You remain Jewish, that is only a function of being born to a Jewish mother. You are, however, not going to get to Jewish heaven. And your community may reject you.
That is not a balanced statement of the risks and benefits.
I have provided the benefits. There is a direct causal and immediate risk from circumcision. There are some future-based, benefits derived from correlations. Leaving the decision until the age of majority would make little difference to any future benefits. The balance is therefore against. The practice is also not done for any supposed benefits, it's purely religious.
I understand that circumcision is a tiny percentage of all neonatal deaths and that the deaths are primarily the result of infection, meaning that they are likely preventable.
This is an odd argument. The facts are that the children die as a direct and immediate consequence of circumcision. Their deaths were not prevented.
The numbers I have seen are on the order of about half of what you claim here.
I've shown you the source of my numbers - perhaps you would care to do the same - and I've given you reasons why the numbers are understated.
I have raised three points which have not even been attempted to be answered.
1. Had this practice not existed, would it be allowed to start? 2. If you believe there to be benefits to circumcision would you do it to your child? 3. If there are positive benefits to circumcision why is it not a population-based health policy for all males?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I have provided the benefits. There is a direct causal and immediate risk from circumcision.
There are direct risks associated with everything including vaccinating your child. We don't, as policy, avoid all risks.
Leaving the decision until the age of majority would make little difference to any future benefits. The balance is therefore against. The practice is also not done for any supposed benefits, it's purely religious.
You are not correct about the procedure not being done for any supposed benefits. But again, that would seem to be the parent's call, and not yours.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
That doesn't address what I said: I don't want you deciding what is harmful to me.
Welcome to civilization. I'm sorry you don't like it here. Here's hoping that a pregnant loved one isn't given thalidomide by a doctor who thinks like you.
Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves.
Child Labour. Child Sexual Abuse. FGM Infanticide. Child Neglect. Giving addictive recreational drugs to children. Corporal punishment.
Are you sure?
Prohibition doesn't work. It only makes the criminals rich.
That may be true of nouns (although evidence suggests it is not), but you can't jump from what is true of nouns to what is true of verbs (murder, abuse etc).
Our institutions and our parents don't agree with you about what is "harmful".
I don't want you, your parents or your institutions deciding what is harmful to me. Oh, that only works as an argument when its in your favour? Sorry.
I don't get what's harmful about circumcision, there just seems to be an abstract objection to being "mutilated" and having it done against your will, but otherwise America is full of circumcised men who aren't complaining about it as far as I've heard.
Are you "mutilated" if your appendix is removed? Does the foreskin have any particular function that you think is a big loss if it's gone?
That doesn't address what I said: I don't want you deciding what is harmful to me.
Well that's a piece of luck, I'm not your government.
No deal. Trying to ban something that is "harmful" causes more problems than it solves.
Yeh, banning slavery was a disaster. And don't even start me on discrimination.
Prohibition doesn't work. It only makes the criminals rich.
That's fucking hilarous. You're comparing cicumcision with prohibition? Who exactly is going to get rich when circumcision is banned until the age of 18? Speakeasies for mohels?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
There are direct risks associated with everything including vaccinating your child. We don't, as policy, avoid all risks.
So now we're comparing circumcision with herd vaccination for, what, mmr? Really?
You are not correct about the procedure not being done for any supposed benefits.
And I should just accept your sayso on this? Are you trying not to say that Jews actually circumcise for health benefits not for religious reasons?
But again, that would seem to be the parent's call, and not yours.
Correct, but maybe you're missing an essential point here? The parents are causing harm. Generally we do not allow that.
You're still ignoring the 3 unanswered questions I note. I somehow don't think you're heart is in this one.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Jesus Faith, don't you read? Over 200 babies are killed every year in the USA alone as a direct result of circumcision.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I don't get what's harmful about circumcision, there just seems to be an abstract objection to being "mutilated" and having it done against your will,
Why is the burden of proof on us. Surely the burden of proof is upon those that wish to cut bits off of the genitals of babies to prove it is not harmful?
but otherwise America is full of circumcised men who aren't complaining about it as far as I've heard.
How many would it take before you decide to make lifelong changes on someone else's behalf? 10%? 20%? 50%? Are there any modifications that you would object to? Infant tattoos?
Are you "mutilated" if your appendix is removed?
It depends on why it was removed. The same applies to any body part. If removing the labia, kidney, leg is medically recommended to save a life then it isn't mutilation. If it is non-therapeutic then consent should be required.
Would giving a 4 year old a breast implants be justifiable?
Does the foreskin have any particular function that you think is a big loss if it's gone?
Yes! I'd be mortified if I had to have it amputated. Could you imagine spending your life with your clitoris exposed rubbing up against your clothes every time you take a step. *shudder*
I'd be mortified if I had to have it amputated. Could you imagine spending your life with your clitoris exposed rubbing up against your clothes every time you take a step. *shudder*
In the female case it would be irritating or painful, but I've never heard a circumcised man complain about that kind of experience.
In the female case it would be irritating or painful, but I've never heard a circumcised man complain about that kind of experience.
It's irritating or painful to me when my glans becomes exposed for some reason.
If circumcised men are not bothered by this I can only suppose their glans has become less sensitive due to constant stimulation of that region. That doesn't sound good, does it?
If circumcised men are not bothered by this I can only suppose their glans has become less sensitive due to constant stimulation of that region. That doesn't sound good, does it?
