> The AAP Report on Circumcision: Bad Science
> + Bad Ethics = Bad Medicine."

It ain't medicine.

Hey now... Is this one of your things that "we shouldn't leave up to the voters"?

'Cause I can never tell, y'know? Can't predict.

What you'll say.

Next.

women who wrestle men for money

Were those women you interviewed bodybuilders?

@Crid: I think Amy is being entirely consistent here.

Principle 1: Let individual decide, keep government out of it.

Principle 2: The government has a valid role in protecting individual rights.

An infant cannot consent to a procedure that makes a permanent change to its body. As such, the government has the obligation to protect the infant's rights.

Individual decision comes when the child is of an age to understand the potential consequences, and it able to make an informed decision. Perhaps this is at 18, perhaps it is younger; that would be a legitimate discussion to have.

Practically speaking: Children do not always grow up to share the religious beliefs of their parents. They may well make a different decision than their parents.

> entirely consistent

Yeah? Let's do this....

Grab that cocktail napkin over there and scratch out a diagram of the identity, authority and interrelationships of each of the following parties as evinced in the blog item linked above as well as this new topic:

[1.] We.

[2.] Voters.

[3.] Government.

[4.] [Bonus] Provide a short disquisition on the nature of choice. (Explication of the cuntly fascism depicted in this video as well as the comments in the earlier-linked blog post is strongly encouraged. That means you too, Raddy.)

I don't think you're as kind, stoic, or thoughtful as you pretend to be, m'kay?

So this is going to be great. Looking forward to your bar-doodle.

I have never heard about this particular aspect of a Jewish circumcision. How could something so vile be accepted by any parent? Please tell me it's not that common anymore.

> Government's job here IS protecting
> individual rights.

Whose job is it to imagine new ones for it to protect? I bet you have someone in mind.

By the way, Amy, you've got a cocktail napkin to decorate as well... You don't want to let Randy get too far ahead of you.

> I have never heard about this particular
> aspect of a Jewish circumcision.

There's a reason for that: Amy is being inflammatory.

New rules! Amy loves this stuff!

> Nobody has the right to perform
> unnecessary surgery

First, it's not "unnecessary surgery." See 'inflammatory language', above. We've discussed this... Thou shalt not be playin' goofy word games.

(Just once I'd like to see one of these little hipsters try to move the human project forward without cheating the meaning of words. They seem to think that's how it's done... As if King and Lincoln and Jefferson were mostly just really good at sweet-talkin'.)

Second, that "nobody" is out of nowhere- Religious freedom is codified.

Third, you seem confused about whether the topic is a "right" is to not have to be circumcised or not-a-right to circumcise... Pantheism.

Worktime now

...But again, Amy, gonna need to see your diagram for We, Voters, and Government. OK, Bye Now.

So should Muslims be allowed to have sex with 9 year olds because their religion says it's acceptable?

>>The big mystery: Why are you arguing for a practice that allows the spread of disease and violates individual rights?

My guess is because a whole lot of people believe, and rightly so, that it is their right to have their child circumcised. That their right to do so is codified in law. And that your desire to stop this practice, is more you trying to impose your belief system upon them, then you trying to "protect the children." More over, the people you are trying to control do not trust you or the govenment when it comes to their kids. And rightly so. This argument of yours about the individual rights of children is specious, because the government has absolutely no problem limiting the rights of the children whenever it sees fit.

For the most part, parents are free to screw their kids up in many many ways having nothing to do with circumcision. Once you get cicumcision out of the way, what's to stop you from banning something else? Maybe you'll object to the clothes my child wears or the food he eats, the religion he learns or any of a 1,000 other things. I do not want the govenment telling me what to do with my child because of your feelings. And make no mistake, this is about your feelings, not the safety or rights of my children.

Truth be told; I do not care if this "practice" (quote marks because I hate to use such a common word for such a vile thing) of metzitzah b'peh is common or not. The fact that it has caused 11 boys to have health issues, or even one for that matter, is reason enough to call for an end to it. period.

Crid, explain how under your theory of parental domain the government has the right, and public support, to criminally prosecute parents for withholding life saving medication, abuse, molestation, and murder.

If I were to strap you down and use a tool to scrap your finger nail off of your finger, even though such a procedure cause no permanent physical damage, I would be guilty of kidnapping, battery, and assault.

Why are children, exclusively MALE children, exempt from the same government protections afforded to everyone else at evey other point of their life?

