Male Genital Mutilation

[Shaker]

To quote from you most recent diatribe  ...  What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others.  What else is infant circumcision than people forcing their own ways on others?

And that, old fruit, is the contradiction to which you will find no resolution.

[Bubbles]

And that, old fruit, is the contradiction to which you will find no resolution.

So we shall just have to agree to disagree.

[Shaker]

No let's not. Let's agree that your statement What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others is a prime example of the practice that you support.

[floo]

So we shall just have to agree to disagree.

We shall, especially as you don't seem to have put forward any reasonable suggestion as to why baby boys should be mutilated in this way.

[Bubbles]

We shall, especially as you don't seem to have put forward any reasonable suggestion as to why baby boys should be mutilated in this way.

It's not that they should be, I'm not suggesting everyone does it.

It's more about letting other parents make their own choices on it.

[Bubbles]

No let's not. Let's agree that your statement What I object to most is people forcing their own ways on others is a prime example of the practice that you support.

No I don't

I'm objecting to people making it against the law, to prevent other parents from making their own choices.

[Shaker]

No I don't

I'm objecting to people making it against the law, to prevent other parents from making their own choices.

The parents are not, self evidently I'd have thought, making their own choices: they're making choices which are imposed upon another, non-legally-competent party without that party's informed consent.

[wigginhall]

I didn't realize that tattoos for children are illegal, although it's obvious why they are.   There are no valid arguments then for circumcision of male infants, except medical ones.     

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which seems like a classic case of using people (in this case newborns) as a means to an end.

No idea what that means or why anyone should feel particularly bad about it if it is a means to an end.

Being pragmatic, if significant sections of a population engage in infant circumcision of their male children because they believe it is beneficial to their child through a mix of religious, cultural and medical reasoning, and if using the tools of science, studies show that statistically there is a medical benefit to circumcising them as infants compared to waiting until those boys become sexually active and hoping that despite the increased pain, discomfort and risks they will choose to undergo the operation themselves before they have sex, it's not really surprising that circumcision is not discouraged by various sections of the medical establishment in areas where there is limited resources, infrastructure and funding to tackle HIV and STDs. They might not actively campaign to promote infant circumcision but they are not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, if they genuinely agree with the studies that widespread circumcision helps control the spread of HIV and certain other STDs in parts of the world where HIV spread is a serious problem.

It's up to scientists and experts to reach a consensus on whether the benefits of mutilating infant boys outweighs the harm. Or if science can't give a definitive answer one way or the other, it is up to fathers who miss their foreskins sufficiently to refuse to have their sons circumcised, I mean mutilated. Obviously fathers who don't miss their foreskins won't be persuaded by that argument but might be persuaded that their sons might prefer to receive drugs to treat HIV compared to being circumcised, I mean mutilated. Unless of course the scientific and medical community reach a consensus that persuades people there is no validity to the studies that show HIV spread in heterosexuals is controlled by circumcision, I mean mutilation.

[Bubbles]

The parents are not, self evidently I'd have thought, making their own choices: they're making choices which are imposed upon another, non-legally-competent party without that party's informed consent.

Modern life is full of such debates and questions.

An awful lot of people maintain parents, are the people to make the decision on behalf of children unable to give consent.

That is certainly the case in abortion, which definately causes an unborn potential human being harm.

Because there is no "common sense" answer  on such questions they are debatable and highly controversial.

A anti abortionist would say you are being inconsistant in allowing abortion as it involves harm to a potential human being.

Some people complain I haven't thought it through, but I have. A lot.

I think that others here haven't really thought through the opposing viewpoint, and what it really means to them.

I've thought through both sides, and have come to the conclusion this is something that can only be decided by the parents concerned.

[floo]

Mutilating baby boys can cause harm.

[Shaker]

Modern life is full of such debates and questions.

An awful lot of people maintain parents, are the people to make the decision on behalf of children unable to give consent.

That is certainly the case in abortion, which definately causes an unborn potential human being harm.

Because there is no "common sense" answer  on such questions they are debatable and highly controversial.

A anti abortionist would say you are being inconsistant in allowing abortion as it involves harm to a potential human being.

You can't cause any harm to a potential (as opposed to an actual) subject.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mutilating baby boys can cause harm.

I think that should read:

Mutilating baby boys does cause harm.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

From the information I have read the only health benefit accepted by the WHO is reduction in transmission of HIV. But this only of relevance in places where HIV is endemic. There is no justification on health grounds from the WHO for circumcision in the majority of the world where HIV infections are extremely rare and transmission far better controlled via consensual methods that have no health down-sides, e.g. condom use.

So in rare circumstances (i.e. endemic HIV) I can see that a case can be made that the health benefits associated with reduction in HIV transmission rates outweigh the huge effects on sexual health. However in the vast majority of cases (certainly in the UK) there is no such justification as the negative effects on sexual health are certain while the likelihood of prevention of HIV transmission is vanishingly unlikely.

So in summary the WHO do not support your view of elective infant circumcision in countries such as the UK.

