Mr Angelucci indulges in the all to common fallacy of Reducto ad Absurdum. In contrast, Mr, Earp resorts to a combination of facts and logic in his presentation. I generally find that the latter is a more effective argument.

Meanwhile....

PS- " the weird belief that hacking off a part of an infant's body is a good thing" is bullshit language. If you have to word your argument that colorfully before people listen to you (before breakfast), maybe you're making the wrong argument.

> Poor argument, Crid, and I wrote it last night,
> thanks.

I read it first thing in the morning, and I wonder how many such matters you'd want to see discussed in such ludicrous contempt.

Snot ≠ righteousness.

We did not have our son circumcised when he was born five years ago for many of the reasons that have been discussed on this site. However, this summer while swimming, somehow the little guy's foreskin got caught in the mesh of his swimsuit, This led to a trip to the ER so the swimsuit could be very carefully cut off and his quickly swelling penis released. It was very traumatic experience, but luckily no permanent damage done since we got it resolved so quickly. The ER doctor made the point that if our son had been circumcised this incident wouldn't have happened. Sometimes there are unforeseen/bad consequences for any of the decisions you make for your child -- but I guess that is just the way life works.

I read last week that the popular urologist, Dr Harry Fisch, is pro-circoumcision, or maybe he is just not anti. I'm, at my old age, learning there is a difference.

Amy, you do jump in with both feet with your descriptions. Makes a guy a little queasy.

> But, it IS hacking off a part of an infant's body.

This is just not so. You're being violent with language instead of, y'know, "evidence-based" or "rational."

And the RCCT stuff is preposterously reductive.

>>But, it IS hacking off a part of an infant's body

Yeah, but there's a difference between removing a limb and a haircut, both of which could be described this way. Maybe we should do away with haircuts, because we're "hacking off a part of an infant's body."

> The foreskin is being cut off. Cut off.
> Surgically removed.

So you'd speak in the same tone to a woman with a mastectomy? Hey Darlin', who hacked your tits off? Or someone after an appendectomy or other worthy amputation?

Of course you wouldn't.

>>Surgically removed. If you don't like the violence of that, complain about the procedure, not my language.

So now surgery is violence? Does the doctor assault the infant first? Can I press charges against the doctor for removing a mole, I mean violently hacking off a piece of my body? Skip the rhetoric, stick to the facts.

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. I'm circumcised. My son is circumcised, though to a lesser extent. I don't remember exactly why we had it done, but he didn't seem to suffer for it and doesn't seem to be suffering for it now. I read somewhere that most men who are circumsised are fine with it and most men who are not circumcised are fine with it.

Does anyone remember Dworkin?:

In the book, she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and "may be immune to reform."

> I read last week that the popular urologist,
> Dr Harry Fisch, is pro-circoumcision, or
> maybe he is just not anti.

Listen, I mean no disrespect, but the "popular urologist" is an entirely new animal in my social jungle.

Busted- I hadn't noticed that Amy had linked the AAP thing

I trust a professional alliance of American pediatricians more than I trust people who use violent language to rope others into a narcissistic roil of petty somatic preoccupation.

But hey, that's just me.

PS for Mel — Glad everything worked out OK for the little guy.

"The ER doctor made the point that if our son had been circumcised this incident wouldn't have happened. "

He was mistaken, Mel. I have had that haoppen to me, although nothing so severe, and it was on the an area that had been circumcized.

"Severity" isn't precisely the point?

I mean, sometimes circumcised guys lose the big game or accidentally crash their cars or have bad days at the office too... The point isn't that life will be sunshine and roses after the procedure.

[A] comprehensive evaluation of research from the last 15 years demonstrates that the medical benefits of circumcision—including “prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections”—outweigh the risks.

Assholio:

So now surgery is violence? Does the doctor assault the infant first? Can I press charges against the doctor for removing a mole, I mean violently hacking off a piece of my body? Skip the rhetoric, stick to the facts.

Did you give consent to having the mole removed? If not, then yes.

Legally, all surgery is battery. Consent is the defense. In this context, circumcision involves proxy consent. The standard is different for that. Non-therapeutic male circumcision gets an exemption, for no justifiable reason. It's an exemption that comparable and lesser genital cutting on female minors does not get for any reason, raising an obvious equal protection disparity. The same rights aren't protected for all citizens.

So, facts: surgery inflicts harm in every case. Here, the healthy foreskin is lost. Nerve endings are severed. The frenulum is probably removed. A scar remains. Further unintended outcomes (i.e. complications) are possible. All for non-therapeutic benefits that most males would never need and for which less invasive, more effective preventions and treatments are available. These facts render non-therapeutic circumcision without the individual's consent unethical. It violates the individual child's rights to physical integrity and self-determination. From within your statement, what about the remaining individuals beyond "most men who are circumsised are fine with it".

crid:

The professional alliance you trust states in its revised policy:

... The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

That's so close to the ethical stance. Remove families and focus on the individual and it would be there. But that would force them to show a backbone to stand up to this routine violation.

More importantly, notice the squishy way the promoted "finding" within the revised statement differs from this conclusion, also in the very same revised statement. They're explicitly demonstrating that their evaluation of the net benefit, that possible benefits outweigh the risks, is subjective and determined only by individuals. Your source states that its opinion is not a universal applicable to everyone. The statement from on high that they offer has no truth or real value. The AAP pushing half its conclusion - and you (and others) citing that half exclusively - is the cognitive dissonance Amy mentioned.

Amy: "But, really, why not remove body parts that MIGHT become cancerous or even infected? Or should we just treat the infection? If I had a child and you told me you could cut off a piece of their body -- and all surgery has risks, even minor surgery -- or treat an infection should one arise, I'd take the second."

Bad analogy. pre-emptive removal of something that might become cancerous in the future does not apply to this scenario, where they are trying to prevent communicable diseases.

A better analogy would be with vaccines, where you inflict harm on a child, expose the child to the possibility (however, minute) in order to protect the child from the disease, and others from infection.

Of course, you fall completely on the other side of the issue when it comes to vaccinations, but that is the position you really need to reconcile with this issue for your argument to be persuasive.
-Jut

> More importantly, notice the squishy way the
> promoted "finding" within the revised
> statement differs from this conclusion, also
> in the very same revised statement.

It's my understanding that this is a leak of a document that hasn't even been published yet.

> Did you give consent to having the mole
> removed? If not, then yes.

Does an infant give consent to ANY medical treatment, including the cutting of the cord?

More importantly, does the kid have some magical right to choose which family he grows up in?— Wealthy/poor, interior/coastal, athletic/lazy, intellectual/dim, chatty/introverted, etc? No, he doesn't, and each of those things means much more to his outcome than circumcision.

These are young children: We don't "remove families and focus on the individual" unless we're fascist monsters, which I think is closer to the truth at work in this issue.

Describing this as a matter of rights is lunacy. (The child will have individual rights when it can buy, warm, and bottle its own milk, clean its own diapers, and pay some GD taxes.)

This is yet another attempt by idiot busybodies to take control of the lives of distant strangers because the busybodies know the one best way for everyone. The busybodies don't care about baby boys, and they sure don't care about their dork-units.

Here's the thing about this: Amy has no somatic preoccupations of her own. (At least none that she shares with us on the blog, and that's fine by me. This isn't meant to intrude any further into the life of someone who's already remarkably forthcoming with strangers.)

And she doesn't need to have any, because every time she does a comment on this, a buzzing mosquito cloud of wounded-soul men shows up to say "Atta' girl!" (Almost noon in L.A. and they're late to this party... I bet we see some by dusk.)

The only possible explanation is that Amy wants to grind away at the religious family individuation that circumcision represents.

It's not worth it. Not for any larger purpose, and not for its own sake. We're not all going to grow up to be the same kind of people just because it would be politically convenient. Parents will (and should) raise their children in the traditions of their choosing.

The clarity and strength society gets from this diversity is well worth the suffering endured from circumcision, which in most lives is less than trivial.

It is sad that so many people in this world clearly cannot perceive that they are presenting drivel instead of a plausible argument. Thanks Amy and Tony for speaking up on behalf of defenceless boys who are at the mercy of parents that feel it is their right to modify the genitalia of their male offspring for cosmetic, cultural or religious reasons. Children are in the custody of their parents till they reach maturity and are not their property. If any boy is disappointed that he was not circumcised at birth, he can perfectly easily opt for it later. The opposite is not possible however for those who were circumcised as infants.

One other thing. I am not aware that any male has ever died from not being circumcised, and yet there are many males who have lost their lives as a result of a circumcision that they did not need, want or ask for.

Re "most circumcised men are fine with it": well, of course they are. If they were circumcised any time before they started masturbating, they have no experience of sex with an intact foreskin with which to compare sex without one. Since most men enjoy any consensual sexual contact involving whatever kind of dick they've got, of course they're "fine with it."

But talk to a man who still has a foreskin, who enjoys the feeling of it, and whose glans is still sensitive because it's protected most of the time, instead of having gradually become toughened by constantly rubbing against underwear or pants, and he'll probably tell you that cut men don't know what they're missing.

Literally.

There they are! Eight hours 'til sundown!

Swear to God, sometimes it seems like Amy subscribes to a service of some kind... The brother company to the firm that does all those imaginary Twitter followers for celebrities.

'Hello? Yeah, gonna need comments from some sketchy guys who are all upset about their dorks... It's OK that they've never commented about anything else and will never comment again.'