> Again, it's very simple.

Remember Brian? ("brian"?) He used to start all his blog comments like that too.. "Simple!"... As if he was delighted to report that life on our planet was a trivial morning chore for him, and he couldn't understand why were were troubled with all the detail and nuance.

> Nobody has a right to perform unnecessary
> surgery on a person who cannot speak to
> give or deny consent.

We can do this twenty times if you want: It's not surgery, "necessary" or otherwise. It's not a medical procedure, especially to those for whom it means the most. It's a religious observance. That expression of religion is protected by our constitution. Specifically, it's protected from PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

> Government's job is to protect
> individual rights

You keep pulling these childlike aphorisms out of your ass and expecting us to salute...

> Why are you arguing for a practice that
> allows the spread of disease

...like that. Suddenly, out of nowhere, you speak of "allowing the spread of disease" as something we must hold at the forefront of our consciousness, especially when...

> and violates individual rights?

...you're making up imaginary "rights.'

> consistent, and well- and rationally
> explained here. Again and again.

You're not explaining things, you're reciting a child's poem (with the supremacy of your impulse as leitmotif). You won't take, or answer any of my points. (Example- Circumcision is not surgery; the intention is not medical. Got that? Can you hear me in the back?) If all you see is mockery, it's because you're ignoring the argument you summon.

I'm not "arguing for [the] practice" of anything but freedom of religion... Which, to be blunt, means more to me than you do. Even though I might find circumcision mildly distasteful in some circumstances and atrocious in a few, the contributions and decency of many who practice it are an essential blessing to civilization. (Observant Jews in particular include some of the finest people who ever lived, and I want them to live their lives and practice their religion in the United States of America.)

There are people who'll misinterpret or abuse every freedom you can name... Some people drive drunk, but I believe in cars. Some people yell "Fire!" in crowed theaters, but I believe in free speech. This too is a slam-dunk.

You are not kind enough, bright enough, humble enough, or inflammatory enough to overwhelm the 1st Amendment.

>> providing you are not abusing them to the point of damage. Circumcision is abusing them to the point of damage. (paraphrased to get rid of the rhetoric)

In your opinion. In my opinion, no damage has been done. You are not objectively right. And while you can claim to be right simply because you can equate skin removal to "abuse and damage," it doesn't make you right. Are there other ways parents can "damage" their children that you object to? I'd rather not let you make that call. It's my child, it's my call. Not yours and not the government's. And your claims of abuse do not hold any water. You cannot manufacture victims simply because you want it to be so.

>>You have no right to put your children through ...

I have every right to put my child through just about anything I please, as long as I feel that it is in his best interest. You do not get to decide what is in my child's best interest based on your feelings, but I get to decide based on my feelings. Decide for your own children.

> explain how under your theory

Only after you explain:

[1.] Why you said that "children are more likely to die from circumcision than car accidents."

[2.] Why you believe that illegal immigrants should have their fingers cut off with tin snips when when through them back across the border into Mexico. I mean, OBVIOUSLY, that's how you feel about it, but you've never explained your reasoning for being such a cruel and heartless person, and it's high time you did.

Also, explain why you think retarded children shouldn't be allowed to eat fresh vegetables or sleep on soft mattresses.

You're just not a very nice guy, and you're not very principled, and I think you should explain.

> All surgery has risk.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. The words are invisible on your computer. Your soul is THAT oblivious... You can't take the point or even acknowledge that it's been made. Blindness. This is lunacy.

Amy!

  
→   I T ' S      N O T      S U R G E R Y   ←

This too is a slam-dunk.

Careful there. You're using a basketball term to describe white people.

Under the new "Obama golf activity = PGA tryout = equating to Tiger Woods" rules, you could be guilty of racism.

I thought we already beat this horse to death and then some. Let it go, already. Wanting to change a couple thousand years of a particular religious observance ain't gonna happen over night, on your watch, my watch, my kids' watch or even their kids watch. Spread the word if you like, whatever, but don't think that this is gonna go away just because you want it to. Besides, I thought this was just another part of being personally responsible for yourself and your children. If some people think it's responsible to circumcise their boys, they're gonna do it, whether you like or not. Their decision, not yours.

Lookiter. Lookitergo.

I was on the fence about circumcision. I have a friend who is vehemently against it, but then my OB insisted the health benefits were worth it. So I just let my husband decide. He chose to go ahead with the procedure. The whole "a boy's penis should look like his father's" idea, I guess. If I had it to all over again, I would have declined.

