So are rape and murder. We don’t, and shouldn’t, respect all cultural traditions equally. The practice of intentionally inflicting serious injury on an infant is not consistent with the values of modern society.
That’s horrible, and wrong, if the child objects to the procedure. Orthodontics can wait until adulthood, I know some of my friends have them now in their 20s
You’ll forgive me if I don’t give moving teeth around inside the mouth (extractions being another matter) the same moral weight as amputating a part of the penis, if that’s OK? Or are people ever given orthodontics in such a way as to diminish them in some way?
An 8-9 year old can actually object. As you’ve pointed out, this will likely be overridden, but they at least are cognizant of the process, and also can have the cost/benefits explained to them. A days-old baby, not so much.
Ah. Now circumcisioin is on par with rape and murder. What part of applying judgement “with caution” is hard for you to understand. If indeed the case was made that circumcisiion was a “serious injury” with a likelihood of clear serious harm far outweighing the possible gain, then your post would be something other than silliness. As it is such is not the case.
MrD, of course I forgive you. Certainly it is reasonable for you to conclude that permenantly changing the structure of a body is different if something is removed, and it is reasonable for me to say that it is still a significant and permenant alteration of appearence and function through a prolonged and painful procedure imposed upon children. Certainly there are those who have felt harmed by orthodonture. My own wife for example developed TMJ primarily as a result of having her teeth moved into a cosmetically appealing placement but which was an open bite position. Your position is only slightly inconsistent in my view.
I wanted to stay out of the thread but as soon as I saw that I just knew that’s what you were going to say.
Look, lip plates are considered beautiful in another culture. My kid’s not getting it done. In Ethiopia it’s done to make women more beautiful so they’re worth more cows when they get married off. Last I checked, you can’t marry off your kids for cows in the US either. Hate to tread on people’s cultures.
If you want to apply your “Nacirema” cultural trick then let’s talk about circumcision in other cultures. In Africa it’s commonly performed on boys sometime around or after puberty, they’re taken out in the country, stripped naked sometimes in freezing weather, beaten - often to death - mutilated with unsterile cutting implements which leave them disfigured, with complications included life-threatening infections, amputations - not just of the penis but sometimes legs, and the same cutting tool is often used on dozens or more boys GREATLY increasing the risk of spreading HIV and who knows what else. Boys are lucky to survive this “beautiful” other-cultural “becoming a man” tradition.
Would you like this for your son? No? Are you sure you aren’t viewing this through your Nacirema-colored glasses? How do you feel about it being done in other countries? Is it okay as long as it’s boys but not girls? Who are you to judge?
Circumcision in the USA isn’t some other third-world culture. It’s my culture and I get a say in what people should or shouldn’t do. All us Americans do. As a culture, I think it’s safe to say we’re part of our fellow English speaking cultures. Guess what, circumcision is kinda on the outs.
In the UK, it’s hardly existent.
In Australia, it’s around 10-20%, with the Western portion of the country circumcising more than the eastern portions.
In New Zealand, it was temporarily almost universal and within just a generation or two it’s dropped to 10-20% and is declining.
In Canada it’s around 9.2% and also declining with some areas reporting zero circumcisions.
In the US, African Americans circumcise less than whites. The American west and southwest have the lowest and declining rates, probably due to the influx of largely Catholic Mexicans and Latin American who don’t circumcise. Americans are circumcising less. That’s our culture.
You can’t compare arguing against circumcision in the US and the world English speaking culture at large as if we’re disrespecting the tradition of lip plates in Ethiopia.
You ask your questions as if you think they are difficult to answer. They are not.
No, I would not like that for my son. This particular example is easy to judge as there is clearly highly significant harm far outweighing any potential benefit. As to how I feel about it in other countries, well, I’d learn from the experience of others in dealing with female genitial cutting. No dimunation of the practice will occur by my declaring it a bad practice. The only chance of change occurring would be by respecting the culture and those within it, learning what role the practice serves within the culture and helping those within the culture modify the tradition themselves as they realize that other practices can serve the same role without the harm.
