5 ms·

The fact that circumcision of unconsenting infants is legal is insane to me.

tachyonbeam 5y ago
The difficulty in banning it is very much political. You would get massive backlash from Jewish groups, you'd probably get accused of being anti-semitic. Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance.
- gumby 5y ago
  > Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance. Circumcision, and perhaps female breast cancer, aside: the accumulated evidence is pretty strongly in the opposite direction. There have been quite a few studies on the topic over the last 30 years, with little improvement.
- JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
  It's a tradeoff between the equal protection clause (FGM is banned, so there is an argument there) and religious freedom. The former should hold more weight as religious freedom doesn't extend to imposing religious beliefs onto others.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
Cultural mores are a powerful thing. Honestly the sheer amount of cultural cognitive dissonance around the practice was seriously eye-opening on the subject of human irrationality. For instance, my mother is aghast at the prospect of clipping a dog's ears or docking it's tail. And yet, when it came to the birth of her sons the same sense of ethics never registered about circumcision.
- ralusek 5y ago
  I agree that it's one of the best litmus tests we have regarding moral critical thinking.
gumby 5y ago
When my son was born (in the USA) there was an employee of the hospital who mounted an aggressive effort to have this done (doing these amputations was her job). Finally I made her go away by saying "It's his body and he can choose for himself when he is a legal adult". Her disturbing response: "But if you let him choose he will say no."
- rubicon33 5y ago
  I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about circumcision to hold any kind of firm opinion on the matter. That said, my understanding has been that circumcision isn't just a religious practice, there are practical reasons too, namely hygiene. There's plenty of examples where we do what's "best" for kids without their consent. Vaccines for example. So I don't really buy this "their body" argument, although I respect the merits.
  - ralusek 5y ago
    The health/hygiene argument has been thoroughly dismantled. That argument is akin to saying that we should remove people's teeth so that they don't have to deal with cavities. The only time there is a difference in hygiene between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is if they both go unwashed for an extended period of time. I also don't buy these utilitarian arguments. If someone wants to trade the benefits of an uncircumcised penis for those of a circumcised penis, they can make that permanent decision for themselves.
    - leafmeal 5y ago
      While I generally agree with you and wouldn't circumcise any child, data seems to support that circumcision reduces transmission of some STIs > Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60% (95% confidence interval 16%–76%) over time. These trials also found that medically performed adult circumcision significantly reduced the risk of men acquiring two common sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital ulcer disease (GUD) prevalence by 47% and incidence by 48% and high-risk (i.e. oncogenic) types of human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) prevalence by 23%–47%. It also seems to reduce the risk of UTIs > Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections inmales aged 0–1 years by 90%, in males aged 1–16 years by 85%, and in males >16 years by 71%. This data is from a report from the CDC https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456
big_curses 5y ago
Yes, given that the evidence in support of it being cleaner is not only slim, but has been shown to suffer from extreme methodological errors, the resulting situation is that of cultural or religious genital mutilation. And I should add that even if it were shown to be 'cleaner' (as far as the reduction of the chance to contract STD's), I would not find that compelling enough to cut off the most nerve dense part of the penis before the person is able to consent.
- hackflip 5y ago
  I wouldn't need to wash my hands if you chopped them off.

The difficulty in banning it is very much political. You would get massive backlash from Jewish groups, you'd probably get accused of being anti-semitic. Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance.

gumby 5y ago
> Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance. Circumcision, and perhaps female breast cancer, aside: the accumulated evidence is pretty strongly in the opposite direction. There have been quite a few studies on the topic over the last 30 years, with little improvement.
JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
It's a tradeoff between the equal protection clause (FGM is banned, so there is an argument there) and religious freedom. The former should hold more weight as religious freedom doesn't extend to imposing religious beliefs onto others.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

Cultural mores are a powerful thing. Honestly the sheer amount of cultural cognitive dissonance around the practice was seriously eye-opening on the subject of human irrationality. For instance, my mother is aghast at the prospect of clipping a dog's ears or docking it's tail. And yet, when it came to the birth of her sons the same sense of ethics never registered about circumcision.

ralusek 5y ago
I agree that it's one of the best litmus tests we have regarding moral critical thinking.

gumby 5y ago

When my son was born (in the USA) there was an employee of the hospital who mounted an aggressive effort to have this done (doing these amputations was her job). Finally I made her go away by saying "It's his body and he can choose for himself when he is a legal adult". Her disturbing response: "But if you let him choose he will say no."

rubicon33 5y ago
I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about circumcision to hold any kind of firm opinion on the matter. That said, my understanding has been that circumcision isn't just a religious practice, there are practical reasons too, namely hygiene. There's plenty of examples where we do what's "best" for kids without their consent. Vaccines for example. So I don't really buy this "their body" argument, although I respect the merits.
- ralusek 5y ago
  The health/hygiene argument has been thoroughly dismantled. That argument is akin to saying that we should remove people's teeth so that they don't have to deal with cavities. The only time there is a difference in hygiene between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is if they both go unwashed for an extended period of time. I also don't buy these utilitarian arguments. If someone wants to trade the benefits of an uncircumcised penis for those of a circumcised penis, they can make that permanent decision for themselves.
  - leafmeal 5y ago
    While I generally agree with you and wouldn't circumcise any child, data seems to support that circumcision reduces transmission of some STIs > Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60% (95% confidence interval 16%–76%) over time. These trials also found that medically performed adult circumcision significantly reduced the risk of men acquiring two common sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital ulcer disease (GUD) prevalence by 47% and incidence by 48% and high-risk (i.e. oncogenic) types of human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) prevalence by 23%–47%. It also seems to reduce the risk of UTIs > Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections inmales aged 0–1 years by 90%, in males aged 1–16 years by 85%, and in males >16 years by 71%. This data is from a report from the CDC https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456 https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456

big_curses 5y ago

Yes, given that the evidence in support of it being cleaner is not only slim, but has been shown to suffer from extreme methodological errors, the resulting situation is that of cultural or religious genital mutilation. And I should add that even if it were shown to be 'cleaner' (as far as the reduction of the chance to contract STD's), I would not find that compelling enough to cut off the most nerve dense part of the penis before the person is able to consent.

hackflip 5y ago
I wouldn't need to wash my hands if you chopped them off.