'Ah, well, sorry miss, but school's just opened up all over the country any my usual teams are busy complaining on College blogs about cafeteria carry-out policies for the dorms....'

JutGory:

Vaccines work with the body's immune system rather than remove functional body parts. Circumcision removes a normal body part that might become diseased or contribute to transmission. Amy's argument/analogy is correct because of the first aspect, but for the second, condoms work much better, without the ethical flaws. And circumcision remains a choice for the male as an adult, if he values it for the claimed risk reductions.

You know, if it wasn't for this blog, I probably would never have given my long lost foreskin another thought...

crid:

It's my understanding that this is a leak of a document that hasn't even been published yet.

It's from the published version released today. ("Policy Statement" section, pp. 585-586) But the excerpt I quoted is also in the link you cited today. Did you not read it completely and critically to recognize that it contradicts itself?

Does an infant give consent to ANY medical treatment, including the cutting of the cord?

So any intervention is therefore ethical? Proxy consent is valid, but with critical limits that distinguish it from consent.

Describing this as a matter of rights is lunacy. ...

So parents can do anything they wish to their children? The right to physical integrity is not the same as the right to free speech. We should not let parents choose which basic human rights their (male-only!) children get to have.

This is yet another attempt by idiot busybodies to take control of the lives of distant strangers ...

While your attack is amusing, it has zero foundation in what's being said. No one advocates a policy where an individual male can't have himself circumcised for any reason he might choose. The obvious truth is that we know we do not know what is best for every individual. No one does. Shared DNA by parents provides them no such special psychic knowledge. My position recognizes this. A male should retains his choice on whether or not to give up his normal, healthy foreskin until he decides or refuses.

The only possible explanation is that Amy wants to grind away at the religious family individuation that circumcision represents.

Or you could stop shielding yourself from what's being said and address that instead of the straw men you build.

The clarity and strength society gets from this diversity is well worth the suffering endured from circumcision, which in most lives is less than trivial.

Who is telling whom what is the one best way for everyone and which suffering is worthwhile? Even ignoring those who receive complications beyond the unavoidable harm from circumcision, "in most lives" is not "in all lives".

>> and he'll probably tell you that cut men don't know what they're missing.

I'm guessing that would be a constant fear of premature ejaculation.

Work's picking up. This will be a fun one to answer when I get home.

(Weather warning, babe... Should make landfall about 9pm EST)

>>But talk to a man who still has a foreskin, who enjoys the feeling of it, and whose glans is still sensitive because it's protected most of the time, instead of having gradually become toughened by constantly rubbing against underwear or pants...

I'm circumcised and I'm not buying it. Feels plenty sensitive to me. I think you're just trying to make millions of circumcised men feel inferior and I have to say that's a real dickhead move. Why, I don't know. Circumcision envy maybe? Or circumcision shame?

"Listen, I mean no disrespect, but the "popular urologist" is an entirely new animal in my social jungle."

Hopefully you never get to experience being on a first name basis with a uorologist. You are young yet.

Dr. Harry has a man show on radio. Saturday night here in Minnesota. It is an interesting show. It is really funny when he tries to explain to women callers how simple men are to understand.

I'm still of the opinion that once the skin is gone it is like it never happened. You tell me sex is better with the skin. Uh, ok. I could say that sex is better without the skin. My parents did what they thought was best for me. I can truly thank them for that.

Little boys have gotten their penis's stuck in escalators, too. SHould we just hack off the penis because without a penis, that wouldn't happen? Without boobs, breast cancer wouldn't happen. You can justify a lot saying that some rare occurance wouldn't happen if ___ body part simply didn't exist.

African men sleep with multiple woman at one time. Which means one infected person can infect a lot of others very quickly. In the US, serial monogamy is more common, leading to time between partners and lessening infection rates. Not to mention, condoms are quite easily obtained here and are a LOT more effective.

Circumcision helps because the virus has to be in a moist medium to live, and a bare penis dries mroe quickly than a sheathed one. There are plenty of nonsurgical ways to achieve this same benefit. Like, soap and water and about 5 seconds of your time.

> Like, soap and water and about 5
> seconds of your time.

((365*53*5)/60)/24=67.1701388889 (days).

I'm fresh as a daisy and ready for love, but my parents have saved me more than two months.

I'm grateful to them.

Excellent comments, Tony. You nail it. The others sound bitter in their rebuttals. It's hard to hear the truth.

Thanks, Amy, for your posts on this topic.

I bungled the math, it's only about a day (26.6 hours). Nonetheless, by the age of majority, before I'd have been trusted to make the call on my own behalf, I'd have lost about nine hours to the idiotic control-freakery of people I'd never met. (But who, in Bloombergian voice, were [distantly] assuring me they had my best interests at heart.) Furthermore, on top of the risks which turned out so dangerously for Mel's kid, there'd have been the unpleasantness of anticipating the procedure with adult awareness. And of course, it's a safe bet that adult procedures cost more.

Now as regards these other considerations....

> Did you not read it completely

I didn't read it completely... I'm not obsessed with dick that way.

> and critically

I didn't read it critically because chatter about "critical thinking" is pretentious. I get what I need from reading without putting on a red cape and ooky music and lighting candles and going into a trance first, OK? I grew up on a college campus and learned not to be impressed by people who pretend to be smart, even when they are.

> to recognize that it contradicts itself?

It doesn't contradict itself, it says "the risks are outweighed," yet "medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families." It's a verge, not a dodge.

> So any intervention is therefore
> ethical?

Care for one's children isn't "intervention."

Child rearing is not a clean-room industrial process wherein kids are isolated in some pristine condition of soft-skinned obliviousness until they can wake up one morning and compose their lives from a restaurant menu of cost-free options. I want and expect parents to deliver forged, tested personalities at adulthood. Skinned knees and lightly-broken hearts are a part of the deal. Children are committed to all sorts of things, necessarily and unnecessarily, that they might not have chosen for themselves. The point you clowns never seem able to take is that circumcision is the least of them.

A couple weeks ago we lost Robert Hughes after long illness. About twenty years ago, he wrote a fun little book about the growing problem of political correctness. Many elisions of language were discussed, including several evinced in your comments. In a favorite passage, he discusses coming to dislike the rigorous Catholic church in which he was raised and then, after he'd left it, recognizing that its rigor had given him the tools to reject it and to measure the worth of anything that could aspire to take its place. His mind

(Swear to God, it wasn't until I finished typing that paragraph that I realized that yours is precisely the attitude he had in mind when writing the book. This does not flatter you. You should read it anyway. You will not.)

> So parents can do anything they wish
> to their children?

This question doesn't improve on the last one, and over the last forty years or so, I've never heard anyone use the word "wish" in that sense without trying to come off like some sort of doily-wristed British sop. (Computer programmers are the worst about it... A Liberal Arts education has much to recommend it.)

> We should not let parents choose which basic
> human rights their (male-only!) children
> get to have.

After 3 squares, a dry pillow, literacy and sincere affection, I pretty much want parents to have complete authority over their kids' rights, and then I'll pass judgment later (as in this instance). I don't love strangers (especially children) enough to burst into their homes to make sure your comical & imaginary standards for "human rights" are honored.

> The obvious truth is that we know we do not
> know what is best for every individual.

Right. We should leave it up to their parents.

If you personally worry that your family cheated you out out of some physical sensation or robbed you of some ethereal component of masculine identity, let me reassure you: You weren't going to make the grade anyway. Courage, and eagerness to MOVE FORWARD, are what make adulthood work... Not meekly weeping over the count of angels on the head of a pin, or worrying –as only dope-smokers used to do– that my orange is your blue and we'll never know the difference.

Even if you were horribly disfigured, even if you were horribly disfigured –and you weren't– I'd expect you to get over it. We all eventually meet someone who suffers from some disability of childbirth. I have a dear such person in my family. The delivering physician could have done a better job... But the young man never, ever whines. About anything.

And for Chrissake, quadra-freaking-plegics have sexual sensation. Just last week I was reading (God knows where) that erotic sensation tends to appear at whatever point in the spinal column that sensation appears anyway.

I think you guys are pathetic. I wonder if you're the same ones who showed up last time Amy posted about this, and whether you'll be the same ones who show up next time... Because we never see your names when we talk about education or public finance or the TSA or energy policy or even divorce. For you, it's all about your Johnson. I don't understand what thrill you and Amy get by staying in touch this way... You could just send a card over the holidays.

Maybe Mom caught you with a copy of Playboy, maybe Dad stole your paper route money for beer; but whatever your problem with your parents might be, I don't see why strangers are expected to lubricate your chilly little shaft with their salty, salty tears.

>>Those who wish to avoid that five seconds of washing should be free to get their foreskins removed when they can speak and consent.

I almost find this discussion comical. Personally, I am neither for nor against circumcision as a requirement of the general population. For those who say it should be disallowed by law, I would have to say how would you feel if it was required by law? I agree with Crid in that what parents want to do with their kids is an individual right and the state has little right to interfere outside of extreme abuse or sexual molestation, and even those are subjective terms I am loathe to let certain interest groups define for me. The arguments about sexual pleasure are completely irrelevant, as they are entirely subjective and impossible to prove. I am willing to bet that some men gain sexual benefits from circumcision and some gain detriments. I will also point out that the lack of circumcision also comes with it's own negative consequences.

