Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?

Tim,
You'll have a hard time convincing me that circumcision is harming a child. Are you accusing my parents of harming me? A totally unjustified claim. And no, cutting of a child's leg is not the same as circumcision. Talk about context dropping.

(Edited by D.J. Glombowski on 10/29, 9:22am)

Post 61

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 9:45am

DJ: Are you accusing my parents of harming me?
Tim: Only by implication; wouldn't want to get personal. I think it is immoral for a (properly informed) parent to circumcise their children. There is no evidence that this mutilation is necessary as a general practice. I think that the medical profession has not helped the state of affairs by providing a rather weak justification.

I don't believe that I am dropping the context. An example of dropping the context would be to hold that it doesn't matter what the context behind a circumcision is; a medical emergency or a faith-based act. I was demonstrating the use of Reductio Ad Absurdum to a friend and it must have slipped into the post. To be honest, I've been waiting for my contexts to drop for some years now.

It does appear that most people who support circumcision are circumcised themselves. Tragically, they no longer have the ability to hide their agendas.

Post 62

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 11:25am

Jody,

I don't know. I am no expert on condoms. But, anyone thinking a condom is a 100% protection against irrational behavior may be in for a surprise.

Post 63

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 1:03pm

Jody, what does ESO abbreviate?

Post 64

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 1:08pm

Luke-
Equipment Superior to Operator.

Post 65

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 2:02pm

Tim: Only by implication? Is that supposed to get you off the hook from the accusation? An implied accusation is still an accusation, only more insidious. You are implying about what my parents did to my body. How much more personal can you get?

And conversely, most who are against circumcision are uncut themselves. Is your agenda showing?

Just because you don't believe that you dropped context, doesn't mean that you didn't do it.

And I did notice how easily so-called Objectivists are willing to throw the notion individual rights out with the trash. I swear some Objectivists are worse than Liberals when it comes to dealing with my body or the rights of parents to choose for their own children.

Post 66

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 2:52pm

Jewish women like uncut men because they like anything with 10% off.

;-)

Post 67

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 3:03pm

Jesus Glombowski, I would have thought that giving you that surname was abuse enough to justify Tim's claims.

Post 68

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 3:40pm

Marty, I have trouble understanding your joke. Don't you mean that Jewish women like cut men because they like anything with 10% off?

Post 69

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 4:10pm

I'm coming in here late as I was traveling for work, but I'll give a mother's perspective.

It was something I consciously chose not to do to my son. I wanted as little medical intervention as possible and I used a midwife and doula. I delivered drug-free using the Bradley method, but it was a hospital birthing center and afterwards nurses kept asking me if I was sure I didn't want him circumcised. I felt like I told them "no" ten times and they still kept persisting, but would give me no reason why other than that most parents circumcise. That was not enough of a reason to take a knife to my child.

They say it is a personal choice, but when you make the choice not to, there is much pressure from the medical establishment to do it. To give an example of personal choice in the same context --They don't comment on what you name your kid so why do they try to make you second guess yourself on this, while telling you at the same time that it is not medically necessary to do it? Blank-out.

I do not condemn other parents who would have this unnecessary medical intervention performed on their newborn child or have a medicated birth -- or make choices different than the ones I made...although I do wince at the thought of bottlefeeding a newborn. I also realize that I am out of the mainstream on the baby stuff as well as other things such as being an atheist. I do think that people should always make informed choices that work for them and their situation.

At one time I did consider circumcising mutilation of a child. I've softened my views a bit. Now I just chalk it up to personal choice, dumb decision, lack of info, etc. I think that people just do it because they think that is what most people do. People who don't do it usually don't talk about it. I usually don't. It seems that since this thread is up here, there is still much pressure to perform this unnecessary procedure. That is actually kind of sad that these things haven't changed much in over a decade.

As far as initiation of force... despite my opposition to the procedure, I wouldn't go so far as to call it an act of violence or an initiation of force as it is the parents' choice and the child is their responsibility. It is not intended to harm the child physically or emotionally.

Kat

Post 70

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 4:27pm

Internal Revenue sends their auditor (a nasty little man) to audit a Synagogue. The auditor is doing all the checks, and then turns to the Rabbi and says, "I noticed that you buy a lot of candles."

"Yes," answered the Rabbi.

"Well, Rabbi, what do you do with the candle drippings?" he asked.

"A good question," noted the Rabbi. "We actually save them up. When we have enough, we send them back to the candle maker and every now and then, they send us a free box of candles."

"Oh," replied the auditor somewhat disappointed that his question actually had a practical answer. So he thought he'd try another question, in his obnoxious way... "Rabbi, what about all these matzo purchases? What do you do with the crumbs from the matzo?"

Ah, yes," replied the Rabbi calmly, " we actually collect up the =
crumbs, we send them in a box back to the manufacturer and every now and then, =
they send a box of matzo balls."

