Infant Circumcision

[lalop]

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.

So are you retracting the claim that the kicked person really came to harm? (His being kicked was not verified, though it was verifiable.)

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.

(Assuming you haven't actually retracted.) Not a priori there wasn't, yet you were somehow able to deduce the harm existed despite not having been verified. The only thing you were given was that it could have been verified. So why would the same argument not show that circumcision, whose harm similarly can be verified, is harmful?

[The Great Hippo]

But for those who do have issue with circumcision and have it inflicted upon them, it is literally as life-destroying as rape.

That is a revolting statement. Please just drop this entire analogy. There are far better, far more accurate, and far less disgusting ones.

If you object to the statement, provide arguments as to why it's wrong.

Encounter someone who's life has been destroyed by rape. Make the following statement:

"I know what it's like to be violated--to have my life destroyed--too. You see, when I was an infant, I was circumcised..."

My problem isn't that it's wrong (it is, for a variety of reasons, but I'm uninterested in discussing them here); my problem is that it's disgusting, insensitive, manipulative, and there are far more accurate ways to make your point.

No, it's really not the same as cosmetic surgery. I don't know anyone who was circumcised as a child for cosmetic reasons. One was circumcised for a medical reason. The others were circumcised because their daddies were circumcised, as were their grand-daddies, etc. But I'm in the UK where us godless heathens are far more likely to have our genitalia intact.

Oh, I also still have my birthmark. Wouldn't dream of removing it. My brother has a small skin tag in front of one ear that my parents decided it was up to him to remove or not when he was older. So perhaps there are actually some of us who actually think you should leave it up to the child to decide, once they are old enough to properly understand what the hell it is that a doctor is about to do them. I'll leave teeth out of this discussion because, well, new-born infants don't have any.

On the occasions that there are valid medical reason for circumcision, the point is moot. The examples you cite about 'because their daddies were circumcised' are examples of cosmetic surgery.

And sure, it's fine to believe that we should wait till a kid grows up and tells us they want to get rid of a birthmark. My point is that we already correct birthmarks and other malformations all the time, and a lot of us don't consider them as bad as circumcision--why? Probably because we're obsessed with genitalia.

[sourmìlk]

So are you retracting the claim that the kicked person really came to harm? (His being kicked was not verified, and you seem to have just said yes.)

Of course he didn't really come to harm, you proposed a hypothetical. Hypothetically, he came to harm even if nobody in the hypothetical could verify it. Just like hypothetically I could be the earthly incarnation of the ghost of Vladimir the Impaler, even if in that hypothetical nobody could disprove that.

(Assuming you haven't actually retracted.) In the hypothetical situation, there was harm, it wasn't verified, but it was accepted as existing anyway because it could have been verified.

It was accepted as verifiable because it could have been verified. It was accepted as actual harm because that's a given in your hypothetical.

In the real situation, we don't know if there is harm, it wasn't verified, but it could have been verified - why is it not also accepted as existing anyway? What gives us the right to supposition in the former case, but not the latter.

Because the burden of proof is on the person making an existence claim. If, for example, I was kicked 5 years ago, and I don't remember. Would you judge my dad for kicking me, even though you can't show he's done it, but it was technically verifiable? Of course not. The burden of proof is on you to show that circumcision is actually harmful. You do not get to use hypotheticals as proofs. I can make a hypothetical involving any scenario, that doesn't mean we should avoid aspects of those scenarios.

lalop, I don't know how else to explain this. The theoretical possibility for harm isn't enough reason to ban something because that potential exists for everything everywhere.

[yurell]

@Hippo: Or how about "I understand what it's like to be violated too ... my genitals were mutilated without my consent." And use that as part of sympathising with them and comforting them?

I say 'as part of comforting them' because I'd consider it bad form trying to one-up anyone who recently suffered a tragedy.

[sourmìlk]

@Hippo: Or how about "I understand what it's like to be violated too ... my genitals were mutilated without my consent." And use that as part of sympathising with them and comforting them?