But the circumcision was done in a (hopefully) sterile environment, where the doctor wore gloves and all the other surgical garb. The idea of anybody deliberately putting their germs on my kids, let alone a grown man putting his mouth on my baby's peepee, is sick.

And, umm, wouldn't sucking cause it to bleed more?

Kimber

To answer your earlier request:

> Please tell me it's not that common anymore.

It's not that common, and it never was. Amy is using a vanishingly infrequent expression of this practice to control the behavior of anyone whose religious belief she doesn't share.

Don't be concerned.

> They aren't that big a part of the population.

Anything else?

You could say that about anything, including things that happen to a vastly greater proportion of the population.

Do you do any less for drinking? Amy, someone's going to DIE horribly in the United States tonight because of a drunk driver!!

How can you be so heartless about it???!?!?

You could put a stop to this if you wanted to... If you thought carefully about the victim's [ grotesque dismemberment scenario, you'd wonder why we put up with this barbaric misconduct.

A GOVERNMENT'S JOB IS PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

But you won't do that, will you? You're going to let that happen to someone... Tonight and every night for the rest of your life!!

(PS- Still waiting to see your We/Government/Voter diagram.)

[Amy:] Government's job is to protect individual rights, especially of the defenseless, therefore government absolutely must step in here.

…

Should we let people get away with human sacrifice if they're in groups that are small in number?

Are the Detroit public schools really that bad?

Government, in the US, is limited. Some of those limits, and the one that applies here, are in the Bill of Rights. The Federal Gov't (and, through the 14th Amendment, the States) is limited by the 1st Amendment, as interpreted by relevant Court decisions. It is the Government's job to observe those constraints on its power.

In particular, before you spout off anymore about the "Government's job" or "individual rights", read up on Lemon v. Kurtzman.

Your (and a_random_guy's, and lujlp's) position on all of these things is profoundly, loudly, ignorant. Take the opportunity to learn something.

[Amy:] Cutting off the body part of a non-consenting child is abusing them to the point of damage.

Speaking as a Circumcised American (when I was four — why so late, I dunno — and old enough to remember it): bollocks. CA's give rather less thought to their circumcisions than they do to the nuances of Sanskrit grammar.

(You can point to studies showing damage, right? Otherwise, you are pulling it out of your fundament, which is nasty, so put it back in.)

And that is before your argument destroys itself from sheer illogic rather than gob-smacking ignorance:

All surgery has risk. You have no right to put your children through unnecessary surgery for any reason.

Okay, let's take that as read.

So, tell us why this doesn't follow: All car rides have risk. You have no right to put your children through unnecessary car rides for any reason.

This is just like a family get together- same old arguments. Flynne and I are going to the bar for a Blue Hawaiian.

> This is just like a family get together-
> same old arguments. Flynne and I are going
> to the bar for a Blue Hawaiian.

How dare you! How dare you!

If I promise to only talk about sports on TV, can I come along? Formula One, I mean. They're in Milan this weekend. This is the best part, between the old zoo and the old (elevated) banking.

This could be a great one.

Oh fuckit, I wanna quibble some more. Y'know Dad, Amy started it....

If all circumcisions are surgery, then all drinking is ceremonial.





No & no.

Coding for Circumcision

Family physicians who perform newborn circumcision should separately report this service. Codes for circumcision procedures include:

• 54150: Circumcision, using clamp or other device with regional dorsal penile or ring block


• 54150-52: Circumcision, as above, without dorsal penile or ring block


• 54160: Circumcision, surgical excision other than clamp, device, or dorsal split, neonate


• 54161: Circumcision as in 54160, child older than 28 days of age

These are the codes for billing Medicaid and other insurance companies for doing a circumcision.

I looked up the codes -- a lot of them are surgical in the 54XXX range. So calling it non-surgical is not really accurate.

Should we let people get away with human sacrifice if they're in groups that are small in number?

Comparing cutting off less than an ounce of skin with human sacrifice might just set the world record for moral obtuseness.

[Jim P:] I looked up the codes -- a lot of them are surgical in the 54XXX range. So calling it non-surgical is not really accurate.

At the risk of speaking for Crid, it depends on your point of view.

For the surgeon, it is surgery.

For the religious, it is observance.

Since we are talking about religion here, that is the point of view that matters.