But I have to love this argument on "rights" many of which are denied to minors. And seriously, by the time you are old enough to consent, most would keep what they've got even if it was completely reversible. I will testify, that if you could have restored my foreskin for free any time in the last 30 years or next 30, I would not take the offer. (And here's the irony) Who in their right mind wants a man with a sharp knife anywhere near their junk? Not me. But you don't get to win by default.

BTW: If my son had the right to refuse any medical procedure he wouldn't be vaccinated.

>>Children would also refuse to have life-saving operations. The difference is medical necessity. Polio is a horrible disease. A urinary tract infection is an annoying one. You can't avoid polio by washing your willie.

Nice contrast but I would say polio is a horrible disease, and so is having you dick rot off because you didn't know how to clean it properly. Sorry you and your parents were too stupid to know better.

To be honest I really have to wonder what the net gain VS detriment there is to circumcision? So you get so many botched circumcisions, how many infections do you get from not being circumcised? And do you really want to implement policy based solely on the outcome? %51 to %49 and everyone must be cirsumcised! You okay with that?

Seriously, requiring circumcision is potentially as much of a government requirement as immunization. It's just one vote away.

And I agree with immunization for the most part.

Well, I've never heard that particular healthcare cause-&-effect...

But it sounds like you're ready to confess to being a busybody, if not an oppressor of the faithful: You think you can make them do whatever you want as long as your interest in their well-being is suitably sincere.

Right? You said that. OK.

This is progress! Good talk!

His body, his choice.

Yeah. Right.

Crid gets the threadwin!

I have a son and he is circumcised. I asked his father (my husband) what he thought was best (because I don't have a a dick). Then I talked to a couple doctors. I also did some reading about the procedure itself and the outcomes. We elected to have it done.

Baby was gone for less than 15 minutes and came back snoozing. Hubby watched and said baby didn't fuss at all.

My son seems quite pleased with his dick and has not complained to us at all over the last 18.5 years about the lack of foreskin.

I do know that you can teach a boy about hygiene but getting them to actually wash .... with soap and water... is sometimes very challenging. And that is just armpits and hair. Until there is a a girl or someone else that want to impress, they have little concern for their own stench.

"Crid gets the threadwin!"

I don't have a son. If I did, I would have researched the subject and given my husband the deciding vote. But I always learn something from Crid's comments. Plus my husband keeps having to come in to see what I'm laughing about.

crid:

I didn't read it completely... I'm not obsessed with dick that way.

You don't have to be "obsessed with dick" to read your source, which contains only 830 words. You cited something you didn't understand as though it supports your position.

I didn't read it critically because chatter about "critical thinking" is pretentious. ... I grew up on a college campus and learned not to be impressed by people who pretend to be smart, even when they are.

Substitute "skeptically", if necessary. Or even "did you not think while you read it?". But, no worries, your obsession with insults always amuses.

Care for one's children isn't "intervention."

You're changing the context from "ANY medical treatment" in your original rebuttal to "care for one's children". If you'd like to respond to my question in the original context, that could be interesting. And/or it could be an opportunity for more insults, which is its own form of interesting.

Child rearing is not a clean-room industrial process wherein kids are isolated in some pristine condition of soft-skinned obliviousness until ...

I never said it was. I wrote "proxy consent is valid" (with limits). You're challenging me on something I haven't written or implied.

... The point you clowns never seem able to take is that circumcision is the least of them.

Is that an objective point? What's the valuation that demonstrates circumcision is the least of the things children are committed to? For all children, including those who receive major complications or the few who die from circumcision?

... Robert Hughes ... wrote a fun little book ...

"Culture of Complaint"? I won't comment on your conjecture until I've read it.

This question doesn't improve on the last one, ...

It wasn't meant to improve on the last one. You spoke of children having no rights. You use words loosely, with no apparent awareness of the manner in which that could lead to monstrous outcomes if followed. Maybe your thinking is muddled. I don't know.

After 3 squares, a dry pillow, literacy and sincere affection, I pretty much want parents to have complete authority over their kids' rights, and then I'll pass judgment later (as in this instance).
Right. We should leave it up to their parents.

Your thinking could lead to monstrous outcomes. You're saying children have no rights beyond those four, and anything else done to them can't be judged until after it's been done? Is this true even when we know in advance that something is objectively harmful to the child? What would be the point of judging after the fact for that child, since we apparently can't think ahead enough to legislate against anything other than requiring those four rights?

I do appreciate that I have "comical and imaginary standards for 'human rights'" because I'm stating that surgery should not be forced on the healthy genitals of male children, just as it may not be forced on the healthy genitals of female children, but "sincere affection" is a right in your worldview.

If you personally worry... I think you guys are pathetic. ... salty, salty tears.

I'm fascinated by the frequency with which you offer insult. I'm more impressed with the way you always conclude with a few howlers based on whatever imaginary conversation you've had with me (and/or others). I'd offer a rebuttal to the things I've said in those conversations, except it's clear from what I've written that I don't believe many of them and haven't said them here.

Responses to comments

Actually the foreskin is not cut off, it is SCRAPPED of the head of the penis to which it is FUSED, and then cut off. It’s kind of like scraping the finger nail out of the nail bed.

Why don’t those of you who think it’s no big deal try it and let us know how little it hurts?

It’s not like cutting hair, hair has no nerve endings, nor is it like removing a limb, they give you local or full anesthesia for that, plus the foreskin is reported to have almost as many nerve ending as the glans itself

As for not suffering or causing harm, blood cortisol levels spike and take week to return to normal levels, and a study on erectile dysfunction users showed circumcised men were four times as likely to use them as non-circumcised men, as the skin of the glans of circumcised men tend to thicken and corrode

Removing a mole on an adult and removing up 15 square inches of skin from a baby strapped to a board to prevent it from moving are two different things

As for trusting the American pediatrics, foreskins are a BILLION dollar a year industry, I think they have a rather glaring conflict of interest

Regarding “prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections”. We can reduce UTI in women by cutting off the outer lips of the vagina, the rate of UTI between men circumcised or not was a difference of less than 5%. The odds of penile cancer are one in hundreds and typically strikes in the 80’s, meanwhile the odds of breast cancer are like 1 in 8, so why no neo natal mastectomies? As for STI’s there is indeed a reduction in the likelihood of bacterial infection, but there is an INCREASE in the likely hood of VIRAL infections

Regarding the argument of the ‘magical rights of children’. Do you use that argument to support the circumcision of females crid?

Again, more after work.

(You mentioned insults 3 times... I should warn you that it's at least possible that your tender emotions well again be disrupted by tonight's reply... But given your blindly authoritarian disregard for the feelings of others, I figger you're man enough to deal with it.)

(I may be wrong about that.)

And a few other thoughts.

Even forms of female circumcision that cause less harm than males circumcision are banned by law, do those of you who see male circumcision as no big deal feel the same way about female circumcision?

Male circumcision in America and Western Europe is not part of Christian tradition; it was introduced by a whack job looking to deliberately curb masturbation in particular and sexual enjoyment in general in males

Foreskins make big money for hospitals, drug manufacturers, and cosmetic companies, BILLIONS of dollars every year. It’s not about your babies’ heath, it’s about making money

More infants die from circumcision complications each year than they do from car accidents, or SIDS, or the average child choking toy which triggers government recalls.

The supposed benefits are marginal, fractions of a percentage to less than 5% in any supposed category.

As for sensation I can imagine what anyone might be missing out on, but until color TV came along everyone was satisfied with black and white, until surround sound came along everyone was fine with the unidirectional sound coming for the TV

As for the procedure itself, the skin is FUSED to the head of the penis so it must be scraped up and off of it to be cut, try scraping the skin off of your flesh anywhere on your body.

Also there is no way to know what size any penis might be after physical maturation, therefore how can they possible know how much should be removed.

Does a reduction in a 0.5% chance of a uti to a 0.45% chance really worth the possibility that you kid might wind up dead. Is it worth reducing the odds of him catching/transmitting an STI by a few fractions of a percentage point?

Finally can you honestly say this baby is fine with what is being done to him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PTtmOwqJF8

crid:

My "tender emotions" were not disrupted. I would never suggest you refrain from insulting me if you have one or more new burns. I only ask that you stop responding to the made-up version of me in your mind with whom you're obviously still conversing.

15 SQUARE INCHES??? Get that kid a reality show.

> stop responding to the made-up version
> of me in your mind

McArdle kids, but you're serious: You can't understand how others could misread you so badly.

All will be revealed this evening.

You're at it again. Ms. McArdle talks about "terrible, lying people with bad motives". Show me where I said or implied that you're a terrible, lying person with bad motives. You can be wrong, as you are, without being a terrible, lying person with bad motives.

I think it's clear you avoid the issues when anyone gets too close to something that reveals a flaw in your thinking. I haven't posited a reason why. The insults you resort to instead of (and sometimes in addition to) substance? I think you enjoy insults. I don't know or care why.

It is, of course, possible that I didn't explain myself well in some point I tried to make, per Ms. Howorth's observation. I'd like to be as clear as possible so that you understand me, because you clearly don't. I'm not convinced it's my writing. You interpret limited statements I make so broadly that the misreading is amusingly ridiculous. (e.g. clean-room industrial process) Maybe the reverse is happening, and you're not explaining your point clearly? For example, you responded as if "Does an infant give consent to ANY medical treatment, including the cutting of the cord?" implied general care for one's children.

Regardless, I wait for all to be revealed.

How many pins can dance on the head of an angel?

