I'm all for intractable moral/philosophical arguments, but practically you can't just ignore the matters of scale and degree.
The degree of harm from typical male circumcision is extremely low for all practical intents. The debate should really be whether individual parents will do it or not. I see no practical justification for using force of government to restrict or require the practice, as from a realistic perspective it's a nonissue worthy of being left to individual discretion. Force of government should be avoided unless the scale or degree of a problem warrants unilateral action and a removal of individual discretion.
No one should have the discretion to perform female genital mutilation, (and force of government to proactively prevent it is likely warranted). The degree of the harm is orders of magnitude beyond what should be acceptable to any just society. I would not hesitate to call the practice barbaric.
I'm indifferent as to whether or not parents circumsize their male children. The degree of harm is just too small. Parents have to make tough calls about other far more serious issues, like transgender or ambiguous gender children without their consent, and there just isn't enough justification to take away individual discretion on something so minor.
I'm all for intractable moral/philosophical arguments, but practically you can't just ignore the matters of scale and degree.
The degree of harm from typical male circumcision is extremely low for all practical intents. The debate should really be whether individual parents will do it or not. I see no practical justification for using force of government to restrict or require the practice, as from a realistic perspective it's a nonissue worthy of being left to individual discretion. Force of government should be avoided unless the scale or degree of a problem warrants unilateral action and a removal of individual discretion.
No one should have the discretion to perform female genital mutilation, (and force of government to proactively prevent it is likely warranted). The degree of the harm is orders of magnitude beyond what should be acceptable to any just society. I would not hesitate to call the practice barbaric.
I'm indifferent as to whether or not parents circumsize their male children. The degree of harm is just too small. Parents have to make tough calls about other far more serious issues, like transgender or ambiguous gender children without their consent, and there just isn't enough justification to take away individual discretion on something so minor.
Yea, this pretty much sums up my stance on the whole issue.
I agree with Rym in that force of government should not be brought to bear with respect to male circumcision, and I agree that the harm is relatively slight, but I am not indifferent to it.
Be that as it may, it should be left to the discretion of individuals to do or not do. If you want to stop it, sell your cause in the marketplace of ideas.
Be that as it may, it should be left to the discretion of individuals to do or not do. If you want to stop it, sell your cause in the marketplace of ideas.
If you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what I'm doing.
If male circumcision had been unheard of until now and someone came up with the idea, would it be permissible?
If male circumcision had been unheard of until now and someone came up with the idea, would it be permissible?
Sure. A ban on all modification of children, even cosmetic, causes more problems than it solves. I can see no practical way to ban it without removing the parent/doctor ability to make necessary decisions regarding a baby's future. "Correcting" or otherwise handling an ambiguously gendered child is a difficult decision, and there is no "right" answer. Parents need to have discretion unless there is clear, demonstrable harm of a non-negligible degree.
Except of course that male circumcision does inflict lasting, permanent harm on the child and removes one of the most erogenous zones on the male body. Not to mention that the procedure in itself poses a considerable medical risk in itself.
Circumcision, regardless of gender, is child mutilation and child endangerment for absolutely no logical reason and no conclusively proven benefit. Regardless of gender, they're bad things in either case and not something that a parent should be allowed to inflict on the child.
What Rym is basically saying is also that it's okay to beat a child with a sack of oranges because there won't be any "clear, demonstrable harm of a non-negligible degree" and thus it should be up to the discretion of the parent.
absolutely no logical reason and no conclusively proven benefit
Are you even fucking reading this thread? Reduced rates of HIV transmission isn't a "logical" reason?
If you hadn't noticed, that's exactly what I'm doing.
No, you're trying and floundering. "I don't care if pain has beneficial outcomes; it's still bad."
Why is pain "bad?" There are numerous positive effects that pain can have, the primary one being that it alerts you to the existence of a problem that would otherwise go undetected. What constitutes "bad" in your book?
I would concur that needless pain is bad, but pain in general? You haven't come anywhere near supporting that.
