SF Circumcision Ban Makes November Ballot

[Yieu]

Ah, please don't put words in my mouth. I have not said "that most humans do not have 10 fingers, and 10 toes". What I have said is that some children are born with more. Who are you to tell me that God did not give these children an additional digit? You are merely taking an observation based on frequency in other children, and somehow interpreting that as God's will. Is that appropriate?

I don't think that dismissing the comparison because it does not involve sexual pleasure is at all an accurate move. You make the comparison yourself to singing fingers, acknowledging that fingers are a part of the body with a high density of sensory innervation. By your own attempts at making an analogy, you acknowledge that mine has to at least be as comparable.

Your basis against circumcision in this post continues to be on the alleged "decrease in sensation" caused by circumcision. Again, studies do not strongly support this claim. Indeed there are studies that do come to that conclusion, but (as I have already provided) there are studies that come to the opposite conclusion. The majority of studies on the subject come to the conclusion that there is no difference. If this is what you base your argument on what makes circumcision "unacceptable", I have to make the point that the evidence isn't there to back it up.

My intent was not to put words in your mouth, if that is how it was perceived. I'm just a little surprised. You don't think that there is a common layout for the human body, and that common, intended layout (not rare outliers or differences from the normal) includes 10 fingers and 10 toes. I had assumed everyone accepted this. It is surprising to see someone say that it is not the normal for a human to have 10 fingers and 10 toes, that really is a different perspective. If you don't feel that the normal human body layout includes 10 fingers and 10 toes, I'm not sure what to tell you.

My basis is both the decrease in sensation, and the fact that it is surgical removal of healthy tissue. Surgical removal of healthy tissue sure sounds like harm to me. Surgical removal of a healthy index finger would sound strange to people, but surgical removal of the foreskin, which can feel a lot more sensation, is not (yet) accepted as strange by many. It is more comparable to removal of one of the 'normal' 10 fingers, than to an 'extra' finger, because it is not an 'extra' body part, it is a standard body part. I see you don't accept that there is a common layout for the human body (which can have outliers), so you likely won't accept my argument, but that is what I have to say about it.

 

[Golding]

Actually, the "benefits" you mention are not well documented. To the contrary, actually. That is why no major, reputable medical organization recommends the procedure routinely. It is in fact a subjective whim. This is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any other country in which neo-natal circumcision is "normalized". There exists NO medical reason for the procedure except for EXTREMELY rare complications.

To the contrary. There are several documented studies suggesting medical benefits of circumcision.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21214659
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844437
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353563
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20519264
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19911990

However, the protective effects are not absolute, and indeed there are also conflicting reports that exist as well. That is why I acknowledge that there are minimal medical reasons (akin to the minimal risks for the procedure) for circumcision. To take the extra step and say that there are absolutely no medical benefits would be as deceiving as if I were to suggest that there are no risks to the procedure.

 

[Yieu]

You know a good way not to contract STDs? Not having sex with a person who has STDs. Or wearing a condom.

Is it really reasonable, considering the facts above, to cut off the most pleasurable part, just to maybe, perhaps, slightly reduce the risk of some STDs... when you can still contract them anyway?

The way to not get an STD is to not have sex with someone who has an STD. Or do we need someone to intervene because we can't be trusted with our own personal responsibility? Circumcising to prevent an STD (which you can still get if you're circumcised just as much) is like having laws against heroin "because if we didn't have these laws, we'd all be doing heroin!!" -- it is an intervention/punishment against the individual, much like an intervention/punishment against the individual by the state.

As for me? I prefer advocating personal responsibility over advocating permanent unnecessary surgical alteration done to you without your consent.

Personal responsibility > Force through surgical intervention/punishment

I abhor the use of force. That is why I abhor circumcision. It is the use of force against the non-consenting innocent, who is helpless to fight back against this tyrannical removal of their ability to feel the natural amount of sensation God intended for them. I find this position to be entirely consistent with libertarian values and the non-aggression principle.

 

[Golding]

My intent was not to put words in your mouth, if that is how it was perceived. I'm just a little surprised. You don't think that there is a common layout for the human body, and that common, intended layout (not rare outliers or differences from the normal) includes 10 fingers and 10 toes. I had assumed everyone accepted this. It is surprising to see someone say that it is not the normal for a human to have 10 fingers and 10 toes, that really is a different perspective. If you don't feel that the normal human body layout includes 10 fingers and 10 toes, I'm not sure what to tell you.