I see three groups. It is right. It is wrong. It has been done and will continue to be done by caring people, some who even do serious research.

My son stopped by a couple of weeks ago to help me finish some summer projects that he thought I was making a career out of. Out of the blue he thanked me for not encouraging him to play football in high school. Since I was a athlete in high school and college, I was always concerned about how he would react when he got older.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PTtmOwqJF8

Until you watch this your opinion are based on ignorance.

And yes, after removed and streached to its extremes the forskin can sometimes be as large as a 3x5 index card.

http://youtu.be/ApGYjkSXDQE

"Until you watch this your opinion are based on ignorance."

So sayeth the god of something.

I find it telling how many think this is a non issue yet go out of their way to steadfastly avoid ever watching the said non issue take place.

If you could take 30 fucking seconds to look at and laugh at crid's picture of a hotel surely you can waste a mere 90 to watch a video of the practice you claim to endorse

"practice you claim to endorse"

Show of hands. I do not endorse. I mind my own business and leave it up to the parents of the boy to decide. I'll gladly give my opinion (if asked by parents contemplating the issue) and I will tell them it is something they will agonize over it if they choose to do it. They will only agonize if they don't choose to do it and there are future problems.

"If you could take 30 fucking seconds to look at and laugh at crid's picture of a hotel"

Crid has a great record for linking to cool stuff. You, not so much.

>>Show of hands. I do not endorse. I mind my own business and leave it up to the parents of the boy to decide.

Agreed. I'm not endorsing it as a required practice, but I certainly don't want the asshats telling me and everyone else what to do based on their good intentions. I'm tired of having the road to hell paved for me, so to speak.

If you want to educate, educate. Go off on the rhetoric and I think you've got an agenda. Start talking about how it limits the man's pleasure and I start thinking that the person who is writing has never owned a circumcised penis and has no clue what they are talking about, because my personal experience says that's a lie.

And then I realize you are making up what-ifs in order to shame my parents and make me and every other man who has been circumsized feel inadequate. Gee what do you think my response to that should be?

Oh, and incidentally, I was that baby in the video, in that I experienced the procedure. I was there first hand. And being an adult I can finally give voice to my opinion about it. And I can't say it was a negative experience in any way.

Mostly, I’m sorry to Amy’s other readers, who aren't likely to find amusement here. My opinion — apparently like that of each of Amy’s commenters except the usual circumcision zombie-men — is unchanged... For both the topic and for those Z-men:

     pa·thos   [pey-thos, -thohs, -thaws] 
     noun
     1. the quality or power in an actual life
        experience or in literature, music, speech,
        or other forms of expression, of evoking a
        feeling of pity or compassion.
     2. pity.
     3. Obsolete. Suffering.
                                  (Merriam-Webster)

My comprehension was complete and unimprovable: This keen and practiced (yet intuitive and dynamic) grasp of textual meaning is the envy of English departments throughout academe, and of schools of Philosophy across the modern world. I get stuff.

> as though it supports your position.

The piece affirms my stance tidily, without features or nuance... Bang on, bulls-eye, full marks, and I'm crazy-proud of those kids for writing it. Honestly, I think those doctors are just dreamboats! The AAP is my new favorite United States professional healthcare association (the name of which I couldn't have guessed before reading this blog post if you had put a pistol to my temple [but don’t try it, Bub, even though there are other such medical alliances]).

> Substitute "skeptically", if necessary.

Kitten, I'm skeptical of everything. I'm especially skeptical of grandiose, monomaniacal internet commenters who dodge and weave when the plainest words are put before them. I like to make fun of people like that...

> And/or it could be an opportunity for more
> insults

…Because it hits 'em where they live. You mention insults three times; we might assume you're thin-skinned, by which much would be explained. Y’see, lotsa peeps go through their anonymous lives thinking they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that if they could just get the people around them to really listen, the anonymous peep would not only be roaringly persuasive, but his surrounding cohort would suddenly stand in awe of his rhetorical prowess, and burn with shame for not seeing the magic in his eyes in earlier times. So we have to put up with a lotta ’posited conjecture’ from the Anon Peeps, as if the internet were a magical realm where people can’t see who we really are.

(But people almost always can.)

> You're changing the context from "ANY medical
> treatment" in your original rebuttal to "care
> for one's children".

No, the context in each case is whether I think your judgment is better than that of others, specifically others who love their children and...

[A] want to continue an ancient religious practice

[B] want to provide a minor hygienic benefit

[C] just wanna go with the flow

[D] other stuff that I might not be thinking about right now but need to leave space for, because you’re apparently going to be a legalistic putz about it.

> You're challenging me on something I haven't
> written or implied.

“Intervention” was the ludicrous word by which you described boys receiving either medical care or circumcision. For early life especially, a child is very much a product of the parent’s will and affection. Calling these things “interventions” is goofy-blind to the necessary and desirable intimacy that makes families work. Loving parents adore the flesh of their children as if it were their own; They’re not looking to you for guidance on any of these matters, nor should they.

> Is that an objective point?

Yes.

> What's the valuation that demonstrates circumcision
> is the least of the things children are committed to?

I think you’re whack, and have priced your smug, intrusive interest in this at a low value indeed.

Also, parents who teach their children to hate minorities, reading, hard work, bitter truth, and jazz guitar have done more damage to our culture than have those who circumcise them, include the botch jobs....

> For all children, including those who receive
> major complications or the few who die
> from circumcision?

...but we’ve already covered this, and you weren’t paying attention. Yes, there’s some vanishingly small percentage of circumcisions that ends tragically, or in death. But I think those losses are worth it to live in a society with great latitude in child rearing, both for religious purposes and for Jesus Frog Christ we already covered this.

I warned people this was gonna be dull.

You apparently wanna live in North Korea, where people can be told what to do in practices like these. And surprise surprise, you wanna be the one who does the telling.

> You're saying children have no rights beyond
> those four

Sheesh, you’re so eager to nail this down... I list some off-the-cuff considerations, and you read it like a proposed constitutional amendment on the righteousness of invading people’s families. You need to know those parameters right now, and you wanna see notarized paperwork, because you’re horny to move forward with this, charging ahead into every home every inch as far as policy will permit. Starting at dawn.

But I’m not. See? If you read it again, the fundamental, bedrock, y’know, overarching thematic element to my belief is that you shouldn’t be permitted to tell other people whether or not they circumcise their boys.

(A bachelor I once knew got his girlfriend pregnant, but he hadn’t told me about it yet. He described going on a camping trip with a mutual friend who had four young sons. As they were pitching tents and the boys were scurrying around and enjoying outdoor mayhem, demanding help with tent poles and mosquito repellent God knows what else, my friend was particularly intimidated by a nine-year old who stood next to a few scraps of damp kindling in a fire. From one hand, the flint edge of the matchbox sparkled in the forest sun; in the other hand, a tiny sulfur stick was literally twitching with anticipation. “It is time to light the fire, Dad? Is it? Is it time to light the fire? Yet? I’m ready to light the fire over here....” The Dad and his brothers gamboled through their chores without concern, but my friend apparently suffered an episode of terrible anxiety about his onrushing fatherhood. [I put it all together after his marriage was announced: The kid’s in college now, and everyone’s happy and rich and good-looking.])

You remind me of that little boy.

But parents aren’t asking me, y’know? This is one of the ways I know it’s not my decision to make. They know things about the well-being of children, most especially their own, which I will never know. Nor will you. Or that I care about. Nor should you. No matchsticks for Tony.


See....

Thing is....

Eventually we have to stop telling other people how to live, even when we don’t like it. (no jazz guitar... Imagine!) And when we tell people anyway and they don’t listen, we have to retreat and think about why not, rather than presume ourselves to be so thunderingly decent and admirable that no one should disregard us. You haven’t got to that point yet. In a culture that threatens huge percentages of children with genuinely brutalizing practices, you wanna talk about schvantz.

And you compel us to wonder why this is such a concern to you, even though we don’t care. Perhaps a dozen men have read this blog post, but the only ones who agree with you are the ones who are as equally (and unimpressively) obsessed. (And, again, I don’t recognize your name from any other discussion on here, which is why somatic preoccupation is called to mind.) It’s not just that no other men are complaining about their own circumcisions... They’re not telling stories of troubling circumcisions from other people in their lives, either. But I bet several would jump at the chance to talk about the reliability of recent Chevys. These guys aren’t bashful.

This is usually a lefty thing. As George Will once said, it’s (childish) fun to develop new “rights” for other people to defend.

But there haven’t actually been that many rights discovered in the last few hundred years. And Pilgrim, you are not going to be the author of a new one... We can tell.

Keep your hands to yourself.

Damp kindling in a fire PIT.

Damn.

Sisters--

Is there some subset of feminine humanity that complains, in this same way, about the traditions by which our culture anticipates menarche?

Or something?

A girl-topic for which some people are eager in this same way to walk in to a family home and tell the parents how it has to work?

Anything comparable?

Of the top of my head, Crid, no, nothing comparable springs to mind...

I could tell stories of what was said at the discovery of one of my girls' or their friends' having reached "womanhood" but basically, there was a lot of ewwwwwing, giggling, squealing (not necessarily in that order), and then "MOM! Guess WHAT??" in that way that the mom just knows "what". If anyone tried in any way to "fix" that, I'd boot them out on their ass. No two ways.

> If anyone tried in any way to "fix"
> that, I'd boot them out on their ass.
> No two ways.

