Infant Circumcision

[sourmìlk]

We're well aware of what assumptions you're making. The problem is that you find no difference between objective loss of sensation and perceived loss of sensation, and so automatically assume we're talking about the one that you've already assumed exists.

[Malice]

Sorry guys, I'm bowing out of this debate. Malice just failed the "Has Read My Posts And Is Aware That I'm Making Assumptions" test and it certainly isn't going to be worth the amount of RAEG that it's going to induce in me to correct zir.

(I'm male, btw.)

I know you're assuming that there is an objective loss of sensation; I was explaining that, when determining harm, you check for objective harm first, then move to subjective harm if no objective harm is found. Since you're assuming objective harm, you believe circumcision is harmful. You'll get no argument from me there; under that assumption, circumcision is harmful in the same way that a lobotomy is clearly harmful.

However, whether we should do anything about it would depend on a cost/benefit analysis.

However however, I don't share your assumption, and I'm not sure how productive it is for the discussion, given that the question of harm is one of the major cruxes of the entire issue.

[Elliot]

An absence of ‘harm’ is only relevant if we accept the position that parents have an unlimited discretion to do anything to their children that is not harmful. This, as far as I can see, is how people have justified the idea that circumcision is okay without a cost/benefit analysis from the perspective of the child:

The full reason (and legitimate reason) for circumcising can simply be "it harms nobody and I felt like it."

So long as you do no harm to your child, you can do whatever you want to your child, mostly.

And in a more extreme formulation:

I raise the bar pretty high when it comes to getting in between a parent and child. To me that means demonstrable, long lasting harm.

I don’t think this is right, at all. It’s not that parents don’t have some discretion in raising their children; of course they do. But I don’t see how what the parents ‘want’ to do, or what they ‘felt like’ doing, can be a relevant to the exercise of that discretion where it involves consenting to a violation of the child’s rights.

Now, it has been claimed that children don’t have rights (or at least no right to security of person) so that needs to be addressed. It seems pretty straightforward from a human rights perspective: babies are humans, and humans have a right to personal security. From a legal perspective, if I were to cut off a random baby’s foreskin, he would have a right (exercisable by his legal guardian on his behalf) to sue me for battery. I don’t know exactly how this works in every country, but at common law battery is actionable per se, so you don’t actually need to show that there is any ‘harm’ in order to successfully sue someone. Just interfering with his person is, in the absence of some exception, a violation of his legal rights for which he is entitled to a remedy.

Obviously lawful circumcisions are not battery, and that’s because there is consent. The whole reason consent is required is because the child has a right not to have bits of his body cut off, and that right has to be waived before the procedure can go ahead. The baby can’t make this decision for himself, so we get the consent from the parents.

But this consent has to be considered in light of the child’s rights. The positions quoted above would seem to place consent to circumcision on the same level as, for instance, taking your cat to the vet. The cat has no rights, and its owner can give consent to whatever interference he or she likes. The only limits to that discretion are harm and animal cruelty legislation.

Consent to a medical procedure on a child is of an entirely different nature. It is the child’s right, not the parent’s, that is at stake here. The parent gives consent on the child’s behalf. As such, the only proper basis for the decision is that it be in the best interests of the child. ‘It harms nobody’ is not a sufficient reason, and ‘I felt like it’ is an irrelevant consideration. Unless circumcision has a benefit to the child which outweighs the risks, it is not in the child’s interests to be circumcised. The discretion that a parent has, in this case, is the discretion to make that assessment of risks and benefits. If you look at the comparisons that have been made with separating webbed toes, removing birthmarks, et cetera, that’s the decision the parents are making.

Further, parental discretion is removed entirely in some cases where it is determined that a particular course of action will always (or almost always) be contrary to the child’s interests. So we have laws about how young children must be seated in cars, for instance, or laws against FGM. It seems to me that circumcision falls within this category; it has some risks and no benefits that are apparent to me.

However, I recognise that most of the discussion of benefits in support of circumcision in this thread relates to cultural factors of which I am completely ignorant. Circumcision is not common where I live, and nor are childhood penis comparisons (at least not in my experience). So I can’t really comment on how cosmetic surgery on a child’s penis might be beneficial in a culture that does value those things. Assuming such benefits to be real and significant, I suppose it makes sense to keep circumcision in the category of parental discretion. But, as I’ve explained, that only means a discretion to decide whether the procedure is in the child’s interests, not a discretion to have a child circumcised without regard to his interests. I don’t see why we should recognise a discretion to wound babies for no particular reason, even if the wound is in some sense 'harmless'.

[sourmìlk]

Elliot, see pages two and three for a response to your argument, explaining why parental discretion needs to be a right that requires demonstration of substantial harm to override.

[Elliot]

I'm not saying that parental discretion should be overridden. I'm saying, in the case of a discretion to wound a child without regard to his interests, that it does not exist at all.
In response to the points raised earlier about parental discretion to choose foods, sports, other medical procedures, et cetera, I don't see why any of them require the particularly extreme discretion that your argument is based on. The discretion that I do recognise, to assess the child's interests and act accordingly, is sufficient to insist that your child eat his vegetables and join the football team.

[sourmìlk]

I don't think you understood my point. Parental discretion doesn't just extend to the discretion to do only what's best for the child. It extends to do whatever doesn't substantially harm the child (or have a substantial chance of harm). Otherwise only the most beneficial options for anything would be legal.