Your view of America is very compatable with that of Bush’s religious right: “It’s my culture and I get to say what goes and guess what? Christians are the clear majority.” But America mostly works because we respect our differences and value our freedom to have them, even (especially) when they are a minority view. So I really do not see the point with your number game.
Well that’s a matter of perspective. You seem really spooled over the issue. I like it and I can’t think of anyone I know who doesn’t.
I like the way it looks in all forms and I like the personal hygien aspect of it. Why anyone would want it any other way is beyond me but that’s life. It doesn’t bother me that you like foreskin but it’s funny the way you make it sound like a chain-saw massacre.
Give me a break. Circumcision is a serious injury. There is no way to dispute that. Just give that up. Ask any uncircumcised person who can object. Just cease and desist with this line of argumentation. It makes you look loony.
Thank you! Now help me out here if you can. How do respect people who want to cut their sons, learn what role the practice serves for them, help them modify their desire as they realize that other practices could serve the same role without the harm?
Perhaps we could convince people to hold some sort of symbolic circumcision of their sons? Maybe people could wave a stick in front of their son’s genitals and say “I cut thee, I cut thee, I cut thee,” but not actually do it?
Actually I view America’s attitude towards circumcision much like America’s attitude towards gay rights and marriage. The UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand leave us behind and just shrug their shoulders about how their American brothers and sisters are still so stubbornly resistance to change in the light of rationality and common sense.
I find the pro-circumcision folks much more Bushesque.
“We need to circumcise our boys, it’s good fer 'em!”
“No it’s not.”
“For medical reasons!”
“No.”
“Religious reasons!”
“No.”
“Social reasons!”
“No.”
“Dag-nabbit, I just wanna! Respect my culture!”
“That’s just silly.”
And I view your attempt to denigrade something Americans prefer as sour grapes. Well gee, all the other English speaking countries like foreskin, we should just fall in line. It just bugs the hell out of you that both men and women like it. And you even managed to politicize it. Wow.
No, DSeid politicized it. Take it up with him.
spazurek, thank you for your ongoing concern over my appearence, be it my “mutilated” member, or my longlived looniness, but in both cases I’ll only take the opinion for what it is worth. In other words, I’ll ignore it.
Even if your claim about the opinion of “any uncircumcised person” was correct* it hardly makes your case. You see documenting harm requires, well, showing harm. And the facts of the case remain the same no matter how much you claim otherwise. No such serious harm exists and the small but real procedural risks are roughly offset by the real but small medical benefits.
And at least one medical study sheds some doubt on your claim:
*I have created a survey to see if your thoughts about the absolute agreement among the uncircumcised is true among Dopers, BTW.
From your cite:
I knew a guy in the Marines who got circumcised as an adult. Basically getting hard or having sex was painful. He said sex felt great after the circumcision healed. I have no doubt of this. Of course if it hurt before and doesn’t after you’ll consider it a benefit.
I’m not sure this study helps your case or not though. Only 7% were elective, whatever that means, but the rest of these guys had problems, and some of them must have had more than one problem.
Only 50% reported benefits, and 38% reported harm. 62% report they’re satisfied. What does that mean? It doesn’t hurt anymore but it’s not as great as I’d hoped for?
The report concludes adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, they can still have sex as often as they did before and they’re more satisfied. Of course they’re more satisfied, they had penis problems requiring them to seek out circumcision.
In the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand there is most certainly no organized effort to get Jews to stop circumcizing their sons. They continue to do it there, just as they do it everywhere else in the world.
Ed
Fair point. It gave me pause for a moment. Then just on a whim I googled “jews against circumcision” and got http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/. One excerpt from their site:
My poll results show a consistent response that uncircumcised Dopers do not believe that circumcision is a serious injury. levdrakon objects to the question by noting
which is a valid enough point to why spazurek’s comment was immaterial in the first place, but of no significance to the fact that he yet again is stating things that are just not true. Which is also the response I have to levdrakon’s simultaneous objection that asking people who have had the procedure is invalid because they over-represent those who have had sexual or other problems as a result of being uncircumcised. The point is not that this represents a comparison to the neonatal procedure, you are right it does not, but to test another outrageous claim and to show that it, like much else stated as fact by the anti-circ zealots in this thread, is just stuff they belief because they want to believe it and with no reality basis whatsoever.
