Infant Circumcision

[Tomo]

It's yet to be shown that circumcision may harm a person.

Now I'm just going to assume you're trolling, because the alternative is... well... nevermind. There are numerous anecdotal accounts from people who feel circumcision has harmed them, ergo, it has been shown that circumcision MAY harm a person. For zero benefit.

But to avoid going through an analogy again, would you disagree that parents, by default, have discretion over their child, and that one must show an action is harmful to override that discretion?

I think showing that the action may cause harm, and has zero benefit, is more than enough to override that decision.

In addition, you repeatedly ignore the permanence of the action in question. If you give a kid milk and he's lactose intolerant, you stop giving him milk. If you make a kid play football and he hates it, or you believe he is at risk of harm, you should not force him to continue. For the analogy to actually be comparable, you'd have to get parents to agree that if they wanted to make their kid a milk drinker, he would then continue to drink milk every day wether he was lactose intolerant or not, wether he liked it or not.

Even if you knew the kid wasn't lactose intolerant, and there was simply a very very tiny chance that the kid might not like milk, I very much doubt you would find anyone arguing that that was a morally sensible decision.

[mike-l]

Would you disagree that parents, by default, have discretion over their child, and that one must show an action is harmful to override that discretion?

He's already said as much, and I'll say as well. I 100% disagree with that statement. I think that any action a caregiver commits is subject to the question of whether it's in the best interest of the child. IE, the onus is to show benefit. Anything else is subject to question. And any medical procedure, in my opinion, is out of the question without the clear demonstration of benefit.

[sourmìlk]

Nononono, you don't get away from it like that. If tey can forget cutting off the end of their penis at that age, let's assume they'll forget all about the sexual contact (thus no psychological harm)

Do you have evidence to suggest that these memories don't form differently? If we know that rape causes psychological harm, the burden of proof is on you to show it wouldn't in a specific case.

we can even assume the parents only did it once, and did it in a way that leaves no permanent defect (unlike circumcision), so the person will never know. In that case, would you support the parents' right to have sex with their child?

If there's some magical rape where there's no possibility of harm, well then there couldn't be something wrong with it. But that's ridiculous, to suggest that there's really ever a rape scenario that doesn't carry substantial risk of physical and mental harm.

Now I'm just going to assume you're trolling, because the alternative is that you're really, really stupid. There are numerous anecdotal accounts from people who feel circumcision has harmed them, ergo, it has been shown that circumcision MAY harm a person. For zero benefit.

Do I seriously have to make my "any probability of harm > 0 is not necessarily sufficient" argument again?

I think showing that the action may cause harm, and has zero benefit, is more than enough to override that decision.

Okay, I disagree. Parents are unable to do almost anything not vitally to taking care of their children if _any_ possibility of harm is counted. They are not allowed to take them outside the house except for the purposes of school. They are not allowed to feed their children food they didn't explicitly prepare. They are not allowed to let them use any form of entertainment that, even by an iota, increases the child's chance of coming into harm. Parental discretion can't be overridden by any negligible chance that exercising such discretion might theoretically cause harm.

You've taken my milk analogy too far. All I was using it to show was that parents can have their kids do things that, albeit not strictly necessary, carry minimal risk. It was not intended to stand on its own as a defense for circumcision.

Mike, see two paragraphs ago.

[Tomo]

Okay, I disagree. Parents are unable to do almost anything not vitally to taking care of their children if _any_ possibility of harm is counted. They are not allowed to take them outside the house except for the purposes of school. They are not allowed to feed their children food they didn't explicitly prepare. They are not allowed to let them use any form of entertainment that, even by an iota, increases the child's chance of coming into harm.

Correct, apart from those that have benefits. Oh wait, that's all of them.

[sourmìlk]

Okay, I disagree. Parents are unable to do almost anything not vitally to taking care of their children if _any_ possibility of harm is counted. They are not allowed to take them outside the house except for the purposes of school. They are not allowed to feed their children food they didn't explicitly prepare. They are not allowed to let them use any form of entertainment that, even by an iota, increases the child's chance of coming into harm.

Correct, apart from those that have benefits. Oh wait, that's all of them.

How does feeding the children food the parents didn't explicitly prepare benefit them? What proof do you have that slightly unsafer forms of entertainment benefit children?

[Malice]

Would you disagree that parents, by default, have discretion over their child, and that one must show an action is harmful to override that discretion?

