Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism and circumcision?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Questions to any men here who were circumcised as children:

Would you sue your parents for the dammage they've done to you? Would you undergo a medical treatment to restore your penis? Do you think your life would have been better had your parents spared you such mutilation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Edell responds to various myths about circumcision in his article, which I mentioned previously, "Circumcision: A Closer Look"

I read what Edell had to say about the "myth" that it is cleaner to be circumcised. He doesn't address the issue of ineffective washing due to penile sensitivity in uncircumcised males. In fact, he comes across as being rather smug in saying "It's hard to imagine how this has persisted in an era of soap and water." What's hard to imagine is a doctor being unaware of the fact that penile sensitivity can prevent uncircumcised individuals (or their parents who bathe them) from effectively using soap and water.

If rubbing people's tonsils each day with sandpaper was demonstrated to prevent chronic tonsillitis, I wonder if Dr. Edell would find it hard to imagine that people would still be at risk of developing tonsillitis in the era of sandpaper. It really shouldn't be all that hard to imagine that just because simple preventative measures exist doesn't mean that they'll be applied effectively, especially if they hurt.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but it's not government's responsibility to placate the outrage of an outside observer.

I'm talking about the victim.

But I guess it's ok for parents of an infant to snip off any little bits of skin here and there to pacify whatever whims they might have. An earlobe here, no big deal. Maybe snip down the nose to look like Michael Jackson. Maybe some face tattoos like Mike Tyson? Maybe the kid will grow up fine. Does that make the Frankenstein plastic surgery moral?

I agree, it's a tribal thing. Humans have been doing all this crap since prehistory. When does the individual have a right to reject this tribal stupidity? Ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was circumcised long before i even knew what it was. I do not know exactly how it affected me but I would guess I would be slightly better uncircumcised. I have never really put much thought into the issue till now but it seems the evidence is pretty overwhelming against it. I do not think it is a huge travesty and would not sue my parents for it, nor do I think it should me illegalized. But I think that now that I know more I would not have it done to my children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I guess it's ok for parents of an infant to snip off any little bits of skin here and there to pacify whatever whims they might have. An earlobe here, no big deal.

Who said it's OK to cut off an earlobe?

Maybe snip down the nose to look like Michael Jackson.

Who said it's OK to snip down someone's nose?

Maybe some face tattoos like Mike Tyson?

Who said it's OK to tatoo a child's face to look like Iron Mike?

Maybe the kid will grow up fine.

No, it would not grow up fine. With the earlobe he might grow up fine, though it's unlikely. With all the other stuff, he's extremely likely to be scarred for life, and lack the ability to lead a normal life as a functional member of society.

With circumcision, they do grow up fine, or at least you have not shown any evidence that there are a significant number of dysfunctional people walking around, because of circumcision. You have not even tried, in fact.

Does that make the Frankenstein plastic surgery moral?

It would be immoral to piece together the bodyparts of dead people to create a conscious being using the energy of a lightning, even if it were possible. Why do you ask, in the midddle of a conversation about the legality of circumcision?

I agree, it's a tribal thing.

Nope. There are no tribes in America, by any reasonable definition of the word, so it cannot possibly be a tribal thing.

Humans have been doing all this crap since prehistory.

How do you know? Prehistory is the time before history. (history=past events we know about; prehistory=events before those)

When does the individual have a right to reject this tribal stupidity? Ever?

Always. But, again, I find myself at a loss, since I'm not aware of the existence of a tribal society on the territory of the United States. Why bring up tribes?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said it's OK to cut off an earlobe?

Who said it's OK to snip down someone's nose?

Who said it's OK to tatoo a child's face to look like Iron Mike?

Who said it's OK to cut off the foreskin?

You, and others, might find Dr. Peikoff's lecture, "Why Should One Act on Principle?," available for free on the Ayn Rand Institute's "Registered User Page" helpful with understanding the need of moral principles in dealing with concrete moral questions.

Edited by Trebor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is completely beside the point whether the foreskin is useless or not. If you are to remove it from someone who can't protest, prove that it must be done.

You don't have a default right to remove bodyparts from people, whether they are vestigial or not. The urgent need to do so must be positively demonstrated, since the effects are lifelong. There is no need to backstab people with this kind of thing before they are old enough to choose for themselves, especially since procedure is unnecessary.