[lutzj]

I'm not saying that parental discretion should be overridden. I'm saying, in the case of a discretion to wound a child without regard to his interests, that it does not exist at all.
In response to the points raised earlier about parental discretion to choose foods, sports, other medical procedures, et cetera, I don't see why any of them require the particularly extreme discretion that your argument is based on. The discretion that I do recognise, to assess the child's interests and act accordingly, is sufficient to insist that your child eat his vegetables and join the football team.

Should parents be allowed to insist that their child play football? Some would argue that the safety risks of certain sports outweigh any potential health or social benefits. Ditto for vegentarianism, or private schooling, etc. etc.

...

Similarly, some people think that the various benefits of circumcision outweigh the various risks.

...

[Izawwlgood]

Since you apparantely didn't bother to read the thread Elliot, I'll just ask the same thing I've asked a couple people now: Birthmark removal? Orthodontia? Cleft palate correction? Minor syndactyly?

Again, I feel the entirity of your argument boils down to "But I don't like circumcision, so parents shouldn't be allowed to do it".

[Elliot]

Parental discretion doesn't just extend to the discretion to do only what's best for the child.

That is not what I said. I'm saying parental discretion includes the discretion to make an assessment of the child's interests, and to act in a way that is consistent with those interests. To clarify on the last point, I'm saying it is acceptable for parents to do something if, in their assessment, the benefits outweigh the risks. It does not necessarily have to be, even in the parents' own assessment, the absolute 'best' thing.

Should parents be allowed to insist that their child play football? Some would argue that the safety risks of certain sports outweigh any potential health or social benefits.

That's probably going to depend a lot on the individual child, so the parents are well placed to make that call. I do think parents should take reasonable steps to inform themselves about the risks.

Since you apparantely didn't bother to read the thread Elliot, I'll just ask the same thing I've asked a couple people now: Birthmark removal?

As I wrote a few minutes ago:

The discretion that a parent has, in this case, is the discretion to make that assessment of risks and benefits. If you look at the comparisons that have been made with separating webbed toes, removing birthmarks, et cetera, that’s the decision the parents are making.

If a parent does not think that removing the birthmark is in the child's interests, then I do not think they should do it.

I feel the entirity of your argument boils down to "But I don't like circumcision, so parents shouldn't be allowed to do it".

You got that from this?

I suppose it makes sense to keep circumcision in the category of parental discretion. But, as I’ve explained, that only means a discretion to decide whether the procedure is in the child’s interests, not a discretion to have a child circumcised without regard to his interests.

[sourmìlk]

That is not what I said. I'm saying parental discretion includes the discretion to make an assessment of the child's interests, and to act in a way that is consistent with those interests. To clarify on the last point, I'm saying it is acceptable for parents to do something if, in their assessment, the benefits outweigh the risks. It does not necessarily have to be, even in the parents' own assessment, the absolute 'best' thing.

So you agree that parental discretion should allow parents to choose more unsafe options, arbitrarily?

[Izawwlgood]

You got that from this?

Yes, that's what I took you to be saying given that you aren't responding to the queries about other cosmetic alterations we perform on children. But lets say you're still lumping circumcision in the category of things that are best left to parental discretion, so long as the parents are deciding in best faith for the child's interests; what does that really mean? I don't think anyone would circumcise their kids out of spite, and indeed, even the 'I was circumcised, and I want my child to be as well' is, at it's roots, something that has the child's best interests in mind, as it is aimed at bringing the child into the family/social sphere.

[Elliot]

That is not what I said. I'm saying parental discretion includes the discretion to make an assessment of the child's interests, and to act in a way that is consistent with those interests. To clarify on the last point, I'm saying it is acceptable for parents to do something if, in their assessment, the benefits outweigh the risks. It does not necessarily have to be, even in the parents' own assessment, the absolute 'best' thing.

So you agree that parental discretion should allow parents to choose more unsafe options, arbitrarily?

Not really, but I can see how my model of discretion does allow that. I guess I would solve that like this:
First, a decision that involves an exercise of the child's rights should not be made unless the parent has made an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child, and determined that the decision has a net benefit to the child.
Second, if the parent is aware of alternatives which have a further benefit to the child, those alternatives should not be rejected except for cogent reasons. Those reasons can be from the parent's perspective, for example the expense or difficulty of the safer option.
Third, the state should identify decisions which are never, or almost never, in a child's interests. Those decisions are not open to the parent regardless of their own assessment of the costs and benefits.
So the second stage, I think, prevents arbitrarily choosing relatively unsafe options. Of course a parent might still choose what is objectively an unsafe option without realising it, but I don't think there's any practical solution to that.

Yes, that's what I took you to be saying given that you aren't responding to the queries about other cosmetic alterations we perform on children.

I really think I did refer to other cosmetic procedures we perform on children. I said that they are performed based on the parent's assessment of the child's interests, and that I think circumcision would be acceptable on that basis, but only on that basis, provided there is some substance to the suggestion that circumcision has benefits for the child.

But lets say you're still lumping circumcision in the category of things that are best left to parental discretion, so long as the parents are deciding in best faith for the child's interests; what does that really mean?

It means the justifications for circumcision that I quoted above, about it not causing 'harm', are wrong and unnecessary. Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the conclusion that circumcision is acceptable in some circumstances. I just think the particular argument by which you and some others have supported that conclusion, which basically involves completely disregarding the rights of the child, is wrong.

