If it has never been the case that anyone even close to the age of five has been accorded the legal right to determine the outcome of a pregnancy without the involvement of parents, then you are on decidedly thin philosophical ice.
True but most men will want to keep their penis clean simply for selfish reasons of wanting to use it. And it really is just that easy to keep clean!
This use of the general detestation of female circumcision as a way of attacking male circumcision is an example of a “continuum fallacy”, of the sort often used by anti-circ types.
“Everyone agrees” female circumcision is wrong because “everyone” associates it with the more extreme end of the continuum.
I’m sure one can dredge up some variety of “female circumcision” that is, in point of fact, similar to male circumcision; but that isn’t what people generally associate with the term.
Similarly, one can propose extreme and grotesque “cosmetic modifications” that “everyone” would agree should not be allowed.
Personally, I would leave it to wag, but I don’t consider it or any other birth defect or deformity relevant to the argument. The majority of cosmetic deformities are not treated until a later age (except for some reason the genitals - doctors and parents are trigger-happy with that area).
FYI a cleft palate or even lip is not a cosmetic issue - it affects a baby’s ability to latch, suck and even swallow without aspirating.
A foreskin is something that 99.9% of male infants are born with, that functions in a certain way and doubtless serves some sort of purpose (hence it’s existence). While it can possibly cause or contribute to health issues, especially in adulthood, for a minority of men, the issue it that it’s an elective and essentially cosmetic surgery performed practically at birth.
Let’s start a new thread: ‘Removing ONLY the clitoral hood and labia minora (analogous to male circumcision) of week-old infant girls based on parental preference: right or wrong?’
I am guessing the majority would still consider it wrong, but I suppose I could be mistaken.
Fine. Present your array of scientific papers describing the health benefits of the procedure, and then we’ll see if the two are, in point of fact, analogous.
So far, your argument is the weakest of the weak - an argumentum ad populum based on a faulty analogy, as no-one as far as I’m aware seriously claims that removing the clitoral hood has any health benefits - an analogy moreover that you know most people are going to be mistaken about, because most will very naturally associate “female circumcision” with the more common and extreme variety.
This sort of argumentation, piling fallacy upon fallacy, is annoying. To my mind at least, there is a perfectly respectable and legitimate argument that the procedure should not be performed because the health and other alleged benefits do not outweigh the complications and other alleged drawbacks, but it is clear to me that this is a topic on which reasonable people could, and do, disagree - and thus one which should be left to the informed responsible parent or guardian to weigh the real information and make an informed choice.
The problem here is that much of what apparently passes for “information” comming from the anti-side is more properly characterized as personal value judgments, hand-waving away of inconvenient scientific data, scare tactics, fallacious argumentation and bizzare allegations of penis-hating, not to mention outright misleading stuff like the “2% complication rate” alleged in an anti-circ site quoted upthread.
The medical rationale from male circumcision is hardly overwhelming. I think it’s defended more out of religious and cultural pride than for any practical purpose.
My opinion: I don’t see any compelling evidence that justifies elective surgery on a new born.
You’re not to clear on how laws work, are you? Not that any of this has much to do with the subject at hand, mind you. The point is that bodily domain rights exist for minors, they aren’t handed over to parents in their entirety, and that the only time parents get to make those decisions is when there is medical urgency.
Then let’s ignore “everyone”, and just focus on one rather important group. Lawmakers. In the US, lawmakers have made it ILLEGAL to perform even the analogous procedure of removing the clitoral hood. If it is illegal to modify the genitals of one gender, there is no reason it should be legal to do so to the other gender.
Whereas your side’s preferred fallacy seems to be appeal to tradition.
I’m not sure how you can call deciding to cut up a baby’s genitals on less than solid evidence of the benefits reasonable.
Except part of the trouble comes from parents who aren’t informed in the least, but instead opt for it (or don’t opt out depending on the hospital) without any evidence or information other than “it’s normal” or “his daddy was cut” or “I think they look gross”. Are you suggesting that those uninformed, irresponsible parents have the decision taken away from them, or is this just a smokescreen so you can claim you’re trying to reach out when you’re really still supporting an at-will right to cut up your children for any or no reason?
How cute, pretending your side has presented anything resembling compelling information, and has refrained from attacking the oposition. It’s precious, really.
There is no data about the medical benefits of this sort of female circumcision.
There is also no data showing that infant male circumcision provides any health benefits.
How many cases are there where 5-year-olds have been accorded the right to make medical decisions for themselves, without parents being involved? (I don’t believe you’ve yet pointed to one.)