My basis is both the decrease in sensation, and the fact that it is surgical removal of healthy tissue. Surgical removal of healthy tissue sure sounds like harm to me. Surgical removal of a healthy index finger would sound strange to people, but surgical removal of the foreskin, which can feel a lot more sensation, is not (yet) accepted as strange by many. It is more comparable to removal of one of the 'normal' 10 fingers, than to an 'extra' finger, because it is not an 'extra' body part, it is a standard body part. I see you don't accept that there is a common layout for the human body (which can have outliers), so you likely won't accept my argument, but that is what I have to say about it.

No worries. But again, I think you are (certainly not intentionally) misinterpreting what I am saying. I'm not saying that I don't feel that the "normal" human body layout includes 10 fingers and 10 toes.

Here is where I am having trouble following: A few pages back, you were justifying the existence of the foreskin as God's will on the basis that the child was born with it, so why remove it? I posed a question that involved something else that the child is born with that parents might want removed. The condition, seen in 1/500 patients, is actually not all that uncommon. It seems that one of the root reasons for your position is obedience to God's will, which is perfectly reasonable in my view. But what I'm seeing in this example is a shift in exactly what "God's will" actually is. What once was a declaration that God gave the child what he is born with, so leave it alone... has now become "God's format for the human body is what we most commonly see". The former I can somewhat understand, the latter I simply find presumptuous and amounting only to a convenient interpretation of what God's will actually is.

I feel inclined to also mention that an index finger has a higher density of free nerve endings than the foreskin. So the statement that "the foreskin can feel a lot more sensation" is an inaccurate one.

 

[Golding]

You know a good way not to contract STDs? Not having sex with a person who has STDs. Or wearing a condom.

Is it really reasonable, considering the facts above, to cut off the most pleasurable part, just to maybe, perhaps, slightly reduce the risk of some STDs... when you can still contract them anyway?

The way to not get an STD is to not have sex with someone who has an STD. Or do we need someone to intervene because we can't be trusted with our own personal responsibility? Circumcising to prevent an STD (which you can still get if you're circumcised just as much) is like having laws against heroin "because if we didn't have these laws, we'd all be doing heroin!!" -- it is an intervention/punishment against the individual, much like an intervention/punishment against the individual by the state.

As for me? I prefer advocating personal responsibility over advocating permanent unnecessary surgical alteration done to you without your consent.

Personal responsibility > Force through surgical intervention/punishment

I abhor the use of force. That is why I abhor circumcision. It is the use of force against the non-consenting innocent, who is helpless to fight back against this tyrannical removal of their ability to feel the natural amount of sensation God intended for them. I find this position to be entirely consistent with libertarian values and the non-aggression principle.

I agree that not having sex with someone who has STD's is a fantastic way to not contract STD's. But similar to how circumcision is imperfect in its protective effects from catching STD's, that self-made commitment is also often imperfect. I've seen a great deal many patients in clinic who have contracted STD's having believed that their partner was safe (many STD's present asymptomatically). I've had a few patients who came for STD testing because their condoms broke. Even better than a unifocal approach is a multifocal approach (a claim that is supported by the literature), which some parents may very well find suitable for their children.

I should correct your statement suggesting that circumcision removes "the most pleasurable part" of the penis. Circumcision removes the foreskin, not the glans. As mentioned, the highest density of free nerve endings (and thus the most sensitive part) in the penis is indeed in the glans penis. As previously mentioned, the suggestion that the glans "dries" and keratinizes to the point of dulling these nerve endings is unsupported by any evidence. As also previously mentioned, the suggestion that sensation is qualitatively decreased in circumcised males versus uncircumcised males is also highly debatable, with most research suggesting that there is no significant difference.

