Voting to ban male circumcision in San Francisco

[Balog]

Female genital mutilation is in no way comparable to male circumcision. The male analog of FGM is not circumcision, it is castration.

[MicroBalrog]

Yes, within limits which we've had a few hundred years to establish. 

I think a decent test is this - if the medical and social consequences are minimal, and there is a legitimate parental reason to have the procedure, it should be allowed.  I think fistfuls point was that obviously, causing some pain is not a reason to prohibit the practice. 

I think it's clear that there's no actual 'right' for parents to choose freely what procedures their children shall undergo.

Some localities will ban parents from performing procedure X, and others will not, and that's the way it should be. There is no 'right' to perform elective surgery on infants.

It is not legal - even in states that allow some degree of corporal punishments - for parents to dish out groin-kicks to their sons (or daughters) as a form of punishment. Why is that the case?

Female genital mutilation is in no way comparable to male circumcision. The male analog of FGM is not circumcision, it is castration.

The removal of the clitoral hood, unlike the complete excision of the organ in question, does not entirely disable the victim's capacity to enjoy sex. It's not equivalent to the more barbaric practices of, say, Central Africa, or to castration. Not all of these processes are created equal.

[De Selby]

There is indeed a right to perform elective surgeries on children in the United States - the cases recognizing broad parental discretion are more than enough to support it.  Circumcision bans aren't likely to survive the challenge.

Again, it's not so hard to tell the difference between maiming kids and circumcision.  Like it's not that hard to recognize the difference between a groin kick and a spanking.  You weigh the magnitude of the harm against the rights of the parents.

[MicroBalrog]

There is indeed a right to perform elective surgeries on children in the United States - the cases recognizing broad parental discretion are more than enough to support it.  Circumcision bans aren't likely to survive the challenge.

Can you provide me with sourcing about this?

I will be the first to admit it that I don't know much about the legal underpinnings of the issue.

[RoadKingLarry]

 

[De Selby]

Can you provide me with sourcing about this?

I will be the first to admit it that I don't know much about the legal underpinnings of the issue.

Sure.  This will be predictably shallow, but should give enough of a start on the issues if you're interested.  Apart from the religious freedom argument, which is weakened by the Employment Division v. Smith rule (which basically said states don't have to accommodate religious practices), there is an issue of parental rights to direct the care and upbringing of children.  Prince v Massachusetts and following establish that it is a fundamental right, and limitations on fundamental rights have to meet strict scrutiny.  

On the medical evidence available, I can't see any way that banning circumcision against the wishes of parents would serve a compelling state interest.  There is no permanent harm to the child, there's a long history of the practice in many religious communities, and it's at least arguable that it's medically beneficial.  

[MicroBalrog]

Thank you, that was very useful.

[Perd Hapley]

Do you think it should be legal, anywhere in the United States, for a parent to tattoo a child at the age of eight? Or pierce his/her ears/other bodily organs? If not, why?

Not necessarily.

I honestly have no idea where this movement originated. 

Seems to me it is part of a larger tendency to draw moral equivalencies between the traditions of the West and the Global South, to denegrate Western Culture.

[brimic]

I don't have any skin in this controversy.

[makattak]

My position has not changed.

Banning circumcision is foolish.

If San Francisco wants to be foolish, let them be foolish. This is federalism. If someone doesn't want to live under their foolish rules, they can move.

Now, if the anti-circumcision crowd wants to make a federal law, I'd have a problem. Otherwise, federalism means some localities will do stupid things and suffer for it.

[De Selby]

My position has not changed.

Banning circumcision is foolish.

If San Francisco wants to be foolish, let them be foolish. This is federalism. If someone doesn't want to live under their foolish rules, they can move.

Now, if the anti-circumcision crowd wants to make a federal law, I'd have a problem. Otherwise, federalism means some localities will do stupid things and suffer for it.

The problem is that you have several competing individual rights that are, legally, on par with the right to own firearms.  There's religion on the one hand, and the right to make parenting decisions on the other.