What Rym is basically saying is also that it's okay to beat a child with a sack of oranges because there won't be any "clear, demonstrable harm of a non-negligible degree" and thus it should be up to the discretion of the parent.
Why do you and Bruce keep using these extreme comparisons? It's very obvious that beating a child with a sack of oranges would cause lasting harm. Also,
Would you be indifferent to being hurt if I could entirely erase any memory of it afterwards?
Are you even fucking reading this thread? Reduced rates of HIV transmission isn't a "logical" reason?
Not to mention preventing transmission of HPV which ends up helping Women and helps prevent penis cancer!!! (NOT WANT, which by the way is most of the time in your foreskin)
Circumcision, regardless of gender, is child mutilation and child endangerment for absolutely no logical reason and no conclusively proven benefit.
You daft fucking cunt. We've established dozens of times that the procedures in each sex are not even remotely related. It's the difference between being roughed up on the schoolyard for several years in grade school; and being tortured, raped, and left to starve to death. Seriously. They aren't even structurally related. For "female circumcision" to be equitable, male circumcision would have to entail cutting off your entire dick with a scalpel. Get it?
Also, calling male circumcision in the west "mutilation" is incredibly disrespectful to the entire medical profession. You may not like how it's elected for, but it's done in a controlled setting by doctors with years of training, instruments thoroughly sterilized, and medications to prevent infection. It's not some fucking hack job done with the village elder's ritual parang, for fuck's sake. At that rate, you might as well call any form of plastic surgery mutilation. I mean, hell, big breasts are appreciated in our culture for purely aesthetic reasons, I guess breast enlargement is mutilation, huh?
I can't honestly tell if you're being serious in relating the two as being part of the same issue and in calling a surgery mutilation, or if you're just trolling incredibly effectively. In which case 15/10, I fucking raged. If I could jaw you with the fucking coffee mug on my desk through the internet, I'd do it.
Overall, the rate of UTIs in circumcised boys has been estimated at 0.2-0.4%, with the rate in uncircumcised boys being 5-20 times higher than in circumcised boys.
The absolute rate in circumcised males is 0.2 to 0.4%. So in uncircumcised males, the rate could be as low as 1% or as high as 8%. The nationwide average is about 3%, and this accounts for circumcised and uncircumcised males.
1% isn't that many, right? 1 baby in a 100?
No, that's fucking huge, and the problem is that you don't know if you're going to be that lucky 1% or not. Nobody does, until it happens. The consequences of a UTI are potentially serious things like impaired kidney function, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease (which is a condition requiring dialysis).
Whenever we deal with a public health issue, we have to understand the concept of risk assessment, and the utility of reducing risk. Remaining uncircumcised is like playing the UTI lottery; you have a rough idea of what the odds are, but you don't know whether or not you'll win. In any game of chance, the best you can do is manipulate your odds. In cases such as these, marginalizing your own risk is your best option.
A 5-fold to 20-fold reduction in risk is fucking significant. Barriers like that have helped us greatly reduce the overall rates of illness and death in this country.
So yes, circumcising reduces a child's own personal risk of contracting a neonatal UTI. But this is about more than just you; public health revolves around culture and practice as well. If we have a culture that rejects valid medicine, we will see a nationwide increase in those things that the medicine is intended to prevent.
This is why raw milk and homeopathic remedies are such a problem; independent of the individual risk factors, the shift in cultural practice increases the overall rate of occurrence of problems that could have been prevented. We've seen this with outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis in humans that have been linked to raw milk. Homeopathic remedies and the rejection of vaccines lead to large measles outbreaks in California.
In other words, your decision to not circumcise your child may convince someone else to do the same. Iterate sufficiently, and the rate of circumcision decreases. When circumcisions decrease, neonatal UTI's increase. And you directly contributed to that increase.
Welcome to public health. Start giving a shit about something more than just your own penis.
EDIT: I have a question for chaos: I had a benign histiocytoma removed from my left forearm. By your definition, I was "mutilated" and that's bad. So let me ask you, when does surgery constitute "mutilation" and when does it constitute "medicine?"
