Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?

Bill:
     Re the infant, granted, 'force' (much less 'initation') is practically meaningless, since there's no overtly obvious 'resistance' to whatever's being done (unless 'crying' is considered resistance, but, I see no need to quibble.)

     Re the 5-yr old, you agree that it's force used, but, not the initiation of it. Ok. I presume that you'd agree we're talking about 'against his will' (given my example re 'dragging'), ergo...it's only against 'adults' (however that slippery term is PROPERLY, meaningfully, definable) that the O'ist/libertarian of 'force' is meant? Really? I didn't know that the term was always assumed as 'maturity'-relevent ONLY (and 'maturity', like 'adult' is just as slippery.) --- Given your view, though, since this is what you call 'defensive force' in the context of 'property,' I have 2 questions:

    1) Who, and/or what, (other than the child's will, which gets back to the O'ism def that you mentioned) is the 'defense' against?

     2) Are you really ready to argue that children are PROPERLY (within O'ist framework or other) to be considered...'property'?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 11/10, 6:35pm)

Post 101

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:46pm

Hi Guys...new here!
I was reading through forums, and found this topic to 'spark' if you will some personal thoughts on the issue.
From a mother standpoint..I circumcized my sons. Well, not personally, but it was done within 24 hours of both of their births. Neither experienced any complications, although I'm sure there are cases as with any procedure. Not for religious reasons, I guess it's just socially something we think to do.(?) From a females perspective, I thought it 'looked' better, and that it was what my sons would want, and I was taught it was 'cleaner'. I will say for diaper changing it was much easier not to have to 'push' the skin down for proper, thorough cleaning to prevent infection on the helpless infant. (sorry if graphic :-x) However, from a females perspective as well-there is no difference to us in 'feeling', so maybe it should be up to the male if men agree that circumcision absolutely does not in anyway affect the penis, cleanliness, sensitivity, then what's the point, right? I chose to do it asap so that my infants would not remember the procedure. My ex-husband says he doesn't remember a thing, but for whatever reason is glad it was performed. I have heard that research has shown a significant decrease in STD's since the procedure became more commonly performed in N. America.
I don't see how an actual argument can be made however by any one other than males who have and have not had the procedures as adults or at least able to have had both ways and remember in order to be able to debate though! Just M.O.!

Post 102

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:21pm

John Dailey wrote,

"Re the infant, granted, 'force' (much less 'initiation') is practically meaningless, since there's no overtly obvious 'resistance' to whatever's being done (unless 'crying' is considered resistance, but, I see no need to quibble.)."

Again, "force" in this context refers to compulsion, and compulsion is always against the will or consent of the person who is being compelled. If there is no intelligent will or informed consent present, then there can be no compulsion. In order to say that the baby is being compelled to do X, we'd have to say that he understands what X is and does not consent to it. Suppose, for example, we were able to leap forward in time and ask the boy at the age of (say) 20 if he would have wanted to be circumcised as an infant. He might say yes, assuming that he understands what the costs and benefits are, or he might say no. But as a baby, he can say neither, so circumcising him cannot be said to violate his wishes or interfere with his will to remain intact. Therefore, it cannot be regarded as instance of force or compulsion.

John wrote, "Re the 5-yr old, you agree that it's force used, but, not the initiation of it."

Correct.

He continued, "Ok. I presume that you'd agree we're talking about 'against his will' (given my example re 'dragging'), ergo...it's only against 'adults' (however that slippery term is PROPERLY, meaningfully, definable) that the O'ist/libertarian of 'force' is meant? Really?

Not entirely. It depends on what aspects of the child's action are regarded as within his sphere of autonomy. He has a circumscribed or qualified freedom of action, but not full and complete freedom, because since his parents are ultimately responsible for his welfare, they must require that he behave in a manner that is consistent with his proper development and well being. For example, they cannot allow their five-year old child to take drugs, have sex with an adult, stay out until all hours of the night, etc. But they also cannot properly interfere with his action if it isn't detrimental to him.

