way madness lies.
fair enough, it was just a thought but I’m sure a non-vengeful god wouldn’t mind that much would they?
yours, always was yours, still is yours. I was merely saying that typically religions like Judaism and Islam like to indoctrinate the young and make sure they stay part of the tribe. Nothing controversial about that.
I’ve provided the analysis. What part of it do you disagree with? You say that the procedure is “often medically unnecessary” - yet actual scientists have found actual medical benefits derived from it; the consensus appears to be that risks and benefits may be tipping over to the benefits side. Rejecting scientific evidence in favour of a more “personal” version of reality strikes me as being what the believers in 4000 year old manuscripts are more known for doing.
Ignore for the moment the 4000 year old manuscript bit (you can add ‘created by ignorant bronze age sheep-herders’ if you like ). We all get that you don’t like that, but my point is that it is irrelevant. The motives of the parents don’t really matter, unless the procedure actually causes harm, right? Otherwise, in our society at least, the state generally allows parents to do what they like in raising their kids without seeking the kid’s consent - namely, because it is a trifle silly to (say) require that infants ‘consent’ to being imprisoned in cribs and forced to wear diapers, or (more seriously) to require one set of child-rearing practices instead of another - for example, to force women to breast-feed their infants.
That’s the standard, or ought to be, for getting the state involved - whether the procedure, at least on a balance of probabilities, causes resonably substantial harm. To avoid imposing majority cultural practices on the minority is just the start of why the state getting involved in child-rearing that isn’t causing actual provable harm is a bad idea.
If we were talking purely medical matters then where is the harm in waiting for consent to be given? If the evidence is strong then surely that is an easy case to make.
The main health benefits (if any…the jury is still out) could still be gained by circumcising at an age when consent can be given.
yes, but you are getting to make up your own definition of “harm” here. The removal of the foreskin is *obviously * physical harm.
Do you seriously want to continue with making those comparisons? Why not go the whole hog and compare it a bad haircut!
You can’t necessarily tell by looking. Foreskin isn’t necessarily a binary state.
Well, there’s the whole ‘it’s a trivially minor procedure on an infant and reasonably major surgery on an adult, with potentially quite different ratio of harmful effects’ thing. There’s the “harm” right there.
Some could, and some could not (for example, the benefits of decreased urinary tract infections are particular to infants).
However, what is undeniable is that the other part of the cost/benefit analysis - the costs, in terms of harmful adverse effects - are more serious for adults.
I’m making up nothing. I’m stating that the test ought to be a cost/benefit analysis or medical risks and benefits based on medical science. Do you disagree? Should we replace science with what some person happens to find “obvious”?
Sure. Up until recently, there was overwhelming evidence that not breast feeding caused measurable harm to children - certainly moire serious (it was alleged) than losing a flap of skin.
Assuming for the moment that this is all true (and I know that some recent studies dispute this), it seems to me a good case can be made that failure to breastfeed infants causes far greater physical harm than circumcision. As far as I know, a “bad haircut” isn’t linked to a higer incidence of stomach viruses, lower respiratory illnesses, ear infections, meningitis, Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
But it seems to me that preventing a ritual sexual mutilation on an helpless infant could be considered a “lawful duty” of the state.
There has to be a point when the state has to step in to prevent harmful rituals on children. Sacrificing them, having them perform an old-style “sun dance”, beat them up to chase demons, scarification of the face or the body, FGM from stiching up the vagina to removing a bit of the clitoral hood, having them consume intoxicants, sprinkling them with cold holy water, whatever…How do you define the limit between the acceptable and the unnaceptable? And why in your opinion is circumcision on the acceptable side?
It’s not only an issue of never ending or scarring. It’s also the fact that the glans is exposed, and as a result rubs permanently on, for instance, underwear hence becoming less sensitive.
I’m not going into personal details but as I said above, foreskin length is not a yes/no state. Line up a selection of circumcised and uncircumcised penises and you will see a huge variation. Some obviously are, some obviously aren’t. Some are less easily to tell. And I’ve never asked parents or doctor, nor felt the need to.
Maybe/maybe not but it simply has nothing to do with religion. In modern Europe it is seen as mutilation of a child without its consent. The views are for all people, not just those of certain religions.
To put it simply: just because your religion says it is OK doesn’t actually mean it is OK. Exactly the same argument as to why stoning people is not allowed when they break some item of Sharia Law. It has nothing to do with Sharia law, it is everything to do with stoning people simply being a bad thing.
The US doesn’t (all) see it as mutilation. Hurray for you guys. We don’t agree, so you go do your thing and we’ll do ours.
and a decision that a rational adult is capable of making.
Only if they choose to have it done at all.
I am a scientist, I understand the concepts perfectly well and I don’t see a compelling case. If there were I would change my mind but again I would leave it to the consent of the patient where practical. That seems to be the place we are at with the evidence as it stands.
But of course none of this is certain. I find the people most likely to quote certainty and absolutes are the religious.
Let me ask you, if it were shown that there was no future health benefits would you agree that the procedure should not be carried out unless there were immediate medical need?
Or is your decision driven by other factors?
I’d agree, the evidence in that case is stronger for breast milk and I’d certainly highly recommend it and be critical of any school of thought (religious or otherwise) which proscribed it. What I wouldn’t do however is forcefeed the child breast milk. I’d try to convince through sound argument. The big difference is that one can have a little bit of both and your choice is reversable, and you can swing one way or the other, you can’t be a “little bit” circumcised.
I know what mine looks like, I know what a lot of men’s look like and can say with hand on heart that there are plenty that conform to neither of those pictures. The are plenty that vary between the two depending on the temperature.
yours, always was yours, still is yours. I was merely saying that typically religions like Judaism and Islam like to indoctrinate the young and make sure they stay part of the tribe. Nothing controversial about that.