Meh. As a longtime circumcisee, trust me, Amy, it's fine. Whacking off little girl's clits seems more of a big deal.

If my parents subscribed to any "barbaric practice," it was not leaving me a trust fund that would allow me to live out my days in idle pleasure ... not cutting the turtleneck off my sweater, so to speak.

Is there anything that could be said that would convince you that this topic wasn't worthy of your deepest enthusiasm?

Kevin at May 27, 2020 11:21 PM

✓ 100% Concurrence

This is Israeli "fake news".
Ha'aretz is the New York Times of Israel, in terms of both political position and pretense to be "the newspaper of record".

Since the Soviets started arriving the Lefties have flogged this issue, always quoting the same small group of activists - hard-core Israeli and Soviet marxists unfazed by tbe spectacular failure of socialism in both countries.

The REAL story is that since the 70s Israel has absorbed at least a million soviet men in several waves, and 60-70 percent of them voluntarily underwent circumcision. So we finally have a large cohort of sexually active adults who can compare before/after.

And?
Nothing.
Crickets.
Except for a tiny fringe group.

If circumcison was so awful this should be a mass movement, which it isn't.

This experience also undermines the activist's assertion that "you don't know what you're missing" - a typical disqualifying tactic of PC victimhood. Well, These guys know and apparrently it's not much...

By now the first wave of Soviets from the 70s have children or grandchildren. Although most of them remain non-religious (or even anti), there is no widespread movement to "protect our sons".

I see the uncircumcised 30-40 percent every time I go to the gym. Many of their foreskins survived service in the Israel army. So there is no coercion (except for those wishing to convert) and enough men to dispel any social pressure. Again, another gambit of PC victimhood culture disproved.

The soviet Israeli experience proves the exact opposite of what is asserted in that article. I guess they really are like tbe NY Times...

Here's what sex columnist Dan Savage said about it (his adopted son was born in 1998):

"In the first few months of D.J.'s life, Terry and I deadlocked on just two issues: circumcision and baptism. I got my way on both. Like most American males, Terry and I were circumcised as infants. And like most American homos, we prefer circumcised men as sex partners. I lived in Europe for a while, and came to appreciate uncut men. But given my druthers, I'd rather put a cut dick in my mouth than an uncut one. Cut cock just tastes better, and in a culture that's embraced oral sex as enthusiastically as ours has, gay and straight, taste counts for something. Discuss circumcision with new parents — hip ones, living in urban areas — and along with the standard pro-circumcision arguments ('We want him to look like his father'; 'We don't want him made fun of in the locker room'; 'It's easier to keep clean') you'll hear implicit and occasionally explicit concerns about how he's going to taste. Straight folks won't usually come right out and say, 'We worry about his dick tasting awful'; instead, they communicate their concern with cryptic comments about what his sex partners will think, the smegma issue, and whether being uncut might limit his options sexually...and they trail off.

"Unfortunately for oral sex, logic is on the side of the anticircumcision activists. Family resemblance? Not something we usually judge on the appearance of genitals. Teasing in the locker room? Half of all boys born in America today are not circumcised; if your son gets teased, he and the other uncut kids can form a gang and beat the shit out of the snip-dicks. Ease of cleaning? We don't cut off other body parts that are hard to keep clean. (not verbatim, this last sentence): With that kind of logic, people point out, we should have our teeth yanked out to save us the trouble of flossing...

"...'If D.J. grows up with a complex about not looking like us, or gets beat up in locker rooms, or can't find anyone who'll give him a blow job,' Terry warned me, 'I'm going to tell him it's all your fault.'

"I assumed these risks, and D.J. remained intact. Barring infectious complications, or a conversion to Judaism, he'll remain uncut for life."

Isab, if you're willing, I'd love to know why this happened:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/02/if-you-were-a-m.html

"My own father was circumcised in 1942 when he was drafted into the Army for World War II and I am relatively sure he had no choice about either the forced military service, or the circumcision that accompanied it. I am also sure I know what was the risker of the two."

