Is circumcising an infant an initiation of force?

1. "In practically all cases, its best to treat other innocent men as sovereign individuals. This means he has a monopoly on the use, modifications, etc. of his own body." Dean, how does this apply to a helpless babe newly born that doesn't have the necessary faculties for life independent of the mother (as adults posess)?
2. "Foreskin is in most all cases not detrimental to a man". I'll agree to this point.
3. "Removing the foreskin from a man results in permanent un-reversible damage". Please,give me some examples so I can let the OB/GYN's at my hospital know what they are. And did you actually say "un-reversible damage"? Please, give me a moment to finish laughing my ass off.

Post 121

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:03am

Titan,

The irreversible damage is the missing body part. Dean doesn�t mean complications, simply the destruction of millions of nerve endings that used to lead to the brain. There can be no question about the loss of sensation, if you can feel the sensations from the nerve endings that still remain, it is a small step to accept that millions more nerve endings that were intact, are now destroyed, therefore loss of sensation.

And Dean is correct to call it mutilation; a word that means to cut the body. Mutilation doesn�t even require removal, just cutting�so circumcision more than qualifies as mutilation. It�s advocates experience an aversion to this word even though it accurately describes what they advocate. I can understand being jarred by the word mutilation; the only shame is in not exploring more deeply what one�s subconscious conscience is trying thereby to tell them.

Jon

Post 122

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:03am

Titan,

1. "In practically all cases, its best to treat other innocent men as sovereign individuals. This means he has a monopoly on the use, modifications, etc. of his own body.
Dean, how does this apply to a helpless babe newly born that doesn't have the necessary faculties for life independent of the mother (as adults posess)?

You assist the man in growing and developing his mental faculty to his greatest potential. When he reaches the point where he is capable of choosing without coercion (after he becomes financially independent of his guardian(s)), you let him decide for himself.

3 (continued): Innocent free men will benefit your life more through harmony of interest than the same men would if you made them slaves through initiation of force. This is where I get the idea that an innocent man should have a monopoly on the use of his own body.

Cutting off a man's foreskin is an unnecessary operation. It results in a permanent change in the man's body, which removes some of his functionality. I think its pretty clear that male circumcision goes against "an innocent man should have a monopoly on the use of his own body."

Post 123

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 12:03pm

Sometimes I see little babies with pierced ears, and I react negatively to that. I don't think it hurts them, it isn't even irreversable, and many kids choose to do it on their own later anyways. I just think it's weird. Why not wait and let the child decide they want it? I would not longer circumcise my child, than pierce his ears, than get a large dragon tattooed across his back. I think you are teaching an important lesson about respect for choice and individuality. No harm is done by waiting for a child to make these choices independently.

Post 124

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:14am

Jon and Dean, you both have valid points.

Post 125

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:03pm

Titan,

I was going to say "Thanks, welcome to solo." Then I looked at your profile... Erik Christian, how many accounts do you have on this website?

Post 126

Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:37pm

Why not wait until the infant is twelve or thirteen and can decide for himself?

Because he will choose �no.�

Post 127

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 9:00am

Dean Michael Gores wrote, "Cutting off a man's foreskin is an unnecessary operation. It results in a permanent change in the man's body, which removes some of his functionality. I think its pretty clear that male circumcision goes against "an innocent man should have a monopoly on the use of his own body."

I've noticed on SOLO that there is sometimes a failure to distinguish between an action and the reasons for the action, so that if you question the reasons for the action, you're accused of questioning the action itself. I think that some good arguments have been made for leaving the foreskin intact until its possessor is capable of making an informed choice as to whether or not to have it removed. However, the argument that "an innocent man should have a monopoly on the use of his own body" is not one of them.

A baby cannot have a monopoly on the use of his own body. The very idea is nonsensical, for it implies that he is capable of deciding how his body should be used, which is clearly not the case--especially with respect to whether or not he should have his foreskin removed. A baby has no idea what a foreskin is, whether it is an asset or a liability, or whether he would like to keep it or have it removed. That is a decision that must be left to his parents, based on what is in the child's best interests.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 11/26, 9:06am)

Post 128

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 11:55am

Bill, you just wrote:

I've noticed on SOLO that there is sometimes a failure to distinguish between an action and the reasons for the action, so that if you question the reasons for the action, you're accused of questioning the action itself.

That is the cognitive-normative thing I keep harping on. It cuts the other way, too. If you notice and comment on an action and momentarily suspend the reasons for it to bring it into sharper focus, and especially if you notice that other reasons can exist, you are accused of not agreeing with the original reasons and having some kind of agenda.

You are absolutely correct on a baby's lack of capacity to make that kind of decision. The real issue under discussion for that focus is not whether babies have a right to decide on certain actions, but whether babies have the right to grow and develop without any permanent surgical changes to their bodies if no harmful health issues are involved.

As a human being, myself, and having grown into adulthood from being a baby, my vote goes toward establishing such a right.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 11/26, 11:58am)

Post 129

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 12:06pm

"That is a decision that must be left to his parents, based on what is in the child's best interests."