He's already said as much, and I'll say as well. I 100% disagree with that statement. I think that any action a caregiver commits is subject to the question of whether it's in the best interest of the child. IE, the onus is to show benefit. Anything else is subject to question. And any medical procedure, in my opinion, is out of the question without the clear demonstration of benefit.

Benefits of circumcision include religious practice, a lower incidence of STD rates, and general aesthetics.

The onus should not be on the caretaker to show benefit, it should be on the state to show harm (if you're talking legally). Otherwise you're saying parents should have to prove the benefit of every food the child eats, every TV show the child watches, every game the child plays, every book the child reads. It's absurd on its face; in general, we respect the rights of parents to raise their children in the way that they choose (yes, even raising them Republican), unless it is proven that the harm far outweighs any potential benefit.

(...dear lord, I think I agree with Sourmilk...)

[yurell]

Nononono, you don't get away from it like that. If tey can forget cutting off the end of their penis at that age, let's assume they'll forget all about the sexual contact (thus no psychological harm)

Do you have evidence to suggest that these memories don't form differently? If we know that rape causes psychological harm, the burden of proof is on you to show it wouldn't in a specific case.

Now you're being fucking obtuse. You know you've painted yourself into a corner and are refusing to admit it -- if you wish it you can have the child under bloody general anaesthetic, you're just trying to avoid answering the question. And as far ways that won't physically damage the child, what about forcing it to give oral, or just using its limbs as delicate sex toys?

Also, what you've done is change your principle from 'if there's no compelling evidence for harm, there is no harm' to 'if there's no compelling evidence for no harm, there is harm'. We know that rape carries psychological trauma, but I'm quite sure cutting off the end of someone's penis against their will when they're old enough to realise what's happening will cause mental problems too.

Lastly, you still haven't answered the question of what about the rape do you think causes these emotional consequences? It's not the physical act of sexual penetration, so could it be the unwanted physical violation of their bodies? Do you see how the analogy fits now?

[Tomo]

How does feeding the children food the parents didn't explicitly prepare benefit them? What proof do you have that slightly unsafer forms of entertainment benefit children?

Well, food generally keeps you alive, so there's that. And if a form of entertainment MAY cause harm with NO benefit, then it's a morally indefensible thing to do to a child. Kind of like circumcision.

[Izawwlgood]

Oh for fucks sake: read over the other threads. You guys are rehashing arguments that are weak, baseless, and centered around misconstruing or misinterpreting that statements of one another. I don't mean to say 'we've already talked about this topic' I mean to say the very thing you are presently discussing was already discussed in other threads.

Parents cosmetically altering their children? Discussed.
Benefits or detriments of circumcision? Discussed.
Sociological imperative of making your child look like you? Discussed.
Does being circumcised permanently traumatize males? Discussed.
Sexually interacting with infants? Already discussed.

[yurell]

You are not forced to read this Izawwlgood, and I have already linked the last thread on the issue.

[sourmìlk]

Nononono, you don't get away from it like that. If tey can forget cutting off the end of their penis at that age, let's assume they'll forget all about the sexual contact (thus no psychological harm)

Do you have evidence to suggest that these memories don't form differently? If we know that rape causes psychological harm, the burden of proof is on you to show it wouldn't in a specific case.

Now you're being fucking obtuse. You know you've painted yourself into a corner and are refusing to admit it -- if you wish it you can have the child under bloody general anaesthetic, you're just trying to avoid answering the question. And as far ways that won't physically damage the child, what about forcing it to give oral, or just using its limbs as delicate sex toys?

Like I said, in some magical or unrealistic scenario in which rape can't possibly do harm, I can't see a problem with it. What problem would you see with it?

Lastly, you still haven't answered the question of what about the rape do you think causes these emotional consequences? It's not the physical act of sexual penetration, so could it be the unwanted physical violation of their bodies? Do you see how the analogy fits now?

I do not know nearly enough about rape to make any judgment about where the emotional consequences originate. It's why I tend not to post much at all in threads involving rape. I don't have nearly enough knowledge of sexuality to make any judgment on what constitutes rape, what does and doesn't qualify as consent, etc. I can give you data, and I can make judgments based on that data, but if you're going to start asking me "why"-type questions about sexuality or rape, I can't answer them.

Izawwlgood: I cannot speak for the others posting here, but I have not really had those conversations on these fora. Rather than necroing ancient threads, it would be best to eliminate the need to necro them. And in a few pages we'll probably be onto new ground.

