American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Neil]

The US doctors don't have the same racist motivation that Europeans do.

[Maximus]

I think it's a storm in a tea cup. Millions of people live with/without foreskin just fine. I think whether you have it or not has a microscopic impact on your daily life, and everyone screaming, ZOMG YOU MUST/MUSTN'T CIRCUMCISE need to chill the fuck out.

Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.

[Malthus]

I think it's a storm in a tea cup. Millions of people live with/without foreskin just fine. I think whether you have it or not has a microscopic impact on your daily life, and everyone screaming, ZOMG YOU MUST/MUSTN'T CIRCUMCISE need to chill the fuck out.

Agree. Most of the shrillness comes from the must side though, which makes it fun to poke them.

Disagree. As far as I can see there is no "must" side.

Is anyone these days saying that parents must circumcise?

[Maximus]

I'm referring to languishites and yeah, there's a number

[Malthus]

I'm referring to languishites and yeah, there's a number

Really? Like who? Siegy? 

[Maximus]

Seedy would be the prime example. Neil, although he's probably trolling too.

[Barrister]

I'm referring to languishites and yeah, there's a number

I don't give a fuck if people don't get their boys circumcised, and I don't think the other Languish dads do either.  I'm not certain who you are referring to.

[Barrister]

You don't get what Marty is saying.

Let's try to come at it from a different angle: if we, as a society say, that you should not be performing cosmetic surgery on non-consenting individuals (even children), then circumcision should not be exempt of this just because joos and mooslimbs do it.

And I agree.

"non-consenting" is a deliberate dodge on this one.  Infants are incapable of any kind of consent.  Hell, I do things to my 2 year old a dozen or more times a day that he does not consent to - going to be, sitting on the potty, washing his teeth, coming inside.

The thing about circumcision is it is far, far preferable to be done on an infant, and much more problematic if done on an adult.  To insist on "consent" is the under-handed way to ban circumcision.

[Malthus]

In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.

Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.

[Maximus]

The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.

[Barrister]

The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.

Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised?

[merithyn]

The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.

Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised?

Seedy would be the prime example. Neil, although he's probably trolling too.

In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.

Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.

And I agree with this entirely.

[Maximus]

The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.

Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised?

Hint: it was in the post before yours.

[Barrister]

The same arguments keep getting trotted out every time we have this discussion no matter how often they are dismissed.

Don't dodge the question - who exactly is saying children must be circumcised?

Hint: it was in the post before yours.

Neil is undoubtedly trolling - he's posting after all.

Seedy?    I don't think I've ever seen him post on the topic.

[Maximus]

In reality, the debate is between those saying it is up to the parents to choose, and those saying there outta be a law against it.

Of the two, quite naturally the prohibitionists are the more "shrill". They and they alone are motivated purely by moral outrage at the acts of others. The other side is in effect saying that the decision is no big deal. Prohibition requires that the decision be a big deal.

I don't think libertarianism is the default position when it comes to removing body parts. Especially other people's body parts. Somewhere there is a line where it's not ok and I don't think painting concern about where that line is as "moral outrage" is particularly helpful.