Isab at February 22, 2018 6:46 AM

Ben david,

"The REAL story is that since the 70s Israel has absorbed at least a million soviet men in several waves, and 60-70 percent of them voluntarily underwent circumcision. So we finally have a large cohort of sexually active adults who can compare before/after."

That 30-40 percent remained intact and weren't coerced or pressured* is a pointless diversion from whether or not this should be forced on children, which is clearly a case of coercion.

Although sexual comparisons of before and after are relevant and interesting, because of both generalizations and individual specifics, the issue is consent. They consented. How many of those men regretted it after? The anecdotes within the article, even as minority opinions, support Amy's argument against circumcising a healthy child without his consent.

(* Remaining intact is not evidence that social pressure toward circumcising doesn't exist.)

Agree and then some. Even if the child could speak, he's not going to have the information to be able to give informed consent.

@Ben David: The reason for "crickets" is that most people who got cut never knew what they missed. (And because anything that could conceivably be read as anti-Semitism is still a third rail, at least to persons born before 1945.)

How come "Tony" only shows up when Amy talks about shvantz?

> he's not going to have the
> information to be able to
> give informed consent.

Nor will he "have the information" for toilet training, eating vegetables, sitting quietly in church, and not torturing the dog. Sam says it all in the first 45 seconds.

"Intact."

I'll never understand why you people want to be infantile twats about this. It's been going on here for twenty years.

Isab, if you're willing, I'd love to know why this happened:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2018/02/if-you-were-a-m.html

"My own father was circumcised in 1942 when he was drafted into the Army for World War II and I am relatively sure he had no choice about either the forced military service, or the circumcision that accompanied it. I am also sure I know what was the risker of the two."

Isab at February 22, 2018 6:46 AM

Lenona at May 28, 2020 6:25 AM

I have no feeling about this issue pro or con. I have strong feelings about government prohibiting it, as I believe it would be unconstitutional. My son is uncircumcised, his dad is circumcised and we would most likely make that same choice today.
This is a tiny tiny medical risk in the grand scheme of things, and I think the people beating this drum are the same sorts of Karens who got us this overblown “kill the economy Zero tolerance” reaction to the Wuhan Flu. (It served their political ends)

The military decided it was a cleanliness/ disease transmission thing, ( remember penicillin was not widely available until after World War II) and they were right. Imagine your feet rotting in your shoes because of the constant heat and rain in the South Pacific and then imagine what it would be like to worry about your dick too. (You get any kind of infection which ulcerates your foreskin, ouch, and I don’t think any woman has an appreciation of the pain and disability involved)

It is well known that circumcised men are not only less likely to get various venereal diseases, they are also less likely to pass them on to their partners. Jewish women have much lower rates of cervical cancer, which of course, is also caused by a sexually transmitted virus.

> the people beating this drum
> are the same sorts of Karens
> who got us this overblown “kill
> the economy Zero tolerance”
> reaction to the Wuhan Flu

✓ Bam. Some people secretly dream of control of other people's lives in the name of "health."

> Jewish women have much lower
> rates of cervical cancer

✓ Boom. Some people hate women.

Seriously, I didn't know that about C-Can. That alone is an argument-ender, though it's over well before then. A lot more women suffer from cervical cancer than men "suffer" from circumcision.

Body mods shouldn't be done to infants.

Even ear piercing shouldn't be done until the kid has begged a year or so.

For many years, I've admire Amy's resistance (and that of others here) to distortions with language.

This topic comes around and she, and others, are dissembling like the wokest little snowflakes AOC could ever dream of.

Body mods shouldn't be done to infants.

Even ear piercing shouldn't be done until the kid has begged a year or so.

NicoleK at May 28, 2020 11:58 AM

Siamese twins?
Cleft Palates ?
Extra finger?
Heart valve?
Crossed eyes?
Club feet?
Grossly disfiguring birthmark?
Cochlear implants?
Cataracts?
Undescended testicles?