I dig you. 'K? Jus' putting that out there.

crid:

I mentioned insults three times because it's your pattern in every thread. Keep at it. It's your thing.

“Intervention” was the ludicrous word by which you described boys receiving either medical care or circumcision. ...

No, "intervention" was the word I used to describe non-therapeutic circumcision. It is an intervention. Which you then responded with "Does an infant give consent to ANY medical treatment, including the cutting of the cord?". The context was most certainly not "care", which you shifted to in not answering my question about the implications of "ANY medical treatment".

... For early life especially, a child is very much a product of the parent’s will and affection. Calling these things “interventions” is goofy-blind ...

You'd have a point if I'd ever used "interventions" in that context.

Also, parents who teach their children to hate minorities, reading, hard work, bitter truth, and jazz guitar have done more damage to our culture than have those who circumcise them, include the botch jobs....

So? That doesn't refute my point. You've found certain things that we can possibly agree are worse than non-therapeutic circumcision. You haven't explained how you can declare for all males that circumcision is "the least" in the objective manner you used it. You're expressing your opinion with a demand that everyone share your exact preferences as an objective fact.

...but we’ve already covered this, and you weren’t paying attention. Yes, there’s some vanishingly small percentage of circumcisions that ends tragically, or in death. But I think those losses are worth it to live in a society with great latitude in child rearing, both for religious purposes and for Jesus Frog Christ we already covered this.

This is your subjective conclusion on the utilitarian value of circumcision to society. I don't share your opinion. Individuals within society matter, including those who must live with - or not - the "losses that are worth it" to you. Are those losses worth it to those individuals? Maybe you're doing the telling here.

You apparently wanna live in North Korea, where people can be told what to do in practices like these. And surprise surprise, you wanna be the one who does the telling.

You don't understand what you're writing. You think this is about parents? My position is that healthy people should choose for themselves, whatever they choose. Your position is a subset of my position. Some healthy people should live with what their parents want. You think it's acceptable for those healthy people to be told by another. You may not be the one telling those people they have to live with circumcision, but someone other than me is telling them. So, parents who circumcise want to live in North Korea?

But I’m not. See? If you read it again, the fundamental, bedrock, y’know, overarching thematic element to my belief is that you shouldn’t be permitted to tell other people whether or not they circumcise their boys.

You keep thinking I didn't get your meaning. I'm not looking for something to notarize. I'm pointing out the flaws in your belief. There are objective (as well as legalistic and subjective) reasons to tell people they may not circumcise their healthy sons. They are the same objective (as well as legalistic and subjective) reasons we already tell parents they can't surgically alter the healthy genitals of their daughters. You want this indefensible, unequal exemption to continue. Yet, we already live in a society with great latitude in child rearing that also contains limits.

And you compel us to wonder why this is such a concern to you, even though we don’t care. ...

This theorizing is perhaps useful. If you'd carefully read what I've written here, you could infer the right answer. But here is the summary: I value individual rights. I value choices. I value consent. Non-therapeutic circumcision without the individual's consent violates his body and his rights. It removes his choice. It is permanent harm forced on a healthy child for subjective and/or offensive reasons he may not value.

This is usually a lefty thing. As George Will once said, it’s (childish) fun to develop new “rights” for other people to defend.

I have invented no new rights. The U.S. already recognizes this right, and codified it in USC § 116. We also recognize equal protection under the law as a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Non-therapeutic circumcision violates both. You seem to think of parental rights as whatever we currently do, that this is the definition of what fits and should forever fit within that right. We are allegedly at the pinnacle and need not question further. That's absurd and not supported by the facts of circumcision or existing limits on parents.

But there haven’t actually been that many rights discovered in the last few hundred years. And Pilgrim, you are not going to be the author of a new one... We can tell.

You accused me of this in the last thread, the one where you lost your mind when I presented facts about surgery you didn't like. A few weeks after you accused me of manufacturing this right to bodily integrity, the district court in Cologne ruled that circumcision constitutes bodily harm and violates the child's rights to physical integrity and self-determination. I mean, I am big in Germany, so it's possible that they let me write their opinion for them, right?

This right isn't being developed or discovered by me or anyone else. It's an existing, recognized right that also applies to male children. It's not yet protected, even though there is no valid division into two groups for possession or inapplicability of this right. It is not those with it (adult males, adult females, minor females) and those without it (minor males). It is a right.

You have an undergraduate's fascination with the word "objective," deploying it as would a child saying 'La-la, I can't hear you.' I'm guessing you're not experienced at persuasion of strangers. I'm guessing you weren't in the debate team in high school, and haven't done a lot of work in party politics in the city where you live... This seems to be the only thing you care about.

> No, "intervention" was the word I used to
> describe non-therapeutic circumcision.

Your fondness for "therapeutic" distinction is artificial, arbitrary, and wholly uninteresting. I will not regard every influence a parent has over their child beyond metabolic efficiency as intrusive and worthy of my review.

I want parents to take care of their kids, and I won't expect to be consulted just because their choices are often unpleasant to me. Some parents will feed their children corn chips with nutritional intent, yet some will feed them corn chips to distract them while Mom & Dad get back to their drinking, which I think is kind of sad... But so what?

Your (and Amy's) use of the word "healthy" is so promiscuous as to be slutty, yet it isn't alluring:

> ...does it make sense to remove a
> healthy erotogenic organ...

(Amy's cite, and "erotogenic organ" 
is bogus wording.)

> Here, the healthy foreskin is lost.

> whether or not to give up his
> normal, healthy foreskin...

> should not be forced on the
> healthy genitals of male...

> may not be forced on the healthy
> genitals of female...

> My position is that healthy
> people should...

> Some healthy people should
> live with...

> You think it's acceptable for
> those healthy people to

> reasons to tell people they may not
> circumcise their healthy sons

(emphasis yours.)

> ...they can't surgically alter the
> healthy genitals of...

> ...harm forced on a healthy child
> for subjective...

(Again with the phenomenological
frogwash.)

> It is permanent harm

Nope. (We've covered this.) Considering circumcision's popularity, we'd know if it was causing meaningful harm. I'm fifty-three... No male in my acquaintance has ever said he was harmed by circumcision even temporarily, let alone permanently.

> The U.S. already recognizes this right,
> and codified it in USC § 116.

And yet parents aren't going to prison! Nutty, right?... Men are mad. Except, apparently yourself, blessed with oracular insight and higher values than other people.

Kidding! I don't think you're a very nice man.

(PS- Female genital mutilation ≠ typical American circumcision, and it's silly to pretend it does.)

> the district court in Cologne
> ruled that

We don't care about our own criminal codes (says you), but we should worry about German law?

> You accused me of this in the last
> thread, the one where

I don't recognize you. Let's see what the topic was... Well whaddya know!... Turns out, it was circumcision! All you care about is dick (see "monomaniacal," above), so you think you should tell us how it should work.

I do not endorse. I mind my own business

So then, do you also mind your own buiness in response to female circumcision? Child abuse or molestation? So long as it is done by parents?

> For all children, including those who receive
> major complications or the few who die
> from circumcision?

...but we’ve already covered this, and you weren’t paying attention. Yes, there’s some vanishingly small percentage of circumcisions that ends tragically, or in death. But I think those losses are worth it to live in a society with great latitude in child rearing, both for religious purposes and for Jesus Frog Christ we already covered this.

So crid, you think its ok to kill babies needlessly for medical gains that are smaller than the number of deaths on the off chance that stopping people from killing babies in ignorance and malpractice translates into the government dictating bed times to parents?

When Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" I dont recall any mention of the blood of innocents falling off the alter of Baal at its base

> It is permanent harm

Nope. (We've covered this.) Considering circumcision's popularity, we'd know if it was causing meaningful harm. I'm fifty-three... No male in my acquaintance

Nope, sorry asshole, after the sheer number of times you have criticized other for using people 'they know' as a defense or argument for anything you dont get to you it yourself

And it is permenrt harm, something(UPTO HALF THE SKIN) has been removed entierly

Goldberg:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.

(emphasis cridmo)

Psst 0 luj - we're talking about circumcision - wait for a blog on those items and see what I say. OK?

"So then, do you also mind your own buiness in response to female circumcision? Child abuse or molestation? So long as it is done by parents?"

I dig you. 'K? Jus' putting that out there.

V. mutual diggage, my love. Just sayin'.

"Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy."

And herein lies the problem. It's BULLSHIT, people. Plain and simple bullshit. To actually BELIEVE it and to let it be imposed upon yourselves is to willingly give up your very own identity of self. Good on ya.

Me, I ain't goin' for that. No can do.

>>You haven't explained how you can declare for all males that circumcision is "the least" in the objective manner you used it.

I declare. Please any males who are unhappy with their being circumcised, chime in.

>>It is permanent harm

As one of the supposed victims, I refute this. I feel no harm has been done to me. I have a "nice looking cock," or so I have been told multiple times. Plenty sensitive thank you. Please stop trying to lable my parents as child abusers. Do you have a working circumcised penis?

And yes, were I uncircumcised, after the first couple girls said, eww, I'd have had it done with an added painful memory you sadist SOB. You haven't proven your point. I don't believe you and I don't buy your argument.

>>So then, do you also mind your own buiness in response to female circumcision

Are the "victims" complaining about it? I'm not up on this issue.

I should point out that the second you say,"It's for the children!" Everyone will know you are full of shit.

Psst 0 luj - we're talking about circumcision - wait for a blog on those items and see what I say. OK?