> For the surgeon, it is surgery.
> For the religious, it is observance.

Exactly. A mechanic will call it replacing the engine block, which is good for several billable hours.

Only Amy is affirming that the intention is medical; those who are do it as a religious practice aren't pretending it's a health issue.

We in Los Angeles are going through another round of the medical marijuana farce today... This is exactly the opposite what religious people are do.

I'm told that in Soviet Russia, many parents just happened to schedule procedures for the 8th day (or whatever), but not in a free country.

Guys, the reason religion isn't a problem in the United States is that there aren't a lot of busybodies tell you how your sons and daughters aren't going to live.

Comparing it to drinking doesn't make sense, it is only people old enough to know what they are doing that drink. We do pass laws to restrict the choices that minors are allowed to make.

But that isn't the issue here. Circumcision is a decision made by parents.

The comparison to travel makes no sense, as one cannot live in the modern world without travel, it is not just a necessary risk, it is utterly unavoidable.

So...lets get down to the real meat of the question:

May parents subject their children to unnecessary surgery? We've already established that it IS a form of surgery, however minor. Whatever the ruling here, it WILL have broader implications, so let us answer carefully.

Parents used to have total and absolute rights over their children. This is no longer the case as children are now seen as citizens in their own right, with some liberties of their own, if not all of those of an adult.

So...lets think about this carefully.

If a religion appeared that mandated that everyone have their left eye put out, could a parent have a child's eye removed after birth?

What about a hand? A foot? A finger? A toe? Does it even matter which body part it is?

Is a child's whole body their own, and parental care's sole rights are to ensure that children are provided proper medical care, sustenance, and discipline within reason, etc?

Or may a parent choose to modify their child's body according to their own beliefs, irrespective of the will of a child that is not yet old enough to have a will of their own?

To my way of thinking, it is a question of risk vs necessity. And while the risk is very low, the necessity of performing this surgery is nonexistant. If we the people were to have it banned, the rights of children expand, the rights of parents contract, is that good or not? You tell me. But I'd hate to see a lawsuit by a child who was spanked, claiming that his parents violated his civil rights by spanking him for stealing from his mother's purse, since the spanking left a hand imprint on his butt, in violation of his rights over his body, set by this precedent.

No, I didn't really argue a side this time, because I myself am divided on this issue. The government must protect individual rights and liberties, including both the rights of parents and the freedom of religion, but it also must protect the rights of children...so where does the scale tilt?

On the other hand, though, what about all the moms out their who have their babies' ears pierced? Punching a hole in a kid's ear at even as young as 1 week old? It's obviously not a religious thing, but still the potential for infection is there, if the ears aren't cared for properly. My daughters got their ears pierced, at their request, when they were 10 and 7 years old, respectively. The day we went to the mall (not the dr's office, mind you, the mall), there were several mothers with infant daughters, all getting their infant daughters' ears pierced.

And #2 said to me "why are they doing that to their babies? Don't they know it hurts them? What if the babies don't want their ears pierced? Why don't their mommies let them choose when they get big like me?" and on and on. I tried to explain that it was tradition in some families to do this. Now, to put it in perspective, my girls and I are whiter than sour cream. We are of English, Irish, Welsh, German, and a tad Native American (of the Oglala Sioux). The women with babies were Hispanic and African-American, to be politically correct.

So, are these women wrong? Should they be piercing their babies' ears at so young an age? Who should be the one to tell them that they can't? Should we ban this too? Where the fuck does it end, with people wanting to get all up in other peoples' business? Because, really, nunya. NUNYA business. Mind your own. You want to take up a worthy cause? How about getting rid of the shysters in Congress who think that their main job is to separate the American taxpayer from even more of their money? How about leaving families alone, unless and until there is probable cause, like, oh I dunno, real, actual abuse going on? I went to school with kids whose parents beat the snot out of them on a regular basis, and I'm sure the only reason the parents weren't brought up on charges was because this was before CPS was established. But even that gets abused. Remember the kid who sued his parents for making him eat broccoli or whatever it was? I blame the asshole lawyer for taking the case but you know what I mean. There's "abuse", and then there's abuse. Investigate and get rid of the real shit. Then worry about the shit that really isn't yours to worry about, if you want.

Eric, shot o' Rumpleminz? I'm buyin'. Cridmo?

Crid
It's not surgery
Really? Then why do the doctors who do it call it surgery? Why do insurances companies, hospitals and governments call it surgery?

