San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

[Greyarcher]

Indeed, while people may say stuff like "permanent cutting" while trying to stress a negative undertone, I can't say that undertone is a solid argument for legal action.

[Malice]

Well right, but I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against medically indicated circumcision.

Which goes back to my belief that, as in other aspects of a child's life, a parent should be allowed to make choices for their child whose sole purpose is cultural or religious in nature. Circumcision is not usually medically required, but as a practice it has cultural significance and results in little or no harm; as such I should have the right to have my child circumcised if I so desire.

[Iulus Cofield]

I'm always kind of baffled by arguments for universal circumcision on the basis of it being preventative of certain medical conditions. I've never heard of anyone advocate removing appendixes because they might explode or tonsils because they might do whatever it is that tonsils do when they need to get removed. My favorite is the alleged AIDS prevention. Because we can't just teach our children to use condoms.

[Greyarcher]

Well right, but I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against medically indicated circumcision.

Which goes back to my belief that, as in other aspects of a child's life, a parent should be allowed to make choices for their child whose sole purpose is cultural or religious in nature. Circumcision is not usually medically required, but as a practice it has cultural significance and results in little or no harm; as such I should have the right to have my child circumcised if I so desire.

Leaving decisions to parents is the worst kludge of a way to raise children. Except for all those other ways of raising children.

Yeah, I was reminded of Churchill.

[Mordrorru]

I think this thread needs to swerve into another lane. Namely, the connotation with opposition to circumcision and abortion.

If you oppose parents making "irreversible decisions for their children," presumably we should wait for children to be born and grow up before asking them if they'd like to commit suicide.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

I don't think it's up to the state to decide which cultural practices I can and cannot follow, assuming those practices do not cause "significant harm", and I certainly don't think I should have to justify to the state the way in which I raise my children.

Why shouldn't you? They're not just some mindless extensions of you. They're underdeveloped, vulnerable people of limited agency who we trust to people on the rather arbitry basis that they spawned them. You should damn well have to justify to the State how you treat such a person.

[gmalivuk]

Why? Is it also a positive to cut off a couple inches of a kid who's more well-endowed than his father? Even if it could somehow be done painlessly and without loss of sensation? Wouldn't want them to look different, after all?

1) Because removing foreskin is a culturally accepted practice. Cutting off an inch is not and will get other kids to call your boy a freak.
2) Because removing foreskin doesn't cause a loss of function. Cutting off an actual inch of the penis? I'm not even sure I want to think about what that will do in terms of sexual function.

1) He'd only be called a freak if everyone knew about it.
2) That's why I said "without loss of sensation". Extend that to all sexual functioning, if you like.

So, now that no one's calling him a freak and there's no loss of sexual function, does it become magically okay to remove an inch of your son's penis?

If you oppose parents making "irreversible decisions for their children," presumably we should wait for children to be born and grow up before asking them if they'd like to commit suicide.

Abortion isn't about ending a child's life, it's about ending a pregnancy.

And deciding to have the kid is every bit as much an irreversible decision as deciding to abort.

[Mordrorru]

Abortion isn't about ending a child's life, it's about ending a pregnancy.

And deciding to have the kid is every bit as much an irreversible decision as deciding to abort.

Weasel words. It goes back to the old debate about at which point "the pregnancy" becomes "a child." But that's a debate for another day!

[Whimsical Eloquence]

Abortion isn't about ending a child's life, it's about ending a pregnancy.

And deciding to have the kid is every bit as much an irreversible decision as deciding to abort.

Weasel words. It goes back to the old debate about at which point "the pregnancy" becomes "a child." But that's a debate for another day!

Nonsense. As gmalivuk said it's about the Pregnancy, not the life.

Of course, all of that is totally irrelevant to this.

[Greyarcher]

I think this thread needs to swerve into another lane. Namely, the connotation with opposition to circumcision and abortion.

If you oppose parents making "irreversible decisions for their children," presumably we should wait for children to be born and grow up before asking them if they'd like to commit suicide.

No, first we have to get consent for if they want to be conceived in the first place. Before they're conceived. Somehow. After all, we can't reverse the time that they're alive.

Ha ha. Though actually, I do see it as a flaw that one cannot obtain such consent. Impossible to obtain sadly. But that lack of consent is one of the reasons why I'd consider there to be a significant burden of responsibility with parenthood.

I don't think it's up to the state to decide which cultural practices I can and cannot follow, assuming those practices do not cause "significant harm", and I certainly don't think I should have to justify to the state the way in which I raise my children.