Check any conditions you think should be parents and doctors choice as opposed to “kid gets to make the choice when they are past the age of consent”.
Add a compete explanation as to why we should legally distinguish these procedures from the general rule of parental choice for circumcision.

✓ Bam. Some people secretly dream of control of other people's lives in the name of "health."

Each child should decide for himself whether or not he wants his normal, healthy foreskin removed. He should have control of his body. If he chooses to have himself circumcised in the name of "health", he would control his choice.

"Controlling other people's lives in the name of 'health'" (e.g. venereal diseases, cervical cancer) describes removing a male (only!) child's normal, healthy foreskin for his parents' preferences. Obviously.

You know the HPV vaccine exists, right? For girls *and* boys, even! That is objectively less invasive and severe than circumcision, and more effective, further proving that non-therapeutic child circumcision by proxy consent for this reason is indefensible.

You know the HPV vaccine exists, right? For girls *and* boys, even! That is objectively less invasive and severe than circumcision, and more effective, further proving that non-therapeutic child circumcision by proxy consent for this reason is indefensible.

Tony at May 28, 2020 12:55 PM

If that was the only sexually transmitted bacteria/ virus out there you might have a minor point.

It isn’t, and you don’t.

Isab:

Check any conditions you think should be parents and doctors choice as opposed to “kid gets to make the choice when they are past the age of consent”.

Siamese twins? - Abnormality. Is it medically dangerous to separate them? To keep them together? What are the risks of not taking action? Objectively reasonable for parents to address with doctors, but doesn't warrant a blanket "yes".

Cleft Palates ? - Abnormality. "The goals of treatment for cleft lip and cleft palate are to improve the child's ability to eat, speak and hear normally and to achieve a normal facial appearance." - Mayo Clinic

Extra finger? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?

Heart valve? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue? Are we performing surgery on the healthy heart valves of children?

Crossed eyes? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?

Club feet? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?

Grossly disfiguring birthmark? - What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue? What's the risk of taking action? There's a lot of range for what this could be, but you get the gist.

Cochlear implants? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?

Cataracts? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?

Undescended testicles?- Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?

Add a compete explanation as to why we should legally distinguish these procedures from the general rule of parental choice for circumcision.

Foreskin - Normal human anatomy.

Everything you've listed is an abnormality. Some have very significant consequences in life if left alone. The foreskin has risks in the same way being alive as a human being has biological risks. Leave it alone the way parents leave their daughters' normal, healthy genitals alone.

The point of proxy consent being stricter than consent is not to stop necessary procedures, but to leave the individual with the most options to live life with his personal preferences. The point is to protect the child when intervention is necessary and unnecessary. Circumcision in this context doesn't get past the question of need to consider interventions at someone else's request and preference.

If that was the only sexually transmitted bacteria/ virus out there you might have a minor point.

It isn’t, and you don’t.

Condoms exist. Yay, science!

“Cochlear implants? - Abnormality. What's the risk of not taking action? What's the least invasive option available to correct the issue?”

Would it interest you at all to know that the deaf community argues precisely the opposite?

Also what if your foreskin adheres to the head of your penis? Normal or not?

And on what basis do you use the law to put these decisions into the hands of politicians rather than the parents?

> Each child should decide
> for himself whether or not
> he wants his normal, healthy

Each cow should decide for herself whether she wants her normal, healthy flesh served with special sauce, cheese onion lettuce pickles on-a sesame seed bun.

We don't let kids decide whether to go to chur

Oh, fuckit, "TONY," we've done dozens laps of this circuit before. You are afraid, for very good reasons, to use the name by which you're known when engaging this argument. So why bother?

Isab,

I'm aware that some in the deaf community argue the opposite. I disagree, because I like hearing. But I'm saying that being deaf is an abnormality in humans, not that I'm judging it as bad and something that should be corrected for all if possible. The question is about the standard applied to allowing parents to make a decision. (Social pressure to allow the child to hear if possible is reasonable, at least.)