Fact: if circumcision is so good, it can be chosen well in advance of any "problems" caused by an intact foreskin (hint: there are none).

I would never consent to it. Not then, not now. Why should I have been subjected to having been forced into it, and not be able to undo it even as an adult?

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions to any men here who were circumcised as children:

Would you sue your parents for the dammage they've done to you? Would you undergo a medical treatment to restore your penis? Do you think your life would have been better had your parents spared you such mutilation?

1. I wouldn't sue my parents for a variety of reasons which has nothing to do with anything worth mentioning in this thread.

2. I think I would get the medical treatment. Obviously, I'd have to do my homework and be convinced that there weren't risks I wouldn't be willing to take. The cost might be an issue. I'd definitely consider it. But it probably simply isn't a reality for me. I mean, all they would be doing is stretching skin. I guess I have done some research, I wasn't impressed with what I had found. Nothing can bring back that lost skin. It would be purely cosmetic and that was never the issue for me.

3. Absolutely. Obviously, how would I really know? Maybe the horror stories about smegma dick cancer are true and I'd already be dead. But, maybe they took too much off mine or something, I'll spare you guys the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said it's OK to cut off the foreskin?

You, and others, might find Dr. Peikoff's lecture, "Why Should One Act on Principle?," available for free on the Ayn Rand Institute's "Registered User Page" helpful with understanding the need of moral principles in dealing with concrete moral questions.

There is nothing in that lecture that would contradict the simple fact that analogies are not arguments. I can assure you of that, I listened to it plenty of times to be able to.

Here's the most in depth descriptions I found of this logical fallacy , that looks in tune with the Objectivist stance on the thing:

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/analogy.php (this is the simple, less in depth one)

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/...nd-logical.html

Also, DR. Peikoff addresses this "major inductive fallacy" (that's a quote) toward the end of his "Introduction to Logic" lecture.

Basically, what possible need would you have to argue with an analogy, if that supposedly analog thing is so similar to your original thing. Why mention facial tatoos, if circumcision is equally horrible? Why not explain how horrible circumcision is, instead?

Answer: because it's not, and facial tatoos are.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not explain how horrible circumcision is, instead?

Because it is unnecessary surgery, and you want to replace choice with force even though there is no need to circumcise someone, especially before they are able to choose.

Answer: because it's not, and facial tatoos are.

Who are you to force this viewpoint on anyone? Someone who will have to live with your (or their parents') choice for the rest of their life, when there is no need to rob them of the choice regarding their own body.

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have a default right to remove bodyparts from people, whether they are vestigial or not. The urgent need to do so must be positively demonstrated, since the effects are lifelong. There is no need to backstab people with this kind of thing before they are old enough to choose for themselves, especially since procedure is unnecessary.

Therefore clipping children's fingernails, toenails and hair should be illegal, unless the child gives his or her permission, or unless his or her parents can positively demonstrate that those body parts, if allowed to remain in an elongated state, would put the child's life at risk?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm not fine with anyone doing that to me. In fact, if someone told me that I have to go to kindergarten and stay in a litle bench tomorrow, I would be very pissed. I'm an adult, so no one can make decisions for me.

Does Objectivism advocate government coerced "education"? I don't advocate what you are suggesting either.

Children, however, don't have the same rights as adults, because they lack the ability to decide for themselves. Instead, their parents make decisions for them. Not the government, their parents. Even though parents aren't perfect, the government should be limited to protecting children from real harm, which significantly affects their lives, since the government is even less fit to raise children than a couple 'o Jews.
I don't think anything magically happens at 18 (or any other age) which suddenly means one has an ability one didn't have one instant previous. Every individual is different, but there has to be a better measurement than age to identify a human's ability to make decisions.

The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence.

Violence means abuse, abuse means a corrupt custom. Corrupt means to change from good to bad morals. In a previous passage above, I believe I have shown the morality of circumcision in Ayn Rand's own words.

Also, your argument that state protections from circumcision is making a child a ward of the state is plain hyperbole.

The reason for this is exactly the same as the reason for all limits on government: the collective is neither qualified nor obligated to raise a child, but the individual parent is. The government should only step in if the parent is demonstrably neglecting his duties (of raising the child to become a viable adult), in which case they should lose their parental rights. Circumcision has not been demonstrated to prevent children from growing up into perfectly fine adults. In fact, you guys don't even seem to be trying to bring any evidence of circumcision hurting people.
More hyperbole. Where are you getting a child to being raised by "the collective"?