We have evidence that male circumcision can indeed have benefits. We also have evidence that it's very unharmful by most any reasonable measure.
That said, there is (as I stated above) no argument to be made in favor of banning it through legislation. It's best left to individual discretion, as there are intelligent reasons to both circumsize and to not circumsize.
That same page also noted studies that found while the majority of women found the circumcised penis more attractive, it was not universal.
Anecodotal corroboration: I've met women who found uncircumsized men more enjoyable. After an anthropology class where we discussed circumcision, there was an informal discussion about what people preferred. One woman mentioned that she liked having "more to interact with." So, cut or no, there will be ladies out there who will like your junk.
I note that Oglaf tends to portray uncircumsized members. I have no further comment, but it's something I noticed.
That is most likely because the artist is Australian, and as previously mentioned, in her age range we have a circumcision rate of roughly 30% - that might simply be what she thinks of as normal when she thinks of a penis.
Anecodotal corroboration: I've met women who found uncircumsized men more enjoyable. After an anthropology class where we discussed circumcision, there was an informal discussion about what people preferred. One woman mentioned that she liked having "more to interact with." So, cut or no, there will be ladies out there who will like your junk.
And yet, the musical ability of my penis goes ignored. You think Rachmaninoff had huge hands, well you should take a look at my wang. It's hands are ENORMOUS.
Was I right? Is that webcomic artist a lady? (Well, I guess she ain't no lady, considering some of her strips, but...heeheeee) I sometimes tell but not always. I would have sworn Curvy was written by a girl, but I met the artist at the MoCCA and he was a dude.
I always assumed it was written by a lady, but I never actually looked into whether or not it was.
Was I right? Is that webcomic artist a lady? (Well, I guess she ain't no lady, considering some of her strips, but...heeheeee) I sometimes tell but not always. I would have sworn Curvy was written by a girl, but I met the artist at the MoCCA and he was a dude.
Yep, it's by Trudy Cooper, the same woman who writes/illustrates the excellent Platinum Grit(Well, it's on hiatus right now, so technically she doesn't, but you get what I mean). Met her once at a con, she's an extremely charming and funny person, and enormously talented.
No, you're trying and floundering. "I don't care if pain has beneficial outcomes; it's still bad."
Why is pain "bad?" There are numerous positive effects that pain can have, the primary one being that it alerts you to the existence of a problem that would otherwise go undetected. What constitutes "bad" in your book?
I would concur that needless pain is bad, but pain in general? You haven't come anywhere near supporting that.
TWS, you're missing my point entirely; I'm saying that ceteris paribus, pain is bad. I obviously agree that various benefits can be sufficient to justify pain, but that doesn't make the pain good in and of itself. If we could have an equally effective alternative way of alerting us of problems with our bodies, wouldn't that be preferable to pain? I was arguing with Nuri, who said "There is no clear evidence that it makes a child any worse off one way or the other." - if this is so, then the inflicted pain lacks solid justification, and hence circumcision is morally wrong.
Yo guys, may be a strange thread to announce this but Churba and I are doing a three page comic coming out on Monday. Otanoshiimini..!
Note - I promise it (propably) won't include penises with giant hands playing Rachmaninoff - We'll save that for next weekend.
Does it involve dicks?
This, however, no promises, except that we do not discriminate. I think. Fred is the one with the art skills, so the Cock-choices are really up to him.
Except of course that male circumcision does inflict lasting, permanent harm on the child and removes one of the most erogenous zones on the male body. Not to mention that the procedure in itself poses a considerable medical risk in itself.
Circumcision, regardless of gender, is child mutilation and child endangerment for absolutely no logical reason and no conclusively proven benefit. Regardless of gender, they're bad things in either case and not something that a parent should be allowed to inflict on the child.
What Rym is basically saying is also that it's okay to beat a child with a sack of oranges because there won't be any "clear, demonstrable harm of a non-negligible degree" and thus it should be up to the discretion of the parent.