Agreed, provided that the parents act on reasonable advice available at the time. Most modern doctors will tell you that the foreskin has no useful purpose - that is the prevailing medical wisdom, and you can't blame parents from believing the advice of their pediatrician.

I can say that this thread has given me cause to take any professional pro-circumcision advice with a large grain of salt. If for nothing else than the fact that prevailing medical wisdom is sometimes wrong and takes a lot of effort to debunk (e.g. the origin of stomach ulcers.)

MSK wrote:

"without any permanent surgical changes to their bodies if no harmful health issues are involved."

Medical professionals recommending circumcision could quite easily point to published studies citing that being uncut, corollates to increased rates of urinary infection and cervical cancer - both fit the definition of "harmful health issues."

You want a lawyer/politician to craft a law that rejects the prevailing medical wisdom (wisdom that has yet to be formally proven wrong?)

(Edited by Robert Winefield on 11/26, 12:18pm)

Post 130

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 10:39am

Here here Mr. Dwyer!-I secomd that. The parents have to be the childs rational mind until he or she develops one. That means that they must make all decisions regarding health and safety for the childs well-being. The child IS a human, but at the first stage of growth unable to excersize volitional judgement on behalf of it's own self interest. I have two accounts, Dean. I am unable to access my other account because I cannot remember the damn password.
Jon said,"Because he will choose �no.�" Maybe he will Jon and maybe he won't. He may decide to do it much later in life.

It has been suggested that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:

# The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.
# The moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans of both circumcised and uncircumcised penis, which have been found to have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms) . This means that the inner lining is a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria.
# The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.
# The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms . The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' , as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection

Post 131

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 3:36pm

Even if non-circumcision results in marginally higher risks for the things that continue to be repeated here, there are numerous "calculated risks" that people choose to take to increase their quality of life. Eating red meat, smoking, driving a car, using drugs, having sex, listening to music too loudly, snowboarding...and so on and so on. The following excerpt basically sums up all the things I have been saying. I believe them because a.) My own experiences with c vs. n-c men has been similar, and b.) my dad was circumcised two years ago, in his late 50's, and this was his experience.

This was taken from an article by Mark Jenkins which appeared originally in Men's Health and is reprinted on virtually every anti-circ website:

According to Canadian pathologist John Taylor, M.B., the foreskin is one of the key erogenous zones of the male body. Its 240 feet of nerves and 1,000 nerve endings are similar to those on the fingers and lips.

�The fact is,� says Goldman, �when it comes to sex, circumcised men don�t know what they�re missing.�

But a few do. Increasingly, men who were circumcised as adults (for various medical reasons) are speaking out against circumcision, providing firsthand accounts of sex before and after.

�I had ample sexual experience, and I was quite happy as an intact male,� says Rick Thomas, who was circumcised on advice of his doctor at age 26. �After my circumcision, that pleasure was utterly gone. On a scale of 10, the uncircumcised penis experiences pleasure of at least 11 or 12; the circumcised penis is lucky to get to 3. If men who were circumcised at birth knew the loss of pleasure they would experience, they would storm the hospitals and not permit their sons to undergo this.�

Douglas MacArthur, a 55-year-old locksmith from Pennsylvania who was also circumcised as an adult, reports similar problems. �Sex before circumcision was like driving a luxury car with automatic transmission,� he explains. �I used to just glide along. Sex now is like driving a tiny, powerless compact with a manual transmission. It takes a lot of work to get anywhere. My penis has lost 90 percent of its sensitivity.

Only in the last decade have scientists devoted in-depth studies to the structure and function of the foreskin. The foreskin is a complex, two-layer organ similar to the eyelid; it�s designed to protect the head of the penis from abrasion and infection. Its surface represents 50 percent of all penile skin, and folds around the opening of the penis. Its inside surface is composed of a soft mucosa that secretes antibacterial and antiviral lubricants called smegma, which further protect the glans from friction and infection. Because the glans is sheathed in this moist envelope, it retains its sensitivity. During sex, the foreskin glides along the penile shaft, providing lubrication and stimulation.

Says one spouse of her uncircumcised husband: �There�s a big industry in this country selling lubricants and jellies to enhance sex, but they�re unnecessary for those of us lucky enough to have married an uncircumcised man. An intact man�s glans is naturally moist and juicy.�

Post 132

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 4:27pm

Thanks for that post, Ashley. I see there are 1,000 nerve endings, not millions, as I had said.

This is priceless: �like driving a luxury car with automatic transmission�I used to just glide along.�

Interesting that you point out that there are benefits the foreskin provides in terms of infection control. It is still up to speculation what causes the higher rates of urinary tract infection of the uncut or cervical disease in spouses of the uncut male. It seems plausible that the different flora/fauna environments of the uncut vs. the cut could be the cause. If that is the case, then I wonder if much research goes to discovering the *benefits, the protections from disease* provided by the floral/faunal arrangement of the uncut against *other* diseases, or if much more goes only to discovering those diseases where the uncut scores the higher incident rate.

The higher correlation for penile cancer in the uncut might be real. But even if it is, it has been pointed out that breast cancer in men has a higher incidence rate than penile cancer does�yet no one calls for removal, even though the male nipple is silly and useless anyway.