There's a lot of things people could do to kids which would still allow them to be "perfectly fine adults", by your definition. It doesn't justify these behaviors that one might imagine. Why are we willing to settle for low bar of "perfectly fine" anyway. Is Objectivism about exceptionalism or "good enough"?

I want to repeat, I'm talking about protection. I'm not talking about social engineering or what's for the greater good crap. Quit spinning this raised by the collective spit. I have no idea how you get that from one's basic protection.

----Second post-----

How do you know? Prehistory is the time before history. (history=past events we know about; prehistory=events before those)

I said "since prehistory". History has been recorded since (after) prehistory, by definition.

With circumcision, they do grow up fine, or at least you have not shown any evidence that there are a significant number of dysfunctional people walking around, because of circumcision. You have not even tried, in fact.

Show me the people with missing earlobes, etc that are dysfunctional. Again, throw the burden of proof on me while rejecting it yourself. You're such a hypocrite, not this one time, but over and over. Fix yourself before you try to fix me.

But, I guess you win. I'm tired of talking to you. Have fun debating yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Therefore clipping children's fingernails, toenails and hair should be illegal, unless the child gives his or her permission, or unless his or her parents can positively demonstrate that those body parts, if allowed to remain in an elongated state, would put the child's life at risk?

I would ask if you're being deliberately dense and condescending, but instead I'll let this one slip and calmly explain that none of those things are even remotely lifelong in their effect. Full power over them is retained as soon as the individual gets to choose.

Circumcision is lifelong. And infinitely less necessary than well-groomed hair and nails.

Show me the people with missing earlobes, etc that are dysfunctional. Again, throw the burden of proof on me while rejecting it yourself. You're such a hypocrite, not this one time, but over and over. Fix yourself before you try to fix me.

But, I guess you win. I'm tired of talking to you. Have fun debating yourself.

Jake seems to advocate a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want to their children, with the burden of proof on any accuser. That should be the case for most things regarding the parent-child relationship. Food? Yes. Clothes? Sure. Ideas? Definately.

The permanent effects of surgery? Nein.

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake seems to advocate a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want to their children, with the burden of proof on any accuser.

I seem to? Our entire legal system is built on placing the burden of proof on the accuser. I could not be more clear in my advocacy of placing the burden of proof on the accuser.

The burden of proof that circumcision significantly impairs children's ability to become normal adults is on those who wish to make it illegal.

Show me the people with missing earlobes, etc that are dysfunctional.

Why would I have to do that? Are you in disagreement, and saying that there's no risk of that? Your epistemology, my friend, is painfully flawed.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The burden of proof that circumcision significantly impairs children's ability to become normal adults is on those who wish to make it illegal.

And your reason for going through with the procedure is because you feel like it, and that that is important enough to rob the child of his choice?

Because there's no medical reason to do it, and even if there were, it could be chosen by the patient himself before it becomes an issue.

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the procedure is pointless and the reasons for it are arbitrary but making it illegal does not seem quite necessary. Government intervention always makes things more awkward and inefficient and ultimately this is a really small issue. I think you would get a lot further urging free will to do what you will with the tip of your stuff instead of parents dictating what happens in infancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your reason for going through with the procedure is because you feel like it, and that that is important enough to rob the child of his choice?

Because there's no medical reason to do it, and even if there were, it could be chosen by the patient himself before it becomes an issue.

Why the Hell would I circumcise my child?

I just don't want the State passing laws against everything that is pointless, in the name of protecting children. It is not their place to do that: children should be raised by parents, until proven to be unfit to do so. That is, and should be the standard of allowing government to take away parental rights, and it is absurd to say that someone is unfit to be a parent, just because they wish to circumcise their sons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask if you're being deliberately dense and condescending, but instead I'll let this one slip and calmly explain that none of those things are even remotely lifelong in their effect. Full power over them is retained as soon as the individual gets to choose.

Circumcision is lifelong. And infinitely less necessary than well-groomed hair and nails.

Circumcision hasn't been demonstrated to have any lifelong ill effects that are any more serious to the vast majority of people than the effects of clipping fingernails, toenails or hair.