[sourmìlk]

Not really, but I can see how my model of discretion does allow that. I guess I would solve that like this:
First, a decision that involves an exercise of the child's rights should not be made unless the parent has made an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child, and determined that the decision has a net benefit to the child.
Second, if the parent is aware of alternatives which have a further benefit to the child, those alternatives should not be rejected except for cogent reasons. Those reasons can be from the parent's perspective, for example the expense or difficulty of the safer option.
Third, the state should identify decisions which are never, or almost never, in a child's interests. Those decisions are not open to the parent regardless of their own assessment of the costs and benefits.
So the second stage, I think, prevents arbitrarily choosing relatively unsafe options. Of course a parent might still choose what is objectively an unsafe option without realising it, but I don't think there's any practical solution to that.

Great, see pages two, three, and 10 (I think) to see why this is far too restrictive, with examples.

[Izawwlgood]

I just think the particular argument by which you and some others have supported that conclusion, which basically involves completely disregarding the rights of the child, is wrong.

A fair stance to take; I've repeatedly stated that I don't think children, particularly infants, have rights.

I said that they are performed based on the parent's assessment of the child's interests, and that I think circumcision would be acceptable on that basis, but only on that basis, provided there is some substance to the suggestion that circumcision has benefits for the child.

Right; what other reason would parents have for circumcising their child aside from the parent acting in favor of what they feel is the child's interests? No one thinks of circumcision as a punishment that must be endured by all boys.

[sourmìlk]

I just think the particular argument by which you and some others have supported that conclusion, which basically involves completely disregarding the rights of the child, is wrong.

A fair stance to take; I've repeatedly stated that I don't think children, particularly infants, have rights.

I don't think you actually believe this, just that infants don't have nearly as many rights as adults. For example, I'd think we'd agree that infants have a right to life, health, etc.

[Elliot]

Great, see pages two, three, and 10 (I think) to see why this is far too restrictive, with examples.

The problem is that I obviously don’t think that any of those examples does prove that my position is too restrictive so it’s difficult for me to work out which of them you would like me to respond to.
But having re-read them I would first just point out something that I probably haven’t been clear enough about; my position is based on the rights of the child, and it only applies to the exercise of those rights. It is not meant to apply to all interactions with children, and I am not trying to develop some comprehensive theory of parenting.
My whole point is that circumcision involves an interference with the child’s rights, so it is only acceptable if consent is given on behalf of the child. And because the parent is acting on behalf of the child, they must act on his interests.
When I referred to food and sport above, I was assuming some degree of coercion on the part of the parent, such that it could practically be considered an interference with the child’s rights. But if we’re just talking about suggesting that a child play football, or providing him with vegetables, then I don’t think this sort of analysis is necessary at all. There are no rights involved there.
Some of the examples considered previously clearly have nothing to do with rights. Choosing which books a child reads, for instance, is not a comparable decision. I could go up to a random child on the street and give him a book, or a bottle of milk, for whatever reason I like. Clearly his parents should not be more limited in that respect than I am.
Of the previous examples that do involve rights, I have already mentioned that my position allows other cosmetic surgeries, provided there is a consideration of the child’s interests. I do not consider that too restrictive. And of course non-cosmetic surgeries are also permitted on the same basis.
There was also a discussion of ‘harmless’ cigarette burns and rape, which would not be allowed by my position since they are clearly not in the child’s interests. Again, I do not consider that to be too restrictive. It seems like a pretty good restriction, actually.
Is there a specific example where it is necessary to allow parents to exercise a child's rights without considering the child’s interests?

A fair stance to take; I've repeatedly stated that I don't think children, particularly infants, have rights.

Yes, I've noticed. On that note, how do you explain the fact that consent is required for a circumcision? Presumably you would disagree with my analysis that the parent gives consent on behalf of the child, because if the child has no rights then his consent is not relevant anyway. So, is it indeed the same as taking a cat to the vet in your view? Or taking a car to a mechanic?

Right; what other reason would parents have for circumcising their child aside from the parent acting in favor of what they feel is the child's interests? No one thinks of circumcision as a punishment that must be endured by all boys.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that circumcision must either be for the child's benefit, or else a punishment. There is also the possibility that it is done for the benefit of someone other than the child, such as the parent. I quoted three statements to that effect, one of them from you, a few posts ago. But are you saying now that it's only acceptable to circumcise a child based on the child's interests? If so, how do you reconcile that with your view that children don't have rights?

[whatshisfoot]

ITT:
Circumcised men arguing with uncircumcised men over an issue we have no way of objectively measuring.
You can't determine if it's harmful thanks to studies on sensitivity being one or more of the following: varied, inconclusive, and based on men who are circumcised as adults.

I'll just throw this out there. Uncircumcised dicks of average size are more often ugly than circumcised dicks of average size. Penises with foreskin really look like chorizo.

I would argue that given that we don't have good evidence either way on sensitivity, and the rate of complications is tiny, aesthetics should be an issue, and its an issue circumcision wins every time.

As for the rights of the child to chose, does anyone here wish their parents had made the opposite decision?

And as for the people who say "Wait and let them choose" they will likely choose to go with whatever they grew up with.

[Torchship]

I hope you're not trying to pass off your personal opinion on penis aesthetics as some kind of objective fact...

[whatshisfoot]

I hope you're not trying to pass off your personal opinion on penis aesthetics as some kind of objective fact...

I'm not. I am however saying that the last word in the argument Is aesthetics. And honestly the opinions on which way looks better is probably less varied than the studies on which is better for technical reasons, so my point is just as valid as any study you can bring up.

[M.C.]

That chorizo looks delicious, actually...

[DSenette]

I hope you're not trying to pass off your personal opinion on penis aesthetics as some kind of objective fact...