There is always a political element to policy decisions, in which case parents just have to make the best decision they can while trying to balance the conflicting ethical considerations and with the limited information at their disposal. No doubt when the scientific community reach a consensus on whether circumcision reduces the spread of certain diseases, parents will be able to make more informed choices.

Regarding UK policy, you do know that people travel right? That they don't just live in one country for the rest of their lives? HIV is on the increase in the UK, especially amongst certain African heterosexual communities who travel between the UK and places like Uganda and settle here, yet the resources allocated to tackling the issue amongst these particular black communities is far less than those allocated to other communities.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/10/aids.adrianlevy

It appears that medical statistics and evidence is sometimes buried because it offends people's world view or certain ethical values they hold dear.

Studies looking into the increase in HIV have continued to note that amongst other things, circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual transmission.

[Gordon]

No idea what that means or why anyone should feel particularly bad about it if it is a means to an end.

Being pragmatic, if significant sections of a population engage in infant circumcision of their male children because they believe it is beneficial to their child through a mix of religious, cultural and medical reasoning, and if using the tools of science, studies show that statistically there is a medical benefit to circumcising them as infants compared to waiting until those boys become sexually active and hoping that despite the increased pain, discomfort and risks they will choose to undergo the operation themselves before they have sex, it's not really surprising that circumcision is not discouraged by various sections of the medical establishment in areas where there is limited resources, infrastructure and funding to tackle HIV and STDs. They might not actively campaign to promote infant circumcision but they are not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, if they genuinely agree with the studies that widespread circumcision helps control the spread of HIV and certain other STDs in parts of the world where HIV spread is a serious problem.

It's up to scientists and experts to reach a consensus on whether the benefits of mutilating infant boys outweighs the harm. Or if science can't give a definitive answer one way or the other, it is up to fathers who miss their foreskins sufficiently to refuse to have their sons circumcised, I mean mutilated. Obviously fathers who don't miss their foreskins won't be persuaded by that argument but might be persuaded that their sons might prefer to receive drugs to treat HIV compared to being circumcised, I mean mutilated. Unless of course the scientific and medical community reach a consensus that persuades people there is no validity to the studies that show HIV spread in heterosexuals is controlled by circumcision, I mean mutilation.

Which is all very nice were it not for the fact that circumcision as a religious tradition dates to the superstitions of antiquity and, therefore, was established well before the discipline of science, epidemiology in general, or HIV in particular. For example 'The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".'

http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html

No mention of HIV or STD's.


 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which is all very nice were it not for the fact that circumcision as a religious tradition dates to the superstitions of antiquity and, therefore, was established well before the discipline of science, epidemiology in general, or HIV in particular. For example 'The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".'

http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html

No mention of HIV or STD's.

Ah the Old Testament - that well known book of science full of detailed medical research and explanations. No wait it's a simplistic religious text full of stories, sketchy on context and detail and with very little scientific terminology.

I seem to remember a few plagues being mentioned in it though and I remember a possible drastic cure for one being to kill everyone except the virgin women/ girls - where was the NHS when they needed it? Maybe, given the suggested cure that could have been a plague transmitted through sexual contact but I guess we will never know - given the limited information passed on to us about STDs during the Bronze Age.

[Bubbles]

Which is all very nice were it not for the fact that circumcision as a religious tradition dates to the superstitions of antiquity and, therefore, was established well before the discipline of science, epidemiology in general, or HIV in particular. For example 'The basis for Jews to circumcise their sons is found in the bible (Genesis 17, 10-14), where it says: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; every man child among you shall be circumcised".'

http://www.zentralratdjuden.de/en/article/3734.why-do-jews-circumcise-their-children.html

No mention of HIV or STD's.

You keep on and on about religion Gordon and your criticism of it. It's irrelevant.

It doesn't change the fact that research that has been done supports that it has benefits medically.

Therefore, you have no reason to deny a parents request to do this.

Whether you find their religion barbaric is neither here nor there.

80% of males were circumcised in the USA.

None of that had anything to do with religion.

[Gordon]

Ah the Old Testament - that well known book of science full of detailed medical research and explanations. No wait it's a simplistic religious text full of stories, sketchy on context and detail and with very little scientific terminology.

I seem to remember a few plagues being mentioned in it though and I remember a possible drastic cure for one being to kill everyone except the virgin women/ girls - where was the NHS when they needed it? Maybe, given the suggested cure that could have been a plague transmitted through sexual contact but I guess we will never know - given the limited information passed on to us about STDs during the Bronze Age.

Yep - silly to take these old texts from less enlightened times seriously over two millennia after they were written: sadly though these same old texts from antiquity still seem to be germane to why people who subscribe to Jewish tradition today continue to mutilate their male children.
 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yep - silly to take these old texts from less enlightened times seriously over two millennia after they were written: sadly though these same old texts from antiquity still seem to be germane to why people who subscribe to Jewish tradition today continue to mutilate their male children.