THE THING IS, a lot of the people arguing for the benefits or otherwise harmless nature of circumcision are circumscribed themselves. If you met somebody that was beaten with a bag of oranges they would NOT be arguing in support of it. Beating a kid with oranges does have a demonstrable psychological effect at least, and circumcision clearly does not.
You are stating untrue assumptions as if they were fact. People tend to do that with things that make them uncomfortable. The only people I know of who are against it are uncircumscribed men, who are ignorant of any facts and overwhelmed at the thought of anything happening to their penis-as-they-know-it. You're about as much an expert on circumcision as an old straight republican is on what it is to be gay.
If we could have an equally effective alternative way of alerting us of problems with our bodies, wouldn't that be preferable to pain?
Sure, OK. If a hot naked elf chick told me that something was wrong by having sex with me and cooking me a steak, yeah, that'd be a hell of a lot better than pain.
But the existence of a more pleasing alternative doesn't necessarily make a particular thing "bad." You still haven't supported the initial assertion that "pain is bad." Just because I could buy filet mignon doesn't mean that rib-eye is a bad cut of meat.
Your argument is sort of like the "evidence" provided by creation scientists for the existence of a creator. The Grand Canyon is their go-to example. We have lots of evidence that shows how the canyon was carved. Creationists like to say: "Well, if you look at the Grand Canyon, it could have been carved by a single massive burst of water. Like the one from the flood story in the Bible. So that's evidence that it happened."
The weakness in your argument is that you're supporting your position with a hypothetical. Come up with something concrete, and your argument will have merit.
EDIT: tl;dr: If we have no concrete alternative for comparison, "good" and "bad" are meaningless metrics.
Comments
...
The degree of harm from typical male circumcision is extremely low for all practical intents. The debate should really be whether individual parents will do it or not. I see no practical justification for using force of government to restrict or require the practice, as from a realistic perspective it's a nonissue worthy of being left to individual discretion. Force of government should be avoided unless the scale or degree of a problem warrants unilateral action and a removal of individual discretion.
No one should have the discretion to perform female genital mutilation, (and force of government to proactively prevent it is likely warranted). The degree of the harm is orders of magnitude beyond what should be acceptable to any just society. I would not hesitate to call the practice barbaric.
I'm indifferent as to whether or not parents circumsize their male children. The degree of harm is just too small. Parents have to make tough calls about other far more serious issues, like transgender or ambiguous gender children without their consent, and there just isn't enough justification to take away individual discretion on something so minor.
If male circumcision had been unheard of until now and someone came up with the idea, would it be permissible?
Circumcision, regardless of gender, is child mutilation and child endangerment for absolutely no logical reason and no conclusively proven benefit. Regardless of gender, they're bad things in either case and not something that a parent should be allowed to inflict on the child.
What Rym is basically saying is also that it's okay to beat a child with a sack of oranges because there won't be any "clear, demonstrable harm of a non-negligible degree" and thus it should be up to the discretion of the parent.
Why is pain "bad?" There are numerous positive effects that pain can have, the primary one being that it alerts you to the existence of a problem that would otherwise go undetected. What constitutes "bad" in your book?
I would concur that needless pain is bad, but pain in general? You haven't come anywhere near supporting that.
Also, calling male circumcision in the west "mutilation" is incredibly disrespectful to the entire medical profession. You may not like how it's elected for, but it's done in a controlled setting by doctors with years of training, instruments thoroughly sterilized, and medications to prevent infection. It's not some fucking hack job done with the village elder's ritual parang, for fuck's sake. At that rate, you might as well call any form of plastic surgery mutilation. I mean, hell, big breasts are appreciated in our culture for purely aesthetic reasons, I guess breast enlargement is mutilation, huh?
I can't honestly tell if you're being serious in relating the two as being part of the same issue and in calling a surgery mutilation, or if you're just trolling incredibly effectively. In which case 15/10, I fucking raged. If I could jaw you with the fucking coffee mug on my desk through the internet, I'd do it.