That would be dishonest though, because the genitalia aren't mutilated in circumcision. You can see this discussion on the first page using the Merriam-Webster definition, and I'm willing to rehash it using another dictionary.

[The Great Hippo]

Or how about "I understand what it's like to be violated too ... my genitals were mutilated against my will." And use that as part of sympathising with them and comforting them?

I don't have a lot of experience in the field of therapy, but I highly doubt that would work in the majority of cases--particularly when they realized what you were actually referencing. I'd be surprised if the majority of them would not respond with anger.

Comparing things with rape besides rape is pretty much always disgusting. Do you know what's actually as bad as rape? Rape. End of discussion. Comparisons like this are stupid, insensitive, and accomplish nothing but creating at atmosphere of manipulative moral rhetoric.

There are a thousand and one examples of mutilation and bodily violation out there that actually are good analogies for what circumcision is; use them. The benefit is that the majority of them actually are equivalent, or at least significantly similar, and don't involve telling an entire segment of the population what their horrible experience is equivalent to.

Basically: Can we please please pretty please leave rape victims out of this?

[lalop]

It was accepted as verifiable because it could have been verified. It was accepted as actual harm because that's a given in your hypothetical.

No it wasn't. The hypothetical only gives that someone was kicked five years ago (without verification) - harmed by my standard. Whether or not this was harm by your standard depends completely on your definition of harm. If you defined harm to be only what was verified, for example, then the person would not have been harmed at all! Please try to be somewhat consistent about this.

So I should ask you again: was there harm (by your standard) or not?

[sourmìlk]

Comparing things with rape besides rape is pretty much always disgusting. Do you know what's actually as bad as rape? Rape. End of discussion. Comparisons like this are stupid, insensitive, and accomplish nothing but creating at atmosphere of manipulative moral rhetoric.

I formalized this first on the thread. But I'm willing to share credit in the creation of the Avi-Hippo law.

Yes, being kicked is harmful. It creates large amounts of pain for no benefit. But you're still trying to detract away from the point: if you cannot prove that circumcision is harmful, what is your basis for banning it?

[yurell]

I don't have a lot of experience in the field of therapy, but I highly doubt that would work in the majority of cases--particularly when they realized what you were actually referencing. I'd be surprised if the majority of them would not respond with anger.

That would be their problem for being closed-minded arses. "I've been violated in manner x, therefore nobody else can be violated in any other way." No, very few people are like that. I would imagine those who have been violated would sympathise with other people who have been violated and are clearly in mental distress about it, especially those whose physical symptoms are as permanent as the mental ones.

[Tomo]

@Hippo: Or how about "I understand what it's like to be violated too ... my genitals were mutilated without my consent." And use that as part of sympathising with them and comforting them?

That would be dishonest though, because the genitalia aren't mutilated in circumcision. You can see this discussion on the first page using the Merriam-Webster definition, and I'm willing to rehash it using another dictionary.

Their genitals were interfered with without their consent then, a statement which applies to both circumcision and rape, by the way. Furthermore, circumcision likely has a far longer lasting physical component than rape, by the way. I'm not trying to equate the two, but there are similarities, and I think it's remiss of you not to consider the possibility that people are effected to a hugely negative degree by actions such as circumcision.

In response to The Great hippo, I agree that we should leave rape victims out of this, but for a different reason. Anecdotally, I know people who have been raped and walked away with an attitude amounting to "Well, it happens", and people who have been traumatised by circumcision. You cannot really reduce how "bad" an action is to a statement as simple as "Do you know what's actually as bad as rape? Rape. End of discussion.". It really depends on the person in question. However, that also means it's perhaps not a useful comparison.

Anyways, back to the point. There have been numerous studies relating to the negative effects of circumcision, If you would like to look up some studies, here are some papers for you to read: http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm. In addition, it's a verifiable fact that at least some people feel strongly violated by the action, with feelings approaching or exceeding those felt by some rape victims. In my eyes, that alone is reason enough to outweigh parental discretion. For you, maybe it isn't, but that's a difference of opinion.

[sourmìlk]

@Hippo: Or how about "I understand what it's like to be violated too ... my genitals were mutilated without my consent." And use that as part of sympathising with them and comforting them?