Yep - would be silly to consider them a source of detailed medical knowledge today as opposed to a source of spiritual knowledge and religious identity - anyone who wants a religious identity or a particular view on spirituality might well find something beneficial in old texts. But no, I can't see anything purporting to be detailed or useful medical knowledge in these texts so might as well look at actual research and medical studies and evaluate those as part of the decision-making process if you are a parent deciding whether mutilation is in the best interests of your infant son.

[Gordon]

You keep on and on about religion Gordon and your criticism of it. It's irrelevant.

Not when it is done to comply with religious traditions.

It doesn't change the fact that research that has been done supports that it has benefits medically.

Then why isn't circumcision mandatory if the medical benefits are so significant? Even then this argument doesn't support that the tradition of circumcision predates the medical science as we know it today.

Therefore, you have no reason to deny a parents request to do this.

I do: I think mutilating children is wrong, and if this particular form of mutilation wasn't dressed up as 'religious tradition' it would be illegal on the same basis that in the UK tattooing children is illegal.

Whether you find their religion barbaric is neither here nor there.

80% of males were circumcised in the USA.

None of that had anything to do with religion.

Not all cultural pressures are religious: that the situation in the US is so different from the UK kinda blows your 'medical benefits' argument to smithereens given that both are allegedly advanced in medical matters.

[Gordon]

Yep - would be silly to consider them a source of detailed medical knowledge today as opposed to a source of spiritual knowledge and religious identity - anyone who wants a religious identity or a particular view on spirituality might well find something beneficial in old texts. But no, I can't see anything purporting to be detailed or useful medical knowledge in these texts so might as well look at actual research and medical studies and evaluate those as part of the decision-making process if you are a parent deciding whether mutilation is in the best interests of your infant son.

If you are going to beat the medical drum, as opposed to religious superstitions dating from antiquity, then you need to explain why circumcision isn't medical best practice here in the UK: either the medical argument is a red-herring excuse for those intent on maintaining barbaric religious traditions or else medical standards here in the UK are inadequate by not aggressively advocating circumcision.

[Bubbles]

If you are going to beat the medical drum, as opposed to religious superstitions dating from antiquity, then you need to explain why circumcision isn't medical best practice here in the UK: either the medical argument is a red-herring excuse for those intent on maintaining barbaric religious traditions or else medical standards here in the UK are inadequate by not aggressively advocating circumcision.

Because the medical authorities don't think the benefits are sufficient to force every boy in the country  to be circumcised and so they leave the choice to parents to make up their own minds.
( plus it would be madness to force it on families who don't want it done, just because the benefits are marginal)

Hence those who decide they want it for their sons can get it done. Those that don't, don't.

The alternative would be to make it illegal and then it would be done backstreet,  like abortions used to be. In unsanitary conditions.

Isn't it better to allow those to whom it matters to, to get on with it? Because at least it can be done by a professional in hygienic conditions, with proper medical care?

Your arguments are ALL or nothing. Either you see it forced on everyone, or it's made illegal.

There is a middle ground that allows those that want it to go ahead with it, and the benefits. Those that don't are free not to do it.

I much prefer things as they are now.

I would hate to see such things done " underground in some back street clinic".

What I won't do, is watch people like you, use it to victimise religious people.

[Shaker]

The alternative would be to make it illegal and then it would be done backstreet,  like abortions used to be. In unsanitary conditions.

Abortion is elective, i.e. a matter of choice by an individual capable of making it.

Typically circumcision, just in case you missed it, isn't.

Isn't it better to allow those to whom it matters to, get on with it?

With your customary obtuseness "those to whom it matters" are not given a say in the matter. If people wish to hack bits off bodies for the most ridiculous and spurious of pseudo-reasons they are, if competent and consenting, free to practice upon themselves. I would be more than happy for them to decapitate themselves in the name of their chosen interpretation of some supernatural fantasy, should that be their wish.

Unfortunately for the planet and its inhabitants, the wholly unwarranted respect accorded to batshit insane beliefs means that it's considered acceptable in some quarters for the holders of said beliefs to impose them on others, and for the weak and credulous and lacking in spine to support them in doing so.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you are going to beat the medical drum, as opposed to religious superstitions dating from antiquity, then you need to explain why circumcision isn't medical best practice here in the UK: either the medical argument is a red-herring excuse for those intent on maintaining barbaric religious traditions or else medical standards here in the UK are inadequate by not aggressively advocating circumcision.

Already explained - see #241 and #333. Also as I pointed out policy decisions are made based on ethical and political considerations so medical policies are not as black and white as you want to paint it. If you want to argue it as an "either or" situation, that's up to you - I don't accept your premise that it is an either or situation. If you don't want to accept the arguments I have made, that's also up to you. I don't accept your "either or" arguments for the reasons I have given.

[Bubbles]

Already explained - see #241 and #333. Also as I pointed out policy decisions are made based on ethical and political considerations so medical policies are not as black and white as you want to paint it. If you want to argue it as an "either or" situation, that's up to you - I don't accept your premise that it is an either or situation. If you don't want to accept the arguments I have made, that's also up to you. I don't accept your "either or" arguments for the reasons I have given.

No I don't accept his "all or nothing" or " either , or " arguments either.