[Tomo]

Benefits of circumcision include religious practice, a lower incidence of STD rates, and general aesthetics.

I've said this already, but by the time people are in a position to contract STDs, they are in a position to consent to circumcision themselves. The same argument holds for aesthetics, in addition to the fact that there's a sizeable proportion of people who think both circumcised and uncircumcised members look better, so it should still be up to the person in question.

[sourmìlk]

Benefits of circumcision include religious practice, a lower incidence of STD rates, and general aesthetics.

I've said this already, but by the time people are in a position to contract STDs, they are in a position to consent to circumcision themselves.

I don't believe minors can volunteer for elective surgery. Many minors have sex. And you're still forgetting the increased risk of circumcision during adulthood. But really, the benefits are negligible enough in first-world countries to not be too considered. Combined with whatever tiny possibility of harm there is, in absence of more conclusive evidence we can say that circumcision is, as far as health is concerned, neutral.

[The Great Hippo]

Nononono, you don't get away from it like that. If they can forget cutting off the end of their penis at that age, let's assume they'll forget all about the sexual contact (thus no psychological harm) -- we can even assume the parents only did it once, and did it in a way that leaves no permanent defect (unlike circumcision), so the person will never know. In that case, would you support the parents' right to have sex with their child?

Again, I find this argument to be in incredibly poor taste. It's also just a poor metaphor--you're talking about the right of parents to mutilate and modify their children, not about sexual abuse. There are some cases where I'd assume a desire to mutilate your child isn't indicative of an abusive, abhorrent parent; there are no cases where I'd assume the same about a desire to sexually abuse your child.

Why are we talking about magical situations where all the consequences evaporate into ether? There are plenty of real examples of mutilation going on right now. Why not talk about them? It's been suggested that correcting webbed toes should be acceptable because they have very real, measurable benefits; but is that true? What real benefit does correcting webbed feet serve? Isn't it, in some cases, the moral equivalent of circumcision?

[yurell]

Like I said, in some magical or unrealistic scenario in which rape can't possibly do harm, I can't see a problem with it. What problem would you see with it?

What is magical about that scenario? There are infant fetishists out there and disgustingly this stuff does happen. It's a hypothetical situation, there's nothing wrong with that, an you're just trying to paint it as unrealistic because your own stated stance screws you over, just like you demand a huge standard of evidence to prove that sex with an infant does no harm (and calling it 'magical' otherwise), while just assuming the 'null hypothesis' with circumcision.

[Tomo]

There are some cases where I'd assume a desire to mutilate your child isn't indicative of an abusive, abhorrent parent; there are no cases where I'd assume the same about a desire to sexually abuse your child.

Honestly, I would assume both cases are equally indicative of abusive, abhorrent parenting.

[yurell]

Again, I find this argument to be in incredibly poor taste. It's also just a poor metaphor--you're talking about the right of parents to mutilate and modify their children, not about sexual abuse. There are some cases where I'd assume a desire to mutilate your child isn't indicative of an abusive, abhorrent parent; there are no cases where I'd assume the same about a desire to sexually abuse your child.

Why are we talking about magical situations where all the consequences evaporate into ether? There are plenty of real examples of mutilation going on right now. Why not talk about them? It's been suggested that correcting webbed toes should be acceptable because they have very real, measurable benefits; but is that true? What real benefit does correcting webbed feet serve? Isn't it, in some cases, the moral equivalent of circumcision?

What do you mean, it's a poor metaphor? It's a question directed at Sourmilk's stance that:

And yes, parents do have a right to their children's bodies so long as what they do is not harmful.

It's not a metaphor at all in the post you quote, it's a hypothetical situation to force Sourmilk to admit that either this stance is wrong or sex with infants is alright.

[sourmìlk]

Like I said, in some magical or unrealistic scenario in which rape can't possibly do harm, I can't see a problem with it. What problem would you see with it?

What is magical about that scenario? There are infant fetishists out there and disgustingly this stuff does happen. It's a hypothetical situation, there's nothing wrong with that, an you're just trying to paint it as unrealistic because your own stated stance screws you over, just like you demand a huge standard of evidence to prove that sex with an infant does no harm (and calling it 'magical' otherwise), while just assuming the 'null hypothesis' with circumcision.

We know sexual abuse is harmful, that shifts the null hypothesis. You're trying to prove an exception to a rule now, the burden of proof is on you.