John continued, "I didn't know that the term was always assumed as 'maturity'-relevent ONLY (and 'maturity', like 'adult' is just as slippery.) --- Given your view, though, since this is what you call 'defensive force' in the context of 'property,' I have 2 questions:

"1) Who, and/or what, (other than the child's will, which gets back to the O'ism def that you mentioned) is the 'defense' against?"

Well, it is against the child insofar as he refuses to obey the parents' rational decisions as to what is appropriate for him. For example, if the child refuses to go to the dentist and physically resists by throwing a temper tantrum, then the parents have a right to enforce their decision. Since they are responsible for the child's welfare, the child has no right to ignore their decision to provide proper care for him. Once he reaches maturity and becomes responsible for his own welfare, then he acquires complete autonomy. When exactly that is is a matter of controversy, but it is probably somewhere in the early 20's, since the brain's frontal lobes do not fully mature until young adulthood. This was confirmed by UCLA researchers, who compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16. They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex is thought to relate to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions.

Another series of MRI studies showed that teens process emotions differently than adults. Using functional MRI, a team of scientists at Harvard's McLean Hospital scanned subjects' brain activity while the subjects identified emotions on pictures of faces that were displayed on a computer screen. Young teens, who characteristically perform poorly on the task, activated the amygdala, a brain center that mediates fear and other "gut" reactions, more than the frontal lobe. As teens grow older, their brain activity during this task tends to shift to the frontal lobe, leading to more reasoned perceptions and improved performance. Similarly, the researchers saw a shift in activation from the temporal lobe to the frontal lobe during a language skills task, as teens got older. These functional changes were parallel to structural changes occurring in the brain's temporal lobe.

So there is some pretty good evidence that children aren't fully mature mentally and emotionally until they are out of their teens.

John continued, "2) Are you really ready to argue that children are PROPERLY (within O'ist framework or other) to be considered...'property'?"

No, not property. Rather than the parents being the owners of their children, they are more properly to be considered their guardians or custodians, who are responsible for ensuring the children's proper development.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/12, 9:29pm)

Post 103

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:25pm

A good book covering some of this is Peter Breggin's Psychology of Freedom...

Post 104

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:20pm

Bill - you write, "This was confirmed by UCLA researchers, who compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16. They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex is thought to relate to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions."

"Is thought" by whom?

Living organs change all the time, but change can be degenerative as easily as developmental. In evolutionary time, 30 was near the end of the normal human lifespan.

How was "myelin" measured? Until the last few years, MRI could not distinguish between myelin and other fat, such as fatty plaques in the brain or fatty deposits in blood vessels. Without knowing more about the apparatus and method of measurement, one cannot even tell how much of the change was myelin.

Even if it was an actual measurement of myelin, it is not clear that the increase was necessarily beneficial. There is an optimum thickness of myelin sheaths; any additional myelin growth beyond that optimum thickness would be degenerative.

It is not possible to reasonably interpret MRI results without also observing, and measuring, the actual performance - in this case, on tests of social cognition - and its correlation, if any, with the measured physiological changes. I would be very wary of any claim, of the kind that you make here, without corresponding tests of social cognition.

And, as an individualist, you ought to remember that averages do NOT imply anything for specific cases. If the parents disapprove of secular education, and their teenage daughter wishes to study science, the average levels of myelin in adult and teenage brains will tell us exactly nothing about who is right and who is wrong.

Context etc.

Post 105

Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:38pm

Adam Reed wrote, "Bill - you write, "This was confirmed by UCLA researchers, who compared MRI scans of young adults, 23-30, with those of teens, 12-16. They looked for signs of myelin, which would imply more mature, efficient connections, within gray matter. As expected, areas of the frontal lobe showed the largest differences between young adults and teens. This increased myelination in the adult frontal cortex is thought to relate to the maturation of cognitive processing and other "executive" functions."

Adam, replied, "'Is thought' by whom?"

By the researchers.

He continues, "Living organs change all the time, but change can be degenerative as easily as developmental. In evolutionary time, 30 was near the end of the normal human lifespan. How was 'myelin' measured? Until the last few years, MRI could not distinguish between myelin and other fat, such as fatty plaques in the brain or fatty deposits in blood vessels. Without knowing more about the apparatus and method of measurement, one cannot even tell how much of the change was myelin."