It's a religious observance.
Only for some jews and muslims, and I hear you dont like the religious observence for muslim women, why is that?

That expression of religion is protected by our constitution. Specifically, it's protected from PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
The government can not stop people from practicing religion, they can stop people from preform their religion on non consenting others. For example if my religion called for human sacrifice I could not kill you without your consent(or with it) and claim religious exemption from criminal prosecution

the intention is not medical.
Then why are 90% of the defenses based on medical arguments?

You're just not a very nice guy, and you're not very principled, and I think you should explain
No I'm not a nice guy, I've never claimed otherwise, but I am far more 'pricipled'(you really should check your spelling given how often you give me shit for it) than you, you crid are a hypocrite of the worst sort, for a guy who bitches and moans as often as you do about people 'putting words in your mouth' when they try unraveling your pretty little web of words I find it odd how often you make up entire argument out of whole cloth to attribute to your opponents
---------------------

Assholio
In your opinion. In my opinion, no damage has been done. You are not objectively right.
I my opinion it is damage, in fact I have objective medical record PROVING it caused damage.
You are not objectively right, why are you denying the fact that damage occurs and death are happening just because you as a sample size of one see no problem? Who are you to tell others what happened to them?

I have every right to put my child through just about anything I please, as long as I feel that it is in his best interest.
So then if you feel your child benefits from being beaten with a belt for getting a 95% on a spelling test we have no business saying otherwise? If muslims feel throwing acid in the faces of their disobedient daughters is in their best interest we should say nothing?

Flynne did you ever watch that 90 second youtube video I posted?

[Robert:] The comparison to travel makes no sense, as one cannot live in the modern world without travel, it is not just a necessary risk, it is utterly unavoidable.

No, it makes perfect sense. I'll restate it here for convenience, with emphasis added. Amy contends that

All surgery has risk. You have no right to put your children through unnecessary surgery for any reason.

Okay, fine. But if that is true, then so is this:

All car rides have risk. You have no right to put your children through unnecessary car rides for any reason.

Yes, travel is part of the modern world, just as is surgery. But Amy's argument is risk and necessity (or lack thereof).

Not all travel is necessary: it is possible to get killed on the way to church. Certainly, in Amy's strident view, that would be a completely unnecessary car ride. So, standing upon risk and necessity, it is up to the Government to protect the individual rights of the child and prohibit driving children to church.

Right?

[Robert:] The government must protect individual rights and liberties, including both the rights of parents and the freedom of religion, but it also must protect the rights of children...so where does the scale tilt?

Be careful what you ask for. Since, by definition, the government makes decisions collectively, it is most likely to act against individual liberties, not in their favor. That is why we have a constitution that provides limits on collective decisions.

With respect to religion, how that scale tilts is (as I mentioned above) outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which contains a three-prong test for whether laws involving religion are permissible. Read it.

[lujlp:] Really? Then why do the doctors who do it call it surgery? Why do insurances companies, hospitals and governments call it surgery?

Wow, I'm not sure I've ever seen a point missed quite so widely as you did. To get you a little closer, remember that the post is about rabbis, not surgeons. Then reflect on that fact that the same act can be viewed in entirely different ways by the parties involved.

Since the point at hand is not about surgeons, then what surgeons call circumcisions is irrelevant.

"Not all travel is necessary: it is possible to get killed on the way to church. Certainly, in Amy's strident view, that would be a completely unnecessary car ride. So, standing upon risk and necessity, it is up to the Government to protect the individual rights of the child and prohibit driving children to church."
Again wrong. This is one of the logical fallacies you learn about when studying how to debate. You're taking an argument to absurd lengths. There was a name for it, but I forget what it is.
People need to socialize, people need to eat, people need to drink, people need medical care, people need people, and people need to work. Damn near every reason to drive falls under something up there. Children need moral guidance, church is meant to provide that. People need to socialize, travel provides that. Try living your life for one week without traveling. In this society, it just can't be done, not and live well.
The travel comparison makes no sense, most especially because EVERYBODY travels, and must travel sooner or later. It is literally impossible to avoid. Having flesh cut off…doesn't even belong in the same argument as that comparison.

"Be careful what you ask for. Since, by definition, the government makes decisions collectively, it is most likely to act against individual liberties, not in their favor. That is why we have a constitution that provides limits on collective decisions."
With this I agree. Completely.