Why shouldn't you? They're not just some mindless extensions of you. They're underdeveloped, vulnerable people of limited agency who we trust to people on the rather arbitry basis that they spawned them. You should damn well have to justify to the State how you treat such a person.

The justification is given yourself in the second sentence. Children are generally entrusted to their parents. Hence the parents do not have the burden of proof in this case. The burden is generally on the State to show there's good reason to intervene between parents and children. E.g. when significant harm is occurring to the latter.

[Mordrorru]

Nonsense. As gmalivuk said it's about the Pregnancy, not the life.

You can stress one facet and ignore the other as one wishes, but the fact remains that a life ends, whether it's a "person" or not. Not to mention the "Sick Violinist" is hardly the end-all in the abortion debate. But enough of this. As you say, it's totally irrelevant.

-----

Getting serious though, the circumcision debate seems to me to be more of a technical point. While it may be debated whether a parent has a right to make the decision for (let's grant) a purely cosmetic change for their child, I don't think it's this monstrous, barbaric, horrific practice that many anti-circumcision people seem to depict it as.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

I don't think it's up to the state to decide which cultural practices I can and cannot follow, assuming those practices do not cause "significant harm", and I certainly don't think I should have to justify to the state the way in which I raise my children.

Why shouldn't you? They're not just some mindless extensions of you. They're underdeveloped, vulnerable people of limited agency who we trust to people on the rather arbitry basis that they spawned them. You should damn well have to justify to the State how you treat such a person.

The justification is given yourself in the second sentence. Children are generally entrusted to their parents. Hence the parents do not have the burden of proof in this case. The burden is generally on the State to show there's good reason to intervene between parents and children. E.g. when significant harm is occurring to the latter.

If I entrusted to your care a child for a year or so, but regularly called on you to see how the child was getting on and discovered you'd cut a number of scares into the child's thigh without any consent on its part and, in the process causing great pain, would it be vile of me to ask for some justification of this fact? Even though I'd entrusted it to you.

[Mordrorru]

Presumably those who are on the "against" side in this debate are also against parents getting braces for their children for purely cosmetic reasons as well?

[Greyarcher]

If I entrusted to your care a child for a year or so, but regularly called on you to see how the child was getting on and discovered you'd cut a number of scares into the child's thigh without any consent on its part and, in the process causing great pain, would it be vile of me to ask for some justification of this fact? Even though I'd entrusted it to you.

No, but I'd remove your ban from the ballot if would-be analogies like that are the best case you can make.

After all, if the best you can do is try and describe something else that would count as harm, and then say it's the same as circumcision, that's probably a sign that you don't have a strong case and/or hard data showing that circumcision has caused widespread and significant harm to children who underwent it.

[Griffin]

Presumably those who are on the "against" side in this debate are also against parents getting braces for their children for purely cosmetic reasons as well?

I am, to be honest. I resent my parents for that a lot more than I resent them for the circumcision. My memories of certain years in my childhood are pretty much constant pain because of that crap, and there's actually been lasting psychological damage in that I am completely unwilling to visit dentists as an adult because I think they are all lying manipulative thieves who have no goal other than inflicting pain on people while emptying their wallets.

I... may have some issues with dentists.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I think it should be illegal. I just think the sort of people who would do something like that to their kid have done something pretty terrible, and have no problems telling them so to their face if and when I discover it. Its certainly not the worst abuse parents can legally pile onto their children!

[Mordrorru]

I am, to be honest. I resent my parents for that a lot more than I resent them for the circumcision. My memories of certain years in my childhood are pretty much constant pain because of that crap, and there's actually been lasting psychological damage in that I am completely unwilling to visit dentists as an adult because I think they are all lying manipulative thieves who have no goal other than inflicting pain on people while emptying their wallets.

I... may have some issues with dentists.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I think it should be illegal. I just think the sort of people who would do something like that to their kid have done something pretty terrible, and have no problems telling them so to their face if and when I discover it. Its certainly not the worst abuse parents can legally pile onto their children!

Good to know.

Presumably piercings should be left until kids are 18 as well.
Hair cuts too, maybe?

We've all seen the crying kid in the chair. It's barbaric.

[yurell]

Hair cuts too, maybe?

What an idiotic comparison. How is a hair cut at all comparable to unalterable modifications that result in permanent scarring and removal of sensitive tissue?

[mmmcannibalism]

Presumably those who are on the "against" side in this debate are also against parents getting braces for their children for purely cosmetic reasons as well?