Why Dave? I see no difference, and seek to understand why you dont. Supporting the satus quo via indefference is endorsment by default

Are the "victims" complaining about it? I'm not up on this issue.

Yes assholio, the fact that so many men chime in to say they are against it should be more than enough proof that viticms are complaining

>> the fact that so many men chime in to say they are against it should be more than enough proof that viticms are complaining

So you are circumcised and you feel your parents abused you by having you circumcised?

I have a "nice looking cock," or so I have been told multiple times

Lemme see. I'll tell ya true.

o.O

>>Lemme see. I'll tell ya true.

You show me yours and I'll show you mine! But I have to warn you, I only show it off in person.

Yes the doctor fucked up, I had a skin bridge which would pull the front of the head of my penis down and under itself.

Waking up to blood in your underwear one morning cause the skin on your dick tore is not a pleasant experiance,

Neither is having one of the blood vessels to you balls partially crushed due to the skin from your ball sack being pulled up onto the shaft of your penis because the normal amount of skin isnt there when it expands.

You ever see scar tissue on skin where it expands on a pregnant woman or fat person? You ever have to worry about which brand of condoms you use cause the wrong king will literally tear the skin on your shaft?

Sorry that you had such a bad experience. I guess a messed up dick would cause a guy to hate God and religious people.

I wasn't unlucky like you though. Mine is over 67 years old and still takes a lickin and keeps on ticken.

I see though that it really bothers you that other people have a different opinion about circumcision and it really appears to piss you off that they won't listen to you.

It doesn't piss me off when people hold an opinion. Opinions are based on info and can be changed, what bothers me is when people are indifferent, or hold a blind belief and refuse to admit an inane cultural tradition is pointless and has no basis in fact.

My circumcision is considered a successful one according to the way they keep stats because it wasnt surgically repaired within a year of my birth.

The marginal heath benefits are smaller than the risk of death, and the consequences of too much or too little skin removal is far more widespread than people believes because no one really bother s to keep stat as it would interfere with billions of dollars worth of business interests.

And while it 'prevents' sti contraction by fractions of a percentage point, in cases of infection the risk of contraction by women increases by several percentage points as the penis without its lube generating foreskin causes micro abbrasions and tears in the vaginal wall

crid:

Your fondness for "therapeutic" distinction is artificial, ...

It isn't arbitrary for surgery via proxy consent. You keep changing context to what you wish I'd written.

I want parents to take care of their kids, ...

See, changing the context. My statement is limited to extending an existing prohibition on non-therapeutic genital cutting of minors to boys.

Thatsa 'lebben 'healthies', none of them convincing. There are more important things in life than being healthy. (Being free and being decent come to mind.)

With regard to his genitals, a male child is not free when someone takes a scalpel to his normal, (#12) healthy genitals. You still mistakenly believe this is about parents.

Nope. (We've covered this.) Considering circumcision's popularity, we'd know if it was causing meaningful harm. ...

With standards like that, who needs standards? We also discussed that it leads to severe complications, including death, for some minority of boys. It causes meaningful harm for those boys, for sure.

But circumcision causes harm in every case. You flipped your lid in the last thread because you seemingly couldn't comprehend a difference between harm and net harm, or that I might comprehend the difference and thus omit the word net when I discuss the former. I claim only harm for all men based on facts I repeated earlier in this thread. Net harm is open to individual evaluation, contra Assholio's assertion on permanent harm that shows he shares your confusion.

I don't demand that you or anyone else conclude that your own circumcision is a net harm for yourself. You value other things. Okay. People are diverse, with unique individual preferences. I understand that. I wish I knew why you don't, or at least why it allegedly doesn't apply here. I'm curious why you expect uniformity of opinion, even if only from parent to child forever.

And yet parents aren't going to prison! Nutty, right?... ...

Hey, look at that. You're avoiding again. I demonstrated that the right is not some new theory I'm inventing.

(PS- Female genital mutilation ≠ typical American circumcision, and it's silly to pretend it does.)

Consider me shocked that you ignore nuance and complexity.

We don't care about our own criminal codes (says you), but we should worry about German law?

Hey, look at that. You're avoiding again. I bet you understood why I cited the ruling. Instead, more twisting.

I don't recognize you. ...

Hey, look at that. You're avoiding again. Right, insults are your pattern, but not your only pattern.

You quoted Jonah Goldberg on liberal fascism:

... It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. ...

All aspects of life? Nope. Impose uniformity? Nope. (That's your stance in important ways.) Force? Well, yes, but with a valid power of the state extended to protect all individual citizens from unwanted, non-therapeutic harm. Not really a gotcha. However, you defend (permanent) force against a child without regard for his consent or need. Social pressure? I'm not a fan, unless the individual consents to cooperate with it. You seem to think it's a perfectly useful defense for circumcision.

Horse. Dead. Please stop the beating.

I'll stop beating the dead horse when kids stop dying

But lujy, it's so very rare that a child dies from circumcision.

Let's look at what might happen if the moyel had to work with an older crowd (and frankly, I amazed no one has posted this yet):

Rabbi Tuckman explains circumcisions about 2 minutes in.

> It isn't arbitrary for surgery
> via proxy consent.

Not surgery, circumcision. Fascists have always used the 'health' angle: Read the Goldberg.

> You keep changing context to
> what you wish I'd written.

I'm quoting you precisely, from this selfsame web page. People have read what you said and how I responded, and shennanigans would be apparent to all... You wouldn't need to identify them. You claim to have been repeatedly misunderstood, or that your readers are sneaks...

But you've been clear, and your reasoning is rejected.

> a male child is not free when someone
> takes a scalpel to his normal

Free children live under the authority of their parents, who make this decision and many others. They choose the food he eats and the Jesus Christ this is boring we did this already.

Monomaniacs are dull. This isn't about circumcision, this is about you, right? It's boring.

> It causes meaningful harm for
> those boys, for sure.

Right, but you said it harms everyone—

> But circumcision causes harm
> in every case.

—And it doesn't. Many, if not the vast majority, enjoy benefits and are grateful the procedure was performed. Society certainly enjoys benefits from parents having the authority to make this choice.

We've gone through this loop about five times. Are you amused by this? Do you understand why others aren't?

> I wish I knew why you don't, or at
> least why it allegedly doesn't
> apply here.

Why I don't what?

> I'm boring you to tears.

You didn't actually say that, but youda been correct if you had.

> I don't demand that you or anyone
> else conclude that your own circumcision
> is a net harm for yourself.

Then you shouldn't say "it harms everyone".

> I'm curious why you expect uniformity
> of opinion

I don't. It's neither forbidden nor required.

> I demonstrated that the right is
> not some new theory I'm inventing.

You demonstrated nothing of the kind. Because:

>> Female genital mutilation ≠ typical
>> American circumcision, and it's
>> silly to pretend it does.
>
> you ignore nuance and complexity.

N & C are dear friends of mine, both of them, but neither applies here; You're being silly is all.

> I bet you understood why I cited
> the ruling.

Desperation?

> insults are your pattern

No, seriously, I didn't recognize you, but it didn't matter in the flow of this argument. If you're unchanged from your last appearence here, as is apparently the case, your argument deserved ridicule for each occasion, and got it. You don't care about anything else, right? I'll try to remember you next time, so we can shuck right down to the cob.

> All aspects of life? Nope.
> Impose uniformity? Nope.

I don't trust you. I don't trust Amy. I don't think you're nice, competent, humble or correct in your judgment.

> Force? Well, yes, but

That's folksy and avuncular! You're interviewing yourself! 'Golly [chuckle], it's justa little bit o' force.... [wink]'

> a valid power of the state extended

You're extending state power. I don't think you should be permitted to do that. You're not nice enough. Or smart enough.

> to protect all individual citizens from
> unwanted, non-therapeutic harm.

Again/again/again/again— Kids don't know what they want or need, but in this matter as in so many others, it's good that my folks didn't wait to ask. I don't much care whether it was "therapeutic" by your definition or anyone else's; there has been no harm. (Also, "individual citizens" is wordy.)

> you defend (permanent) force against
> a child without regard for his consent
> or need.

The cicumstances of human reproduction, and the responsibilies arising therefrom, are indeed permanent. "Consent" in these matters would be inane; "needs" are judged differently for each, as they deserve to be.

Are you this lonely? This is circuitous text, not refined argument. Do you wanna say the same things again, receiving the same responses, or are we done?

A hundred messages in, we can be frank, right?

> because your daddy wants to honor
> Maimonides' attempt to stop little boys from
> jerking off

If you think that's what this practice means to religious believers, you're being pompously reductive.

if you're pretending to care about children to feign superiority to the faithful, you're being...

Not surgery, circumcision.

"Male circumcision consists of the surgical removal of some, or all, of the foreskin (or prepuce) from the penis." - AAP

...You claim to have been repeatedly misunderstood...

I claimed that it's possible you misunderstood me. I think you've understood what I've said. You've repeatedly refuted positions I am not advocating. I think those two can occur at the same time.

Right, but you said it harms everyone—

Yep. It's the predictable outcome of surgery, as well as a recognized legal rule. Surgery inflicts some amount of harm in every instance. You're pretending again that harm and net harm are the same concept. The former doesn't require the latter. The latter is specific to each individual's personal evaluation, particularly in the non-therapeutic context.

Then you shouldn't say "it harms everyone".