I'm not. I am however saying that the last word in the argument Is aesthetics. And honestly the opinions on which way looks better is probably less varied than the studies on which is better for technical reasons, so my point is just as valid as any study you can bring up.

by why does it "look better"? it's aesthetically pleasing because it's what people assume a dick looks like because it's all most westerners have ever seen.

go ask a society that DOESN'T practice circumcision what looks better, i assure you the opposite response will be given.

the same argument (with an exception for the "changes functionality" scale) can be made for foot binding (i assure you if you ever saw a bound foot you'd think it was gross....ask someone in "not too long ago china" about one and then watch them try to hide their boner), lip plates, neck banding, etc... etc... etc...

[Izawwlgood]

Yes, I've noticed. On that note, how do you explain the fact that consent is required for a circumcision? Presumably you would disagree with my analysis that the parent gives consent on behalf of the child, because if the child has no rights then his consent is not relevant anyway. So, is it indeed the same as taking a cat to the vet in your view? Or taking a car to a mechanic?

I was unaware of this fact; infants are not providing consent, their parents are. Until children are old enough to make their own decisions, parents make decisions for them. Mentioning cars is an interesting way to put it; I would say a car and an infant have about the same degree of autonomy. An owner can do whatever they want to a car (so long as that isn't going to endanger other motorists) and a parent can do whatever they want to a child (so long as what they are doing doesn't endanger the child). The analogy of course breaks down rapidly; I'd have no problem with deciding you wanted to put bumper stickers on your car or change the paint color, whereas I would find it less reasonable to, say, subject a child to Michael Jackson style skin peels to lighten their pigment over time. The key point here though is that any procedure with mostly cosmetic intent, including circumcision, is going to fall somewhere in an individuals comfort zone based on their personal reflections on the matter. I have no issue with a parent subjecting their child to birthmark removal or cleft palate restoration, because I recognize the social value to those procedures. Someone else may not recognize the social value to circumcision, and thus find it an unacceptable procedure.

There was also a discussion of ‘harmless’ cigarette burns and rape, which would not be allowed by my position since they are clearly not in the child’s interests. Again, I do not consider that to be too restrictive. It seems like a pretty good restriction, actually.

There's the issue of intent. While they may not cause long term physical or psychological harm, they represent malicious intent towards the child.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that circumcision must either be for the child's benefit, or else a punishment. There is also the possibility that it is done for the benefit of someone other than the child, such as the parent. I quoted three statements to that effect, one of them from you, a few posts ago. But are you saying now that it's only acceptable to circumcise a child based on the child's interests? If so, how do you reconcile that with your view that children don't have rights?

Then tell me where your opinion leaves us. You say that circumcision, like other harmless procedures, should be left to the parents discretion so long as they are operating with the child's intent in mind. So, how do you differentiate between circumcision that is performed for the parents vs circumcision performed for the child. And what does that even mean? Parents are not performing circumcision on their children because they get some kick out of it, they're circumcising their children because they feel doing so inducts them into a social group that will be the best thing possible for them.

@DSenette: Yes, but that whole 'loss of functionality' thing is precisely the point that was made in bringing them up.

[DSenette]

@DSenette: Yes, but that whole 'loss of functionality' thing is precisely the point that was made in bringing them up.

well, my point at all is with the "aesthetic preferences alone is a good enough reason for X procedure". and i don't think that it is. even your mention of chemical peels to lighten a child's skin color. that's a purely aesthetic procedure, so why is that something you'd feel less good about?

as far as i know people WITH lip plates don't tend to complain about having them. so, while i would clearly list having a big plate in your face as a functional hindrance, they don't' seem to. so as far as they're concerned it's an aesthetics thing. however, there's not much of a chance of the western world ever letting a member of one of these groups, who has immigrated to a western country, actually practice this with their children. but, it's perfectly cool for a consenting adult to walk into a piercing shop and guage their ears, or get a plate in their lip, or whatever neotribalism thing they want to do. it's about the level of consent.

people who live in tribes where neck stretching is a thing, aren't required by their own culture to do it anymore, yet a lot of people still choose to do it because they think it looks nice. they USED to do it no matter what. it was compulsory, and they started when children were very very young, and couldn't really make a choice even if they were given the choice. now the practice is rarely forced on anyone, and it's never done on a child that can't at least understand the process and actively choose to proceed with it.

people shouldn't be encouraged to do things that have permanent results for someone else without their ability to consent via cultural pressure, unless that something has a valid functional reason. (like, medically necessary).

should people be able to be circumcised if they want to? like, if they personally prefer the look/function? sure, as long as they're of an age that they can comprehend the process, express their own reasons for doing so (even if those reasons are purely aesthetic), and can be reasonably expected to understand the long term effects. just like any other body modifications.

[Izawwlgood]

well, my point at all is with the "aesthetic preferences alone is a good enough reason for X procedure". and i don't think that it is. even your mention of chemical peels to lighten a child's skin color. that's a purely aesthetic procedure, so why is that something you'd feel less good about?

No, the point is that aesthetic preference can have strong sociological impact for a child. Removing a facial birthmark for example, or correcting a cleft palate. We debated this in the last thread, and I recall it was quite circular.
My contention to chemical peels is that I find skin tone to be a poor metric for 'success' to use the word loosely, and would personally be uncomfortable if a parent decided they wanted a whiter child.

The other body modifications (lip or neck stretching) you've listed have clear and measurable negative impacts. Lip stretching less so, and my issue with lip stretching is also fairly minimal. Neck stretching however is dangerous, and neck injury accident rates for those women is higher.