Sigh. Why do you guys keep saying that? You apparently didn’t read these when they were posted upthread, so you probably won’t read them now, either, but here is a search on ScienceDaily.com, a website I think we can all agree is neutral (right?) for the word “circumcision”. There have been six studies since march of this year that. Five have shown significant reduction of risk of various STDs in circumcised men and their female partners. The one that doesn’t focuses on gay men.
Again, here they are.
If you think all of these recent studies are invalid, or are somehow appeals to tradition, could you please point out the specific problems? 'Cause I’m not seeing them. I also STILL have not seen a comparable list of studies that shows no benefit from the anti circ side. All I’ve seen is a link to an anti-circ website that clearly engages in scare tactics and misinformation, and therefor can’t be trusted. Where are the conflicting studies from a neutral internet source, if there are so many of them?
I think the issue is that the benefits of circumcision seem to be so minor that they do not outweigh elective surgery on a newborn. And there are some elements of choice involved here as well.
I think the anti-circumcision brigade have an element of nuttiness but so does the pro-camp mostly due as a result cultural and religious upbringing that compels them to defend it.
Did you mean to leave out “the risk of” after the word outweigh? Because it doesn’t quite read right the way it is.
Or maybe you meant justify instead of outweigh? If that’s the case then it comes back to a matter of justifications. And if we reject the data because it disagrees with our belief, then all we have left is to fall back onto our personal opinions and emotions.
You are aware that there are plenty of studies on there that say the exact oposite of what you’re trying to argue, right?
Whichever one of those studies you actually think supports you, does this study account for the fact that after you circumcise someone, there is a period when they are healing when they are unlikely to have sex due to the pain involved?
Oh, for god’s sake! Show me one then! I’ve asked repeatedly in this thread for recent evidence that I can read on the internet that isn’t directly from a biased source, and NO ONE has produced a single one. If there is such a plethora of evidence out there, find one for me! I am not a circumcision crusader, I swear. My husband and I might be having kids soon, and I want to make a choice on this matter based on science, not hysterics. So far, the science I’ve seen suggests that circumcision is a good idea. You telling me that other science out there contradicts what I’ve found, but refusing to show it to me is not helping your cause.
Since you apparently still haven’t read my link, here are some relevant passages (these are some of the studies linked above):
Male Circumcision Reduces HIV Risk: No Further Evidence Needed, According To Review
Male Circumcision May Decrease Risk Of HPV Infection And Cervical Cancer
Male Circumcision Reduces Risk Of Genital Herpes And HPV Infection, But Not Syphilis
The methodology in all of these studies and the others I linked to looks sound to me, and of course the men were followed beyond the healing period. If you have a problem with these, please be specific.
The third link in your list covers there not being a statistically significant correlation in HIV transmission in male to male penetrative sex. I assumed you’d read the list you were providing since you were presenting it as evidence, so I assumed that you would be capable of recognizing that not everything on your list supported your position.
The very fact that you feel you have to say this seems to suggest that you feel you’re coming across as one.
So where is the science on infant circumcision? That is what you’re planning to do to your son, is it not? If you are convinced by the STD protection benefits, seems to me he’ll be more than capable of deciding that for himself by the time it comes up (unless you expect he’s going to be a very sexually active infant).
I claim what you’ve found contradicts what you’re saying, actually.
There was nothing to read on your link. You didn’t link to a study. You linked to a list, not every entry of which supported your thesis.
Read the quote. The study was unable to demonstrate that the protection from circumcision lasted longer than two years. Seems to me that your son will be well beyond that window by the time he’s sexually active if you circumcise him as an infant.
And again, expecting your infant son to be sexually active long before he can coherently consent to undergoing the procedure?
And again, no evidence that these supposed benefits can’t be aquired just as well by waiting until the male in question can consent to the procedure. No good reason to take away the boy’s say in the matter by forcing the procedure on him before he’s even old enough to verbalize the word “no”.
The problem isn’t following them beyond the healing period. It’s following them during the healing period and including the differences in behavior during that time in your results, which skews the results.
This conclusion doesn’t follow at all. There are two things wrong with it:
-
If in fact the two procedures are analogous, then making one illegal can’t be justified.
-
The two procedures are not analogous, as no-one has presented any health benefits to the female one.
As pointed out, this line of argumentation is fallacious.
Not at all. Where have I “appealed to tradition”?
My “appeal” is to the health benefits of the procedure outweighing the complications and other drawbacks.
There we disagree - on the emotive “cutting up” type language, and on the solidity of the benefits.
The ideal situation in my opinion is for every person to have truly “informed” consent to any medical procedure they agree for themselves or by proxy to others.
Providing this is the task of the medical professional. I see no difference between this procedure and any other in this respect.