Why should I deny facts? Because you mistakenly think harm and net harm are the same concept? That's no defense. I shouldn't say "it's a net harm for everyone". I haven't said that.

You didn't actually say that, but youda been correct if you had.

Awesome. You finally acknowledged that you composed a response to something I didn't say. It's never too late for progress.

N & C are dear friends of mine, both of them, but neither applies here; You're being silly is all.

I'm not being silly. You're not asking for that conversation now, so I'll leave it there.

> You need to do these yoga moves

The contortions are yours—

> You don't get to perform unnecessary medical
> procedures on boys:

Only you affirm the intention is merely medical, or that "health" is the highest (or single) virtue.

> because you're religious, because you think
> circumcised penises are pretty, for whatever
> reason.

That's exactly what 'we get'. Anything less would be shameful & primitive authoritarianism, and as noted above, gruesome disregard for the 1st Amendment.

It spooks me when people who thrive and boogie in the greatest freedom the cosmos has ever known stake their egos on poisoning it. (While you're at it, you might also suggest that women surrender their right to vote.)

> Surgery inflicts harm

It's not surgery. If you want, you can again affirm that the intentions are merely therapeutic, but it makes you look kinda thick.

> You're not asking for that conversation now

You don't do conversation, you recite monographs.

It's not surgery.

Rejecting a basic understanding of circumcision is convenient. You don't like facts. I get it. Well done. Bravo.

Wpw. And all these years I thought circumcision was circumcision. Necer to old to learn.

Shit. Wow and Never. I blame it on the "surgery" I just had for a torn and detached retina. Can't see around the damn gas bubble.

> Rejecting a basic understanding of circumcision
> is convenient.

Respect for language is imperative... And Sugarbun, you pulled some "basic understanding" our of your ass, which made it convenient indeed:

  sur·ger·y [sur-juh-ree]
  noun, plural sur·ger·ies for 3–5.

  1. the art, practice, or work of treating 
     diseases, injuries, or deformities by
     manual or operative procedures.
  2. the branch of medicine concerned with
     such treatment.
  3. treatment, as an operation, performed
     by a surgeon.
  4. a room or place for surgical operations.
  5. British a doctor's or dentist's office
     or office hours.

Quick question crid, if circumcision is not surgery then why do the doctors who do it call it surgery?

But lujy, it's so very rare that a child dies from circumcision.

And I'm sure that is of GREAT comfort to the parents unlucky enough to wind up with a dead baby.

Doctor "Sure, technically we didnt need to cut it off, but we thought it was worth the risk for health benefits that, admitedly, given proper sex ed and condom use would be none existant and only with whole sale sexually irresponsible behavior would such an action provide benefits. And even in such a case such benefits were even smaller statiticaly than the odd of you baby dying. But given the odd of you baby dying were so small, and sheer amount of money his foreskin could make for us we felt it was worth the risk. I hope that is of some comfort to you"

Flynne, the heath benefits are virtually non existant, mere fractions of a single percentage point in many cases. Given the odds of women getting breast cancer are nearly 1 in 12 it would make far more sense to advocate neo natal masectomies

I retroactively grant my parents permission to have me circumcised. Thank you my loving parents for having taken care of it before I was too old for it to be painless or any non-trivial trauma in my life. I have never once been insecure in the cut status of my genitalia. And have more than once been thankful for it. I love you and I know you love me, and have done right by me.

>>Yes the doctor fucked up

Well, I am sorry to hear that. However, I am glad your negative experience didn't prevent me from having a positive one.

>> You're pretending again that harm and net harm are the same concept.

The vast majority of people are not going to differentiate between the two. I cause my body "harm" by your definition every time I take a step - it kills healthy cells in my foot and thus causes me "harm." So I guess if you want to compare the damage done by circumcision as equal to that done by walking, I can't argue with that.

> why do the doctors who do it call
> it surgery?

Looks intimidating on the bill.

> You're pretending again that harm and
> net harm are the same concept.

You're pretending "concept" has some meaningful function in that sentence. If you think there's some precious distinction to be made, you'd make it every time you say it... You're playing games with words. "It harms everyone" is literally false.

> The vast majority of people are not going
> to differentiate between the two.

As they shouldn't.

>>"Rare" isn't "none," and to die from

Oh Geez, it's for the good of the children. More children die from car accidents then circumcision. Was that trip to the park really necessary? There is risk in every single thing we do. In every single thing that a parent does with their child. We can die while eating. Babies die while sleeping. So suggesting that any single practice should be banned because of a minimal risk is intellectually dishonest. And you are also trying to set a precedent. If any activity has this *such and such* degree of risk without proper justification it should be banned. We (the Government) will decide proper justification, not you. Are you really, honestly cool with that?

By the way, can you or anyone, tell me what death rate you are talking about? How many male children die from cicumcision? Please also include the statistics for death by drowning and death by falling down for comparision. Thank you*.

I really must say that never in a million years, would I have thought a week ago, that I'd be arguing for the right to let parents circumcise their male children today. Or arguing that I was not abused by being circumcised, and that my parents were not abusers for having me circumsized. And oh yeah, that I didn't believe I was less of a man for being circumcised. That I am not damaged by the experience, and that I feel it was to my benefit. Why are you trying to make me a victim?

Acctually Assholio children are more likely to die from circumcision than car accidents.

http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

Now, as you wanted numbers hows about you provide the same. What exacly are the benifits in hard numbers of circumcision. Do you even know?

Also why are you trying to deny that there are victims just because you arent one?

> children are more likely to die from
> circumcision than car accidents.

Preposterous. Moonbark.

Embarrassing.

What could the source of this "statistic" be? Well, sorry to see that the link isn't an actual research citation.

Wiki —

Men's Studies Press (MSP) is an academic publisher registered in Harriman, Tennessee since 1992. They produce five journals, and have also published monographs and collections of essays. MSP also administers a website – MensStudies.info – of resources related to men's studies.

2. 1992 is an interesting year in which to establish such an enterprise... That was a tight market. I wonder what their breakthrough volume was, the book that really put them on the map in the social science community. ('92 was the year Paglia went with Yale University Press for Personnae, right? There weren't a lot of breakthrough works floating around in those days. Even in the populist "men's right's" sector, Farrell went with Simon and Schuster for "Myth of Male Power.")

3. Could a Wikipedia entry be more obviously self-penned?

4. "Monographs"... There's that word again! Hi Tony!

5. Y'know, when Womens Studies people start shovling shit through the wind this way, they are rightly pilloried.

6. Mission statement: "And, finally, by promoting values that honor and respect all." Well, you know, that's nice, but it's something my local ice cream parlor does. too. There's nothing academic about it.

Did you go to college?

It doesn't work this way.

And yet I noticed you didnt actually provide anything to refute their claims, odd idinit?

Or in all your 35 comments defending the practice ever give any actual numbers on the purported benefits

> And yet I noticed you didnt actually provide
> anything to refute their claims, odd idinit?

Not if you've been to school.

crid:

You're pretending "concept" has some meaningful function in that sentence. If you think there's some precious distinction to be made, you'd make it every time you say it... You're playing games with words. "It harms everyone" is literally false.

The precious distinction is inherent with the presence or absence of the word net as an adjective describing harm. Forgive me for assuming you had a rudimentary understanding of how to make a decision. In making a decision, various costs and benefits are weighed against each other based on unique individual preferences. To put it in perspective, you like jazz guitar. Not everyone likes jazz guitar. I know, right? They value something different. You considered the possibility earlier, so I thought you understood its implications to how individuals might conclude something different than your opinion on circumcision.

Since it's allegedly not clear to you (or Assholio), circumcision involves harm (lost foreskin, severed nerve endings, etc), risk (complications of varying severity), and benefit (possible risk reduction, cultural/religious benefits, etc). How one values each in the evaluation leads to a conclusion. Some people decide that the harms and risks of circumcision outweigh the benefits. For those people, circumcision is a net harm. Others decide that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the harms and risks. For those people, circumcision is not a net harm. It is neutral or a net benefit to them.

You, Assholio, and anyone else can conclude for your own bodies that there is no net harm. I can decide differently for mine. We are all correct on net harm for ourselves, despite reaching different conclusions. Or, as a member of the AAP task force stated earlier this year, "Not everyone would trade that foreskin for that medical benefit." Or that cultural or religious benefit. It's all so very radical and difficult to comprehend that not everyone shares all the same opinions and valuations for everything.

Will you be able to follow along now if I go back to using harm and net harm?

> Forgive me for assuming you had a rudimentary
> understanding of how to make a decision

Did you go to college?

Every defense of this practice has ultimatly boiled down to
A) cultural norms which isnt good enough for foot binding, female circumcision{even the variants less harmful than male circumcision}, or arranged marriges of 12 yr olds to 60yr olds

or
B) Parental rights, which isnt good enough for any other type of elective cosmetic surgery for minors, child abuse, or refusing medical treatment based on religious values

> Every defense of this practice

So your link to "estimates" was vapid, and you've surrendered it, right? Very well, but this may not be your best moment for evidentiary overview.

Well it seems that not a lot of babies die in car accidents. the top ten list for infant death from 2009 from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf

1. Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities (congenital malformations)
2. Disorders related to short gestation and low birth weight, not elsewhere classified (low birthweight)
3. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
4. Newborn affected by maternal complications of pregnancy (maternal complications)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Newborn affected by complications of placenta, cord and membranes (cord and placental complications)
7. Bacterial sepsis of newborn
8. Respiratory distress of newborn
9. Diseases of the circulatory system
10. Neonatal hemorrhage

Still don't see circumcision on that list.

