The dichotomy of various groups never ceases to amaze me

[FMCoug]

I bet these are the same people who say you shouldn't legislate social issues. And of course the other side is the same way. Legislate the hell out of social issues but say they believe in limited government.

Note that this post is not pro or con circumcision ... I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[RobinFinderson]

I am against customary circumcision, and would even support a ban if I didn't think that the backlash would create a bigger problem than the custom. Foreskin is there for a reason. Boys should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not the alleged medical benefits of having it removed outweigh the potential cons.

[FMCoug]

I am against customary circumcision, and would even support a ban if I didn't think that the backlash would create a bigger problem than the custom. Foreskin is there for a reason. Boys should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not the alleged medical benefits of having it removed outweigh the potential cons.

Like I said for me this is not really about the practice. But the idea of a law banning it. Where do you draw the line on what parents get to decide for minors?

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am against customary circumcision, and would even support a ban if I didn't think that the backlash would create a bigger problem than the custom. Foreskin is there for a reason. Boys should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not the alleged medical benefits of having it removed outweigh the potential cons.

The medical benefits are not "alleged". The question is whether they are substantial enough to warrant the procedure.

[RobinFinderson]

Like I said for me this is not really about the practice. But the idea of a law banning it. Where do you draw the line on what parents get to decide for minors?

Child mutilation seems like a pretty good line. For example, if a woman had breast cancer and had to have a mastectomy, and if both her mother and grandmother had died of breast cancer, she might reasonably conclude that she would pass on a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Now, imagine the uproar if parents were to perform an infant mastectomy, preventing the girl from ever developing breasts. How would the reasoning behind this hypothetical be different than the reasoning employed by those who circumcise based on the few health benefits that are experienced by a tiny fraction of all circumcised boys?

Circumcision for aesthetic reasons, imo, is indefensible in the same what it would be wrong to tattoo a baby's face. Body mutilation is a choice for ADULTS to make about their OWN bodies.

[FMCoug]

Child mutilation seems like a pretty good line. For example, if a woman had breast cancer and had to have a mastectomy, and if both her mother and grandmother had died of breast cancer, she might reasonably conclude that she would pass on a genetic predisposition to breast cancer. Now, imagine the uproar if parents were to perform an infant mastectomy, preventing the girl from ever developing breasts. How would the reasoning behind this hypothetical be different than the reasoning employed by those who circumcise based on the few health benefits that are experienced by a tiny fraction of all circumcised boys?

Circumcision for aesthetic reasons, imo, is indefensible in the same what it would be wrong to tattoo a baby's face. Body mutilation is a choice for ADULTS to make about their OWN bodies.

Piercings? Tattoos? Slippery slope. The bottom lline is this is all about what is considered "normal". People see no issue at all with piercing a baby girl's ears. Is that not "mutiliation" too as you define it?

I'm just becoming more and more libertarian as the years go on.

[RobinFinderson]

Piercings? Tattoos? Slippery slope. The bottom lline is this is all about what is considered "normal". People see no issue at all with piercing a baby girl's ears. Is that not "mutiliation" too as you define it?

I'm just becoming more and more libertarian as the years go on.

Tattooing babies is bad. Piercing ears is also a mutilation, but it isn't disfiguring, and a child who decides in the future that she doesn't want to wear earrings can easily stop wearing them, and no one will know.

But there are adults who have chosen to be circumcised, and from what I have casually read over the years (primarily in reading about circumcision) is that sex is drastically different after circumcision. It is a disfiguring choice, and that is where I personally draw the line.

[doctorcoug]

Sex is drastically different after circumcision.

Sex is awesome without it; I don't buy this argument. I actually think that anti-circ groups use it as a guilt trip for parents. "you don't want to ruin his sex life, do you?"

[Northwestcoug]

I won't argue about the ethics of infant circumcision. I can be swayed by either side. But as JIC said, the health benefits are more than 'alleged'. There are people in the know who believe that mass circumcision in 3rd world countries would dramatically cut HIV transmission. The same probably goes for HPV.

[Uncle Ted]

I bet these are the same people who say you shouldn't legislate social issues. And of course the other side is the same way. Legislate the hell out of social issues but say they believe in limited government.

Note that this post is not pro or con circumcision ... I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Apparently California doesn't want to wait any longer for its "Brave New World". The next you know the government will want their citizens to hand their children over to the "Hatcheries and Conditioning Centers" so they can raise them.

If the government wants to do a public service then they should educate their citizens so they can make informed decisions for themselves. If a citizen doesn't want to wear a seatbelt, for example, then let darwinism take its course.

[Katy Lied]

Boys should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not the alleged medical benefits of having it removed outweigh the potential cons.

Listened to an interview with this fellow. He is very persuasive and actually makes a living restoring foreskins, a procedure he has done on himself.

The interviewer asked him if viable fetuses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be aborted. The point the interviewer was making was that if a mothers right to choose to abort the baby takes precedence over the baby's right to life, than using the same logic couldn't a parent's right to choose circumcision take precedence over the baby's right to be intact.

[RobinFinderson]

Listened to an interview with this fellow. He is very persuasive and actually makes a living restoring foreskins, a procedure he has done on himself.

The interviewer asked him if viable fetuses should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be aborted. The point the interviewer was making was that if a mothers right to choose to abort the baby takes precedence over the baby's right to life, than using the same logic couldn't a parent's right to choose circumcision take precedence over the baby's right to be intact.

To me that just seems like a bad argument. In the eyes of the law (which is what we are talking about), fetuses have no rights. That is why abortion isn't murder. A child has rights. I would think that the right to not getting disfigured by your parents should be one of them.

[Katy Lied]

To me that just seems like a bad argument. In the eyes of the law (which is what we are talking about), fetuses have no rights. That is why abortion isn't murder. A child has rights. I would think that the right to not getting disfigured by your parents should be one of them.

You want to avoid the abortion question based on current law, to assume away the ethical consideration.

You want to examine the circumcision question, to question whether the current law (allowing it) is ethical.

[PaloAltoCougar]

To me that just seems like a bad argument. In the eyes of the law (which is what we are talking about), fetuses have no rights. That is why abortion isn't murder. A child has rights. I would think that the right to not getting disfigured by your parents should be one of them.

Well, not exactly... Though possessing fewer rights than living children, fetuses do possess certain rights, and those rights increase as the pregnancy progresses (hence the trimester differences in Roe v. Wade). And while children do possess some rights, for some very good reasons those rights are much more restricted than those accorded to adults.

Whether the law should be changed to prevent children from being "disfigured" is worthy of discussion. But I can't be dismissive of the "bad argument" that a law to prevent fetuses from being "killed" is similarly discussion-worthy. And I'm pro-choice.

And btw, venturing into territory I (and certainly any family members who may read this) will no doubt regret, I have to admit I don't understand the intactivist argument that one's sex life will be much, much better if one hasn't been trimmed. Like nearly all males of my generation, I was "disfigured," and I'm very skeptical that my, uh, experiences could be any better if I still had a hoodie. If it were, I'd probably never go to the office.

I was also going to mention my indifference on the circ issue, but I kept expressing that neutrality in terms of not feeling much one way or the other, or at my age not having any skin in the game, so I decided to cut my post short.

[TripletDaddy]

Typical PAC. Hiding under the covers at the first sign of discomfort.