As for the last part, I think he was making a point that since it is defined by both doctors AND the law as surgery, arguing that it is NOT surgery is ridiculous. One might as well argue with Webster about words in the dictionary. Its not a winnable point.

Robert:

People need to socialize, people need to eat, people need to drink, people need medical care, people need people, and people need to work. Children need moral guidance, church is meant to provide that.

Thank you for completely making my point. Amy's reasoning is silly, because the conclusions drawn from a completely analogous situations are silly. There are indeed car trips which are completely unnecessary which pose risks to children. Not all trips, maybe not even many, but there are certainly some.

And in Amy's world, religious observance is one of them.

So, either they are both ridiculous, or none are.

I say both, you seem to say only one, but provide no means to distinguish between them.

As for the last part, I think he was making a point that since it is defined by both doctors AND the law as surgery, arguing that it is NOT surgery is ridiculous.

From the Orthodox Jewish point of view, it is a religious observance, not surgery. Since the point under discussion is religious freedom, why is what surgeons call the procedure even worth mentioning?

Well, it's been a fun week, watching you all go at it over circumcision. Never gets boring.

I was interested in reading about other things inflicted on babies and children over time. Foot binding, head flattening, various rites of passage in New Guinea and other places. Some of them are going on today. Look up Rites of Passage in The Art of Manliness. You think circumcision is bad?

Whew! In comparison, we really are becoming a nation of wussies. I was going to say "weenies", but I thought that might be cutting too close to the bone.

funny how you never hear jokes about how muslims cut up their girls

On the other hand, though, what about all the moms out their who have their babies' ears pierced? Punching a hole in a kid's ear at even as young as 1 week old? ... So, are these women wrong? Should they be piercing their babies' ears at so young an age? Who should be the one to tell them that they can't? Should we ban this too? -- Flynne at September 7, 2012 5:02 AM

I will argue the piercing of an ear has no real equivalence to a male circumcision. Jamming a needle through an ear rarely damages a nerve. If the piercing is removed, the hole and the pain goes away. Yes if a parent doesn't watch it can become infected. A co-worker's daughter had this happen. The surgery was done under local and the daughter is fine. (I'm not talking gauging. That is a different story.)

Think of a circumcision as cutting off all the skin around a woman's clitoris. Most men don't know the difference in the U.S. They have it done at or near birth. I know my circumcision was done at about two days. I couldn't walk for nine months.

That being said -- why is automatic and suggested?

I know my circumcision was done at about two days. I couldn't walk for nine months.

Rim shot!

But seriously, I agree piercing one's ears isn't the equivalent of circumcision. The point I was making was the moms having the babies ears' pierced without the babies' consent. Shouldn't the child be given the choice?

That was rhetorical, you don't have to answer. I'm SO done with this subject.

Eric, 'nother shot? Cridmo? Then I'm outta here.

Well,lujlp, maybe that's because what Muslim's do to girls is more like castration, and I don't really hear too many jokes about that either.

Muslims hate and fear females for reasons I'll never understand, but that isn't the argument here.

Comparing circumcision to clitorectomies is something I see people doing a lot, and I'm sick of it. There is no comparison. Circumcision doesn't seem to rob men of pleasure, for one thing. There might be an argument as to the level of pleasure, but it's kind of pointless.

If I was pressured to make any kind of legal decision about this argument, I would say it was the parent's choice, period. If it was based on religious observance, I would say a law requiring a clean and current bill of health for the mohel would be in order.

If he couldn't or wouldn't produce one, I'd have to get my mohel changed.
Hah! I said it, and I'm glad!

I would say a law requiring a clean and current bill of health for the mohel would be in order.

A perfectly sensible suggestion, because it wouldn't run afoul of the real subject of this thread: religious freedom and the scope of government power.

This is a barbaric practice and disgustingly unsanitary.

I'm with you on disgusting and unsanitary.

However, if you term this barbaric, than what word would you use for things that truly are barbaric? (like, oh, stoning rape victims)

People are seriously arguing that there is a difference between means and ends, which is why this thread is not about circumcision.

The end, or the goal, if you will, is a religious observance that is outside the realm of rational inquiry. You may not like it, you may think it pointless, ridiculous, etc. Fine. However, those who engage in this ceremony -- not surgery, ceremony -- do so out of deeply held beliefs about religion and community which are outside your secular demands.

The problem with those demands is that they reach a conclusion without an argument: shielding children from a risk in the absence of consent is the paramount consideration.