As to Jews Against Circumcision … do they share offices with the Jews for Jesus and those Jews who went to the Holocaust denial meeting in Iran? We have Jews with all kinds of thoughts. So?
Sweden? Sweden has 9 million people and only 20,000 are Jews. No I doubt it is explicit anti-semitism so much as it is disregard of such a small group. Meanwhile they have the second largest Muslim population in Western Europe, 3.9% of the population. Like France these mostly secular Christians feel their identity is threatened and rules that indirectly prohibit Muslim identity are gaining in popularity. Muslims circ boys too you know.
The report also uses a very small sample size. They start out with 132 men who were circumcised as adults, most of whom had a medical problem that required it, and then note that out of those only 44% responded to the survey. That’s 58 men.
Of those, 35 were ‘satisfied’, 29 saw some kind of benefit (which you’d expect if more than half of them were there to correct some sort of problem like phimosis), and 22 reported harm, which is more than double the 9 men who were originally there for elective circumcision, so apparently not only did it fail to fix the problems of some of those who were there out of medical need, it made things worse.
I don’t think that report is in any way a solid piece of evidence to be using in favor of neonatal circumcision.
It’s hardly anti-semitic to say that freedom of religious expression is not absolute, and does end where an unconsenting person’s bodily integrity begins, which also includes the piercings that were done to my Rom friend’s sister when she was four years old because her mother said ‘She is Rom. She must have her face pierced.’
How that’s anti-semitic, I can’t tell.
All right, you’ll find fringe groups in any religion. And if you search on Google you’ll find groups that believe any weird thing you can name.
What I should have said is that there is no organized effort which the vast majority of Jews pay the slightest bit of attention to.
Ed
Okay, here we go. First, this is the “outrageous claim” you’re attempting to debunk:
Injury – Any legal harm, wrong or damage done to a person’s body, property, rights or reputation, and that the law recognizes as deserving of redress.
Juries award damages quite often for injuries which aren’t physical, right? The degree to which spazurek feels having been circumcised was injurious is pretty much up to him. Polling uc’d men whether they find it a serious injury makes no sense. How would they know? Ask them how pissed off they’d be if they went to the doctor for an unrelated condition and while they were under the doctor c’d them. I’d expect they could sue and the settlement would be based on damages and injuries, right? I’m sure the jury would consider physical, emotional and psychological damage. And this is for an “expert” circumcision. Now ask your pollees to imagine they were not only c’d without their permission but as a result they experienced erectile dysfunction and decreased penile sensitivity, which your own cite establishes is in fact, quite common.
The above would be the expected consequences of a “normal” circumcision. But just for fun add a botched circumcision scenario. For instance:
$1.26 million is a lot of “injury” I’d say. Here’s another article for you.
Feel free to include the list of complications here (don’t know if it’s been linked to already): http://www .cirp.org/library/complications/ I broke the link because it’s got some medical photographs which are not for the squeamish. Don’t dismiss it because you see it’s cirp.org. It’s a comprehensive, fully referenced list that anyone considering the issue of circumcision needs to review if they want to state any sort of informed opinion on it.
Are you a member of the American Society for the Brutalization and Emasculation of Men? Just wondering. Asking questions like that is my favorite technique for discrediting my opponent in a debate without actually having to add anything substantive.
I’m not sure what point you’re making. There are more Muslims than Jews in Sweden so this must be some Christo-Islamic plot to discriminate against Jews? Can we please not let this thread devolve into that?
suranyi, one person’s fringe group is another’s grassroots movement which will eventually effect positive change in society. History will tell.
