Summations Only

Sorry I was too busy to have fun with this rather silly thread.I'm snipped and glad to have it. Ask most women and they'll tell you the soldier looks a lot better with the hoodie removed. All this talk of mutilation and barbaric rituals I find to be a real stretch and kinda boring.Fact is circumcision means more BJ's, and I'm all for that!QED- Oni

Onifre posits: Anecdotal evidence like mine was.... No, definitely not scientifically demonstratum.;-)
but i can hope you continue to get success.

Going to church has a practical benefit? Your first article wasn't even talking about hospital circumcisions. I don't have time to read the lengthier second article, but just looking at the first bit, I notice the following:

quote:

---

Dan Bollinger in "Lost Boys":

​

Boys have been lost to circumcision in the United States from the time it was first practiced to the present day, for a variety of reasons, as the following examples illustrate. The first known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, where circumcision was introduced. The first was Julius Katzenstein in 1856 (New York Times) and the second was one-week-old Myer Jacob Levy in 1858 (New York Times). Both boys were circumcised by a Dr. Abrahams, and the same coroner reviewed both deaths. The coroner found that Abrahams had performed the surgeries properly, and that the boys died from blood loss as a result of parental neglect. Neither boy had received a follow-up examination.

---

Parental neglect? Hardly a consequence of circumcision. And that's an absolute lie. A 100% falsehood. Your first article talked specifically about a particular circumcision practice performed out of hospital in which an infected rabbi was wrapping his mouth around the infant's penis to suck the blood off. Do you consider that proper procedure for performing a circumcision? And when it comes to medical procedures, that is up to the family and their doctor to do. What benefits? You haven't laid out the benefits at all. As ringo already pointed out, vehicle-related infant fatalities are more common than circumcision-related infant fatalities.If someone drives their child to church every Sunday in order to save his soul, and they circumcise their child in order to save his soul; then the benefits are identical.What differs is the fact that, statistically, driving to church every Sunday exposing a child to far more risk than being circumcised.Clearly you're not basing your opinion on any risk/benefit analysis; were you doing so, you'd want to ban the Sunday drive to church even more than circumcision. Yet you keep repeating that "we have determined as a society that the benefits of driving are worth the risk." If that's so, then you cannot be against infant circumcision on the grounds that it's 'not worth the risks'. The evidence suggests that the benefits and risks are both statistically inconsequential and trivial. And so it is, again, up to the parents to make the call. Just like the parents make the call to drive their child to church on Sunday, or feed them McDonald's food, or anything else that exposes children to risks that the children have no say in.We live in a risky world, but as far as degree of risk goes, circumcision is very low on the list.Jon

I'll come back on the rest of your post in a while, when I have time, but just to address this one: Might I suggest that you actually read what I said ? I said "It is possible that every one of those deaths is as a result of improper procedure, but (a) there was nothing in the links to suggest that this was the case".Do you see the bit where I said "every one of those deaths". That means all of them. Not just one, not just several, but all of them. The link which you haven't read yet refers to the author's opinion that there are in excess of 100 infant deaths each year in the United States, attributable to circumcision.Now, when I say "It is possible that every one of those deaths is as a result of improper procedure, but (a) there was nothing in the links to suggest that this was the case" (in response, by the way, to your unsupported statement that death from proper procedure is impossible), it does not follow that I am lying if you point to one death out of over 100 which was not due to proper procedure.

Yes. And in the first article, every single one of the deaths was a result of an infected rabbi sucking blood off of the infant's penis with his mouth. But I didn't read anything in the stuff that you linked to that indicated any of the deaths were from properly performed circumcisions. Granted, I did not read all of the second article. But if there are certain deaths listed there that were the direct result of a properly-performed circumcision, then I'll ask you to please quote those relevant aspects of your source instead of expecting me to trudge through the reading looking for your evidence.

We all have our opinions. The author's opinion, also, is just that - an opinion. What are the facts, supported by evidence, in any of this? So far, I've read of none.

Can you cite one bonafide example of lunatics having purposely caused injury or death via circumcision? How about an example of a circumcision which has not been performed, exacting a precisely shaped cut on the infant with 99.98% accuracy.

I think the debate is about whether we should second-guess the parents. And if we do override them on this issue, where do we stop running their lives?

