P3t3r wrote:If circumcision were being proposed today without its extraordinary cultural baggage, there's no way it would ever be accepted as ethical and any doctor performing any kind of genital cutting would go to jail. Circumcision is institutionalized sexual mutilation. The problem is male circumcision is so engrained in our culture that we see no problem with it. Most people don't even know that circumcision was introduced in the US to stop masturbation (in the 1870s), it had nothing to with hygiene. The fact it is still legal doesn't mean it is okay, Female Genital Mutilation was legal until 1996.
We should make this very clear, in case it isn't: FGM is not the same as male circumcision. The equivalent would be removing the entire head of the penis.
Put yourself in the child's shoes : do you really believe he's going to think circumcision is okay and doesn't cause any harm because it is socially accepted and may have potential health benefits ?
It is funny how literally strapping down a child and cutting up his gentals is okay, but if you fondle a child's genitals, you get your ass thrown in jail and are branded a monster because of sexual abuse.
Just google "infant circumcision" and see the different videos, it's hard to believe it doesn't cause any harm.
And yet, the data do not reliably indicate that there is harm.
The benefits of circumcision are debatable at best. The US is the only industrialized country cutting babies at birth, the rest of the world is just doing fine without circumcision, they don't suffer from all the diseases circumcision is supposed to cure. When you read the American Academy of Pediatrics position statement on male circumcision, you’ll notice that they refer to “potential” medical benefits. They use the word potential because there still aren’t any known benefits. No medical organization in the world supports infant circumcision.
Except the CDC? The CDC actually is considering universal circumcision because, in third-world countries, it dramatically
lowers STD rates.
Anyway this is about infant circumcision. Nobody has been able so far to explain why not let the child decide later what he wants to do with his penis ? Why should it be a parental choice ? Why is it so important for a parent to make this decision ? Seriously it doesn't matter what your son's penis look like. So once again why not let the owner of the penis choose when he is old enough ?
Because that's not the question. The burden of proof is on you to say why we should override parental discretion, not on me to say why we shouldn't.
First there's no evidence that it doesn't cause harm.
There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
You are asking "why should we override parental discretion?" My answer is : why should it be a parental decision in the first place ?
I made this argument a page or two back. You can read it.
lalop wrote:Circumcision does verifiable harm, just not verified harm. Like the previous example where a person was kicked five years ago: the harm was not verified (indeed, could not be verified now), but it was verifiable at the time and you'd clarified that that's all that matters.
But you don't have conclusive evidence that harm has been done. Thus we cannot say honestly that circumcision is harmful: you need proof. Gather conclusive proof, then you get to tell me it's harmful.
That's the issue: are we going to say that only verified harm ever happened
Yes. Otherwise we cannot know if the harm happened. If you are going to make claims that unverified things happened, you have to prove it. And that, by definition is impossible. You're trying to override parental discretion by saying that harm is done without evidence.
lalop wrote: Neither did, however, the study on the person kicked, and yet that verification-that-did-not-happen was sufficient to demonstrate harm to you. Why not this one?
I'm confused. In that hypothetical situation, there was harm even if it wasn't verified. In your hypothetical study, there was harm even though it wasn't verified. But we're talking about what circumcision is in reality, not what it could hypothetically be.
are you trying to make the argument of "What if circumcision is harmful? we should ban it."? If so, you can replace circumcision with any
phenomenon at all anywhere and arrive at the conclusion that we should ban everything.