I take it you haven’t had a chance to actually read the numerous studies cited upthread. To my mind, that satisfies the requirement for “compelling information”, which your “side” appears to simply hand-wave away as if it didn’t exist - sort of like creationists insisting that “evolution is just a theory”.
The attacking I’ve done is on the style of argumentation employed - I’ve attempted to point out the fallacies in reasoning engaged in by your “side”. I have not, I think, engaged in ad hominum attacks on those employing the arguments.
Indeed, “attacking the opposition” is what a debate is all about - that is, attacking the opposition’s positions as opposed to their persons.
That study shows that for one small population with different behaviors does not seem to get reduced risk of HIV from circumcision. That does not mean that all the other studies are invalid, it just means that circumcision doesn’t help all men in all situations.
I came into this thread with no opinion on the subject whatsoever. Having read the science, it now looks to me like a good thing to do. My requests for cites on all the mountains of contradicting science that the anti-circ people keep claiming is out there is sincere. If there is good science that says it shouldn’t be done, I honestly want to know about it. I’ve been quite frustrated by all you guys telling me how much evidence there is that says STD risks are not reduced, and then expecting us to take your word for it. That isn’t how these boards work, and you know it.
These were recent studies. They can’t say for sure what will happen beyond 2 years because they aren’t that old. But since the foreskin isn’t going to grow back, there is no reason to think that the benefits won’t be sustained.
You seem to think that circumcised men have sex less often than uncut ones. Do you have a cite for that?
I’m ending my involvement in this thread. It was a subject that I wasn’t particularly passionate about to begin with, and I’m tired of arguing about it. If anyone wants to find some studies that contradict the ones I found, I’ll definitely read them.
Cesario, I wish you the best in making peace with your penis. 
Of course it does. Just because you disagree with the truth value of one of the premises doesn’t change the fact that the conclusion does deterministically follow from them.
Should we see about getting a sticky on basic logic terminology like “true”, “valid” and “sound”?
How is this something wrong with the argument?
Come now, the health benefits obviously derive from the same source. You get rid of a pocket that can breed bacteria, and thus make the area easier to clean and less prone to infection. The clitoral hood serves the exact same function as the foreskin, so any benefit removing one would have obviously would apply equally well to the other.
A premise being false does not a fallacy make.
Clearly the word “side” was invisible to you. What color scheme are you using?
The only health benefit to infant circumcision that anyone has even suggested exists is the penile cancer thing (which I still haven’t seen the study being refferenced on). All the talk about STD immunity and whatnot are completely irrelevent to infant circumcision, since you can easily wait until the child is old enough to make the decision for himself with no loss in effectiveness.
Would you preffer a different set of terminology? “Amputation of perfectly healthy tissue”? “Cosmetic surgery on babies”?
Still waiting for that solid evidence you’re presenting that it’s so urgent that we can’t wait until the child can give appropriate consent.
Smokescreen it is. Nice to have confirmation.
Still waiting for that one study that supposedly proves that somehow, cancer immunity is granted only if you amputate parts of a baby’s sex organs before some unknown deadline because if you do so after, the amputated part can apparently still get cancer.
And your position has really no ground to stand on (barring the miraculous appearance of that cancer study of yours) with regards to infant circumcision.
Hence “not all those studies you linked to support your thesis, so be more selective in providing citations”.
What you aren’t getting is that I don’t care about the change in STD risks. Whether it exists or not is irrelevent to the appropriateness of infant circumcision, because infants aren’t sexually active. By the time they become sexually active, they’ll have had plenty of oportunity to consent to the procedure for the supposed STD benefits of their own free will. Thus there is no justification for forcing the decision on them when they’re helpless and unable to consent.
Still seems like you’re better off going for what the study can guarentee. Wait until the boy is close to becoming sexually active, so you can get the most out of that protection. Of course, if you did that, you’d be forced to treat his opinion on whether or not part of his penis is amputated as relevent, and respect his decision. I presume this is the reason you feel it needs to be done when he’s an infant, so he won’t get the chance to object.
Saddly, I don’t have a citation for the fact that men who’s penises are still bleeding from the operation and need to be iced are less likely to have sex than men who’s penises have not just gone through surgery. Sorry.
Do you happen to know where that penile cancer study is? So far, it’s the only hint of anything that connects in any way to infant circumcision having any benefits whatsoever (which can’t be obtained just as well by waiting on the procedure until the patient can consent to it). The reported qualities (not even a hint at the mechanism) make me dubious, but I’m willing to revise my estimate if someone could produce this study instead of just hinting at things they supposedly read in it.
You misunderstand. I’ve no particular body image problems relating to this issue. My issue is consent. Always has been, always will be.