If you are going to cause pain to someone, anyone, there needs to be a good reason.If you are going to damage someone else's body, there needs to be a good reason. The reason needs to be especially good if the damage is basically unhealable and difficult or impossible to completely reverse.For what it's worth I don't think any reasons that are good enough have been presented in this thread that supports the systematic causing of unnecessary pain and damage that is infant circumcision."But they won't remember!" I have heard raised at this juncture. This principle of course leads to the conclusion that it is morally permissible to torture someone as long as you make them forget.A good enough reason might be medical necessity. But that only comes up in rare cases. There are medical benefits to being circumcised, as there are risks in being circumcised. As far as I can tell, those that have looked at the statistics tend to say these benefits don't justify infant circumcision as a preventative measure.Those that have not been circumcised, who often report that they would consider it a loss to have been deprived of their foreskin. And they therefore feel that people are depriving humans of something they themselves would value, without their permission, while they're defenceless. They view this as abusive.Those who have been circumcised often report things differently. Especially if it was infant circumcision. Since they have never experienced a foreskin they don't miss it. Since they don't feel deprived, they infer other people won't necessarily feel deprived either. Of course, there is a group of circumcised men that do feel deprived.As has been argued earlier in the thread (I think it was crash), it becomes a moral issue: Just because some people don't feel deprived, should we force others to feel deprived?And the argument is often charged with emotion. After all, we're talking about taking sharp instruments to an non-consenting person's genitals. When this is called mutilation or abusive, this is basically implying that the circumcised men's parent's are child abusers. And I can see why this might cause problems with dispassionate discourse.I do consider it abusive. But intent is an important aspect when it comes to assigning blameworthiness. It is not always the intent of the parents to deprive or hurt their child. I still want it to stop, naturally, so I will try and persuade others that causing permanent damage to a non-consenting and defenceless human being is a big moral issue.The real question I'd like to see answered is why the USA is behind other relatively similar nations in the decline of circumcision? In the UK I think the main cause of its decline was the NHS refusing to cover the procedure after a report that the mortality rate was about 1 in 6,000.In Europe in general the rates are much lower than in the States. The countries which are at the top of the league include: Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. All of which have large Muslim populations.In Germany, trying to swing this general ramble back to the specific topic at hand, circumcision rates are about 11%
SourceIn the OP's article the head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann said it was an

quote:

---

outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries.

​

This religious right is respected in every country in the world.

---

Circumcision's legality is not clear in several countries. There are some laws explicitly outlawing circumcision, but there are exceptions for medical and religious reasons. However, some laws such as the UK's Human Rights Act, may actually render circumcision illegal. At this time nobody has tried to test something like this in court as far as I know. Though I believe in most cases, both parent's must consent for to be legal.I'd also like to add this paper, A covenant with the status quo? Male circumcision and the new BMA guidance to doctors, M. Fox, M. Thomson, JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS (U.K.), Feb 2005. From the conclusions:

quote:

---

In conclusion, we suggest that two elements characterise the history of non-therapeutic male circumcision: evangelism and the diversity of justifications that evangelical champions of circumcision have mobilised. Although justifications have shifted, they have generally relied on an enduring association between the uncircumcised penis and disease and pollution.64—66

​

Current disputed justifications follow this trend and centre on circumcision as a prophylactic against sexually transmitted disease, including HIV. An assessment of the merits of the scientific research is not our primary concern. In this regard, however, it is worth emphasising Benatar and Benatar’s conclusion, following their review of the literature, that none of the scientific evidence ‘‘is anywhere near conclusive’’ (p. 42)

---

It is my view, that before taking a knife to a person's genitals...one should have evidence that is very clear that what you are doing has a net benefit.And this paper seems to agree with this principle:

quote:

---

This promotion of circumcision as a prophylactic raises wider questions about subjecting children to invasive procedures on the grounds of public health. It is generally accepted that medical intervention is ethically permissible only in response to verifiable disease, deformity, or injury. In addition, the therapeutic intervention must be reasonably believed to result in a net benefit to the patient. While prophylactic interventions are obvious exceptions to this principle, they are justifiable only where deemed to be in the individual’s best interests or where aimed at avoiding a significant public health disaster. It has been convincingly agued in this journal that, when a procedure is to be performed on children who are unable to give informed consent, a higher level of scrutiny is demanded.

---

quote:

---

Circumcision has long existed as a procedure in need of a justification. The most recent focus on sexually transmitted diseasenotably with regard to HIV/AIDSneeds to be assessed in light of this. It is our contention that no convincing medical justification for this practice exists. In the absence of unequivocal evidence of medical benefit, we would argue that it is ethically inappropriate to subject a child to the acknowledged risks of infant male circumcision. Having reached this position, the emerging consensus, whereby parental choice holds sway, appears ethically indefensible; nor, given emerging principles and practice governing medical decision making involving children, is there any compelling legal authority for the view that it is lawful.

---

It's difficult to tell. I guess big things do tend to start like this, but so do teapot storms. Circumcision advocacy is quite the minority here in Europe, and anti-circumcision voices seem to be becoming louder. In Holland I guess it's just Ayan Hirsi Ali that's called for it (who was in any position at all to do anything about it). But with a vaguely united Europe, if Germany does end up adopting the legal principle of

quote:

---

{the} fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweigh{s} the fundamental rights of the parents

---

I could believe this might influence laws in other countries.

That is because a few minutes after birth your sons were given a Vit-K shot which activates their ability to clot. Without that shot, the body starts to produce it on its own in....about a week.Coincidence or divine revelation?Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

Total crap. Death from infection after a proper circumcision is not unknown.No one is trying to make a boogey man out of circumcision in terms of death rates but the rate is NOT 0% even when the procedure is performed properly.From wikipedia:
Circumcision - Wikipedia it is NOT an impossible side effect.

I have a feeling it was unfortunately learned through grisly experience.

A VERY good point. Bravo. I am glad that someone else understand the concept of risk-vs-reward.

I haven't heard of that idea before. I don't endorse either circumcision or religion but I'm glad to see you're consistent.

In 3001: The Final Odyssey Frank Poole has been brought back. One of the things I remember about this book is an experience FP had with a woman who was horrified to see how he was mutilated/disfigured.