Also, I want to leave this here, because I just noticed it as a result of the ongoing PM exchange I'm having with TLCTugger;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0_6.x/full
The study that I repeatedly called for, comparing a circumcised at birth penis to an uncircumcised penis sensitivity was conducted, and the study found a statistical difference between penile sensitivity. What is linked is a review of the above study, with further readings and clarifications on mismanaged data that finds no statistical difference. I'll post any further followups I come across.

[DSenette]

well, my point at all is with the "aesthetic preferences alone is a good enough reason for X procedure". and i don't think that it is. even your mention of chemical peels to lighten a child's skin color. that's a purely aesthetic procedure, so why is that something you'd feel less good about?

No, the point is that aesthetic preference can have strong sociological impact for a child. Removing a facial birthmark for example, or correcting a cleft palate. We debated this in the last thread, and I recall it was quite circular.
My contention to chemical peels is that I find skin tone to be a poor metric for 'success' to use the word loosely, and would personally be uncomfortable if a parent decided they wanted a whiter child.

The other body modifications (lip or neck stretching) you've listed have clear and measurable negative impacts. Lip stretching less so, and my issue with lip stretching is also fairly minimal. Neck stretching however is dangerous, and neck injury accident rates for those women is higher.

Also, I want to leave this here, because I just noticed it as a result of the ongoing PM exchange I'm having with TLCTugger;
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0_6.x/full
The study that I repeatedly called for, comparing a circumcised at birth penis to an uncircumcised penis sensitivity was conducted, and the study found a statistical difference between penile sensitivity. What is linked is a review of the above study, with further readings and clarifications on mismanaged data that finds no statistical difference. I'll post any further followups I come across.

well, i can't find any references to an instance where a cleft palate isn't of measurable detriment to the person who happens to have a cleft palate.

i know the last discussion was circular but i think that was because that was a thread about a law that would be preventing people from doing something. this (as far as i can tell) is more a discussion as to whether people should do that something in the first place.

to that end, stating that this, that or the other is "ok" for aesthetic reasons skirts the issue as to why those aesthetics are preferable to begin with. the fact that some people PREFER the look of a circumcised penis has nothing to do with a circumcised penis actually being measurably more aesthetically pleasing. it's just a function of what they've come to accept as what they find aesthetically pleasing. so arguing for the continuation of the practice that created the justification that you're using for the practice is a little silly.

it would be MUCH easier for the entirety of western civilization to stop giving a crap about birth marks and "perfect skin", or as with the last argument, perfectly straight teeth than it is to continue the culture that requests medical "correction" for things that don't actually REQUIRE correction (whether there is a medically arguable reason to correct them or not isn't the point)

[Izawwlgood]

Yes, I recall that 'straight teeth' was a major sticking point for you. You repeatedly used the words 'correct' and 'abnormal' to describe what orthodontia are doing.
Would it be easier if society as a whole stopped looking at physical appearance as any kind of metric of anything? I don't think so. Straight teeth are an interesting point, because in America, they are a powerful indicator of success. My parents could afford orthodontia for me, and having straight teeth, a 'winning smile' is something that Americans are going to notice. These all serve as partial indicators of who I am as a person; I come from enough success to be bothered to straighten my teeth, and care enough about my appearance to maintain dental hygiene. These are things that an interviewer will notice. So, is a parent justified in forcing their kid to undergo cosmetic dentistry? Sure, I think so; they do after all, have their child's best interests in mind.
As for cleft palates, I think Hippo pointed out a while back that mild forms are entirely cosmetic; there may be a slight reduced ability to suckle, but plenty of people survive through life without the corrective surgery. It can be inferred that at least some cleft palate surgeries are performed to allow individuals a different cosmetic appearance. Just like removal of birthmarks, straightening of teeth, or removal of webbing can be seen as a cosmetic surgery. Would the world be better if we didn't care what our kids dicks looked like? I dunno. But in the absence of proof of harm one way or the other, I'm inclined to let parents decide what they think is best.

[DSenette]

Yes, I recall that 'straight teeth' was a major sticking point for you. You repeatedly used the words 'correct' and 'abnormal' to describe what orthodontia are doing.
Would it be easier if society as a whole stopped looking at physical appearance as any kind of metric of anything? I don't think so. Straight teeth are an interesting point, because in America, they are a powerful indicator of success. My parents could afford orthodontia for me, and having straight teeth, a 'winning smile' is something that Americans are going to notice. These all serve as partial indicators of who I am as a person; I come from enough success to be bothered to straighten my teeth, and care enough about my appearance to maintain dental hygiene. These are things that an interviewer will notice. So, is a parent justified in forcing their kid to undergo cosmetic dentistry? Sure, I think so; they do after all, have their child's best interests in mind.
As for cleft palates, I think Hippo pointed out a while back that mild forms are entirely cosmetic; there may be a slight reduced ability to suckle, but plenty of people survive through life without the corrective surgery. It can be inferred that at least some cleft palate surgeries are performed to allow individuals a different cosmetic appearance. Just like removal of birthmarks, straightening of teeth, or removal of webbing can be seen as a cosmetic surgery. Would the world be better if we didn't care what our kids dicks looked like? I dunno. But in the absence of proof of harm one way or the other, I'm inclined to let parents decide what they think is best.

you're going about this in the wrong direction.

your point, as i'm reading it, is that: society A regards trait B as important, so we are all justified (and/or required) to maintain these items as "the rule".

the reason that Americans hold straight teeth as a metric of success is because they've been groomed to do so. if we stopped actually using that as a metric then that wouldn't be an issue for personal growth or success any more and children who have teeth that are within the bounds of function, do not pose a threat of future harm (slightly crooked teeth in early teens can become REALLY bad issues at some point in adult hood, leading to any number of real health issues that go far beyond the cosmetic nature of "sort of crooked") wouldn't need to undergo costly medical procedures to meet the metric.

so while you're saying that it's the current metric, so, whatever is needed to meet that metric = good (insofar as it doesn't cause some abstract metric of functional harm), i'm saying that the metric is at best useless and at worst harmful as it stands so it's better to change the metric than to support the procedures/culture that currently supply's the metric.

the metrics you're citing (aesthetically pleasing, signs of wealth, etc..) are self supported and self created by the procedures that you're trying to justify by using the metrics.