The foreskin does adhere to the head of the penis at birth. It separates over time, with age of full separation varying across people. So, normal and not to be interfered with, especially as doing so causes injury. (The injury it causes is another reason not to circumcise normal, healthy children, which requires breaking the adhesion and risks creating adhesions during healing.)

The scenario I think you're asking about is something like phimosis, which is a malady and generally needs to be addressed. But there lies the question again. Do we try to resolve the case with the least invasive or most radical intervention first? The answer for an individual deciding is whatever he prefers. The answer for proxy consent must ethically be the least invasive solution, with the radical intervention saved as a last resort.

I use the same basis for existing laws pertaining to the protection of child rights, unless you think children have no rights, in which case, the discussion becomes something different. It's what prevents parents from cutting an earlobe off or tattooing their children.

Also, while the law is an appropriate tool for protecting this individual right for the child, it's not the most practical approach in our current reality. The law follows culture. When we can get the law to recognize that circumcision already falls within our criminal statutes against battery and child abuse, we won't need to prosecute them because people would stop forcing it on children.

We don't let kids decide whether to go to chur

My parents don't get to force me into church now that I'm an adult. Do kids ever become autonomous individuals in your world?

My parents don't get to force me into church now that I'm an adult. Do kids ever become autonomous individuals in your world?

Tony at May 28, 2020 2:43 PM

No, because where they are autonomous, we call them *adults* Until then, they don’t make their own medical decisions, including whether or not to get vaccinations.

> Do kids ever become autonomous
> individuals in your world?

In your own, they seem always subject to your busty-schoolmarm scolding.

Some people secretly dream of control of other people's lives in the name of "health." ~ Crid at May 28, 2020 11:53 AM

But not individual health. Like all good collectivists, they dream of having that control for the sake of the collective health of the body public, which only they are public spirited enough to guard.

Isab's fighting the good fight, I lost the patience for it maybe ten years ago.

Isab's fighting the good fight, I lost the patience for it maybe ten years ago.

Crid at May 28, 2020 3:12 PM

I completely understand that. Lots of special pleading going on here.

Can you just not cut your kids' foreskin at birth?

FFS, let them decide once they're old enough to form a coherent thought.

I have a story of two childhood friends:

The oldest one at 13yo told his parents -both are doctors btw- he wanted to get circumcised because he didn't want to give women cervical cancer. His parents agreed with him and the worst that happened to him was wearing boxers instead of briefs because of the sensitivity of his glans.

His younger brother didn't gave a damn and declined to get one.

The two of them had normal lives as adults, and the uncut one didn't gave his wife tumors.

So, think of it as another wonderful way of letting your boys learn about decision making.

Unless he's doing it for a woman. If he's cutting his d*ck because she finds it ugly, yeah, no, that b*tch is a red flag.

Those aggressively defending and promoting the involuntary, permanent mutilation of other people's baby boys (while condemning the same thing for baby girls) make me wonder why they are doing so. Why is it so important to you to deprive those babies of the opportunity to choose for themselves at the appropriate time? After all, the vast majority of men on this planet (and who have ever lived) have not been "fixed", and have been just fine, thank you very much.

The routine cutting of non-Jewish baby boys in the U.S. was originally promoted by the nutcase Kellogg (of Cornflakes fame) for the express purpose of reducing sexual sensitivity, and thus the "enervating" practice of masturbation. The prevalence of infant circumcision is now declining fairly markedly in the U.S.

So what is it, exactly, that gets the rabid pro-cutting folks so worked up about something that affects them not at all? Guilt over inflicting the practice on their own baby? Denial that something important may have been taken from them?

Please explain.

No, because where they are autonomous, we call them *adults* Until then, they don’t make their own medical decisions, including whether or not to get vaccinations.