Is it even possible for braces to be purely cosmetic, assuming the orthodontist is being honest?

[Mordrorru]

What an idiotic comparison. How is a hair cut at all comparable to unalterable modifications that result in permanent scarring and removal of sensitive tissue?

It's a purely cosmetic and unnecessary procedure being forced on an unwilling child by his parents causing psychological distress. Surely this is barbaric.

Is it even possible for braces to be purely cosmetic, assuming the orthodontist is being honest?

I have my own case to point to, so that's one example.

[yurell]

It's a purely cosmetic and unnecessary procedure being forced on an unwilling child by his parents causing psychological distress. Surely this is barbaric.

Surely there are different levels of psychological distress, and for different durations?

[Mordrorru]

Surely there are different levels of psychological distress, and for different durations?

So certain levels of inflicting psychological distress on your child for no real reason is okay?

[yurell]

So certain levels of inflicting psychological distress on your child for no real reason is okay?

'No real reason'? I wouldn't think so ... but then, I wouldn't describe having a haircut as 'for no real reason'. There are the difficulties in cleaning hair that is never cut, health & safety risks involved with long hair and problems with parasites such as lice that infect long hair.
Added to this, there is a certain level of psychological 'distress' (I use the inverted commas because it is ludicrous to apply this connotation-loaded word to such a trivial matter) required to learn to function at all in society. I fail to see how this could be construed as barbarism.

[Mordrorru]

'No real reason'? I wouldn't think so ... but then, I wouldn't describe having a haircut as 'for no real reason'. There are the difficulties in cleaning hair that is never cut, health & safety risks involved with long hair and problems with parasites such as lice that infect long hair.

Ah, but isn't that a common reason described to have a circumcision? It makes the penis easier to clean and keep healthy?

And the common response, I believe, is that if you're not a filthy dumbass it's not a problem.

Added to this, there is a certain level of psychological 'distress' (I use the inverted commas because it is ludicrous to apply this connotation-loaded word to such a trivial matter) required to learn to function at all in society. I fail to see how this could be construed as barbarism.

I am deliberately overblowing words, because that's what the anti-crowd does.

[Torchship]

I am deliberately overblowing words, because that's what the anti-crowd does.

I have a question: how are you defining "the anti-crowd"? Those who oppose circumcision in any way, shape and form? Those who oppose circumcision for too-young-to-decide children? Those who oppose the common, anaesthetic-less ritualised circumcision?

[Mordrorru]

I have a question: how are you defining "the anti-crowd"? Those who oppose circumcision in any way, shape and form? Those who oppose circumcision for too-young-to-decide children? Those who oppose the common, anaesthetic-less ritualised circumcision?

The people I am referring to are the people who use the words I just used, "barbaric," "horrific," etc, whatever exactly they oppose.

[yurell]

Ah, but isn't that a common reason described to have a circumcision? It makes the penis easier to clean and keep healthy?

And the common response, I believe, is that if you're not a filthy dumbass it's not a problem.

I believe this was immediately following "So certain levels of inflicting psychological distress on your child for no real reason is okay?"
Certain levels are. Certain aren't. I am sure a guy can pull back his foreskin and wash with a lot more ease and a lot less time than it would take to wash an extra metre or more of hair.

I am deliberately overblowing words, because that's what the anti-crowd does.

Very good. Although you may wish to consider that a) they may actually consider it 'mutilation' (as an example), and are not "deliberately overblowing words" and b) stooping to your opponents level, if you believe they are being low, isn't exactly the best way to present yourself.

[Mordrorru]

I believe this was immediately following "So certain levels of inflicting psychological distress on your child for no real reason is okay?"
Certain levels are. Certain aren't. I am sure a guy can pull back his foreskin and wash with a lot more ease and a lot less time than it would take to wash an extra metre or more of hair.

Why are certain levels okay and certain aren't if it's all needless? Why have any when you can have none?

Very good. Although you may wish to consider that a) they may actually consider it 'mutilation' (as an example), and are not "deliberately overblowing words" and b) stooping to your opponents level, if you believe they are being low, isn't exactly the best way to present yourself.

Well I'm trying to make a point.

[yurell]

Why are certain levels okay and certain aren't if it's all needless? Why have any when you can have none?

Perhaps I quoted poorly: "So certain levels of inflicting psychological distress on your child for no real some reason is okay?"

Well I'm trying to make a point.

Then make it.

[Mordrorru]

Perhaps I quoted poorly: "So certain levels of inflicting psychological distress on your child for no real some reason is okay?"