That would be dishonest though, because the genitalia aren't mutilated in circumcision. You can see this discussion on the first page using the Merriam-Webster definition, and I'm willing to rehash it using another dictionary.

Their genitals were interfered with without their consent then, a statement which applies to both circumcision and rape, by the way.

The statement "they each involve humans" also applies to both. It's not a meaningful statement.

Anyways, back to the point. There have been numerous studies relating to the negative effects of circumcision, If you would like to look up some studies, here are some papers for you to read: http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm. In addition, it's a verifiable fact that at least some people feel strongly violated by the action, with feelings approaching or exceeding those felt by some rape victims. In my eyes, that alone is reason enough to outweigh parental discretion. For you, maybe it isn't, but that's a difference of opinion.

A few anecdotes does not represent the significant risk necessary to override parental discretion. I've explained previously why any non-zero risk is an untenable standard for overriding parental discretion.

[Tomo]

Anyways, back to the point. There have been numerous studies relating to the negative effects of circumcision, If you would like to look up some studies, here are some papers for you to read: http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm. In addition, it's a verifiable fact that at least some people feel strongly violated by the action, with feelings approaching or exceeding those felt by some rape victims. In my eyes, that alone is reason enough to outweigh parental discretion. For you, maybe it isn't, but that's a difference of opinion.

A few anecdotes does not represent the significant risk necessary to override parental discretion. I've explained previously why any non-zero risk is an untenable standard for overriding parental discretion.

I linked nearly 30 scientific articles on the negative effects of circumcision there. Not a few anecdotes.

[sourmìlk]

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the people feeling violated having been circumcised as an infant. The studies about negative effects can't actually be used to override parental discretion because there is still consensus about circumcision's effects. Many studies contradict that.

[Izawwlgood]

In addition, it's a verifiable fact that at least some people feel strongly violated by the action, with feelings approaching or exceeding those felt by some rape victims. In my eyes, that alone is reason enough to outweigh parental discretion. For you, maybe it isn't, but that's a difference of opinion.

Yes, that is rather the point! It's a difference of opinion. If you don't believe in circumcising your children, don't. But I assure you, given the number of children circumcised and the incredibly low rate of complication and the equally incredibly low rate of people feeling as though they were comparably traumatized to a rape victim, that bringing up risk of complication or risk of emotional trauma is moot.

And your 30 scientific articles can be compared to 30 more that find the opposite findings. Seriously, just do a search on any pediatric urology journal, mens health journal, family planning journal, etc, for 'circumcision' and start tallying both 'pro' and 'con' papers. Also, take note of the journals bias: "Journal of preventing abhorrent circumcision practices" is going to be posting pretty obvious findings.

[The Great Hippo]

That would be their problem for being closed-minded arses. "I've been violated in manner x, therefore nobody else can be violated in any other way." No, very few people are like that. I would imagine those who have been violated would sympathise with other people who have been violated and are clearly in mental distress about it, especially those whose physical symptoms are as permanent as the mental ones.

What the hell are you even talking about? Rape victims have been violated in a very specific way. Circumcision victims have been violated in a completely different, but no less specific way. Just because your violation isn't the same doesn't mean you weren't violated; it just means these are not equivalent experiences, so please stop treating them like they are!

I'm not even sure how to approach this beyond again plainly asking you to please just stop referencing rape victims in a discussion that isn't about rape. If you can't do that, then I'm done asking, because I find this entire line of dialogue we're having to be more than a little disgusting.

[Tomo]

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the people feeling violated having been circumcised as an infant. The studies about negative effects can't actually be used to override parental discretion because there is still consensus about circumcision's effects. Many studies contradict that.

They do, but this is not a study about the search for an absolute truth. In say Physics, you may be correct, with two opposing theories it makes sense to investigate both and accept neither fully.

In the field of medicine, when faced with a large number of studies following people who have no negative effects to something, and a large number of studies who found people who did have a negative effect to something, it's wise to assume that some people react negatively, and some people do not.