Can parents tattoo their children? Can they surgically alter the normal, healthy genitalia of their daughters? Can they give their kids a cochlear implant if they have normal hearing? What about heart valve replacement? Remove one of a boy's testicles for fear of testicular cancer?

Do children have rights? Do girls have rights that boys don't have? Do boys have rights that girls don't have?

Is surgically altering the normal, healthy genitalia of their children a parental right? Just for their sons? Why or why not?

And of course I forgot about the other childhood friend..

This one had a valid medical reason. He told his father that when he peed, his foreskin would swell up, so they went to the doctor, turns out that he had a phimosis, and the doctor scheduled a circumcision and well, things went without a hitch. This time since the surgery happened before he reached puberty, didn't went through all the sensitivity problems my other childhood friend went with.

The dad asked his older brother if he had the same problem and the boy say "Fuck no."

Again, the two had normal lives afterwards. End of story.

TL,DR; Barring medical reasons, boys should be allowed to decide.

Please explain.

It's human nature Jay. It's one of those It was done to me and I turned out fine situations.

Exactly! For example, I have never suffered stenosis.

Also, chicks dig me… They *really* dig me.

Speaking of STIs...

I think there are at least a few compelling, non-partisan reasons to postpone sex until one's 20s and, if marriage is in the cards, to marry before age 25. What are they?

1. a.You're more likely to choose a sex partner who will be honest about his/her background, medically or otherwise, as well as a partner who truly cares about you and actually WANTS to be seen with you in public.

1. b. You're a LOT more likely to find someone who doesn't kiss and tell. After all, when you're an average teen, male or female, it's a shattering experience when your anatomical details and lack of bedroom skills get blabbed in detail to everyone you know, with or without Facebook. (Many lonely people would settle for a short-term affair with anyone, just so long as discretion was guaranteed.) Plus, as writer/humorist Tom Carey advised a teen girl: "What he really wants from you is a story to tell the guys in the locker room. Actually, my guess is he's already telling the story and he only needs you to help him get some of the details straight."

2. a. Both you and your spouse are less likely to have herpes or anything else incurable.

2. b. You're less likely to find yourself in a stepfamily. (Those marriages are far more vulnerable to divorce.)

2. c. You can afford to be more picky in whom you choose, since the young always have more options.

"You can afford to be more picky in whom you choose, since the young always have more options."

That applies more to young women than young men, though after the age of 30 or so, men start to have a relative advantage.

I was circumcised as an infant. I have a good sex life. I have no need to castigate my parents for some imagined horror they inflicted upon me. Jesus, just grow up and quit looking for a reason that your life isn't perfect. No life is perfect and most of your problems are self-induced.

Causticf,

No life is perfect, indeed. The discussion is this one problem, non-therapeutic child circumcision. The article Amy wrote about gives some evidence about possible outcomes when it's chosen by the man for himself. In those cases it sucks, but it was self-induced. It's an actual problem when the circumcision is forced on an individual rather than self-chosen because he might not like the changes it brings.

Your criteria appears to demand that we let everyone live according to your preferences. I'm happy for you that your sex life is good. That isn't a standard for human rights. It's a line of thought that ends with special pleading, to reference Isab's misdirected claim from earlier (which I'm still laughing about, because "this one specific normal part of all human anatomy, except it's sex-specific - for reasons!, for the purpose of non-therapeutic surgery, should be treated like abnormalities with immediate life-threatening possibilities, so therefore, it's obviously, within full parental choice as a right (that they can't exercise for the same anatomy on their daughters for the same reasons, which is correct, because that isn't their right, you monster)". Special pleading is the only way non-therapeutic child circumcision continues.).

I'm happily married, employed, own a home, travel regularly to fun places (in the Before Times), blah blah blah. My life isn't perfect, but it's good. It isn't ruined because of circumcision. My issue is that my parents forced circumcision on me without need or my consent. I live with the consequences, which are real, and yet, again, not justification for letting the rest of my life go to hell. But they should've left me my choice. It should be every individual's choice for himself, just as it already is every individual's choice for herself.

