Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[7,052,770]

This is one of the few (only?) positions I have that I acknowledge is indefensible and I hold onto for reasons other than logic/reason.  Sorry John.  I'm cut and both my sons are cut and I don't hate my parents for it and my boys don't hate their parents for it.  I only think about it once every three years when it comes up <teehee> in a thread here or when an uncut one occasionally shows up in porn.

I would call it defensible. Notice any similarities in these maps?

[7,052,770]

I would call it defensible. Notice any similarities in these maps?

What exactly does this prove?

It doesn't prove anything, but given the amount of evidence that circumcised penes are less likely to pick up HIV, it's good to have some real-world backup for the idea. HIV is ravaging the Christian parts of Africa (generally not circumcised) so much harder than the Muslim parts (circumcision required). This is despite the fact that HIV first appeared in humans in Congo and has had plenty of time to spread to the Muslim parts as easily as the Southern tip of Africa.

Obviously it's not a 100% explanation and there are other factors that are at play, but circumcision has tangible benefits and no drawbacks beyond "bodily autonomy" issues. As a non-expert, I will of course change my mind if the American medical community does, but barring that, circumcision is a no-brainer if I ever have a son. I've never in my life met a circumcised person who was in any way upset about it having been done.

[7,052,770]

I'd also like to point out that referring to my penis, or those of our Jewish, Muslim, and American posters, as "mutilated" is highly offensive and should be modded and infracted. There's nothing wrong with my body or any of ours.

[7,052,770]

Not everyone shares your subjective perception that it causes physical harm.  Even if they did, why is physical harm a greater concern than spiritual harm?

The fact that it causes physical harm is not "subjective."

- Circumcision can cause a loss of up to 75% of penis sensitivity.
- More than 5% of all boys who are circumcised experience serious complications from the procedure. Meatal stenosis alone is found in 20% of circumcised boys.
- Men who were circumcised in infancy are 4.5 times more likely to take medication for erectile dysfunction later in life.
- The procedure is painful. Anesthesia is used only 45% of the time.
- The procedure is not medically necessary. In Finland, the rate of circumcision for medical reasons is one in seventeen thousand.
- Doctors are biased. A doctor who is cut is five times more likely to recommend the procedure than one who is not.
- The procedure can be botched (look up David Reimer).

Why is this more important than "spiritual harm?" Simple. Spiritual harm does not exist.

Sorry, but I don't believe a word of this. Sounds like total agenda-driven BS.

As I said, I'll change my mind when the US medical community changes its.

[7,052,770]

If you just want to ignore the facts because "this is how we've always done it," own it and say so.

This is just a bad faith argument. Never have I even come close to implying that my argument is "hurr durr this is how we've always done it," on this or ANY other issue, and I think you've seen enough of my posts to know that.

I agree with the multitude of studies and actual real-world evidence that circumcision lowers the chance of HIV infection. Your argument about China and Japan doesn't mean much, because HIV just hasn't ever come to those countries enough to turn it into a major pandemic like it has in SSA. However, it's downright foolish to handwave away the fact that HIV infections drop off dramatically at the Christian/Muslim line in Africa.

Additionally, you only bothered to cite about half of your claims. There is no way anyone can know whether men circumcised in infancy experience a different amount of sexual pleasure as adults compared to those not. I can say from personal experience that I have enjoyed sex and masturbation just fine, as has every single male (all of whom have been circumcised) that I've ever talked to about this. It's always uncircumcised men who are like "lol, there's no WAY that circumcised men could enjoy sex like I do!!" as if they have any idea.

Beyond that, your stats could be flipped around. Circumcised doctors are more likely to recommend it than non-circumcised doctors? OK, then non-circumcised doctors are more likely to recommend not doing it than circumcised doctors. Neither of those equivalent statements actually says anything. One time it was botched? That sucks, but any procedure can be. Sometimes docs don't use anesthesia? I'm not really qualified to comment, but maybe they should. Your ED comment is one random study (from Australia? Not sure because the article just talks about it and doesn't actually link to it) and isn't conclusive proof of anything, although obviously I'd be fine researching more about it.

Ultimately, you have no rebuttal to the fact that WHO and the CDC recommend it. I'll trust them over some random non-doctor on the internet who clearly has an angsty agenda.

[7,052,770]

TIL the WHO and CDC aren't "repudiable health organizations."