[Izawwlgood]

Except that they may serve as adequate metrics. Teeth for example, can be thought to be in line with the expression 'the suit makes the man'. If you want to formulate a hypothetical society in which there were zero inferences to be made from appearance, then stay on the internet, because such a society simply doesn't exist. While there's an obvious distinction between things that you have no control/consent over and, say, your clothing, given a modern industrialized nations access to medical care, it simply means that body alteration can/may become equivalent to, say, one's ability to select the right shoes for an interview. But by all means, imagine such a hypothetical world where people place zero value on appearances.

The point is that barring any physical harm, cosmetic alterations to a body are fine. Since 'appearance' isn't the only reason people circumcise, you're again left with the ritualistic portion of the procedure as having value. Value to the parents, for including their child, and value to the child, for participating in the ritual. Placing a value on that to you or me is silly, because I wager we're of the same mind for a rituals value, but we aren't the parents.

[DSenette]

Except that they may serve as adequate metrics. Teeth for example, can be thought to be in line with the expression 'the suit makes the man'. If you want to formulate a hypothetical society in which there were zero inferences to be made from appearance, then stay on the internet, because such a society simply doesn't exist. While there's an obvious distinction between things that you have no control/consent over and, say, your clothing, given a modern industrialized nations access to medical care, it simply means that body alteration can/may become equivalent to, say, one's ability to select the right shoes for an interview. But by all means, imagine such a hypothetical world where people place zero value on appearances.

The point is that barring any physical harm, cosmetic alterations to a body are fine. Since 'appearance' isn't the only reason people circumcise, you're again left with the ritualistic portion of the procedure as having value. Value to the parents, for including their child, and value to the child, for participating in the ritual. Placing a value on that to you or me is silly, because I wager we're of the same mind for a rituals value, but we aren't the parents.

and again you're not reading what i'm saying in the proper direction.

that there are rituals that exist which require the removal of a body part of a child, does not support the continuation of the ritual. society should be working towards a state where permanent surgical modification isn't a part of any ritual. just like ritualized scarification, or ritualized tattooing are no longer "things that a lot of people do in the civilized world", there should be a point in time where bob having slightly bucked teeth doesn't mean that jane gets the job instead of jerry.

because we don't live in a culture that doesn't value these things, it's understandably difficult to imagine a possible culture where these things aren't valued as highly as they are.

there are non-culturally steered levels of "aesthetically normal" that humans tend to naturally select for. such as symmetry and absence of visible disease. those won't ever really change. but we should be working (as a whole society) towards a culture that doesn't require permanent medical modification of people who cannot consent to these procedures when they're not medically necessary.

[Izawwlgood]

there are non-culturally steered levels of "aesthetically normal" that humans tend to naturally select for. such as symmetry and absence of visible disease. those won't ever really change. but we should be working (as a whole society) towards a culture that doesn't require permanent medical modification of people who cannot consent to these procedures when they're not medically necessary.

You're not listening to what I'm saying then; the thing is, those things may serve as valid criteria. Straight teeth being the prime example. But, again, there's the ritual component applying value beyond the aesthetic that you're ignoring; I've never claimed that you should circumcise your kids simply because your neighbors do too.

[DSenette]

there are non-culturally steered levels of "aesthetically normal" that humans tend to naturally select for. such as symmetry and absence of visible disease. those won't ever really change. but we should be working (as a whole society) towards a culture that doesn't require permanent medical modification of people who cannot consent to these procedures when they're not medically necessary.

You're not listening to what I'm saying then; the thing is, those things may serve as valid criteria. Straight teeth being the prime example. But, again, there's the ritual component applying value beyond the aesthetic that you're ignoring; I've never claimed that you should circumcise your kids simply because your neighbors do too.

but they shouldn't serve as valid criteria. is the point that i'm trying to make. the straightness of your teeth should have no bearing on your worth to society. just like having/not having a plate in your lip should have no bearing, or having a tattoo or not having a tattoo, or belonging to a religion or not belonging to a religion.

all of those things should be up to personal preference of the individual who is directly effected. namely the child that's being circumcised or not circumcised, or the kid with crooked teeth taht don't pose a health concern. that kid should get to choose what aesthetic THEY want for themselves.

ritualistic modification is something that's frequently opposed by everyone EXCEPT the members of the group who require the ritual. that an item has some ritualistic history (Judaism requiring circumcision) doesn't mean that the history justifies the ritual. there's a lot of stuff that used to be in the ritual history of many cultures that aren't done any more because people came to realize that it added no benefit.

the ritualistic defense also doesn't apply to people who don't belong to a group that requires the ritual


if the only thing about circumcision that can be argued is that it is/isn't a purely aesthetic procedure (i.e. there's no medical difference either direction) then this isn't an argument about what should/shouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. it's about who gets to choose what's aesthetically pleasing, and who they get to choose it for.