I'm not even saying my already-good life would be better with my foreskin. I believe it would be, but I'm only objectively saying it would be different, aligned with my preferences for myself, because the anatomical structure of my foreskin would still be there. Change form, change function, after all. It might be worse, even! But then I could still do something about it myself, to get self-induced improvement that I seek. Options are valuable.

Nor am I saying men who choose circumcision for themselves are wrong, or that you should feel aggrieved because your parents circumcised you. I do ask you to consider the possibility you might not choose to be circumcised if your parents had left your choice to you.

"Imagine your feet rotting in your shoes ..."

There are those who don't believe this happens. Search for the term, "trenchfoot". Don't look for an image if you want to save eye bleach.

"You can afford to be more picky in whom you choose, since the young always have more options."

Ha ha haaaa! "Whom you choose" has been advertising herself in every way possible that she is available for anything you might dream of since you were thirteen, often with parental approval on top of constant advertising in every medium that sex should occur daily at least. This is about as useful as "Condoms exist. Yay, science!"
Not very.

...so the armchair experts in the recent "children are a pain" thread are now lecturing breeders about children's "inability to consent". Heh.

-- Our Story So Far --

Starting in the 60s-70s postmodern deconstructists and Social Justice Warriors seeking another stalking horse attempt to sow a sense of victimhood and open another line of attack on the patriarchy by claiming that circumcision is harmful. Yet another "human right" was invented - or in this case, illogically applied (because inability to consent pretty much defines childhood...).

Th anti-circ movement fit the crunchy-granola narrative of Murican civilization as a uniquely alienating "unnatural" construct. As opposed to those chic Europeans who weren't so uptight about sex or socialism...

Self-declared victims were duly trotted before the media, medical staff supporting the progressive approach were lionized.

The ability to use this issue to run down traditional religion and undermine parental autonomy were lagniappes.

Common-sense arguments were met with more self-righteous, emotional victimhood slogans: "you circumcised men don't know what you're misssing" is a kissin cousin to "you crackers can't tell if you're racist".

So: we have now demonstrated that circumcision is not substantially harmful.

"You don't know what you're misssing" was the cleverest ploy of the anti-circ movement. And now we have cited a cohort of hundreds of thousands of adult men who do know. And apparrently don't care. Although not particularly religious, cultural Jewish identity is enough motivation for them to seek circumcison for their sons.

Aaaand the argument keeps shifting. Predictably.

Because it was never about the facts.

Notes:
1. Judaism makes no medical claim for circumcision. My personal opinion is that there is little difference when 1st world hygeine can be maintained.

2. Every circumcision in Israel is an elective choice, performed after baby leaves the hospital. Nothing is stopping ex-Soviets from checking out and then doing nothing. Instead most of them call a mohel.

Ben David Says:

"2. Every circumcision in Israel is an elective choice, performed after baby leaves the hospital. Nothing is stopping ex-Soviets from checking out and then doing nothing. Instead most of them call a mohel."

You do not seem to be addressing the actual argument being put forth.

When you say "elective choice"... and we are talking about an infant... they are not electing or choosing any procedure. It is being chosen for them.

That is the argument.

I'll boil down the structure of the argument so it is abundantly clear:

1 - Human beings should be entitled to opt into elective procedures that are not medically indicated to address an issue of immediate concern.

2 - Infants/children are incapable of making informed decisions regarding elective medical procedures.

3 - Parents/guardians are present to make medical decisions on their children's behalf, but those decisions should have reasonable limitations.

People who are against infant circumcision are arguing that a reasonable limitation includes compelling another human being to undergo cosmetic surgical procedures that are not indicated to resolve a diagnosed medical issue.

Analogy to something like vaccination also doesn't fly because protecting your children from diseases that can kill them is logically justified to prevent suffering and potential death.