In which case, I, personally, see evidence for over-riding parental discretion - especially as there is almost no net loss compared to allowing people time to consent to their own circumcision.

Edit:

And your 30 scientific articles can be compared to 30 more that find the opposite findings.

Yes, obviously.

[sourmìlk]

Sorry, I was referring specifically to the people feeling violated having been circumcised as an infant. The studies about negative effects can't actually be used to override parental discretion because there is still consensus about circumcision's effects. Many studies contradict that.

They do, but this is not a study about the search for an absolute truth. In say Physics, you may be correct, with two opposing theories it makes sense to investigate both and accept neither fully.

In the field of medicine, when faced with a large number of studies following people who have no negative effects to something, and a large number of studies who found people who did have a negative effect to something, it's wise to assume that some people react negatively, and some people do not.

Only if you think that the differences were due to the samples and not the methodology. Considering how substantially variant the results are between studies, I think there's clearly methodology that's wrong here. And, by the way, one of the things the studies disagree on is how many people the negative effects affect.

In which case, I, personally, see evidence for over-riding parental discretion - especially as there is almost no net loss compared to allowing people time to consent to their own circumcision.

There's the loss of parental discretion when forcing them to wait. But the data do not indicate a significant risk. Some do, but the collection of data does not.

[The Great Hippo]

In the field of medicine, when faced with a large number of studies following people who have no negative effects to something, and a large number of studies who found people who did have a negative effect to something, it's wise to assume that some people react negatively, and some people do not.

In which case, I, personally, see evidence for over-riding parental discretion - especially as there is almost no net loss compared to allowing people time to consent to their own circumcision.

Then I assume it's also your contention that we should ban correcting webbed feet or birthmarks until children are old enough to consent--even assuming that the longer we wait, the higher risk we are at for complications.

[sourmìlk]

Is "override" a single word or hyphenated? I'm tending to use it as a single word: I've been programming in Java lately.

[LaserGuy]

Anyways, back to the point. There have been numerous studies relating to the negative effects of circumcision, If you would like to look up some studies, here are some papers for you to read: http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm. In addition, it's a verifiable fact that at least some people feel strongly violated by the action, with feelings approaching or exceeding those felt by some rape victims. In my eyes, that alone is reason enough to outweigh parental discretion. For you, maybe it isn't, but that's a difference of opinion.

A few anecdotes does not represent the significant risk necessary to override parental discretion. I've explained previously why any non-zero risk is an untenable standard for overriding parental discretion.

Peer-reviewed scientific studies are not anecdotes. I'll point to this one in particular as an indication that infant circumcision does appear to cause a demonstrable increased sensitivity to pain (and mention in passing that the journal, the Lancet, is considered one of the top journals in the medical field):

A team of Canadian researchers produced new evidence that circumcision has long-lasting traumatic effects. An article published in the international medical journal The Lancet reported the effect of infant circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The researchers tested 87 infants at 4 months or 6 months of age. The boys who had been circumcised were more sensitive to pain than the uncircumcised boys. Differences between groups were significant regarding facial action, crying time, and assessments of pain.

The authors believe that "neonatal circumcision may induce long-lasting changes in infant pain behavior because of alterations in the infant’s central neural processing of painful stimuli." They also write that "the long-term consequences of surgery done without anaesthesia are likely to include post-traumatic stress as well as pain. It is therefore possible that the greater vaccination response in the infants circumcised without anaesthesia may represent an infant analogue of a post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by a traumatic and painful event and re-experienced under similar circumstances of pain during vaccination."

Taddio, A. et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Response during Subsequent Routine Vaccination," The Lancet 349 (1997): 599–603.

.... Right, I wasn't supposed to be responding to this thread.

[sourmìlk]

I addressed those arguments just about a post before that, LaserGuy.

[yurell]

What the hell are you even talking about? Rape victims have been violated in a very specific way. Circumcision victims have been violated in a completely different, but no less specific way. Just because your violation isn't the same doesn't mean you weren't violated; it just means these are not equivalent experiences, so please stop treating them like they are!