But nobody's ever complained about a lack of sensitivity either. Wouldn't we know if there was such a problem from circumcision? But I've never seen either kind of problem discussed anywhere. I conclude there is no problem.
But nobody's ever complained about a lack of sensitivity either.
Well that's not true. Obviously for those circumcised as children, they wouldn't know as they have no basis for comparison. Those circumcised as adults have been known to complain about this.
Wouldn't we know if there was such a problem from circumcision?
You'd think - but there doesn't seem to be a lot of studies. However, there have been some studies:
quote:The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.
There are a number of papers which either show no difference, or less sensitivity in the circumcised depending on the methods of measurement. The only positive result I could find in favour of circumcision was it increased the time before ejaculation during sex - but this seems to support the hypothesis of lower sensitivity.
But I've never seen either kind of problem discussed anywhere. I conclude there is no problem.
It's a highly discussed subject, that you haven't seen this discussion is insufficient grounds for you to conclude anything.
Again I say, rather than cut someone's genitals until evidence that it is harmful to do so is incontrovertible we should refrain from cutting sensitive skin from people without their consent until evidence that it is harmless to do so is incontrovertible.
I can see that circumcision as an adult could cause problems but I'm not talking about that.
Resenting having your foreskin removed as an infant doesn't say anything about sensitivity.
I didn't have scientific studies in mind, I just thought we'd all know about something like this from the popular press, or even from personal experience, if it was a big deal, and that's what I meant about not seeing it discussed. If it interfered with a man's sex life I'd expect there to have been a big uprising and call for ending circumcision forthwith.
I can see that circumcision as an adult could cause problems but I'm not talking about that.
If it causes problems in adults, I don't see how it doesn't cause problems for children who will become adults.
Resenting having your foreskin removed as an infant doesn't say anything about sensitivity.
But it does suggest one feels harmed, which is what you were asking about.
I didn't have scientific studies in mind, I just thought we'd all know about something like this from the popular press if it was a big deal, and that's what I meant about not seeing it discussed.
The popular press tends to cover news. That NEWs. This is an old discussion - ongoing for at least a century, perhaps more. The press does sometimes cover court cases where people challenge circumcision - or offer some updates on statistics:
quote:The strange case of a Florida mom who took her 4-year-old into hiding to avoid circumcision has rekindled interest in the controversy around the practice.
...
The age gap on circumcision is of a piece with millennials' skepticism about vaccines. Overall, men who have been circumcised don't appear to have many regrets about it: only 10 percent of circumcised men said they wished they hadn't been circumcised, according to YouGov.
"Only", huh? I'd say that's a lot of men when we're talking about a population of 160 million or so of them. If 100 million were circumcised then 10 million Americans wish they hadn't. Since it can be done as an adult - why subject millions of Americans to a lifetime of dissatisfaction with their genitals?
quote:Several factors are fueling the trend, including growing secular discomfort with the practice, mixed data on medical necessity and an American culture increasingly open to reinterpreting religious practices and texts. The percentage of circumcision procedures among the general population is also dropping.
quote:Circumcision removes a substantial part of the penis, which is not just a piece of skin. The foreskin is a specialized, retractable sleeve of erogenous tissue that protects the head of the penis, can be manipulated during sex and masturbation, and amounts to about 50 square centimeters in the adult male. In recent years, more and more circumcised men have begun speaking out in favor of leaving baby boys’ penises intact. According to one recent poll, fully 10 percent of circumcised U.S. men wish they had not been circumcised. Many argue that future generations of boys and men should have the chance to decide for themselves whether something as significant and personal as an irreversible surgery on their sexual organ is what they really want, when they reach an age of understanding.
quote:Men who are circumcised as infants are no less sensitive than those who keep their foreskin. At least this is what Queen's University scientists are reporting in the Journal of Urology after testing 62 men between the ages of 18 and 37, half of whom had been circumcised as babies and half of whom hadn't.
quote:
Having your newborn baby boy circumcised used to be a common practice in the United States, but in recent years, more parents are opting out. According to Charge Data Master, newborn circumcision rates declined from 58.4 percent in 2001 to 54.7 percent in 2010. Yet these numbers don’t take into account circumcisions performed outside of the hospital — such as those for religious reasons.
I think parents realize babies are born perfectly intact, said Anthony Losquadro, executive director of Intaction.org, a non-profit organization that opposes infant circumcision. Although the reasons have tried to be rationalized over the decades as a necessary procedure, I think parents are becoming more educated on the issue.
There has also been a change in the demographics as certain ethnicities are declining the procedure and a cultural shift where parents are realizing it’s not necessary, according to Dr. Andrew Freedman, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics task force on circumcision. Financial access is another factor as Medicaid covers routine circumcision in only 30 states.
Several studies conducted during the 1970s and 1980s confirm that babies experience some pain from circumcision. And even though topical and local anesthetics are used, they don’t eliminate the pain completely.
quote:"To be circumcised should be an informed, personal choice," or so thinks the Danish Medical Association, which on Friday issued its recommendation that no boy under age 18 in the country be circumcised.
Going that route then leaves the door open for the male to make a decision of his own "when he has come of age," says Lise Moller, the head of the association’s ethics board.
And some Alex Jones content for good measure:
"It is basically sexual mutilation" - Alex Jones
The Bible:
quote:Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh...But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ.
™ Version 4.2
(1)