And yes, until you're going to show otherwise I consider the situation of a parent having non-penetrative sex with an anesthetized infant using virtually infinite amounts of protection and having no behaviour suggesting that he would ever hurt another infant through this behaviour or otherwise exercise it again magical and unrealistic.

And no, you are not trying to get me to say that sex with infants is alright, you're trying to get to me say that some form of sex that has no consequences is alright, and almost by the definition of "has no consequences", well yes. There is nothing wrong with something that can't hurt anybody.

Honestly, I would assume both cases are equally indicative of abusive, abhorrent parenting.

Find me any consensus or expert opinion stating that circumcision is as traumatizing as sexual abuse.

[yurell]

We know sexual abuse is harmful, that shifts the null hypothesis. You're trying to prove an exception to a rule now, the burden of proof is on you. /quote]

We know slicing someone's skin is harmful, that shifts the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is now on you to show that circumcision is not harmful. That logic of yours, works both ways.

And yes, until you're going to show otherwise I consider the situation of a parent having non-penetrative sex with an anesthetized infant using virtually infinite amounts of protection and having no behaviour suggesting that he would ever hurt another infant through this behaviour magical and unrealistic.

Infinite amount of protection? Where the fuck did I say that? Shove its leg into your vagina, done, child is now a vile masturbation aid. Is this immoral, if it happens only once? There are no consequences to the child, it's not old enough to remember.

[sourmìlk]

If there's not an absurd amount of protection, there's still a risk of std's. So, assuming you're using some completely safe anesthesia, the sex is non-penetrative, you're using absurd amounts of protection, and your behaviour isn't indicative of other problems, then like I said, there's nothing wrong with something that can't harm anybody.

And assuming that you've invented some form of infant sex that can't harm somebody... what is wrong with it?

[Tomo]

And assuming that you've invented some form of infant sex that can't harm somebody... what is wrong with it?

"Nothing wrong with masturbating over sleeping infants" - Sourmilk.

[yurell]

If there's not an absurd amount of protection, there's still a risk of std's. So, assuming you're using some completely safe anesthesia, the sex is non-penetrative, you're using absurd amounts of protection, and your behaviour isn't indicative of other problems, then like I said, there's nothing wrong with something that can't harm anybody.

Oh, right, because it's completely impossible for someone who doesn't have STDs to violate an infant It has a mouth and limbs that someone could use for this purpose (although it makes me sick to think of it in too much detail), it's possible to get tested for STDs, the babies are circumcised while conscious, so I don't see why this can't happen while so.

And assuming that you've invented some form of infant sex that can't harm somebody... what is wrong with it?

So you do accept raping an infant is acceptable? Great, now I never need to take you seriously on moral issues again.


I think I'm done with Sourmilk on this thread.

[sourmìlk]

And assuming that you've invented some form of infant sex that can't harm somebody... what is wrong with it?

"Nothing wrong with masturbating over sleeping infants" - Sourmilk.

Not only does that not sum up what I said, even if I did, you still couldn't put it in quotes. That's not how quotation works.

Yurell, you didn't like my response, despite the fact that it's the one you explicitly stated you were leading me to, and then you don't make an argument therefore saying that you're done. To be clear, that's not something to be okay with.

[The Great Hippo]

It's not a metaphor at all in the post you quote, it's a hypothetical situation to force Sourmilk to admit that either this stance is wrong or sex with infants is alright.

I beg pardon if you weren't using it as a metaphor in the specific post I quoted--but you've stated that it's morally equivalent previously here (if I'm reading correctly). I think it's largely a red herring and not at all appropriate for this discussion.

Also, again: Actions with absolutely no consequences have absolutely no moral value.

[sourmìlk]

Exactly. I think that any action, if the consequences have been, with certainty, eliminated is acceptable whatever the base action might be. And I haven't seen any argument against that stance.

[yurell]

I beg pardon if you weren't using it as a metaphor in the specific post I quoted--but you've stated that it's morally equivalent previously here (if I'm reading correctly). I think it's largely a red herring and not at all appropriate for this discussion.

Ah yes, I did indeed compare it to being as bad as rape. In what way is that a red herring?

Also, again: Actions with absolutely no consequences have absolutely no moral value.

That really depends how you define 'consequences'. In the child-rape scenario, the child is too young to remember, so the only consequence is someone with an unfortunate fetish gets off. Does this make it a good thing, since only a 'good' consequence occurs (someone gains rare sexual pleasure at no cost to someone else)?