It isn't.

That some people hold beliefs which you think are absurd is an observable fact, regardless of how baseless those beliefs might be. If you are to claim to be someone who employs reason, then you must take that fact into account.

Which is what the First Amendment does. And you dont.

I had to leave for a while and go do some regular life stuff.

Okay. First, if my stomach operation somehow involved a religious belief that made letting the doctor lick my wounds somehow necessary, and that's where I put my faith, then yeah, I would allow it, wouldn't I? Not to mention the fact that I would probably be unconscious.

The thing is, for me, circumcised penises are the norm. I have never been up close and personal with a penis that was not circumcised, even at the sluttiest times in my life. No religion involved, I'm talking about gentiles (mostly) that had it done by their doctors, I guess. I am assuming the doctors did not suck up
the blood. So it's never been considered such a big damned deal, and I never met a man mourning the loss of his foreskin.

So yeah, I have no problem with the parents having a piece of their son's penis "hacked" off, because that is the parent's business, not mine.

I do have a problem with the rabbi that thought sucking up the blood was a good idea in the first place, but that is still up to the parents, not me. It's not my call, and it never will be.

Thanks for your permission.

I believe if I were arguing for the norm, I would be suggesting people should do it because it was the norm. I said, in my simple idiocy, that it was the norm for me.

My actual argument is that it is the parents' business, not mine. If such things were up to me, I could decide for instance, not to allow Tom Cruise to let his child have anything to do with Scientology and it's rules. Or I could jail Jenny McCarthy for not inoculating her kid. I could stop people from leaving their babies alone with the harmless family dog.

These people do things that they think are for their children's good, or at least they trust that they will come to no harm. I don't agree with these things, but I can't stop the parents from doing them, regardless of the child being unable to speak up about it.

So yeah, I have no problem with the parents having a piece of their son's penis "hacked" off, because that is the parent's business, not mine.

Is that your position on FGM as well? If not why not?

Also keep in mind the vast majority of circumcisions on males in the US are NOT religiously based

I'm not sure I buy the argument that it isn't a surgical procedure because it isn't medical...

I mean, isn't breast reduction or augmentation considered surgery? Or rhinoplasty?

It's cosmetic surgery. It involves intentional cutting of the body.

Again, no problem if you want to cut off a piece of your penis or cut off your head when you are a consenting adult. Have at it.

Again, your insisting that somehow it is a problem, in the sense of demanding government intervention to stop it, itself poses a whole host of problems you haven't even begun to acknowledge.

History has a hecatomb of corpses dedicated to the notion that the religious can impose their theologies upon others. Keep in mind, your notion of what is unnecessary is itself a religious claim that you wish the government to impose upon others.

It's cosmetic surgery. It involves intentional cutting of the body.

You are confusing means with ends.

Again, no problem if you want to cut off a piece of your penis or cut off your head when you are a consenting adult. Have at it.

Again, your insisting that somehow it is a problem, in the sense of demanding government intervention to stop it, itself poses a whole host of problems you haven't even begun to acknowledge.

History has a hecatomb of corpses dedicated to the notion that the religious can impose their theologies upon others. Keep in mind, your notion of what is unnecessary is itself a religious claim that you wish the government to impose upon others.

It's cosmetic surgery. It involves intentional cutting of the body.

You are confusing means with ends.

If it was legal in the United States, I would not try to interfere with the parent's decision. I would not understand it, but it would not be my call to make.

Last I read, it was not legal. Therefore, the parents would be committing a crime.

I posted my opinion of it earlier, along with my feelings about those who keep trying to compare the two.

With male circumsion you lose a piece of flesh and you may or may not lose a portion of the pleasure, I don't know. With FGM you lose it all, and that's the point of it. To keep women in line by making them less interested in sex all the way around, by basically neutering them.

That does not happen to circumcised men. I would happily compare it to castration, except the woman can still give birth.

Okay, I'm done now. Have a blast.

Changed my mind. Got one more thing. If the men who have been circumcised were all distraught about it, maybe I would feel differently. As it is, the men I've spoken to about it don't give a shit, so why should I?

Posters here often go on about sheeple. I think it's more a matter of them wanting to be the shepherd. Bahhhh, humbug!

We are not free to perform unnecessary surgical procedures or human sacrifice on infants.

Wrong. We are free to perform "unnecessary" surgical procedures on infants, just as we are free to take infants on unnecessary trips in the car.