"Oh," replied the auditor, thinking hard how to fluster the Rabbi.
"Well,Rabbi," he went on, "what do you do with all the foreskins from the circumcisions? "

"Yes, here too, we do not waste," answered the Rabbi. "What we do is save up all the foreskins, and when we have enough we actually send them to the Internal Revenue Service."

"Internal Revenue Service?," questioned the auditor in disbelief.

"Ah, yes," replied the Rabbi, "Internal Revenue Service. And about once a year, they send us a little prick like you.

Post 71

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 4:58pm

Matthew:

"Ross, do you think a woman would enjoy sex as much if her clitoris had been surgically altered or removed? As I understand it, it's not much different for men."

Matt, you simply can't equate the clitoris with the foreskin. They're just not the same thing. Period. The *glans* of the penis is the direct equivalent of the clitoris. Equating the foreskin with the clit is like equating the ear lobe to the ear drum. Granted, removing the ear lobe may give you one less thing to pull on but it sure as hell won't affect your hearing.

Now, just to clarify my position & going back to the actual question. Is circumcision an initiation of force? No, I don't believe so. After all, we could make a long list of all the other things a parent requires a child to undergo, some of them extremely distressing & involving medical treatment. Fact is, a child is not in full possession of their rights, & that's a subject that's been debated many times before on SOLO. The real acid test for parent-child relations should be: is the action of the parent *abusive* or designed to cause suffering or harm? That changes things quite dramatically.

The import of my post above was to challenge the quite arrogant assertion that cut men are somehow debilitated or are enjoying sex less than uncut men. It's reasonable to say that if all men were uncut then some of them would be enjoying sex a lot more than some others due to a hundred other factors unrelated to the state of their foreskin. I mean, do women with large clits or labia, or well developed G spots enjoy intercourse more than other women? Assert *that* to a womens' focus group and you might have trouble getting out alive.

Ross

Post 72

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 5:57pm

My own parents, although from Jewish families, were much too Atheist to even think of having me circumcised. However, I understand that in some circumstances the effects of the procedure may turn out to have been beneficial.

During WWII, one circumcised cousin from the French branch of my family was an officer in the French army. Then the cheese-eating surrender monkeys surrendered. In Europe only Jews were circumcised, so he knew that he would not fare well as a prisoner of the Germans. He promptly deserted and lost his uniform. Then, having read that some non-Jewish Americans were circumcised, he joined the Foreign Legion - as an American.

He was stationed in the desert in North Africa. After the American landings, the French generals agreed to transfer all Americans to the US forces. My cousin served honorably in the US Army until the end of the war, became a US citizen and never went back to France.

When the French found out what happened to him, they awarded him the Legion D'Honneur for desertion in the face of the enemy.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 10/29, 5:58pm)

Post 73

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 6:08pm

From

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/005664.php

I once had a foreskin wallet, when I rubbed it, it became a piece of luggage.

Post 74

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:52pm

Quote: Jesus Glombowski, I would have thought that giving you that surname was abuse enough to justify Tim's claims.

I don't find this funny at all. You can't come up with a sound philosophical argument, so you make fun of my name!! Worse yet, it gets sanctioned by some coward from behind the scenes. Whatever happened to manners? I am highly insulted by this comment, but I guess that's what I get when I deal with intellectual midgets. Tell me, do you drag your knuckles on the ground as well?

Post 75

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 3:41am

Thanks, Luke. I don't know where my mind was. The joke should read:

Jewish women like cut men because they like anything with 10% off.

;-)

Post 76

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 6:09am

DJ "Whatever happened to manners?" Glombowski - you are becoming a parody.

I suspect the reason my post was sanctioned was because you're getting as huffy as pantomime dame.

You're insulted by my (albeit puerile) joke about your name, and then you splutter about cowards, intellectual midgets and dragging knuckles. If you consider yourself above insults, perhaps you should pause before describing someone as a "so-called Objectivist".

Post 77

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:32am

For the record DJ and Fraser, I was the one who sanctioned Fraser. It was a funny joke. A friendly poke in the ribs. I laughed.

(Like a friend of mine in Brazil who was real short - they called him "half-a-shadow" and "cold shower," this last because they said that he was so short that hot water had cooled off before it got to him in the shower. Nothing vicious and he gave it back in kind and things usually got hilarious - all in a sense of good humor.)

So DJ, if you don't grow a sense of humor fast, you are in for a terrible time around here. Folks are just too good-natured to let your repressive style bullshit blow their high.

Lighten up and you might have a great time - and even do some serious thinking and engage those who do also.

But, it's your life and your choices...

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/30, 9:46am)

Post 78

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 4:26pm

Yes, and thank Galt my parents refrained from initation of force... it's good to get some vindication after all these years.

---Landon

Post 79

Tuesday, November 1, 2005 - 7:14pm