Post 133

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 4:37pm

Bill,

I've noticed on SOLO that there is sometimes a failure to distinguish between an action and the reasons for the action, so that if you question the reasons for the action, you're accused of questioning the action itself

Can you give me an example of what you are talking about here? Does it have anything to do with my posts?

I think that some good arguments have been made for leaving the foreskin intact until its possessor is capable of making an informed choice as to whether or not to have it removed. However, the argument that "an innocent man should have a monopoly on the use of his own body" is not one of them.

How do any of the arguments have any weight what-so-ever if we do not establlish that men should have a monopoly on the use of their own body? If we do not establish this, then what? Communism of bodies?

I agree the baby is incapable of deciding for himself... but for him to be able to decide to choose whether he has a foreskin or not when he is an adult, his foreskin must not have been removed when he was a child! But why would we want him to be capable of having this choice? Because its best for men to have a monopoly on the use of their own bodies.

Erik Christian on your #'s 3-4:

1. Can you post your sources to your medical claims? Your points are of no value to me when they are not based on reality.

I bet you've been circumcised...

2. Doesn't it bother you that you will not feel all of the pleasure that you could have been capable of having, if it were not for your parents and doctor removing your foreskin?

3. If you were still intact, would you actually be worried about the points you made?

Post 134

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 4:45pm

Jon: "even though the male nipple is silly and useless anyway."

I like my nipples, keep your knife away! They are sensitive, and fun/enjoyable to play with. I'm glad I've got them. Right, back to programming!

Post 135

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 9:58pm

I wrote,

I've noticed on SOLO that there is sometimes a failure to distinguish between an action and the reasons for the action, so that if you question the reasons for the action, you're accused of questioning the action itself.

Dean replied, "Can you give me an example of what you are talking about here? Does it have anything to do with my posts?"

No, I was thinking of some comments on the Crime and Punishment thread which suggested that I was against certain policies, insofar I disagreed with the reasons for those policies. But I may have been reading more into these comments than is warranted. In your case, I wanted to obviate the impression that because I disagreed with your reasons for opposing circumcision, I was therefore supporting it.

I continued,

I think that some good arguments have been made for leaving the foreskin intact until its possessor is capable of making an informed choice as to whether or not to have it removed. However, the argument that "an innocent man should have a monopoly on the use of his own body" is not one of them.

You replied, "How do any of the arguments have any weight what-so-ever if we do not establish that men should have a monopoly on the use of their own body? If we do not establish this, then what? Communism of bodies?"

No, I was saying that a person does not have a monopoly over the use of his body--does not own it--at that neonatal stage of his development. He can be said to have exclusive ownership and control over it only after he reaches maturity.

You wrote, "I agree the baby is incapable of deciding for himself... but for him to be able to decide to choose whether he has a foreskin or not when he is an adult, his foreskin must not have been removed when he was a child! But why would we want him to be capable of having this choice? Because its best for men to have a monopoly on the use of their own bodies."

No, that's not the reason. Suppose your dentist says that your child needs to have a decayed tooth pulled. But your child, who doesn't understand the dangers of not removing it, is afraid of the operation and doesn't want to go through with it. Do you, the parent, defer to the child's wishes, on the grounds that he has a monopoly on the use of his body? Or do you countermand his wishes in order to do what is best for him?

I know this doesn't automatically mean that you should, therefore, have a right to circumcise him. But the reason is that, unlike pulling his decayed tooth, there are good reasons for not removing his foreskin. You see, this is strictly an issue of doing what's best for the child regardless of his wishes. It is not an issue of allowing the child to decide for himself what is best for him until he is mature enough to make an informed choice.

- Bill

Post 136

Saturday, November 26, 2005 - 10:47pm

Bill,

I agree with what you have written. We can determine what is mutilation, what is a benign operation, and what is a necessary medical operation on a case by case basis.

I think it can go un-debated that cutting a child's arm off is mutilation. Also, un-debated that pulling a rotten tooth out is good for the child.

By the evidence collected so far, circumcision not a benign operation, nor a necessary medical operation. Instead, it causes loss of functionality, which I consider mutilation.

Religious beliefs (ideas lacking evidence and in many cases having contrary evidence) have no weight in the decision of what is benign, necessary, or mutilation. Religious beliefs are useless for making any decision.

Post 137

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 12:57am

Dean,

Dean Edell, a medical doctor, who has a nationally syndicated talk show, has come out foursquare (or is that foreskin) against circumcision for all the reasons you and others on this list have already given. So I expect that the procedure will eventually fall into disfavor and no longer be medically recommended.

Bill

Post 138

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 11:21am

Dean - you write, "Religious beliefs (ideas lacking evidence and in many cases having contrary evidence) have no weight in the decision of what is benign, necessary, or mutilation. Religious beliefs are useless for making any decision."

How true. But religious types, who are mostly bonkers to begin with, go utterly berserk (or is it "amok?") if they think that their "religious freedom" is at risk. The sane have to be careful.

Post 139

Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 12:49pm