I certainly respect your decision not to circumcise your child, and that you view it as "tyrannical" and "punishment". But I do not believe that others should follow suit simply because of what you believe. I think that armed with reasonable information (that is, evidence-based information rather than gut instinct) to make a well-informed personal decision, parents are perfectly capable of making this choice. Having seen circumcisions, what it can help against and what can go wrong, I personally do not consider it "tyrannical", "punishment", or at all "anti-liberty". I certainly don't see it as any worse than other surgery with largely cosmetic benefit (akin to the removal of an extra digit). But again, that's what personal decision making is all about. Liberty, indeed.

 

[YumYum]

In the Old Testament God created man perfect with foreskin, then decided later that man has to cut it off. Is foreskin a flaw in design?

 

[Yieu]

In the Old Testament God created man perfect with foreskin, then decided later that man has to cut it off. Is foreskin a flaw in design?

No, God did not create such a flaw. God created us with a foreskin because He wanted us to have it.

Some parents must think they know better than God. Jesus Christ ended the practice of circumcision for all Christians.


And on a separate note, earlier it was mentioned that the government cannot enforce liberty. It cannot, but parents can violate the liberty of their children by circumcising them (non-consensual use of force), in the same way that a police state can violate a person's liberty with the non-consensual use of force.

Stated differently, it violates the non-aggression principle.

 

[Yieu]

What once was a declaration that God gave the child what he is born with, so leave it alone... has now become "God's format for the human body is what we most commonly see". The former I can somewhat understand, the latter I simply find presumptuous and amounting only to a convenient interpretation of what God's will actually is.

I did not mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with removing extra digits, just that circumcision is worse than removing extra digits. I don't see an inconsistency in that.

I agree that not having sex with someone who has STD's is a fantastic way to not contract STD's. But similar to how circumcision is imperfect in its protective effects from catching STD's, that self-made commitment is also often imperfect. I've seen a great deal many patients in clinic who have contracted STD's having believed that their partner was safe (many STD's present asymptomatically). I've had a few patients who came for STD testing because their condoms broke. Even better than a unifocal approach is a multifocal approach (a claim that is supported by the literature), which some parents may very well find suitable for their children.

I should correct your statement suggesting that circumcision removes "the most pleasurable part" of the penis. Circumcision removes the foreskin, not the glans. As mentioned, the highest density of free nerve endings (and thus the most sensitive part) in the penis is indeed in the glans penis. As previously mentioned, the suggestion that the glans "dries" and keratinizes to the point of dulling these nerve endings is unsupported by any evidence. As also previously mentioned, the suggestion that sensation is qualitatively decreased in circumcised males versus uncircumcised males is also highly debatable, with most research suggesting that there is no significant difference.

I certainly respect your decision not to circumcise your child, and that you view it as "tyrannical" and "punishment". But I do not believe that others should follow suit simply because of what you believe. I think that armed with reasonable information (that is, evidence-based information rather than gut instinct) to make a well-informed personal decision, parents are perfectly capable of making this choice. Having seen circumcisions, what it can help against and what can go wrong, I personally do not consider it "tyrannical", "punishment", or at all "anti-liberty". I certainly don't see it as any worse than other surgery with largely cosmetic benefit (akin to the removal of an extra digit). But again, that's what personal decision making is all about. Liberty, indeed.

If you circumcise someone and they feel that gives them some special immunity toward STDs over intact men, they might take more risks and get more STDs. Being circumcised does not protect you from STDs; you will still get an STD if you have unprotected sex with someone who has an STD.

If you claim the most sensitive part is the glans, then circumcision must have taken much more sensitivity from me than I thought, because it's not sensitive, which works against your argument that there isn't much difference in sensation. The most sensitive part is the part near the scar, indicating that the rest of the most sensitive part would be the part cut off.

You mentioned personal decision making being about liberty -- it certainly is. Personal decision making means the decision was made by the individual, not the parents. The parents, or the government, deciding to circumcise you is against the non-aggression principle and libertarian philosophy. I'm not saying others should follow suit simply because of what I believe. I invite them to examine the libertarian philosophy and find that letting the child decide when he is at the age of consent is most in-tune with libertarian philosophy and the non-aggression principle.

 

[Golding]

No, God did not create such a flaw. God created us with a foreskin because He wanted us to have it.

Some parents must think they know better than God. Jesus Christ ended the practice of circumcision for all Christians.

