Looks like circumcision could be banned.

20,000 nerve endings

Quite!

I'm shocked at how the foreskin is being disregarded on this thread as nothing but a useless piece of superfluous skin.

Can't remember having one? Fine. Don't miss it even if you remember? Fine too. But for anyone to call it useless is utter nonsense.

As for no one missing theirs, the fact that foreskin restoration methods exist would suggest otherwise. It actually can be done non-surgically, but it's a very, very long and arduous process which requires a lot of time and dedication. The fact that some men are willing to go to these lengths to get a foreskin back would suggest that they regret greatly what has been taken away from them.

Yes, plenty of men have it done/had it done to them and are perfectly happy with it, good, but there are also many who aren't.

I think it's a cut too far.

In other words, you can't find a case. Which makes your crusade all the more odd. In other other words; nobody who has had this practice "imposed" on them, actually agree with you.

No, in other words, I haven't tried to find any. I never made any claims about people wanting their foreskin back, it's YOU who keeps ranting on about that.

Since you keep pushing the issue, google brought up this guy, this guy, this guy, these guys, this guy , some guys on this page, these guys, this guy, and many more.

I haven't read through them. If you want any more you will have to google them yourself, I have no interest in your need to know about men who want their foreskin back.

The argument you are making is that a basic human right has been violated and that basic human right has been violated by the causing of harm but your argument doesn't rely on the causing of harm? Can you see the large problem in your logic?

No, that is not my argument. It is a violation of several human rights.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. [And not just as an extension of their parents.]

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

It also violates several rights of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;

Article 8, part 1:

States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity.

Article 13, part 1:

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression... [infant circumcision circumvents the child's freedom to decide for himself what parts of his body to keep, and his freedom of sexual expression by permanently and unnecessarily diminishing his sexual sensations].

Also according to this, we are already obliged to abolish it:

Article 24, part 3:

States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

 

Ermmm no I don't - I question whether what claim is causing harm is actually causing harm. If you take the very narrow view that any physical injury is "causing harm" whether it has a beneficial outcome in the long term or not means that the likes of inoculations (you stick a needle in a child and provide an insult to the immune system) would also have to be banned until the child is old enough to give informed consent. As your argument relies entirely on the causing of harm (see above) then it is only logical for a counter argument take the position that the physical injury that takes place during circumcision has a beneficial long term outcome and so is not harm.

..and you were crying "STRAW MAN" at me! How on Earth is an injection anything like having a sensitive part of your body permanently removed without your consent?

At this point it is clear you have lost the argument even in your own head and are going home and taking your ball

okay, okay, the multi-quote tit for tat stuff is getting very tedious and it's obvious that you are stretching it out (no pun) as much as you can to avoid the main issues. But since you mentioned it, let's have a look at the argument...

AGAINST;

-It violates several human rights

-It can cause physical emotional and psychological harm

-The child has no say in the matter and is effectively being enslaved into Judaism, without ever being given the choice to decide for themselves what they want.

-It HURTS the child

-It can heal wrong and become disfigured

-

VS

FOR;

-It MAY have some health benefits

-The parents believe they know what is best for the child

Yes, I can see how you'd think I'm losing the argument.

It's a straw man because you have taken an event and ignoring all the massive cultural, religious and spiritual significance and equated it to the event as a stand alone entity. The two events cannot be compared as once stripped of context they become meaningless.

It is not a straw man, I have not ignored all the massive cultural, religious and spiritual significance which will have developed over the generations by the time the great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandsons (as I said) are lopping off earlobes. Their dogma/beliefs/culture etc etc is no less valid than any other. Are you going to answer the question about it?

It's not up to me to disagree - nor is it up to you to tell believers that there is no valid agreement between the child and god.

If you can show me ANY evidence whatsoever that an infant can make an agreement with a god, then I will stand down on that point. Until then, I'll disagree as much as I want.

The parents have a perfectly good reason for performing a circumcision - they believe it is in the best interests of the child. Now obviously you don't believe this but that doesn't mean that you can instruct people who believe differently in another way.

Their reason is a little lacking of reasoning.

I haven't instructed anyone of anything.

That's a completely different question as you have introduced an unwilling participant.

.....HELLO??? Since when have babies been WILLING to have part of them cut off? Are you for real? This completely cancels out the rest of your wriggle:

If you mean do I disagree that male circumcision is a violation of human rights then no I don't. In the Jewish context circumcision is an entry into the faith and community and many studies have shown that community membership is psychologically very healthy and that people who are religious consistently report higher levels of happiness and live longer than those who don't. That (along with the cultural significance of the event) I would say outweigh the physical injury. Add to that current medical evidence which is that circumcision is physically beneficial and it becomes an even more positive thing.

So I'll ask the question again, "do you think that forced circumcision on an unwilling participant DOESN'T violate human rights?".

No, that is not my argument. It is a violation of several human rights.

OK let's look at them (without the childish purple prose):

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Their life, liberty and person is secure - a minor and beneficial operation does not in any way break this and in fact arguably upholds it. Wriggle one struck off.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

It's a minor surgical procedure done under anaesthetic to term this cruel or degrading is laughable. Wriggle two struck off.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. [And not just as an extension of their parents.]

A circumcision does not imply that they are an extension of their parents - if Jewish it implies that they are a member of a religion and a community. The parents are doing what they think is right for their child not what they think is right for them. Wriggle three struck off.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Anyone can have an elective circumcision and at many periods (70/80s for one) it was the norm not the exception. The circumcision process does not imply any inequality or lack of protection in the law just a choice by the parents to perform a procedure they think to be in the child's best interests. Wriggle four struck off.