Who said anything about the experiences being equivalent? I said it was 'as life-destroying as', not 'identical to' rape. Your inability to distinguish between identical consequences and identical causes is not my problem.

I'm not even sure how to approach this beyond again plainly asking you to please just stop referencing rape victims in a discussion that isn't about rape. If you can't do that, then I'm done asking, because I find this entire line of dialogue we're having to be more than a little disgusting.

If you feel the line of conversation disgusting, you are perfectly welcome to stop talking about it.

[Deep_Thought]

On the occasions that there are valid medical reason for circumcision, the point is moot. The examples you cite about 'because their daddies were circumcised' are examples of cosmetic surgery.

I think we may actually be more on the same page than first appeared. Agreed on the first point, entirely. Contrary to what Sourmilk appears to have said earlier on the thread, there are genuine medical conditions where removing the foreskin is a valid treatment. The second I'd only be arguing definitions with you - I've always thought of "cosmetic" surgery to be primarily about aesthetics, whereas I don't think aesthetics are the primary reason for many circumcisions.

And sure, it's fine to believe that we should wait till a kid grows up and tells us they want to get rid of a birthmark. My point is that we already correct birthmarks and other malformations all the time, and a lot of us don't consider them as bad as circumcision--why? Probably because we're obsessed with genitalia.

This, I can definitely agree on. The problem is that I have a hard time considering a foreskin a "malformation", but then again I don't have the weight of several thousand years of culture telling me I should do so.

@Sourmilk: I have attempted to speed-read your posts from the entire thread. I have failed, but I got a fair bit of the way through. Your argument appears to consist of presenting reasons why others are against circumcision, then claiming they are not valid, therefore circumcision is fine. I may have missed it, but have you actually given a compelling reasons why adults should circumcise their children? As opposed to just saying there's no reason not to?

In the previous thread, the posters could essentially be split three ways.
1) Those with a foreskin, posting that their cocks are great and want to keep their foreskin.
2) Those without a foreskin, posting that their cocks are great and they don't see the need for a foreskin.
3) Those without a foreskin, posting that for whatever reason they'd quite like theirs back.

It's the people in group 3 we should really be listening too. The rest of us already have what we want. Oh, and if find someone in group 4 (Those with a foreskin, but want rid of it), let them know they can elect to have that, too.

God-damn it people - every time I try to post this there's 3 new ninja posts!

[Izawwlgood]

I'll point to this one in particular as an indication that infant circumcision does appear to cause a demonstrable increased sensitivity to pain (and mention in passing that the journal, the Lancet, is considered one of the top journals in the medical field):

For the immediate future; they're looking at pain response for vaccinations weeks or months later. Furthermore, it's in response to circumcisions done without anesthesia, and would seem to suggest that while there is a short response to the pain (with no long term followup), that using agents to reduce the pain response would abrogate this issue. Not surprisingly, a bris is performed by dabbing the infants gums with wine or whiskey, and in a hospital circumcision, local anesthesia can be used.

Yes, obviously.

I... Ok, good, so you realize that linking a couple articles that support your opinion in this regard can be equally met with other articles that refuse your opinion. I.e., in this case, there isn't evidence one way or the other, and thus, your claim that it causes serious harm is unsubstantiated.

@yurell: Don't mince words about your use of comparing circumcision to rape now.

[lalop]

Yes, being kicked is harmful. It creates large amounts of pain for no benefit.

Sure, being kicked is harmful (actually, without specific verification, this could open up an equally messy can of worms, because kicking being harmful isn't a truism). But without any verification that anyone was actually kicked, that doesn't answer my question: did harm occur (in which case it can occur even without verification, and we can occasionally detect such an occurrence via thought-experiment) or not?

If so, then your "burden of proof" criteria is not sufficient and can be augmented with thought-experiment-like considerations (you've asked me for a specific basis to augment it with, but I don't really have an opinion about this). If not, well, then we're back to "lots of abusive things aren't harmful and anything goes".

[sourmìlk]

Contrary to what Sourmilk appears to have said earlier on the thread, there are genuine medical conditions where removing the foreskin is a valid treatment.

I don't believe I've said anything contrary to this.