I don’t see the movement away from circumcision as an attack on Jews. Actually, I thought DSeid said it quite well,
This makes me laugh:
Oh boo hoo. You don’t want a poll, you just want people back up your spurious argument. Well, assuming you’re making an argument. It’s like a little kid running and trying to get his friends to come back him up because he picked a fight he can’t win on his own. You’re actually running out and starting new threads just to recruit people to come back here?
Oh what order to take these on?
A claim was made that any uncirc’ed male would call circ a “serious injury” I called it BS and backed that call up with a study and just for kicks decided to ask a sampling of uncirc’ed males. This admittedly unscientific sampling was also c.w. the call that spazurek’s claim was just another untruth.
If the point with those groups name was unclear allow to clarify. There are lots of fringe groups with fringe ideas. The fact that there are Jews for Jesus does not mean that there is a movement among Jews to accept Christ as a Messiah. The fact that there are Jews who deny HaShoah does not mean that Jews are beginning to deny the HaShoah. “So what?” to your cite.
As to your believing I said it well in the bit you quoted, well maybe I’d believe that you believed that if anyone in this thread, including you, had expressed any interest in understanding what the role of Brit Milah is in Judaism. Then you’d need to get those Jews Against Circ to actually convince other Jews that there was real harm. Not by condenscension or by anecdotes of rare complications or by declaring something barbaric because it is something that you would not choose to do.
Sweden. I think my post was very clear. What part of “I doubt it is explicit anti-semitism” do you read as saying that I think there is a “Christo-Islamic plot to discriminate against Jews”? How can you so badly misread even that which you directly quote? No, I believe that Sweden is instead acting out of fear of a different other: Muslims. France would probably have banned circs along with headscarves if it wasn’t for her relatively larger Jewish population and some sensitivity to it. Islamic identity scares these people. They want to make sure that their Muslims are Islam Lite. Jews? They are not threatened by their mostly assimilated and mainly secular Jews.
And my inviting someone who was telling me that the question was unfair and implied that he would not consider it a “serious injury” but still would consider it significant, and chided me for not wanting to discuss that there, to come here, the appropriate venue, to discuss it, is somehow inviting my freinds to help me? Hoo boy.
Jews weren’t always accepting of gays. AFAIK, most still aren’t. But there’s a large group who now not only accept homosexuality but also approve of and perform gay marriages. Are they a “fringe group?” Or might they represent the beginnings of a movement within Judaism? At some point the “Jews for Gays” must have been considered fringe.
There are Jews I’ve seen on TV denouncing homosexuality and approving of the violent riot-protests against the recent gay parade in Israel. Are they fringe? Or embarrassingly old-fashioned?
When is it fringe and when is it “hey, keep up. Times are changing and we’re reevaluating some of our beliefs and practices.”
If a country such as Sweden or even the US for that matter enacts gay rights laws it’s not an attack on Judaism or Islam and if a country decides it’s time to sanction gay marriage they’re not doing it out of some fear reaction to this or that religious minority in their country. But you’re entitled to your opinion. We can’t tell a religion to accept gay marriage, but we can make it illegal for everyone to discriminate against gays, and your religion can go pound sand.
First off, you’re either just plain wrong or flat out lying by saying I use “anecdotes of rare complications.” I cite factual cases. What have you cited that isn’t anecdotal except one study which really didn’t help your argument at all?
Saying I declare something barbaric because it’s something I wouldn’t choose to do is disingenuous. I’ve given good reasons why I wouldn’t circumcise a child. What good reasons have you given for doing it other than to imply I’m insensitive to Jewish sensibilities?
Are you even Jewish? Or Muslim? If not, then using the Jewish defense is kinda lame in your defense of circumcision. Is circumcision required by your religion?
I’m willing to propose this in the interest of respecting people’s religious sensibilities: You can continue to circumcise your boy children if it’s for religious reasons. That should bring non-medically necessary circumcisions down to about 2% of the population. As long as it’s performed in a clean sterile hospital environment, we should also legalize female circumcisions with the stipulation that the permanent effects of the female circumcision should be roughly analogous to a boy child’s worsened erectile function and decreased penile sensitivity.