Here is the reference in case you want to evaluate their findings: Sowell ER, Thompson PM, Holmes CJ, et al. "In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontal and striatal regions." Nature Neuroscience, 1999; 2(10): 859-61.

You write, "Even if it was an actual measurement of myelin, it is not clear that the increase was necessarily beneficial. There is an optimum thickness of myelin sheaths; any additional myelin growth beyond that optimum thickness would be degenerative."

I assume they considered this and did not expect the changes to be degenerative in young adults.

You continue, "It is not possible to reasonably interpret MRI results without also observing, and measuring, the actual performance - in this case, on tests of social cognition - and its correlation, if any, with the measured physiological changes. I would be very wary of any claim, of the kind that you make here, without corresponding tests of social cognition."

Well, there was the other functional MRI test done at the Harvard hospital that correlated the poor performance of teens in identifying emotions with the activation of the amygdala and better performance in young adults with the activation of the frontal lobe.

You wrote, "And, as an individualist, you ought to remember that averages do NOT imply anything for specific cases. If the parents disapprove of secular education, and their teenage daughter wishes to study science, the average levels of myelin in adult and teenage brains will tell us exactly nothing about who is right and who is wrong."

I agree. I was in no way suggesting adults always make the right decision and children the wrong one; only that there is a reasonable period of developmental dependency during which children can, within reason, be subject to the care and supervision of their parents, and that this dependency correlates with an ongoing process of brain development and maturation that lasts until the late teens or early twenties.

- Bill

Post 106

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 5:14am

Question - is this a late phenomenom or an inherent one? the history of humanity in terms of pre-20yo's under parental care till then is a recent one, very recent - how, then is this to tally with history of humanity wherein most who were more than serfs had long left their fold and were on their productive own?

Post 107

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 7:02am

You know what I was thinking? Parents who really care should probably take the extra step to shave their children's heads. Monks and gangsters have been doing this for years with no harmful effects. It has been shown that hairless children have a much lower risk of contracting head lice which is rampant in the child population. Later in life, they will run a lower risk of dandruff, and won't get too overheated in the sun. A hat easily remedies any cold or discomfort they may experience occasionally, and unlike circumcision, they can always grow it back when they are old enough to make their own decisions.

Post 108

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:15am

Ashley,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm that was funny!

Michael

Post 109

Monday, November 14, 2005 - 9:39am

Ashley,

That's exactly what my Dad did when my brother and I were small. We've got a bunch of bald-headed kid pictures and we saved a lot on haircuts.

Jim

Post 110

Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:40pm

Bill:

You explain...

"...if the child refuses to go to the dentist and physically resists by throwing a termper tantrum, then the parents have a right to enforce their decision."

     I have no argument there, man.

     However, given that we're talking about the parent/guardian's decision of what the child is-required/must do, we are back to the idea that the parent/guardian IS initiating force (as in "enforce") upon the child, since the child is resisting the directive, correct? (Here, I'm including our Federal 'guardian' taking care of Elian).

     As to arguments about how to properly define 'maturity' vs. 'childness', I think we have to discuss a bit more than a study at UCLA, but, that's really neither here nor there re force-applied-to-obvious-kids.

LLAP
J:D

Post 111

Saturday, November 19, 2005 - 11:35pm

I haven't been cut and know the advantage of not being cut. I threatened to suit the local medical association and the doctor if my ex wife gave permission to have the barbaric procedure done on our son and if I was not consulted.

They did a different procedure and cut a straight line underneath where the skin just flips open and the foreskin is still intact.

The bible says this was a covenant given to the Jews and if not circumcised do not do it!

The reasons I have heard for doing it are ignorant.

If the same is did to a woman like they do in Africa the practice would stop!

If I had the backing I would have took it to court.

