Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
mmmcannibalism

Sf circumcision ban

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I agree. There is absolutely no justification for circumcision. It is a holdover from ancient times when it (might have) served some purpose. Now it's only justification is religious belief, which cannot possibly be accepted as a legitimate reason to mutilate a child's body, regardless of whether or not they can go on to lead a happy life afterwards, or whether "everybody's doing it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons

What has been the medical view of circumcision?

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

Currently, the practice of newborn circumcision is very common. It has been estimated that 60%-75% of all males in the United States are circumcised. This number, of course, varies depending upon ethnicity and religious affiliation.

Regarding newborn circumcision, most physicians today agree with the practice of informing parents of the risks and benefits of the procedure in an unbiased manner. Recently, however, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males. This may ultimately influence some changes in recommendations in the near future.

http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm#view

The judge cited medical reasons not to ban the practice - the judge apparently thinks he's a doctor .

Edited by Greebo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite apart from routine circumcision, I know urologists recommend circumcision in some cases where they think it will reduce the incidence of urinary-tract infections. In such cases, there is evidence that the child is prone to such infections (either pre-natal or post-natal evidence of something abnormal about the urinary tract). Of course, the evidence of such abnormality is in no way evidence that circumcision will make a difference. One can find some doctors who say that many of these non-routine cases are also not really required. Still, I think this type of decision should be kept between the doctor and the child's guardian.

As for "routine" circumcisions, it seems pretty stupid, but I'm not convinced the government should ban it, given that there is little impact to the child's future life.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite apart from routine circumcision, I know urologists recommend circumcision in some cases where they think it will reduce the incidence of urinary-tract infections. In such cases, there is evidence that the child is prone to such infections (either pre-natal or post-natal evidence of something abnormal about the urinary tract). Of course, the evidence of such abnormality is in no way evidence that circumcision will make a difference. One can find some doctors who say that many of these non-routine cases are also not really required. Still, I think this type of decision should be kept between the doctor and the child's guardian.

As for "routine" circumcisions, it seems pretty stupid, but I'm not convinced the government should ban it, given that there is little impact to the child's future life.

According to the episode of Bullshit! I saw on this, there isnt really any conclusive evidence for the fact that circumcision makes any difference at all in regards to urinary-tract infections. Or not according to the anti-circumsion medical experts that were consulted.

As for little impact : Apparenty that is not the case. The loss of the foreskin can greatly reduce the physical pleasure experienced during intercourse apparently. Not that this is a reason to ban it of course, but still.

Then there is all this ( I dont know if it is true, but it is a good arguement against this practise if so ) : http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1110078/dangers_of_circumcision_for_male_infants.html?cat=25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should the parents be allowed to mutilate their child (and lets face, it no matter how "minor" the mutilation it is, it is still multilation of at least that part of the child) in a manner which apparently can have serious consequences later in life? I mean, one can claim that there are valid reasons to do this, but none seem to actually exist. Going to have to agree with TheEgoist on this one. I see no reason to allow it or to object to the ban.

Not to mention, that as I understand the facts, no ethical doctor should *want* to perform one anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Excellent example of a false analogy between a harmless/possibly even beneficial modification and a highly harmful mutilation, beautifully demonstrating, once again, why analogies aren't arguments and should never ever be used as such] I thought of.

Would the same people supporting the legality of cosmetic circumcision support a parents right to amputate their child's pinky fingers?

Fixed.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it should exist. I would hope we would object to the mutilation of male genitalia as much as mutilation of the female genitalia.

I bet that sentence would make a lot less sense to you if common English was kind enough follow medical terminology, and call the two very different procedures, of male circumcision and female circumcision, by two different names:male circumcision and female genital mutilation.

Just to acknowledge that they are in fact not the same thing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read about the history of it and I found it strange that Christians didn't practice until the overlapping victorian-progressive eras.

One article cited victorian era sex norms/mores caused the practice to be spread (anti-masturbation) and then during the progressive era a medical justification was given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read about the history of it and I found it strange that Christians didn't practice until the overlapping victorian-progressive eras.
I've read that the earliest of Christians -- the ones who thought of themselves as Jews -- did use circumcision (as did other Jews and -- later -- Muslims).

A big problem was that It was very difficult to covert gentile males if these guys also had to have a part of their penis chopped off (which is how they probably saw it). So, they dropped the requirement. The eating of pork was probably also allowed for the same reason.

So, I guess these things were finally dropped in earnest with the "Romanization" of Christianity and with it being seen as distinct from Judaism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This come from British Israelism, the same religious philosophy that much later gave rise to Christian Identity, which is probably the worst of the worst of American religiousness.

It is surprising and intriguing however that Americans are the only Christian nation that massively (60%plus) practice the Jewish covenant and rationalizes it medically.

It is just as surprising and intriguing that the most advanced, scientific and progressive nation in the World, the USA is also the only First World Nation that still actually believes in G-d.

Coincidence? Some other explanation?

I might still abstain from writing the name of the LORD but I've always been atheist, and raised as an atheist, and America's religiousness couple with its technological advancement astounds me.

Without alluding to mystic reasons, I'm certain circumcision is not a simple coincidence. I think humans have a natural tendency to compensate.

As for the brit ban, I think it is 1) FAIR, as no child should have to undergo that irreversible unnecessary surgery and 2) unavoidably antisemitic

Share this post


Link to post
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...