[sourmìlk]

Is there a specific example where it is necessary to allow parents to exercise a child's rights without considering the child’s interests?

Yes, all the examples I mentioned. Every single example I mentioned is something that is reasonable for a parent to do, but that a parent couldn't do were he to arbitrarily chose the less beneficial or more harmful option.

There was also a discussion of ‘harmless’ cigarette burns and rape, which would not be allowed by my position since they are clearly not in the child’s interests.

It doesn't harm the child either. It's a rather dangerous road to go down, banning victimless crimes.

[Izawwlgood]

but they shouldn't serve as valid criteria. is the point that i'm trying to make. the straightness of your teeth should have no bearing on your worth to society. just like having/not having a plate in your lip should have no bearing, or having a tattoo or not having a tattoo, or belonging to a religion or not belonging to a religion.

But the point I'm trying to make is that some of them DO serve as valid criteria. But, that is still an aside, because I've never claimed that we should maintain these things simply because they're already in society.

that kid should get to choose what aesthetic THEY want for themselves.

Why? You posit that they should, I posit that parents should be able to decide for them, just like parents decide just about everything else for their children for nearly two decades.

ritualistic modification is something that's frequently opposed by everyone EXCEPT the members of the group who require the ritual.

Citation needed, but in any case, irrelevant given that the sentence should read "Ritualistic is something that's frequently incorporated by many societies, who in turn may shun other forms of ritual". But, again, who cares if outsiders find it icky; if it doesn't harm anyone, who are they to judge?

if the only thing about circumcision that can be argued is that it is/isn't a purely aesthetic procedure (i.e. there's no medical difference either direction) then this isn't an argument about what should/shouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. it's about who gets to choose what's aesthetically pleasing, and who they get to choose it for.

I know, which is why I've repeated a few times now that I've never said that people should/do circumcise their kids for purely aesthetic purposes.

[Torchship]

There was also a discussion of ‘harmless’ cigarette burns and rape, which would not be allowed by my position since they are clearly not in the child’s interests.

It doesn't harm the child either. It's a rather dangerous road to go down, banning victimless crimes.

I would argue the precise opposite; allowing such "harmless" crimes to remain legal when there is such huge potential for them to become harmful is the dangerous road to go down. Allowing the rape of children because we hope they will never remember it is an absolutely terrible idea, because it will fail so absurdly often, and the consequences for failure will be huge.

[Elliot]

I was unaware of this fact; infants are not providing consent, their parents are.

I didn’t say infants were providing consent. My point was only that consent does have to be provided, by someone. Why is that? Generally it would suggest that some kind of right is involved. A mechanic needs your consent to work on your car, because you have property rights with respect to the car. A doctor needs consent to circumcise an adult, because the adult has a right to personal security. If children do not have rights themselves, and are not property (or are they?) then what is the basis for requiring parental consent for circumcision?

Parents are not performing circumcision on their children because they get some kick out of it, they're circumcising their children because they feel doing so inducts them into a social group that will be the best thing possible for them.

Frankly I don’t know why parents actually do circumcise their children. Do parents always investigate the risks and make an assessment of the child’s interests? Or do some people just do it without much thought?
But in any case, simply saying that parents don't, in practice, circumcise children for their own reasons is not the point. You, and others, suggested that it would be acceptable for them to do so. I disagree. I’m not going to accept your position merely because you say now that it’s unlikely to actually happen. You haven’t actually said that it would be wrong if it did, or explained how it would be wrong if the child has no rights.

Yes, all the examples I mentioned. Every single example I mentioned is something that is reasonable for a parent to do, but that a parent couldn't do were he to arbitrarily chose the less beneficial or more harmful option.

Well I just explained that I only require this analysis where the parent is exercising a right on behalf of the child, and some of the examples don’t satisfy that criterion. But otherwise, if it's 'all of them' then any one should do, yeah:

But if children have the right to bodily autonomy, can't they refuse operations without being able to consent to contracts? Can't they refuse to eat what their parents tell them?

Children can’t refuse operations because their right to bodily autonomy is exercised by their parents, not by themselves. They can, and regularly do, refuse to eat what their parents tell them. There is no rights issue unless the parent is actually forcing them to eat it. And in that case, I think it’s necessary for the parent to pause and consider whether that interference with the child’s rights is in his interests. If it is, then they can go ahead and do it.
Is there a different food which would be more beneficial? Probably, but I don’t require them to choose it. The fact that they have a particular food in front of them at the time, is a sufficient reason to choose that food to force-feed to the child, provided the food has some net benefit.
So how exactly is that too restrictive? The only way my analysis seems to differ from yours, is that yours would allow the parent to force-feed their child a food that they do not consider to be beneficial. I don’t see why we should want parents to do that.

There was also a discussion of ‘harmless’ cigarette burns and rape, which would not be allowed by my position since they are clearly not in the child’s interests.

It doesn't harm the child either. It's a rather dangerous road to go down, banning victimless crimes.

Those things are already illegal, both as crimes and torts, and they have been for a very long time.

[Izawwlgood]

There is no rights issue unless the parent is actually forcing them to eat it. And in that case, I think it’s necessary for the parent to pause and consider whether that interference with the child’s rights is in his interests.

Are you perchance Tomo's sock puppet? We had this exact conversation about 4 pages ago. If you aren't, I'm going to ask if you've ever fed an infant.

A doctor needs consent to circumcise an adult, because the adult has a right to personal security. If children do not have rights themselves, and are not property (or are they?) then what is the basis for requiring parental consent for circumcision?