And you haven't demonstrated that circumcision is unnecessary, or that you have the right to tell parents that their concerns about hygiene and disease are unfounded. I have family members who chose to circumcise their younger children because their older children had health issues due to having not been circumcised. Should they have needed your and/or the government's permission to circumcise their children? Should they have had to appear before a government board with photos, smegma samples, documents and testimony from their older children's doctors before being allowed to follow through on the decisions that they made about their children's health?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't want the State passing laws against everything that is pointless, in the name of protecting children. It is not their place to do that: children should be raised by parents, until proven to be unfit to do so. That is, and should be the standard of allowing government to take away parental rights, and it is absurd to say that someone is unfit to be a parent, just because they wish to circumcise their sons.

And I agree so long as it doesn't apply to the lifelong consequences of surgery. Haircut, clothes, even ideology can all be changed without permanent damage. A circumcision, not so much.

And yes, it really is comparable - if not generously - to all sorts of invasive procedures like tattoos, nicked earlobes, streched necks or whatever arbitrary ritual you could think of.

Jonathan: I'll dig into statistics when I can find the time. It's 02:51 AM here at the moment.

Edited by L-C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you haven't demonstrated that circumcision is unnecessary, or that you have the right to tell parents that their concerns about hygiene and disease are unfounded.

It has been demonstated that circumcision is unnecessary, in the case of normal boys. The very minor benefits of circumcision are well offset by the (also minor) risks. So, except in cases such as you described, circumcision is neither beneficial, nor very harmful.

Maybe L-C will take some time out of his busy schedule of making unfounded claims, and look up some "statistics" that will contradict me though. Who knows? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The benefits and harms of circumcision and no circumcision are all fairly minor so honestly they do not affect the argument much. But if the procedure is near useless why have it anyways? And why have parents making permanent choices for a child before they can even comprehend said choices when there is no reason?

I do not think illegalization is the answer but it just seems quite pointless in general and because the benefits are so small or nonexistent I would favor no not circumcising much more than circumcision.

Edited by fountainhead777
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan: I'll dig into statistics when I can find the time. It's 02:51 AM here at the moment.

Okay, but I don't know how relevant statistics will be to my concerns.

If people have the goal of convincing society to generally move away from circumcision because, as Jake says, it's generally neither beneficial nor very harmful, that's fine with me. If the idea is to ask parents to consider choosing to leave the foreskin alone, fine. But if people are advocating the outlawing of circumcision, and removing parents' right to make that decision for their own children, then I think it's an issue of asking government to intrude where it has no place. I don't think that parents should have to seek approval from government about a harmless preventative procedure involving the health of their own children.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read what Edell had to say about the "myth" that it is cleaner to be circumcised. He doesn't address the issue of ineffective washing due to penile sensitivity in uncircumcised males. In fact, he comes across as being rather smug in saying "It's hard to imagine how this has persisted in an era of soap and water." What's hard to imagine is a doctor being unaware of the fact that penile sensitivity can prevent uncircumcised individuals (or their parents who bathe them) from effectively using soap and water.

If rubbing people's tonsils each day with sandpaper was demonstrated to prevent chronic tonsillitis, I wonder if Dr. Edell would find it hard to imagine that people would still be at risk of developing tonsillitis in the era of sandpaper. It really shouldn't be all that hard to imagine that just because simple preventative measures exist doesn't mean that they'll be applied effectively, especially if they hurt.

J

Where do you draw this relationship between uncircumcised males and their bathing habits? In what case has genital sensitivity ever prevented effective washing and caused negative effects? I can assert with some certainty that washing the glans with soap and water is nothing like sandpaper. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you draw this relationship between uncircumcised males and their bathing habits? In what case has genital sensitivity ever prevented effective washing and caused negative effects?

I draw my understanding of the subject from having family members who dealt with the issue of penile sensitivity in uncircumcised children, and from hearing about their doctors' views on the subject. It's not uncommon that uncircumcised males can be quite sensitive compared to circumcised males, and that sensitivity can result in ineffective washing and frequent accumulation of smegma.

I can assert with some certainty that washing the glans with soap and water is nothing like sandpaper.

Do you mean that since it's nothing like sandpaper to you or people you've known, it's therefore nothing like sandpaper to all uncircumcised males?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...