@Sourmilk: I have attempted to speed-read your posts from the entire thread. I have failed, but I got a fair bit of the way through. Your argument appears to consist of presenting reasons why others are against circumcision, then claiming they are not valid, therefore circumcision is fine. I may have missed it, but have you actually given a compelling reasons why adults should circumcise their children? As opposed to just saying there's no reason not to?

My argument is that there is not a moral problem with circumcising your child, and that it should not be banned, as any possible harm actually part of the scientific consensus is minimal or very unlikely.

Oh, and if find someone in group 4 (Those with a foreskin, but want rid of it), let them know they can elect to have that, too.

You forgot group 5: females.

But without any verification that anyone was actually kicked, that doesn't answer my question: did harm occur (in which case it can occur even without verification, and we can occasionally detect such an occurrence via thought-experiment) or not?

Um, you're the one creating the hypothetical, I don't know whether the person was kicked or not. I do know that, if there's no evidence that the person was kicked, we shouldn't assume he was, even if he was, in reality, kicked. But I really fail to see the relevance.

[Tomo]

I... Ok, good, so you realize that linking a couple articles that support your opinion in this regard can be equally met with other articles that refuse your opinion. I.e., in this case, there isn't evidence one way or the other, and thus, your claim that it causes serious harm is unsubstantiated.

I disagree, I think the evidence shows that circumcision causes serious harm in some people, and does not in others. Which is what I've been saying all along. I've made no claim that it causes harm in the majority of cases, simply that it can.

[The Great Hippo]

This, I can definitely agree on. The problem is that I have a hard time considering a foreskin a "malformation", but then again I don't have the weight of several thousand years of culture telling me I should do so.

I understand--but keep in mind, there's no such thing as a 'true' malformation. A birthmark is just a birthmark. A cleft palate is just a cleft palate. Webbed toes are just webbed toes. The only reason we consider these things malformations is because society tells us they are; I'm sure someone with webbed toes is quite capable of living a full, happy, healthy life just as much as someone without them--just as much as I'm convinced that the uncircumcised are just as capable as the circumcised.

My real problem here is that people just ignore all the times we violate a child's bodily autonomy except for the case of circumcision--couldn't someone who underwent surgery to have their webbed toes corrected as an infant claim the same sort of 'life-shattering experience' as the circumcised? Of course. But we don't care about the guy who lost his webbed toes--we don't get indignant about it, we don't rage against it, we don't make mind-bogglingly offensive comparisons about it--because webbed toes aren't genitalia.

[Izawwlgood]

I... Ok, good, so you realize that linking a couple articles that support your opinion in this regard can be equally met with other articles that refuse your opinion. I.e., in this case, there isn't evidence one way or the other, and thus, your claim that it causes serious harm is unsubstantiated.

I disagree, I think the evidence shows that circumcision causes serious harm in some people, and does not in others. Which is what I've been saying all along. I've made no claim that it causes harm in the majority of cases, simply that it can.

Yes, but we pointed out that the 'rate of serious harm' is extraordinarily low.

A birthmark is just a birthmark. A cleft palate is just a cleft palate. Webbed toes are just webbed toes.

Actually, for what it's worth, I think you should stop including cleft palate in this list. A cleft palate is a significantly life hampering malformation. Birthmarks, crooked teeth, and polydactyly are purely cosmetic malformations. Obviously more severe forms of these three issues exist, but for the most part, they are purely cosmetic.

1) Those with a foreskin, posting that their cocks are great and want to keep their foreskin.
2) Those without a foreskin, posting that their cocks are great and they don't see the need for a foreskin.
3) Those without a foreskin, posting that for whatever reason they'd quite like theirs back.

For what it's worth, I agree that we should be ignoring 1 and 2, and focusing on 3. And to be straight forward with my stance on the matter, I find 3 to be a small enough proportion of individuals, that I'm willing to suggest not bother banning/eliminating/telling parents to abandon the practice to accommodate them.