If you want to present some kind of counter argument it would behoove you to focus on the actual arguments being put forth by the folks against infant circumcision.

None of them would agree there was any choice involved in the elective procedure by the individual whose opinion actually counts.

The question you need to ask yourself is this... who does your sons penis belong to.

If the answer is that his penis is yours then you should own that and inform him when he is older... you should also acknowledge that the genitals in your pants aren't your own... they belong to your mother and father.

If that thought makes you uncomfortable, it should.

Hey Artemis -

I flatly reject the attempt to apply the full-on adult standard of consent to children. Sorry if my previous posts (and my reference to child-free "experts") were not sufficiently snarky or dismissive...

It does not reflect the realities of childhood or parenting - and calls for gubmint to usurp parental decisions "for the children" are dangerous and politically motivated.

It is sufficient to demonstrate that circumcision is not harmful. Which it is not.

Neither is ear piercing. Or raising my children in our/their faith. Or hundreds of other parental decisions that will irrevocably shape a child's life.... Not a bug, but a feature. Busybodies and gubmint functionaries not required.

It's no accident that this line of argument comes from the same Marxist Left that views the biologically normal family and private property as inconvenient holdouts blocking gubmint power over the individual.

Far too many libertarians - perhaps blinded by anti-religious prejudice - stumble into agreeing with this dangerous, illiberal bit of postmodernism.

We have reached a cultural moment where:
- trans activists are injecting hormones in 11 year olds, often against parental wishes... Other parents are "only" inducing their children to cross-dress, reading adult identity politics into innocent play.

- European children are being groomed and molested, their parents and countrymen paralyzed by political correctness that has reversed victim and perpetrator.

- it is now considered "empowering" for young women to trade sex for college tuition or sell self-made porno on the internet, and legal brothels in europe are populated by girls lured from war zones... Any guess about the level of these girl's "consent"?

- standards and red lines intended to safeguard euthanasia have predictably been rolled over, particularly with regard to consent... And a new wave of "ethicists" is attempting to extend a parent's "right" to abort into a new "right" to abandon the newly born. (Not so new as it was done back in pagan Sparta... Like most of these practices)

I would love to hear those arguing the "consent" line to share their views on these other related issues.

In the meantime i am confident that raising my children within Judaism's covenant will help them to navigate their world - which will be shaped by these foolish,evil, and debased trends. And hundreds of thousands of formerly forskinned men agree with me...

...open another line of attack on the patriarchy by claiming that circumcision is harmful. Yet another "human right" was invented - or in this case, illogically applied (because inability to consent pretty much defines childhood...).

No human right has been invented or illogically applied. It's the same right that protects children (and adults) from similar unnecessary, (potentially) unwanted harm. Consent - or not - is the method by which the right is exercised rather than the right itself. The only change is the demand that protection for this right be extended to an entire human being instead of most of that human being. It's a demand that protection for this right be enforced equally, since non-therapeutic genital surgery without the patient's consent is already illegal for men, women, and girls.

I flatly reject the attempt to apply the full-on adult standard of consent to children. ...

I also reject applying the full-on adult standard of consent to children. They become autonomous individuals. They are not autonomous for the purpose of the full-on adult standard of consent from birth. The age of majority is the outer limit, although I think it's silly to think parents can make the same decisions for a minor who is a day shy of his 18th birthday as they can for toddlers. (Can parents force circumcision on the minor who is a day shy of his 18th birthday?)

The consent involved is proxy consent. I'm trying to apply the full-on standard of proxy consent to non-therapeutic male circumcision because it's the correct standard. The current standard society embraces is a patchwork of special pleading that can't be supported under examination.

We don't subject alteration of the normal, healthy genitals of girls to proxy consent by their parents. Have we missed the truth of parental "rights" on this and invented a right for girls that doesn't exist? Is cutting their genitals without need harmful?

It does not reflect the realities of childhood or parenting - and calls for gubmint to usurp parental decisions "for the children" are dangerous and politically motivated.