Reaction by the rest of the world

"The United Nations has supported the right of member states to grant refugee status to women who fear being mutilated if they are returned to their country of origin. Canada has granted such status to women in this situation. A judge of a Canadian Federal Court declared it a "cruel and barbaric practice."
In 1994 CNN broadcast footage of the circumcision of a 10 year old Egyptian girl by an unskilled practitioner. This program drew international attention to the operation. A 500 million dollar lawsuit was brought against CNN for allegedly damaging Egypt's reputation, It was rejected by the courts.
In the West, the procedure is outlawed in Britain, Canada, France, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. A US federal bill, "Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation of 1995" was passed in 1996-SEP. Section 273.3 of the Canadian Criminal Code protects children who are ordinarily resident in Canada, (as citizens or landed migrants) from being removed from the country and subjected to FGM. In the US and Canada, the very small percentage of immigrants who wish to continue the practice often find it impossible to find a doctor who will cooperate. The operation is often done in the home by the family. "

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm

The United States grants refugee status to women for fear of being mutilated but yet the practice goes on here.

I have some harsh words on this subject but I will keep them to myself.

(Edited by Silas Geronimo Sconiers on 11/20, 9:28pm)

Post 112

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 5:50pm

Silas:

Clearly, for females, all are aware that clitoridectomy (or 3rd-world equivalence) results in a clear and unequivocal dysfunctioning of the organs, hence, little disagreement as to it's 'barbaricness'...by civilized societies anyway.

But, for males, circumcision is never debated in that framework; merely it's alleged 'hygienic' benefits, or, it's non-dangerous 'religious' practice, ergo...it's still allowed.

LLAP
J:D

Post 113

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 9:27pm

Hello John

I understand your point of view on the issue. But I will explain this to any person if my forskin rolls back and the head of my penis is exposed to my undwear it is unbearable and if in public I must do some maneuvering stealthly to get the sheath back in place.

So from my point of view if any male can walk around all day without any foreskin I think he is damaged and has been desensitized because of a wives tale which should be outlawed.

I have asked numerous friends of mine with foreskin and they all tell me the same.

The friends that have had the procedure did on them tell me that nothing is wrong with them and get very defensive.

By the way when a boy reaches puberty he will have a blast with his foreskin which will stretch and cleaning is a breeze.

Post 114

Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:57pm

Silas:

     I have no 'argument' re the points you made.

     I was not 'defending' the practice; I was merely 'explaining' why the male was not viewed as the female in this...situation. What's done to the female is horribly worse than the male, but, there's definitely no objectively-established need for circumcision for the male.

     Re 'the boy'; agreed. Been there; had that...situation.

LLAP
J:D

Post 115

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:46am

Is "circumcising" an infant an initiation of force? Yes, and a truly terrible one. This is nothing but genital mutilation -- and usually done without anesthesia. This is an extreme felony, based on Natural Law, which is little different from the similar and unspeakable, savage, nightmarish procedure done to women. It probably severely psychologically scars and warps the male for life. Mommy, daddy, and the doctor should go to jail for a long, long time. And some of their bits should also be cut off -- without anesthesia.

Post 116

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:59am

Just because men are born with foreskin doesn't necessarily mean it's best to leave it there. There are issues of hygiene and health that need to be addressed. I'll give you a good example of something we're born with that we don't (usually) keep or need for that matter; wisdom teeth.

Post 117

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:29pm

The issues of health and hygiene have been addressed throughout this thread. Regarding the wisdom teeth - I also think that removing them for no reason is ridiculous. Many people do not and live with them their entire lives with no problems. Do you really think it's a good idea that we cut off anything on our bodies that we aren't using? Why don't we cut off a boy's nipples along with his foreskin?

Post 118

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 5:21pm

...Why not keep tumors there, too, while we're at it.
Ashley said,"Why don't we cut off a boy's nipples along with his foreskin?"-how does that apply to hygiene? (Personally I don't care wether parents wants to circumcise their child or not.)
Andre Z. said," This is nothing but genital mutilation -- and usually done without anesthesia". Andre, what country do you live in? I work in a hospital and I can tell you right now that lidocaine is mandatory for circumcision. Genital mutilation!!!-are you kidding me?

Post 119

Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:08pm