They aren't property, but parents are absolutely their custodians. We went over this earlier, I went along with your car analogy for how it fit into the scheme of children not having rights of their own.

Frankly I don’t know why parents actually do circumcise their children. Do parents always investigate the risks and make an assessment of the child’s interests? Or do some people just do it without much thought?

That's an interesting question; because you don't have any answer, I think it's foolish to assume that parents are doing it frivolously. I wouldn't assume that most parents have researched the risks, but I think it's safe to assume that they aren't making the decision via a coin flip. But I can volunteer a couple of reasons parents would circumcise their children, reasons which may hold great value to the parents, which will subsequently translate to the child.

[sourmìlk]

I would argue the precise opposite; allowing such "harmless" crimes to remain legal when there is such huge potential for them to become harmful is the dangerous road to go down. Allowing the rape of children because we hope they will never remember it is an absolutely terrible idea, because it will fail so absurdly often, and the consequences for failure will be huge.

If there's the possibility of harm, then it's not harmless. The possibility of harm was beyond the hypotheticals we were discussing.

Well I just explained that I only require this analysis where the parent is exercising a right on behalf of the child, and some of the examples don’t satisfy that criterion.

All of them are. Any decision a parent makes for his child is an example of a parent exercising the child's right to self-determination.

They can, and regularly do, refuse to eat what their parents tell them.

They don't have a right to. And resistance is irrelevant: babies can't resist because they're babies. Should we do nothing to babies because they can't fight back?

Those things are already illegal, both as crimes and torts, and they have been for a very long time.

Yeah, because in reality there's potential for harm. We were discussing a hypothetical in which there wasn't.

Seriously guys, we've had these discussions already.

[Elliot]

Are you perchance Tomo's sock puppet? We had this exact conversation about 4 pages ago. If you aren't, I'm going to ask if you've ever fed an infant.

I'm not, and I haven't. I understand that feeding an infant often does involve forcing them to eat things. That does not contradict anything that I have written.

They aren't property, but parents are absolutely their custodians.

I don't think that's a sufficient explanation. There are some things that I can do to a stranger's child with no consent, and some that I cannot. I can say 'hello' to them, I cannot circumcise them. Upon what basis do you defend that distinction, if not rights?

That's an interesting question; because you don't have any answer, I think it's foolish to assume that parents are doing it frivolously.

I have made no such assumption. It was sourmilk who suggested (and you have since agreed) that it would be acceptable for a parent to circumcise a child for the parent's own reasons, provided only that it is not harmful. I am saying that it would not be acceptable. Even if no parent has ever circumcised a child otherwise than in the child's interests, then doesn't actually prove either of those positions. It would make the argument a bit pointless, but it's hardly my fault if you adopted a position which you now think doesn't matter.

All of them are. Any decision a parent makes for his child is an example of a parent exercising the child's right to self-determination.

To put it another way, I'm referring to decisions that parents are able to make specifically because of their position as the child's legal guardians, and thus the custodians of his rights. If it's something that someone other than the parent or guardian could do (without the parent or guardian's consent) then it's beyond the scope of what I'm talking about.

Should we do nothing to babies because they can't fight back?

I didn't say anything like that. Indeed I went on to consider and allow a situation in which a parent force-feeds a child. The only caveat was that the parent needs to believe that doing so is in the child's interests. I ask again, how is that too restrictive?

Those things are already illegal, both as crimes and torts, and they have been for a very long time.

Yeah, because in reality there's potential for harm. We were discussing a hypothetical in which there wasn't.

I don't believe that's why they are illegal. I believe they're illegal because they involve a violation of a person's rights. I think my view is more consistent with the fact that you do not have to prove any 'potential for harm' in order to sue someone for battery.

[sourmìlk]

To put it another way, I'm referring to decisions that parents are able to make specifically because of their position as the child's legal guardians, and thus the custodians of his rights. If it's something that someone other than the parent or guardian could do (without the parent or guardian's consent) then it's beyond the scope of what I'm talking about.

Yeah, all of the examples meet those criteria.

I didn't say anything like that. Indeed I went on to consider and allow a situation in which a parent force-feeds a child. The only caveat was that the parent needs to believe that doing so is in the child's interests. I ask again, how is that too restrictive?

I'm sorry, I don't see how that's analogous to circumcision.

I don't believe that's why they are illegal. I believe they're illegal because they involve a violation of a person's rights. I think my view is more consistent with the fact that you do not have to prove any 'potential for harm' in order to sue someone for battery.

If there was no way a person could harm you, then it's not battery. And actually yes, to sue somebody you have to show that there were damages. It's not a matter of violated rights, it's a matter of harm. Hell, rights only exist to protect people from harm. So, as I said, victimless crimes with no possibility of harm should not be considered crimes at all. Under what moral system to actions with no consequences and no possible consequences bad?

[Cathy]

Frankly I don’t know why parents actually do circumcise their children. Do parents always investigate the risks and make an assessment of the child’s interests? Or do some people just do it without much thought?

I believe the vast majority of parents do it without much agonizing over the decision. I plan to circumcise any male children I may give birth to because I see the minor benefits (cleanliness, cultural, like family) to be worth it. I had no idea there was a controversy over it in the first place until I met this (and the previous) thread on this very forum. I grew up with the idea -- my grandfather is jewish, so he, my father, my brother, and my fiance are all circumcised. I personally prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised penis. It helps that I've never personally met anyone who has expressed unhappiness with their own circumcision.

It's a mark of my cultural upbringing that I just don't think it's a big deal. To me, it's part of life.