In the same way that you accuse parents of "thinking that they know better than God", I question whether you recognize that you may very well be doing the same thing. You mention that God did not state such a flaw as extra digits, yet people are born with them every day all around the world. Are you truly savvy to what God does, or are you just presuming to be? I'm not trying to be insulting when I ask that, but I feel it is an important distinction to make whenever you invoke God's will into a discussion.

 

[EndDaFed]

No, God did not create such a flaw. God created us with a foreskin because He wanted us to have it.

Some parents must think they know better than God. Jesus Christ ended the practice of circumcision for all Christians.

Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

 

[Roxi]

Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

I still have all those things. My argument here isn't one based on religion. Mine is based on freedom. I don't understand how any liberty loving person, or any pro life person can support the removal of something on a child's body without their consent. What is wrong with waiting til they're older, when they can make the decision for themselves? At least when they are older they CAN have anesthesia and pain meds, whereas as an infant, they generally have neither.

 

[Dr.3D]

I still have all those things. My argument here isn't one based on religion. Mine is based on freedom. I don't understand how any liberty loving person, or any pro life person can support the removal of something on a child's body without their consent. What is wrong with waiting til they're older, when they can make the decision for themselves? At least when they are older they CAN have anesthesia and pain meds, whereas as an infant, they generally have neither.

When asked about that, the physician will tell you, the infant has not developed enough to feel that pain. Of course I'm sure they asked each and every one of them if they could feel it.

 

[Flash]

Do you still have your appendix, tonsils, and wisdom teeth? If not, why are you playing god?

I don't think anyone is arguing circumcision should be 100% illegal. If it's for a medical reason, that's a totally different issue.

 

[jmdrake]

Actually, the "benefits" you mention are not well documented. To the contrary, actually. That is why no major, reputable medical organization recommends the procedure routinely. It is in fact a subjective whim. This is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any other country in which neo-natal circumcision is "normalized". There exists NO medical reason for the procedure except for EXTREMELY rare complications.

Well, while I'm no fan of the WHO, they do count in mainstream circles as "reputable", they disagree with your position, and they're backed up by the latest scientific research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

 

[YumYum]

When asked about that, the physician will tell you, the infant has not developed enough to feel that pain. Of course I'm sure they asked each and every one of them if they could feel it.

I felt it. It hurt like hell and it left a nine inch scar.

 

[Dr.3D]

Well, while I'm no fan of the WHO, they do count in mainstream circles as "reputable", they disagree with your position, and they're backed up by the latest scientific research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

As I recall, that has already been debunked. I'm not going to look for a link to the debunking, but I recall seeing it here on these forums.

I suspect the WHO does it's "scientific" research the same way the climate change "scientists" do theirs.

 

[jmdrake]

Even objectivists are against child mutilation.

Link

So the same folks who would allow a mother to "choose" to kill an 8 month old fetus don't want the parents to be able to choose to cut off a piece of skin. Interesting.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, while I'm no fan of the WHO, they do count in mainstream circles as "reputable", they disagree with your position, and they're backed up by the latest scientific research.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

So? There's just as much (if not more) up to date research that disagrees with the WHO on that. That's why, as I've repeatedly said, NO major medical organization in the entire WORLD recommends routine circumcision-it has no known proven health benefits. (there's plenty of rumors and hearsay and conjecture, but that's not evidence)

 

[jmdrake]

As I recall, that has already been debunked. I'm not going to look for a link to the debunking, but I recall seeing it here on these forums.

I suspect the WHO does it's "scientific" research the same way the climate change "scientists" do theirs.

That's irrelevant to my point. Heavenlyboy said that no reputable medical organization agrees with the procedure. That's different from saying some do, but they are wrong. Using your climate change analogy, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that no reputable climate scientists believe in main made global warming. Some do, or at least they say they do. I think they're wrong and there are other reputable scientists who agree with me.

 

[Dr.3D]

That's irrelevant to my point. Heavenlyboy said that no reputable medical organization agrees with the procedure. That's different from saying some do, but they are wrong. Using your climate change analogy, I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say that no reputable climate scientists believe in main made global warming. Some do, or at least they say they do. I think they're wrong and there are other reputable scientists who agree with me.

Well, the big difference is you don't work for the same people as the WHO and the Climate Change people do. This is why you are willing to disagree. If they disagree, they lose their funding.