[Tomo]

Not only does that not sum up what I said, even if I did, you still couldn't put it in quotes. That's not how quotation works.

Firstly, feel free to explain how that could harm an infant in any way. Secondly, I was being facetious, because I'm bored of your edgy teenage I-just-learnt-logic-so-lets-apply-it-to-everything-because-common-sense-is-just-not-cool-enough attitude, as well as your continued dismissal of the multitude of people who have been harmed by circumcision.

[sourmìlk]

Firstly, feel free to explain how that could harm an infant in any way. Secondly, I was being facetious, because I'm bored of your edgy teenage I-just-learnt-logic-so-lets-apply-it-to-everything-because-common-sense-is-just-not-cool-enough attitude, as well as your continued dismissal of the multitude of people who have been harmed by circumcision.

Considering that about 1 billion people have been circumcised, anecdotes and instances of .00001% of them dying doesn't actually impress me as far as providing evidence for harm goes.

Also, insults like saying that you'll never take me seriously again and that I argue like an ignorant teenager are superfluous to your arguments, and really aren't appropriate on this forum. Despite the fact that you have indirectly accused my parents of being child abusers, I have not insulted you. I hope you extend me the same courtesy.

[BattleMoose]

There are no medical benefits of circumcision that cannot cannot be achieved through a shower, and general good hygiene (In a first world country and lets face it, thats pretty much what we are discussing). Considering the non zero medical risks associated with the procedure, medically, circumcising is a bad move, with risk and no benefit, strictly from a medical perspective.

And on the topic of sensitivity, these are mostly surveys, of men, asking about sensitivity and to be blunt, what frame of reference do they have? How would they know anything about the relative sensitivity of circumcised and non-mutilated penises? Using this data to support or argue the point is, odd. It would even be better to ask women about their anecdotal experiences with sensitivity of penises.

Of course, asking gay men about penises would yield a much more informative response. And unsurprisingly there are some very strong feelings the loss of foreskins within the gay community, have a frame of reference provides a platform for getting angry about what someone has lost. Also, on virtually all gay dating websites, the issue of cut or uncut is asked and displayed on member profiles, because it matters.

Fortunately my parents refrained from this practice when it came to me, but if they had I would be absolutely fucking livid about it. I would view it as interfering with my body in a most inappropriate way for no benefit. It would have done me both physiological and psychological harm, I would certainly have considered it as harmful.

So to summarize:

1. No medical benefit that cannot be achieved with bathing
2. Has risk

And these two points alone, make performing the procedure immoral and unethical based on the, do no harm principal which is the first and most fundamental aspect of medicine. It is never appropriate to perform medical procedures that are unnecessary.

3. Possible loss of sensitivity (I put in possibly because of the nonsense in the scientific literature on the matter, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it causes a loss of sensitivity or at least, may cause a loss of sensitivity).
4. Feelings of being violated
5. And discriminated against by potential sexual partners who have strong opinions on circumcision.

And if it was so important to perform the procedure it can wait. Consent is much more important than a minor increase in complications in the procedure. Also consider, there are a lot of people who are unhappy with being circumcised and much fewer that are angry that they weren't.

[sourmìlk]

Nobody has provided conclusive evidence that those risks are significant. And they would have to be to override parental discretion, as previously explained.

[Tomo]

Considering that about 1 billion people have been circumcised, anecdotes and instances of .00001% of them dying doesn't actually impress me as far as providing evidence for harm goes.

Which is exactly the point. You're happy to inflict a permanent condition on numerous people which they view as mutilation and seriously degrades their enjoyment of life, without offering any proof of any benefit whatsoever, because of statistics.

Also, insults like saying that you'll never take me seriously again and that I argue like an ignorant teenager are superfluous to your arguments, and really aren't appropriate on this forum.

I never said I wouldn't take you seriously, that was someone else. And I do believe that completely ignoring individual people in favor of statistics is arguing like an ignorant teenager, but there you go.

Nobody has provided conclusive evidence that those risks are significant. And they would have to be to override parental discretion, as previously explained.

They shouldn't have to, there's a risk, however small ofinflicting a permanent negative condition on another person, without their consent, and with no added benefit. AND, you've given absolutely no evidence that the risk is insignificant, despite the fact that the burden of proof usually rests on the person trying to carry out an action.

[BattleMoose]

Nobody has provided conclusive evidence that those risks are significant. And they would have to be to override parental discretion, as previously explained.