What reason?

Then make it.

I am in the process.

[yurell]

What reason?

These:

'No real reason'? I wouldn't think so ... but then, I wouldn't describe having a haircut as 'for no real reason'. There are the difficulties in cleaning hair that is never cut, health & safety risks involved with long hair and problems with parasites such as lice that infect long hair.
Added to this, there is a certain level of psychological 'distress' (I use the inverted commas because it is ludicrous to apply this connotation-loaded word to such a trivial matter) required to learn to function at all in society.

I am sure a guy can pull back his foreskin and wash with a lot more ease and a lot less time than it would take to wash an extra metre or more of hair.

Those are the reasons I provided as examples of why a tiny amount of 'distress' is acceptable.

[Mordrorru]

Those are the reasons I provided as examples of why a tiny amount of 'distress' is acceptable.

But it's not if the child is okay with it.

If a child is okay with cleaning his long hair rather than having it cut, I'm assuming you'd like to pass a law (for we're talking about laws, right?) that forbids parents from forcing him to get it cut, is that about it?

[Torchship]

The people I am referring to are the people who use the words I just used, "barbaric," "horrific," etc, whatever exactly they oppose.

In the case of the third group, such terminology is absolutely warranted. The procedure is performed without anaesthetic by (I believe) someone who is not a trained medical professional in a non-medical (i.e. non-sterile, no facilities on-hand if anything goes wrong) environment. It is an absurd procedure which should be banned immediately.

Even in the middle case, I believe the essential idea (though perhaps not the particular terminology used to express it) is valid. Performing an irreversible (and potentially dangerous) operation on a child incapable of understanding its significance for purely cosmetic reasons is not, in my mind, a particularly good justification (this would also extend to cosmetic braces, but not haircuts, as they are neither irreversible nor particularly dangerous).

The first case is just silly.

[Mordrorru]

Even in the middle case, I believe the essential idea (though perhaps not the particular terminology used to express it) is valid. Performing an irreversible (and potentially dangerous) operation on a child incapable of understanding its significance for purely cosmetic reasons is not, in my mind, a particularly good justification (this would also extend to cosmetic braces, but not haircuts, as they are neither irreversible nor particularly dangerous).

And yet haircuts still, for some reason, cause psychological distress to some children. And, as I said, it's an unnecessary procedure. So therefore, we shouldn't force them to have it. You can map the progress of this line of thought above.

[Torchship]

And yet haircuts still, for some reason, cause psychological distress to some children. And, as I said, it's an unnecessary procedure. So therefore, we shouldn't force them to have it. You can map the progress of this line of thought above.

Huh? I have never, at any point, stated that just because a procedure is unnecessary it should not be performed. Huge numbers of unnecessary procedures (both medical and otherwise) are performed every day, mostly for appearance or fleeting desire. I have absolutely no problem with these kinds of procedures as long as they are performed on consenting people fully capable of comprehending the significance of their (probably irreversible) choices (haircuts are not irreversible, nor particularly significant, thus I have no problem with it). This is not true of child circumcision, thus I oppose it .

[yurell]

But it's not if the child is okay with it.

If a child is okay with cleaning his long hair rather than having it cut, I'm assuming you'd like to pass a law (for we're talking about laws, right?) that forbids parents from forcing him to get it cut, is that about it?

The child is also willing to provide the parents monetary compensation should they have to be cured of head lice, and shan't be bothered by teasing for having styles deemed socially acceptable?
And why on Earth would I like to pass a law like that? It's ridiculous. I don't believe I've stated my opinion on circumcision at all (especially since I don't have a vested interest in the subject), or on the banning thereof. It was your argument that I found daft and made me inclined to post.

[Greyarcher]

Huh? I have never, at any point, stated that just because a procedure is unnecessary it should not be performed. Huge numbers of unnecessary procedures (both medical and otherwise) are performed every day, mostly for appearance or fleeting desire. I have absolutely no problem with these kinds of procedures as long as they are performed on consenting people fully capable of comprehending the significance of their (probably irreversible) choices (haircuts are not irreversible, nor particularly significant, thus I have no problem with it). This is not true of child circumcision, thus I oppose it .

So you'd want it to be legally forbidden if parents wanted to give their child a tattoo of, I don't know, a butterfly on their shoulder blade?