[sourmìlk]

I... Ok, good, so you realize that linking a couple articles that support your opinion in this regard can be equally met with other articles that refuse your opinion. I.e., in this case, there isn't evidence one way or the other, and thus, your claim that it causes serious harm is unsubstantiated.

I disagree, I think the evidence shows that circumcision causes serious harm in some people, and does not in others. Which is what I've been saying all along. I've made no claim that it causes harm in the majority of cases, simply that it can.

But studies dispute that claim. There isn't a consensus that circumcision causes serious harm in a significant number of people.

[The Great Hippo]

Actually, for what it's worth, I think you should stop including cleft palate in this list. A cleft palate is a significantly life hampering malformation. Birthmarks, crooked teeth, and polydactyly are purely cosmetic malformations. Obviously more severe forms of these three issues exist, but for the most part, they are purely cosmetic.

I'd imagine it depends on the severity, but I do remember reading about serious nutritional deficiencies that can occur (particularly for infants, as a result of the inability to suckle).

[Torchship]

But we don't care about the guy who lost his webbed toes--we don't get indignant about it, we don't rage against it, we don't make mind-bogglingly offensive comparisons about it--because webbed toes aren't genitalia.

Well... yeah? Many people consider genitals important far above other organs; this is why the entire set of sexual crimes exist, and why they are punished above the equivalent non-sexual crimes. It is perfectly normal and logical for someone become far more upset over a genital or sexual violation than another, similar violation.
That said, if there's any evidence that noticeable numbers of people regret the loss of their webbed toes or cleft palate, or whatever then I have no reservations about banning those procedures until the person in question is capable of making their own decisions, same as circumcision.

[sourmìlk]

Well... yeah? Many people consider genitals important far above other organs; this is why the entire set of sexual crimes exist, and why they are punished above the equivalent non-sexual crimes.
That said, if there's any evidence that noticeable numbers of people regret the loss of their webbed toes or cleft lips, or whatever then I have no reservations about banning those procedures until the person in question is capable of making their own decisions, same as circumcision.

To be clear, you recognize that there is not sufficient evidence showing that a significant portion of people (in the West, at least) really regret being circumcised as an infant?

[Izawwlgood]

Re; Cleft Palates: That's actually the most striking issue I was thinking of. There's evidently some increased risk of ear and throat infections too, but yeah, I guess you're right that given the spectrum of severity that is possible with cleft palates, it could be a purely cosmetic issue as well. I would personally argue that cosmetic issues that affect the face or ability to speak/hear are to be more heavily weighted in consideration of quality of life, but suppose you're correct to include cleft palates in the list afterall.

Considering there are programs like the Smile Train that exist to correct cleft palates around the world, I think it goes to show the significance we humans can place on the importance of our appearances.

[Deep_Thought]

@Sourmilk:

But this is a medical argument. I've said this several times: I am not claiming that there is a medical reason to perform circumcisions in first world countries.

On reflection, I misinterpreted this statement.

My argument is that there is not a moral problem with circumcising your child, and that it should not be banned, as any possible harm actually part of the scientific consensus is minimal or very unlikely.

Great, now provide a reason why a parent should circumcise a child?

I understand--but keep in mind, there's no such thing as a 'true' malformation. A birthmark is just a birthmark. A cleft palate is just a cleft palate. Webbed toes are just webbed toes. The only reason we consider these things malformations is because society tells us they are; I'm sure someone with webbed toes is quite capable of living a full, happy, healthy life just as much as someone without them--just as much as I'm convinced that the uncircumcised are just as capable as the circumcised.

I'd be a bit careful with your definitions here. DNA is a tricky thing, and while there is no such thing as a 'true' or 'perfect' human I'd personally consider some of the more extreme things genetics can throw up as "malformations". Where you draw the line is a huge grey area, but once things start affecting your ability of living a full life that's probably where some medical intervention is needed.

When it comes to relatively minor things, like webbed toes or birthmarks, the problem is always social attitudes. People used to be mocked or ostracised for having visible birthmarks, and when ostracism gets extreme it does prevent you from living a full life. Instead of getting people to grow up, doctors came up with a way to remove them. This ties back into my request for Sourmilk to provide an actual reason to have a child circumcised - because the best that the last thread came up with was "Well, other members of a certain religion might ostracise the child". Social pressure is rarely a good reason to do anything.