>>Also why are you trying to deny that there are victims just because you arent one?

Feel free to be a victim all you want. Any circumcised male is free to declare his victimizaion for having undergone the treatment. Just don't force it on us.

And an analysis that explain why the Bollenger study is bs. Guess he made a few assumptions.

http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html

I read the death rate at 1 per 500,000 circumcisions.

And for a little comparison

The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000.

Now, the point isn't that this is a 100% safe procedure. The point is that the risk is extremely low and every damn thing we do in life has some risk to it. The point is I don't want you or anyone to dictate how I live my life or raise my child, based on your assesment of the risks.

However, feel free to not have your male children circumcised. It's supposed to be a free country and I'd prefer to keep it that way as much as possible.

"It's supposed to be a free country and I'd prefer to keep it that way as much as possible."

And I prefer not to have my body violated or my rights abridged at the subjective whim of my parents.

>>And I prefer not to have my body violated or my rights abridged at the subjective whim of my parents.

Well than, disown or sue your parents and leave me and mine out of it. You want to call your parents abusers, feel free. You want to hate them and get revenge, feel free. But if you want to impose your will on me and mine based on your bad experience, then I say go fuck yourself. I still don't buy into your beliefs or risk assesment. I think that natural selection is an excellent thing. I think that we don't need to save everyone. I think that in a population of over 200 million that 1,000 preventable deaths is not enough to warrent legislation that limits my rights or invites the government into my home. I am sick of all the weenies trying to make life "safe" for all the "little" people. It's not about life or death it's about control, and the less control you have over me and mine the happier I am. And yes, I wish to maintain control over my progeny, because I sure as fuck don't want, or trust your judgement in the matter.

>>And I prefer not to have my body violated or my rights abridged at the subjective whim of my parents.

Well than, disown or sue your parents and leave me and mine out of it. You want to call your parents abusers, feel free. You want to hate them and get revenge, feel free. But if you want to impose your will on me and mine based on your bad experience, then I say go fuck yourself. I still don't buy into your beliefs or risk assesment. I think that natural selection is an excellent thing. I think that we don't need to save everyone. I think that in a population of over 200 million that 1,000 preventable deaths is not enough to warrent legislation that limits my rights or invites the government into my home. I am sick of all the weenies trying to make life "safe" for all the "little" people. It's not about life or death it's about control, and the less control you have over me and mine the happier I am. And yes, I wish to maintain control over my progeny, because I sure as fuck don't want, or trust your judgement in the matter.

It's not about being a college boy, y'know? It ain't about being smart.

One commenter thinks he's found a great new way to say things he doesn't mean and get away with it. Net harm! It's like regular harm, only completely different! And no one's ever thought pulling a trick like this before: If people forget to ask him which kind of harm he means, well, that's not his fault, right? Net, gross, taxable, whatever. It's persuasive as Hell, isn't it?

Another commenter thinks you can make up any numbers you want, and if a 'publisher' ever said anything about the topic, then by golly you've got an irrefutable statistical citation on your hands! During the summer months, more people die of circumcision than heart disease! It's completely convincing, because a publisher is a publisher, and if you get busted, you can pretend you never said it.

One of the most pathetic things you’ll see in hillbilly religions is pride they taking in calling themselves “Doctor” after a couple of seasons of bible study at Oral Roberts University or someplace. Not for a serious review of religion in history, just a bunch of the usual hot air in an air-conditioned classroom. You go to school, your mommy and your cousins always said you were smart, so now you’re a doctor.

They think that’s how it works in academe. And that’s how these commenters think it works, too.

The hillbilly preachers are stupid. Being naive about the outer world would be forgivable. But being willfully negligent, incurious and arrogant about the greater intellectual powers held by others who are unfamiliar to you isn’t acceptable.

I don’t think they guys who are making these arguments (let’s call them net statistics) in here are stupid. But they’re being childish.

And it’s no coincidence that that’s how we’d feel about grown men who can’t let go of even theoretical suffering from male circumcision. The world does not resolve around your Johnson, and once you're out of short pants, you oughta understand that.

The net statistics boys need to go to college. Not so much for education per se, but for the humility. A great lesson from higher ed is that your own mind is not that remarkable. Magisterial wonders have been built by people who are smarter than you are, and you might not even be able to understand their work. College teaches regular people that they have no business pretending to be brighter than they are, and they have no excuse for thinking that the truly gifted people made their mark with wordplay and lies.

If this argument means so much to you, you ought to be doing a better job.

"Well than, disown or sue your parents and leave me and mine out of it. You want to call your parents abusers, feel free. You want to hate them and get revenge, feel free."

That's not the most constructive way to address this problem. The best way to proceed is through education, showing people (such as yourself) that it is pointless and abusive. Legally though, if anyone is at fault, it's the doctors. They are the ones that should be at the end of a lawsuit.

So Asshilo, assuming I am getting this right your position is we should continue to allow parents to circumcise their kids because you, up to this point, have suffered no apparent harm that you can notice or recall, even though others have.

And that rather than making parents wait until the male is old enough to make their own decision on whether or not to have a cosmetic surgery that provides no really benefits to any first world citizens with access to condoms and soap we should instead have the children who have minor to massive complications 'feel free to feel victimized' but ultimately keep their fucking mouths shut cause nothing bad happened to you so what the fuck do you care.

That about right?

Quick question though, if you really dont care then why the fuck are you defending the practice?

133 comments and not one person defending this practice can give hard numbers delineating the benefits

> not one person defending this practice

You little fellers are the petitioners for change: Billions do this to their sons not out of habit but because they want to, and you needn't be consulted. If you want change, you'll have to persuade... And none of your points in this thread have withstood consideration.


> can give hard numbers

"hard numbers" weren't your worry when you promised probabilities ("more likely") at August 31, 2012 5:54 AM. Your promise was hollow.


Let no distracted scanner of this page walk away thinking the neurotics had a good argument.

crid:

One commenter thinks he's found a great new way to say things he doesn't mean and get away with it. Net harm! It's like regular harm, only completely different! ...

I mean what I write and have provided evidence of my meaning.

However, in a sense, you're correct. I'm not getting away with saying the things you imagine I've said. You've done an excellent job demonstrating the fallacies badly hidden within so many straw men.

... And no one's ever thought pulling a trick like this before: If people forget to ask him which kind of harm he means, well, that's not his fault, right? ...

It's also possible that your apparently limited reading comprehension skill is not proof of a character flaw within me.

I stated that surgery inflicts harm in every case. I also asked about the individuals beyond the "most men who are circumcised are fine with it" Assholio cited. Did you miss my implied acceptance that not everyone is upset about being circumcised and that there is a reason for that variety of opinions?

You declare that I think I've found a great new way to say things. Why? Later in that comment to Assholio, on Monday, I wrote about the AAP: "They're explicitly demonstrating that their evaluation of the net benefit, that possible benefits outweigh the risks, ...". The italicized "net" is in the original. I know it was difficult to miss, since I wrote it to you and you responded. Granted, there I wrote net benefits rather than net harm. Should I not trust people to make the connection?

You sincerely believe this persuasive, right?

Humor me— College or no college?

It's likely to be persuasive to those who have the mental capacity to understand it.

I wanna wish you guys the absolute best of luck with this approach. Get out there with that, shake your tits and Sell! — Sell! — Sell!

"net harm"

crid:

Persuasive to you? Nothing here suggests I should expect that, so I don't. I can't make you accept facts you're obviously unwilling to accept or acknowledge evidence that your assessment of my alleged misdeeds is nonsense.

I'm curious about the college question, though. I want to read your reason(s) why it reflects poorly on me for each answer I could give. I'm sure they're all damning. Answering would limit the fun. Give me all the reasons. Please.

See the September 1, 2012 2:59 AM, and have a wonderful autumn.

¡net harm!

I read it earlier, including the part about college, before I replied. I ignored the (flawed) college section to focus on the part where you declared me a liar, despite sufficient evidence to the contrary within this thread.

But I'll have a wonderful autumn. Thanks!

> I ignored the (flawed) college section

Then why did you ask?

No reason not to reiterate this. I ignored it at the time because you declared me a liar. That's a serious charge. Showing the evidence to disprove that was more important.

After that, I asked because your reasons are quite malleable. Maybe you developed multiple reasons to support your conclusion beyond what you offered there, for both a "yes" and a "no" response to the question. Your advice was also a little light compared to prior such ramblings. I figured there must be more.

Either way, your ideas about me are always fascinating. I asked for more because they entertain me and you seem to enjoy offering them. It might be the rare win-win option here.

> Either way, your ideas about me are
> always fascinating.

I know.

The AAP Technical Report admitted that the long run risks of RIC are not known. Hence the risks of circumcision cannot be compared to the alleged benefits. Hence the AAP's assertion that the "benefits outweigh the risks" is unsupported nonsense. Honestly, the AAP's new policy stumbles and falls on this detail alone.

Just how the foreskin and its motion enhance sex and foreplay is not understood in the scientific literature. The extent to which circumcised men are more likely to suffer from PE and ED has not been reliably quantified. We do not know the extent to which adult American men are sexually diminished because they have a scarred penis or too little skin to allow for comfortable erections. Hence American medicine cannot fulfill the ethical norm "first do no harm."

Finally, the AAP never thought to ask about what kind of penis sexually sophisticated women prefer.