?

Complications

Complication rates ranging from 0.06% to 55% have been cited;[100] more specific estimates have included 2–10%[101] and 0.2–0.6%.[48][26]

According to the American Medical Association (AMA), blood loss and infection are the most common complications, but most bleeding is minor and can be stopped by applying pressure.[48] A survey of circumcision complications by Kaplan in 1983 revealed that the rate of bleeding complications was between 0.1% and 35%.[102] A 1999 study of 48 boys who had complications from traditional male circumcision in Nigeria found that haemorrhage occurred in 52% of the boys, infection in 21% and one child had his penis amputated.[103]

One study looking at 354,297 births in Washington State from 1987–1996 found that immediate post-birth complications occurred at a rate of 0.2% in the circumcised babies and at a rate of 0.01% in the uncircumcised babies. The authors judged that this was a conservative estimate because it did not capture the very rare but serious delayed complications associated with circumcisions (e.g., necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis) and the less serious but more common complications such as the circumcision scar or a less than ideal cosmetic result. They also stated that the risks of circumcision "do not seem to be mitigated by the hands of more experienced physicians".[104]

Meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urethral opening) may be a longer-term complication of circumcision. It is thought that because the foreskin no longer protects the meatus, ammonia formed from urine in wet diapers irritates and inflames the exposed urethral opening. Meatal stenosis can lead to discomfort with urination, incontinence, bleeding after urination and urinary tract infections.[105][106][107]

Circumcisions may remove too much or too little skin.[101][108] If insufficient skin is removed, the child may still develop phimosis in later life.[101] Van Howe states that "when operating on the infantile penis, the surgeon cannot adequately judge the appropriate amount of tissue to remove because the penis will change considerably as the child ages, such that a small difference at the time of surgery may translate into a large difference in the adult circumcised penis. To date (1997), there have been no published studies showing the ability of a circumciser to predict the later appearance of the penis."[109]

Cathcart et al. report that 0.5% of boys required a procedure to revise the circumcision.[110]

Other complications include concealed penis,[111][112] urinary fistulas, chordee, cysts, lymphedema, ulceration of the glans, necrosis of all or part of the penis, hypospadias, epispadias and impotence.[102] Kaplan stated "Virtually all of these complications are preventable with only a modicum of care" and "most such complications occur at the hands of inexperienced operators who are neither urologists nor surgeons."[102]

Another complication of infant circumcision is skin bridge formation, whereby a remaining part of the foreskin fuses to other parts of the penis (often the glans) upon healing. This can result in pain during erections and minor bleeding can occur if the shaft skin is forcibly retracted.[113] Van Howe advises that to prevent adhesions forming after circumcision, parents should be instructed to retract and clean any skin covering the glans.[109]

Although deaths have been reported,[102][114] the American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000 from circumcision.[76] In 2010, Bollinger estimated a death rate of 9.01 per 100,000, or 117 per year in the United States.[115] Gairdner's 1949 study[116] reported that an average of 16 children per year out of about 90,000 died following circumcision in the UK. He found that most deaths had occurred suddenly under anaesthesia and could not be explained further, but hemorrhage and infection had also proven fatal. Deaths attributed to phimosis and circumcision were grouped together, but Gairdner argued that such deaths were probably due to the circumcision operation. Wiswell and Geschke reported no deaths in the first month of life after 100,157 circumcisions (in contrast with two deaths among 35,929 uncircumcised boys); they also reported finding no deaths in separate series of 300,000 US Army circumcisions, and 650,000 boys circumcised in Texas.[117] King reported no deaths among 500,000 circumcisions.[118] The penis is thought to be lost in 1 in 1,000,000 circumcisions.[119]

Death, a possible complication is DEATH.

[sourmìlk]

Considering that about 1 billion people have been circumcised, anecdotes and instances of .00001% of them dying doesn't actually impress me as far as providing evidence for harm goes.

Which is exactly the point. You're happy to inflict a permanent condition on numerous people which they view as mutilation and seriously degrades their enjoyment of life, without offering any proof of any benefit whatsoever, because of statistics.

If the alternative is overriding parental discretion for the sake of .001% of the population, then yes I think that's an appropriate tradeoff. I have already stated and explained why you should need to demonstrate a significant risk before overriding parental discretion to do something.

I never said I wouldn't take you seriously, that was someone else. And I do believe that completely ignoring individual people in favor of statistics is arguing like an ignorant teenager, but there you go.