Where this problem really gets interesting is in divorces, where one parent wants to circumcise and the other does not. 

[Pharmacology]

 

One interesting point is that probably 99% of the people who signed that petition probably, are probably rabid proponents of abortion.

[PTK]

Ironic, no?

[brimic]

One interesting point is that probably 99% of the people who signed that petition probably, are probably rabid proponents of abortion.

...and possibly have a foreskin fetish.

[PTK]

I certainly have a fetish for intact humans.

[230RN]

I always get a chuckle somehow over January 1st being the day of "The Feast of the Circumcision."

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=FEAST+OF+THE+CIRCUMCISION&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=40d12f84dda1c17c


Next thing you'll know we'll be discussing docking puppy tails and cropping their ears.

 

The real point here, as I see it, is that once again, there's a bunch of noble do-gooders attempting to create a law dictating how others should behave.  That's why it's relevant to the politics forum.

This do-gooding phenomenon is much more dangerous than just leaving the foreskin on.  Where was it in the Bible that someone collected 400 foreskins of their defeated enemy?

Sorta like headhunters, I guess.

Terry, 230RN

ETA Interestingly, at the time of this posting, there were 666,000 hits on the link cited above.

[roo_ster]

Cutting off part of the body =/= vaccine.

True dat.  A vaccine is much more likely to result in a fatal reaction.

Wow.  A thread where I'm in complete, 100% agreement with De Selby. 

It does happen to the best of us.

Yeah, and even to folks like me!

[longeyes]

My wager is on this dispute being about one thing: sexual pleasure preferences by gay men.

[Blakenzy]

Newborns are like fish...they don't really feel pain, do they? I mean if they did they would certainly tell us, right? Hell, pain builds character so screw it...

How about we start at a middle point with making the use of some form of anesthetic during the procedure mandatory?

As far as the medical benefit of "HIV resistance" post circumcision, it only holds true when the population in question has very sketchy personal hygiene practices, to the point that their unwashed penises suffer chronic inflammation due to large smegma deposits and anaerobic bacterial overgrowth. Like when you are left wandering around the desert for 40 years and cannot spare the water for a ... weekly shower?? Anyhow, relying on circumcision for STD protection is like hoping for bullet protection from a thick denim coat. It is a nonstarter from a personal protection point of view. Savvy partner selection and correct use of condoms (pesky as they may be) are still the only truly safe way, short of abstinence, to protect against transmission of venereal nastiness.

Then there is the argument that the foreskin is just a flap of cosmetic skin and that there is no change in the mechanics of sex when it is removed. Others disagree and state that uncut males have a more sensitive.. penis due to more surface area and uninterrupted/un damaged nerve endings and therefore have the potential for enjoying sex more. Some women argue that the wrinkles of the pulled back foreskin create a distinct enjoyable sensation upon penetration. Some women argue that a circumcised penis looks "cleaner" or more appealing. These arguments are subjective and cannot be effectively proven or disproven, specially when most circumcised men never had the opportunity to have practiced sex with their foreskin to compare. Some argue that inelastic scar tissue that is left in an area that is rubbed and stretched causes pain that would not be if the area had been left unaltered. Some people scar better than others. Some argue that circumcision delays ejaculation and therefore makes for longer sex which is good. All subjective arguments. Since they are entirely subjective, should another party, be it your father, mother, legal guardian or gubbermint have power of removing something that is not recoverable, all in the name of "that's how we always did it", or "we know what's best for you"?

How your penis looks is about as personal as you can get and from a personal liberty point of view the decision to alter it should not be made by anyone but you.

[Pharmacology]

True dat.  A vaccine is much more likely to result in a fatal reaction.

Yeah, and even to folks like me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s&feature=player_detailpage#t=3s


Source:


Being a certified immunizer

Baker R. "Newborn male circumcision: needless and dangerous". Sexual Medicine Today, 1979 pg 38

[zahc]

Are there any proven long term effects of circumcision

The main long term effect is having a truncated, scarred, and irreversibly altered penis which cannot be healed or restored.