I would think that harm rather than permanence should be the criterion for legal intervention. Otherwise we're restricting people's freedoms and cultural traditions for what may be a victimless activity. Which is why I asked about hard data on the matter earlier. I was pleasantly surprised and amused to see that there was an actual study done on adults pre- and post-circumcision, but I'm interested if there are any wider surveys or such on adults who were circumcised as children. Since that's what people seem to object to.

It brings to mind "victimless crime" notions where people's freedoms are restricted to no real gain--other than satisfying someone else's cultural mores. Hence my interest.

[Torchship]

So you'd want it to be legally forbidden if parents wanted to give their child a tattoo of, I don't know, a butterfly on their shoulder blade?

I don't know about legally forbidden (I haven't thought the issue through in sufficient detail to make sensible claims of that magnitude) but I do find it morally objectionable (assuming that you are indeed talking of permanent tattoos, not temporary ones).

I would think that harm rather than permanence should be the criterion for legal intervention. Otherwise we're restricting people's freedoms and cultural traditions for what may be a victimless activity. Which is why I asked about hard data on the matter earlier. I was pleasantly surprised and amused to see that there was an actual study done on adults pre- and post-circumcision, but I'm interested if there are any wider surveys or such on adults who were circumcised as children. Since that's what people seem to object to.

It brings to mind "victimless crime" notions where people's freedoms are restricted to no real gain--other than satisfying someone else's cultural mores. Hence my interest.

In this issue, I consider the irreversibility of the action to indicate a potential for harm. If the child decides that they do not like the tattoo (for example) at a later date, then they have to go through significant effort and probably permanent scarring (and another potentially dangerous procedure, though I have no idea how dangerous tattoo removal actually is) in order to remove it. If the person with the tattoo was a consenting adult, then fine: their decision, they get to live with the consequences. The child, however, is legally incapable (probably not actually incapable in a large number of cases, especially towards the 14-15 range, but I recognise that the age of consent is an unavoidable concept) of providing consent for such a procedure. The obvious analogy (in my mind) is if your friends got you blind drunk and got you a tattoo while you were incapable of objecting. Would you object (morally) to that situation? In all the important particulars they are essentially identical, as far as I can see.

The main reason that I didn't bother to bring up harm (and focused on permanence in its stead) in this situation is that there really isn't much (in a direct sense, at least; assuming normal medical practices are followed). Small flap of skin is removed, kid doesn't feel a thing, everyone is happy. Hence, in a direct harm sense, the act is totally neutral (there are issues with hygiene and loss of sensitivity, but these issues are complex, and I have not heard a definitive verdict on either).

[Greyarcher]

The obvious analogy (in my mind) is if your friends got you blind drunk and got you a tattoo while you were incapable of objecting. Would you object (morally) to that situation? In all the important particulars they are essentially identical, as far as I can see.

The mitigating factor is, as far as I know, that it's not clear that a significant percentage of people who received the blind drunk tattoo actually object to it. If that's the case, I have no objection.

Potential harm could probably be extrapolated from a study or survey on relevant individuals and whether they perceive themselves as harmed or not harmed and why. Hence why someone only raising the possibility of potential harm wouldn't be enough for me to support a law on the matter.

[Williks]

Would it be acceptable to circumcise a seventeen (or sixteen or fifteen or ...) year old without their consent? At what point do you feel it necessary to receive permission from the affected individual? Is there something particularly more acceptable about circumcising a boy in his infancy? Or is it simply that they don't yet have the means to verbally object?

My parents did not circumcise me. I was circumcised when I was 20 for a medical reason (phimosis).

The mitigating factor is, as far as I know, that it's not clear that a significant percentage of people who received the blind drunk tattoo actually object to it. If that's the case, I have no objection.

That's probably because they are blind drunk. They have no real means of consenting to anything.

Are people really okay with allowing parents (or anyone) tattooing another person with consent?

[Torchship]

The mitigating factor is, as far as I know, that it's not clear that a significant percentage of people who received the blind drunk tattoo actually object to it. If that's the case, I have no objection.

Potential harm could probably be extrapolated from a study or survey on relevant individuals and whether they perceive themselves as harmed or not harmed and why. Hence why someone only raising the possibility of potential harm wouldn't be enough for me to support a law on the matter.

Considering that, in general, people do not enjoy having their bodies altered without their permission, I can assume quite reasonably that a study on this subject will come out quite in the negatives. Hence your mitigating factor does not, in general, exist. Obviously there is some percentage of the population who will be not particularly offended to wake up with a new tattoo, but these are a distinct minority and hence not a particularly good basis for legal or practical moral judgements (which are the senses that I have been using most often in this thread).