I did not attribute the first quote to you. And again, you make an insulting point superfluous to your arguments. Stop it, it isn't constructive and it's incredibly rude.

Death, a possible complication is DEATH.

In .01% of cases at most usually due to avoidable causes. Like I said, there is not risk significant enough to override parental discretion.

They shouldn't have to, there's a risk, however small ofinflicting a permanent negative condition on another person, without their consent, and with no added benefit. AND, you've given absolutely no evidence that the risk is insignificant, despite the fact that the burden of proof usually rests on the person trying to carry out an action.

Please stop ignoring my arguments about parental discretion. I have already explained why you need to show evidence of significant possibility for harm before overriding parental discretion.

[Izawwlgood]

Abusive Parenting.
Really horrid abuse.
Really, really awful abuse.

All of these represent virtually entirely cosmetic surgeries (depending on the severity for each) that it is perfectly reasonable to subject your children to without their consent so they can fit an image desired by the parent.

Any claims about the medical benefits or detriments of circumcision are because the person reporting these summaries is revealing their own bias; there are findings of benefits, detriments, and negligible side effects.

Any claims about the change in sensitivity is self-reported based on adults who have undergone the procedure; this is obviously not an acceptable comparison.

Tomo: you are presenting some pretty heavily biased opinions, not really backed up by... anything.
BattleMoose: I'm curious if you're aware that the article you provided is a fairly strong case for circumcision being quite safe.
@yurell: I was pointing this out earlier because these threads tend to erupt into people talking past one another and deliberately misconstruing arguments or arguing in extremely poor faith. This is like making another abortion, I/P, or religion thread.

[BattleMoose]

Death, a possible complication is DEATH.

In .01% of cases at most usually due to avoidable causes. Like I said, there is not risk significant enough to override parental discretion.

Hardly matters if its avoidable, you are still dead. And this is still an unacceptably high risk to take, we constantly avoid activities in society today with this kind of death rate, because its recognized as dangerous! Worse, its an activity with no benefit, that cannot be achieved through bathing. And performing this procedure, as has been mentioned before goes against 2000 years of medical practice, the doing no harm thing.

And this is on the extreme side of the negatives associated with circumcision. And don't forget all the other negative aspects of the procedure that have already been listed.

[sourmìlk]

Hardly matters if its avoidable, you are still dead. And this is still an unacceptably high risk to take, we constantly avoid activities in society today with this kind of death rate, because its recognized as dangerous!

that's not true.

Worse, its an activity with no benefit, that cannot be achieved through bathing. And performing this procedure, as has been mentioned before goes against 2000 years of medical practice, the doing no harm thing.

Which is why I would not recommend it as a medical procedure. You're making a medical argument, not a moral one.

[Izawwlgood]

To be clear, if the risks were significant, no one would support male circumcision. But the risks are extraordinarily low. Your chances of dying in a routine surgery from complications in anesthesia (1 in 10,000) are higher than the risks of dying from circumcision.

[BattleMoose]

To be clear, if the risks were significant, no one would support male circumcision. But the risks are extraordinarily low. Your chances of dying in a routine surgery from complications in anesthesia (1 in 10,000) are higher than the risks of dying from circumcision.

And every good surgeon will tell you that every surgery has its risks and the risks of using anesthesia is weighed and balanced against the risks and benefits. Further from what I linked before:

In 2010, Bollinger estimated a death rate of 9.01 per 100,000, or 117 per year in the United States.[115]

Which effectively is 1 in 10 000.

My issue is not so much that the risk of complications is high or low but that we are accepting a real risk for no gain, indeed for a procedure that many consider to be harmful.

Which is why I would not recommend it as a medical procedure. You're making a medical argument, not a moral one.

I have made a number of arguments why its a bad idea, you have nitpicked the medical aspect and thats fine. And I am making a medical argument not to do it, because medically it can be harmful and its morally unacceptable to perform unnecessary medical procedures. Especially if they carry risk.

[sourmìlk]

I have made a number of arguments why its a bad idea, you have nitpicked the medical aspect and thats fine. And I am making a medically argument not to do it, because medical it can be harmful and its morally unacceptable to perform unnecessary medical procedures. Especially if they carry risk.

the risk is not significant enough to override a parents right to discretion over his child, as I explained earlier.

[Tomo]

the risk is not significant enough to override a parents right to discretion over his child, as I explained earlier.

In your opinion.