The step to human sacrifice, bridged by a mere "or", strongly suggests you are either morally obtuse, or deeply unserious.

Since you probably haven't yet, read up on the Lemon decision. Until you do that, you really don't have any idea what we are free to do, or why.

"So, you have frequent conversations about circumcision?"

Why yes, doesn't everybody? I figure this last week must have sparked a few all by itself.

Again, your insisting that somehow it is a problem, in the sense of demanding government intervention to stop it, itself poses a whole host of problems you haven't even begun to acknowledge.

30 deaths a year over 10 yrs - drop side cribs banned
40 choking deaths a year - demands that hot dogs shapes be reconfigured
Less than ten hanging deaths over 30 years - government mandates new safety features for drawstring blinds.
1 possible case of non fatal cancer per 50 million - government bans production of suspect chemical
120 to 150 deaths per year 2 million - parental choice.

Circumcision kills by a factor of 3 to ten of toys, substances and products that 'require' government bans that I havent heard any of you complain about

If it(FGM) was legal in the United States, I would not try to interfere with the parent's decision.

I call bullshit

I posted my opinion of it earlier, along with my feelings about those who keep trying to compare the two.

There are dozens of forms of FGM, only two of MGM. Even the most 'benign' forms which cause no physical alterations are banned

With male circumsion you lose a piece of flesh and you may or may not lose a portion of the pleasure,

And more than a hundered each year wind up dead

With FGM you lose it all, and that's the point of it.
Only the worst form, also loss of sexual pleasure is why it was introduced to the non jewish population. The guy who got circumcision started in the US also recomended putting carbolic acid on female infants clitorises

That does not happen to circumcised men.
It happens to far more that any of you want to acknowldge

Changed my mind. Got one more thing. If the men who have been circumcised were all distraught about it, maybe I would feel differently. As it is, the men I've spoken to about it don't give a shit, so why should I?
How the fuck do you think this subject rose to international prominence pricklypear?

MEN ARE DISTRAUGHT
$20 bucks says at least a few men you know personally have strong opinions on the subject but keep them to themselves for fear of ridicule

NSFW
http://www.circumstitions.com/Botched1.html
NSFW

But I'm willing to bet none of you actually look at the pictures.

This thread makes me feel like a child again. The teenager rolling her eyes and saying "Yeah...yeah..."

Look, if circumcision is making all you guys out there so unhappy, here's a solution--Stop Doing It! If you don't circumcise your own sons, they won't do it to theirs (probably--people can be so contrary) and so on. Lead by example, for crissakes.

The guys who don't feel like they were affected by it probably will be happy to avoid it for their sons too, just to mark one more thing off the list of things to do.

Then it will become almost nonexistent, and we can all go be unhappy about something else.

So, did you look at the pictures?

If the men who have been circumcised were all distraught about it, maybe I would feel differently.

Men feel differently

I guess I dont feel differently

I looked at the pictures, just now. I'm sorry for the men who got bad doctors, or mohels. I guess I should feel more horrified or something, but after some photos I've seen of what men have done to their penises on purpose, I'm just not that affected.

It just emphasizes my last post, though. There's no law, other than the religious one, telling you to do it to your own kid if you have strong feelings against it or don't trust the man doing it.

But I'm thinking that during the next religious upswing (I've seen two so far), I'll be reading about Jewish boys who want to be devout but their folks didn't get them circumcised when they were babies and wouldn't remember the pain, and now if they want to follow the law of Abraham they have to get it done as adults and it's going to hurt and it's all their folks' fault. So they'll make sure their sons have it done right away.

So the picture of the infant who had to the skin and other tissue removed from his abdominal wall, thighs, and crotch didnt bother you? Really?

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched4ga.html

Whoops, gotta admit I missed those. Pretty bad. Maybe they should be shown to parents,like those abortion photos they show outside clinics.

Now,having seen them, what do you want me to say? I didn't care one way or another about circumcision before, and I still don't. I do think parents should be aware of the risks, but it's still up to them.

Hah--I was just looking up uncircumcised penises and ended up looking at forums on the problems of condoms, pain, foreskins that won't retract, injuries to foreskins, over-sensitive penises, etc. So circumcisions are the minority? Sorry, no conversion here, even with tragic baby pictures.

I would probably have been more shocked if I hadn't been a poster at Rotten.com for years. I may not have seen it all, but I've seen a good chunk of it.