There is no permanent harm to the child

How could chopping off part of the penis "not cause permanent harm"? Removal of the foreskin is permanent, leaves the penis altered, and causes permanent scarring of the penis and unrecoverable loss of nerves. Saying that there is no permanent harm to the child is just absurd, there's no other way to say it.

[De Selby]

The main long term effect is having a truncated, scarred, and irreversibly altered penis which cannot be healed or restored.

How could chopping off part of the penis "not cause permanent harm"? Removal of the foreskin is permanent, leaves the penis altered, and causes permanent scarring of the penis and unrecoverable loss of nerves. Saying that there is no permanent harm to the child is just absurd, there's no other way to say it.

This is the caffeinated version of what circumcision actually does.  No permanent harm is done in that the procedure has no impact on function (there is zero science behind the "lost nerves" business, and "scarred" is a complete exaggeration.)

[zahc]

I wonder if we are talking about the same procedure.

You do realize that common neonatal circumcision completely removes the foreskin from the penis? They slice it off and throw it away. There is no need to do scientific analysis to establish "lost nerves business". Lost nerves is practically the definition of circumcision. If you can perform it without the victim losing any nerves, well that's a different procedure than the one I'm familiar with.

the procedure has no impact on function

Because you said so. I see. Really, it's not possible to remove a large part of the penis and assert that there is "no impact on function".  It's just absurd to think that.

"scarred" is a complete exaggeration

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=circumcision+scar

[sumpnz]

... it's not possible to remove a large part of the penis and assert that there is "no impact on function".  It's just absurd to think that.

Whatever the loss of function, sensation, etc that occurs due to circumcision is inconsequential for the vast majority of boys. 

Whatever scarification occurs has never caused any problems of noticable consequence in anyone that I've ever known.

If it were otherwise I'm pretty sure it would no longer be practiced.  Heck, it takes a concerted effort most of the time for me to hold out and not finish too soon.  If remaining an anteater would have "improved" my sensation that would not assist in that regard. 

As to hygine issues, one of our friends was a Captain (IIRC) in the Army.  His experience with soldiers under his command was that those that were helmet heads had negliable hygine related issues "down there".  The anteaters had all kinds of problems and regularly were a source of medical attention. 

Also I've known at least a few parents in New Zealand (circ is uncommon there outside of Jews and Muslims) who's boys had constant infections due to not being snipped in spite of VERY careful care being given.  The pain of even one such infection (nevermind recurrant infections) was orders of magnitude worse from the way they described it compared to what my son experienced in his circ. 

[PTK]

...

Your argument is completely valid - that to the vast majority of men, it won't matter. Only 1/6th to 1/3rd (depending on the particular area, study date, etc.) of males are circumcised.

You're also spot on that in many cases hygiene can be improved for soldiers, people in the middle of nowhere, people not able to shower or wash regularly, bums, drug addicts who simply don't care, mentally ill people, that sort of thing. You know, people living 50+ years in the past, sanitation wise. Personally, I'm 100% okay with having to regularly shower.

I must say, though, I have indeed changed my mind on this issue. There should be no specific law one way or the other.



From reading this thread it is apparent that studies have never been done on the pain or memory thereof, or the physiological effects on the child undergoing a circumcision.

Historically, infants undergoing circumcision have not been given analgesia. The rationale was that infants do not feel, localize, or remember pain. In reality, they have all the anatomical and functional components required for nociception, and they react appropriately to painful stimuli.15 During circumcision boys are agitated, cry intensely, and have changes in facial expression. Their heart rates and blood pressure increase, and their oxygenation decreases. Their serum cortisol, β-endorphin, and catecholamine concentrations rise. Clearly, circumcision is painful.

Besides, it's not like approximately 117 boys in the United States die per year due to complications from circumcision, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes.

No permanent harm is done in that the procedure has no impact on function (there is zero science behind the "lost nerves" business, and "scarred" is a complete exaggeration.)

De Selby, have any source, journal, M.D., or anything to back up your statement?