American Academy of Pediatrics: Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks

[Martim Silva]

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.

Me too.

Anyway, I prefer the solution that existed in the USSR: since circumcison was rarely used by 99% of the male population (and nobody's health got any worse for it, odd enough), the procedure wasn't referred to in the law.

However, if an individual did develop health problems due to curcumcision (and these do exist, many appearing later in life), then the Mohel who did it would be prosecuted for inflicting bodily harm.

Also, if it had been done during childhood (i.e. before the age of consent), then the parents would also be responsabilized for submitting their child to unnecessary surgery.

[Barrister]

Anyway, I prefer the solution that existed in the USSR

No kidding.

[Valmy]

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

Indeed.  One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.

[Malthus]

Anyway, I prefer the solution that existed in the USSR

No kidding.

Yeah, why is this not a surprise. 

[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.

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.

Moral outrage is moral outrage. It's a factually neutral description. Moral outrage isn't a bad thing: it is generally necessary to support a prohibition. It was moral outrage that eliminated human slavery.

To my mind, the issue is a simple one: does the scientific evidence show that the procedure is a big deal, worthy of social action and legal prohibition (and yes, moral outrage), or not?

That question is pretty conclusively answered.

[Neil]

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

[Malthus]

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

Indeed.  One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.

[Valmy]

I guess it's laughable that Germans are not really concerned about invasive "medical procedure" that allegedly helps straight men in Africa being applied to their own populace, where virus strains, cultural behaviour and vectors of infection are completely different? Is that it?

Invasive...you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.

I do think it is laughable they made sure their reputation as anti-semites remains as intact as their foreskins though.

[DGuller]

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.

You can make the same argument about any sort of prohibition.

[Neil]

When have I ever demanded that everyone must be circumcized?

[CountDeMoney]

Indeed.  One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.

Hey, my advocacy for circumcision is based solely on the practical fact that chicks dig firemen helmets over snakes in turtlenecks.  You don't want your son to get laid and instead freak chicks out, that's on you.  Avoiding dick cheese is merely a bonus.

Besides, the arguments against circumcision are invalid as they're either 1) from antisemitic Euros who hate the concept of even looking remotely like Jews, or 2) from fags like Marty, who simply like to jam strangers' toes into their foreskins and rub them off like some sort of gay ass oyster trying to make pearls.

[derspiess]

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

Indeed.  One day my army of circumcision revolutionaries will line you all up in front of a very small guillotine.

[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.

You can make the same argument about any sort of prohibition.

Certainly. The issue is whether the shrillness, the moral outrage, is justified and proportional to the alleged "problem".

In the large majority of modern cases of those attempting some sort of prohibition, it isn't.

Porn? Video Games? Drugs? Wearing of religious symbols? And now this.

[Grey Fox]

Snakes in turtlenecks look like firemen helmets when erect.

I never met a girl freakout by it.

[PRC]

I wanted to get my son circumcised but didn't jump on it with the docs quick enough and most of them won't do it after six weeks which I didn't know.  There was one doctor who would but independent reports identified him as a quack so the boy is going helmeted.