The absolute rate in circumcised males is 0.2 to 0.4%. So in uncircumcised males, the rate could be as low as 1% or as high as 8%. The nationwide average is about 3%, and this accounts for circumcised and uncircumcised males.
1% isn't that many, right? 1 baby in a 100?
No, that's fucking huge, and the problem is that you don't know if you're going to be that lucky 1% or not. Nobody does, until it happens. The consequences of a UTI are potentially serious things like impaired kidney function, hypertension, and end-stage renal disease (which is a condition requiring dialysis).
Whenever we deal with a public health issue, we have to understand the concept of risk assessment, and the utility of reducing risk. Remaining uncircumcised is like playing the UTI lottery; you have a rough idea of what the odds are, but you don't know whether or not you'll win. In any game of chance, the best you can do is manipulate your odds. In cases such as these, marginalizing your own risk is your best option.
A 5-fold to 20-fold reduction in risk is fucking significant. Barriers like that have helped us greatly reduce the overall rates of illness and death in this country.
So yes, circumcising reduces a child's own personal risk of contracting a neonatal UTI. But this is about more than just you; public health revolves around culture and practice as well. If we have a culture that rejects valid medicine, we will see a nationwide increase in those things that the medicine is intended to prevent.
This is why raw milk and homeopathic remedies are such a problem; independent of the individual risk factors, the shift in cultural practice increases the overall rate of occurrence of problems that could have been prevented. We've seen this with outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis in humans that have been linked to raw milk. Homeopathic remedies and the rejection of vaccines lead to large measles outbreaks in California.
In other words, your decision to not circumcise your child may convince someone else to do the same. Iterate sufficiently, and the rate of circumcision decreases. When circumcisions decrease, neonatal UTI's increase. And you directly contributed to that increase.
Welcome to public health. Start giving a shit about something more than just your own penis.
EDIT: I have a question for chaos: I had a benign histiocytoma removed from my left forearm. By your definition, I was "mutilated" and that's bad. So let me ask you, when does surgery constitute "mutilation" and when does it constitute "medicine?"
We have evidence that male circumcision can indeed have benefits. We also have evidence that it's very unharmful by most any reasonable measure.
That said, there is (as I stated above) no argument to be made in favor of banning it through legislation. It's best left to individual discretion, as there are intelligent reasons to both circumsize and to not circumsize.
I sometimes tell but not always. I would have sworn Curvy was written by a girl, but I met the artist at the MoCCA and he was a dude.
I obviously agree that various benefits can be sufficient to justify pain, but that doesn't make the pain good in and of itself. If we could have an equally effective alternative way of alerting us of problems with our bodies, wouldn't that be preferable to pain?
I was arguing with Nuri, who said "There is no clear evidence that it makes a child any worse off one way or the other." - if this is so, then the inflicted pain lacks solid justification, and hence circumcision is morally wrong.
You are stating untrue assumptions as if they were fact. People tend to do that with things that make them uncomfortable. The only people I know of who are against it are uncircumscribed men, who are ignorant of any facts and overwhelmed at the thought of anything happening to their penis-as-they-know-it. You're about as much an expert on circumcision as an old straight republican is on what it is to be gay.
But the existence of a more pleasing alternative doesn't necessarily make a particular thing "bad." You still haven't supported the initial assertion that "pain is bad." Just because I could buy filet mignon doesn't mean that rib-eye is a bad cut of meat.
Your argument is sort of like the "evidence" provided by creation scientists for the existence of a creator. The Grand Canyon is their go-to example. We have lots of evidence that shows how the canyon was carved. Creationists like to say: "Well, if you look at the Grand Canyon, it could have been carved by a single massive burst of water. Like the one from the flood story in the Bible. So that's evidence that it happened."
The weakness in your argument is that you're supporting your position with a hypothetical. Come up with something concrete, and your argument will have merit.
EDIT: tl;dr: If we have no concrete alternative for comparison, "good" and "bad" are meaningless metrics.