Kids can be unruly, so maybe a goooooooooood beating or two will fix the problem. Is there a scenario for government to usurp that parental decision?

So: we have now demonstrated that circumcision is not substantially harmful.

Claiming that with a pointless digression into your perception of activist history doesn't demonstrate that circumcision is "not substantially harmful". But I do see the get-out-of-jail-free adverb that allows you to substitute your subjective opinion in place of a fact. To be fair, you clarified to a worse position in your response to Artemis when you wrote:

It is sufficient to demonstrate that circumcision is not harmful. Which it is not.

Circumcision in the relevant context is surgery to remove a normal, functional part of human anatomy without need or consent. The act of removing the body part is harmful. Whether it's a net harm to an individual is a different claim that, while necessary to consider by the individual, remains irrelevant to the question of harm itself. There was a body part, then it's removed intentionally. As that's the standard with any comparable body part and surgery, circumcision warrants no exception to this basic logic.

So: circumcision is harmful.

"You don't know what you're misssing" was the cleverest ploy of the anti-circ movement. And now we have cited a cohort of hundreds of thousands of adult men who do know. ...

The number of men in that cohort who say "I know what I'm missing: nothing" is not zero. Did you read the article Amy linked in her post?

Since there is objective harm, and we don't know if the individual will conclude it's a net harm or net benefit after weighing the costs, potential risks, and potential benefits for himself, we must conclude that proxy consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is unjustified.

Ben David Says:

"I flatly reject the attempt to apply the full-on adult standard of consent to children. Sorry if my previous posts (and my reference to child-free "experts") were not sufficiently snarky or dismissive..."

You can "flatly reject" all you like, it still will not help you to address the arguments of those you purport to debating.

A flat earther can "flatly reject" (pun intended) the notion that the earth is spherical... but once they commit to that form of rhetoric every argument they may becomes fallacious.

You cannot logically assume your position to be correct axiomatically and they declare that you have defeated your opponent.

You just believe something... but don't feel it is necessary to establish the truth value of your claim.

No one is insisting that children get "full-on adult standard of consent"... what people are insisting is that parents and guardians should not have carte blanche to do whatever they desire medically to the children in their care.

A rational line needs to be drawn somewhere... and they are arguing that the rational line should exist where surgical intervention is not indicated to attend to a diagnosed medical condition.

Tony,

What many folks do not seem to understand is that parents are guardians and stewards of their children.

Their responsibility is to make choices on their behalf that safeguard their rights in advance of their own abilities to make choices for themselves.

What I find amazing about all of this is that I do not suspect that anyone would bend over backwards to try and justify the following scenario:

A 50 year old is granted legal conservatorship and guardian ship over their father who has been diagnosed with advanced stage dementia. Shortly after the legal paper work is complete they drive their 75 year old father to the hospital for a circumcision because they believe it is what is best for them from a religious perspective.

Who would think this made any sense?

I am confident most folks would find this to be an abuse of the rights of the elderly father by their child.

No one is arguing that the man with severe dementia should have the same rights of consent meeting the "full-on adult" standard described by Ben David.

At the same time we would all recognize that this was an abuse of the rights of guardianship granted to that mans adult child.

Why subject him to an unnecessary surgical procedure based on your subjective whims?

I also wouldn't support just piercing his ears... or any other body modification procedure that wasn't determined by a medical professional to be important for his health and wellbeing.

Artemis,

Their responsibility is to make choices on their behalf that safeguard their rights in advance of their own abilities to make choices for themselves.

That's the way I view it, too, and the only assessment that makes any sense if we are to recognize that children aren't property.

Unfortunately I'm not sure I agree we'd all recognize your scenario was an abuse of the rights of the guardianship. The number of people who use "he'll get infections in a nursing home" as an excuse to circumcise an infant seven or eight decades before that scenario maybe possibly happens demonstrates this disregard.