[sourmìlk]

My argument is that there is not a moral problem with circumcising your child, and that it should not be banned, as any possible harm actually part of the scientific consensus is minimal or very unlikely.

Great, now provide a reason why a parent should circumcise a child?

They want to. In the West, that's about it. But they don't need a reason why they can, they'd need a reason why they couldn't, as explained a few pages ago.

[Tomo]

My argument is that there is not a moral problem with circumcising your child, and that it should not be banned, as any possible harm actually part of the scientific consensus is minimal or very unlikely.

Great, now provide a reason why a parent should circumcise a child?

They want to. In the West, that's about it. But they don't need a reason why they can, they'd need a reason why they couldn't, as explained a few pages ago.

In my view, this isn't sufficient to overcome any possibility of harm, however remote. As explained a few pages ago.

[lalop]

Um, you're the one creating the hypothetical, I don't know whether the person was kicked or not. I do know that, if there's no evidence that the person was kicked, we shouldn't assume he was, even if he was, in reality, kicked. But I really fail to see the relevance.

The relevance is kinda as a Godel Incompleteness Theorem, demonstrating that your personal logic allows the recognition of certain things independently of their actual verification. (Only if you answer yes, of course; and rest assured you do know, from the scenario, that the person was kicked, just as you know there was no evidence of such a thing.)

"Theorem" aside, this should come as no surprise to you. You've repeatedly asserted all rape is bad, despite having sources that could only have studied a minor subset of rape. Similarly for the thought-experiment: despite it having being designed to have no verifiability, you were still able to take the conclusion and apply it to that completely independent instance. So this is just a real longwinded way of demonstrating the obvious.

[sourmìlk]

In my view, this isn't sufficient to overcome any possibility of harm, however remote. As explained a few pages ago.

You never explained it, you asserted it. Are you ready to explain that view?

Similarly for the thought-experiment: despite it having being designed to have no verifiability, you were still able to take the conclusion and apply it to that completely independent instance.

Yes, because from my perspective it was verifiable. Not for the people in the hypothetical. But apparently you don't seem to grasp the obvious, which is that we can't ban things based on theoretically possible consequences.

[The Great Hippo]

Well... yeah? Many people consider genitals important far above other organs; this is why the entire set of sexual crimes exist, and why they are punished above the equivalent non-sexual crimes.

So we should consider genitals more important because people consider them more important? I believe in respecting people and what is important to them, but I don't, by necessity, respect the actual things they value--just the fact that they value them. I'm not going to build my morality based around other people's values--and neither should you.

That said, if there's any evidence that noticeable numbers of people regret the loss of their webbed toes or cleft palate, or whatever then I have no reservations about banning those procedures until the person in question is capable of making their own decisions, same as circumcision.

Is there evidence that a significant number of the circumcised population regrets having gone through with the procedure? These problems tend to be self-correcting; people who regret being circumcised aren't very likely to circumcise their children.

When it comes to relatively minor things, like webbed toes or birthmarks, the problem is always social attitudes. People used to be mocked or ostracised for having visible birthmarks, and when ostracism gets extreme it does prevent you from living a full life. Instead of getting people to grow up, doctors came up with a way to remove them.

Lots of things can prevent you from living a full life, or modify your quality of life. Truth is, beyond the clearly obvious stuff ("If we don't correct this, your eyes will explode"), it's really hard to figure out what should be changed and what should be left alone. I'm fine with my circumcision; I'm also fine with my birthmark. Both are things that I think have actually added (very marginally) to my quality of life; one is a modification made to me at birth and one was a decision not to modify me.

Fear of malformations creating an environment of ostracism doesn't strike me as a relevant reason to correct webbed feet but ban circumcision. These sort of things can be impossible to predict. I mean--what if you're an uncircumcised guy, and the girl of your dreams freaks the fuck out the moment she finds out? Well, now your first sexual experience is tainted. That's directly reduced your quality of life, hasn't it?