It also violates several rights of The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

 

Article 8, part 1:

States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity.

For a child born into the Jewish community circumcision is a part of that identity so to follow this element of the convention the circumcision should take place.

Article 13, part 1:

The child shall have the right to freedom of expression... [infant circumcision circumvents the child's freedom to decide for himself what parts of his body to keep, and his freedom of sexual expression by permanently and unnecessarily diminishing his sexual sensations].

That claim is bending the right to breaking point and beyond - lets take a look of the rest of the it shall we:

this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.

 

2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

 

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or

 

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

As can be seen from the rest of the article your pulling it in to try and cover something that it was never intended to cover. Notwithstanding you're cherry picking of an element of the article and trying to apply it to something that it doesn't cover, a benign surgical process doesn't violate the right to freedom of expression and the UN already have section 2(a) in place which would allow the parents their rights to do what they think is in the best interests for the child. As to the diminishing of sexual sensation medical testing has consistently found no significant difference in sensation or sexual response between circumcised and uncircumcised men.

Also according to this, we are already obliged to abolish it:

Article 24, part 3:

States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.

No we're not - as it isn't prejudical to the health of children and is arguably beneficial to the health of children.

..and you were crying "STRAW MAN" at me! How on Earth is an injection anything like having a sensitive part of your body permanently removed without your consent?

In the ways described. Your narrow view simply looks at the event as it happens not the long term beneficial effect and as such it would be a perfectly valid comparison to make. An injection causes pain and an immune insult which is painful and can cause complications - exactly what you were claiming for circumcision. It can provide long term benefits, as can circumcision, which over-rides the harm done to the body at the time of infliction.

let's have a look at the argument...

Yes lets:

AGAINST;

-It violates several human rights

No it doesn't - see above.

-It can cause physical emotional and psychological harm

Not doing it when it is the norm for a society or culture is far more likely to produce emotional and psychological harm by excluding the child from being normal for that society. Point not only rendered null but reversed.

-The child has no say in the matter and is effectively being enslaved into Judaism, without ever being given the choice to decide for themselves what they want.

At eight days old the child has no say in anything - it's up to the parents or guardians to do what they think is best for that child. It certainly doesn't "enslave them to Judaism" (nice appeal to emotion there by the way) as circumcision does not make you a Jew.

-It HURTS the child

As do many things done in the long term interest of the child.

-It can heal wrong and become disfigured

-

As can any medical procedure - the rate of post circumcision complications isn't actually known but the AAP estimates the complication rate to be 0.2% making this an astoundingly safe procedure.

VS

 

FOR;

-It MAY have some health benefits

Consensus from up to date studies is that it DOES have health benefits

-The parents believe they know what is best for the child

And usually do - they can after all take an informed decision and give informed consent.

Yes, I can see how you'd think I'm losing the argument.

Given the flimsiness of your arguments and frequent appeals to emotion it's fairly obvious

If you can show me ANY evidence whatsoever that an infant can make an agreement with a god, then I will stand down on that point. Until then, I'll disagree as much as I want.

As has been pointed out (and ignored by you) many times the covenent is between god and the Jewish people not between god and an individual.

.....HELLO??? Since when have babies been WILLING to have part of them cut off? Are you for real? This completely cancels out the rest of your wriggle:

So I'll ask the question again, "do you think that forced circumcision on an unwilling participant DOESN'T violate human rights?".

At 8 days a baby is a bundle of reflexes they can not be willing to have their foreskin removed neither can they be unwilling as they don't know what is happening. Once again neither forced not unwilling hence the guardian takes the informed decision because the baby is incapable of such. To characterise the baby as unwilling to have the operation take place when it is entirely incapable of making the decision and being willing/unwilling is just another feeble appeal to emotion.

As can any medical procedure - the rate of post circumcision complications isn't actually known but the AAP estimates the complication rate to be 0.2% making this an astoundingly safe procedure.

Direct from the AAP webpage:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full

COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION PROCEDURE

The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown. Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%. Most of the complications that do occur are minor. The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ∼0.1% of circumcisions. It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence. There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices. Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.

So the AAP states that "two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%", and yet you conveniently state that it is 0.2%.

I don't think you are being honest with us here, but are you actually being honest with yourself?

Furthermore, the two studies mentioned were undertaken in a medical setting.

Journal of Urology (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of accidents is from 1.5% to 15%.

As has been pointed out (and ignored by you) many times the covenent is between god and the Jewish people not between god and an individual.

I haven't ignored this, I simply don't think it's a good enough reason to perform an immoral act on another person.

There has been times in Jewish history when Jews have not circumcised their sons, which sort of dismisses the idea that it is a vital ritual to Jewish identity.

There are plenty of commandments from god that are ignored, with no detriment to Jewish identity.

It's not that circumcisions are a vital covenant with god and so should be done, it's the other way round. When circumcisions are routine the claim is that it's a vital covenant with god, and when they are not it's not.

At 8 days a baby is a bundle of reflexes they can not be willing to have their foreskin removed neither can they be unwilling as they don't know what is happening. Once again neither forced not unwilling hence the guardian takes the informed decision because the baby is incapable of such. To characterise the baby as unwilling to have the operation take place when it is entirely incapable of making the decision and being willing/unwilling is just another feeble appeal to emotion.

This seems a very odd justification, immoral even.

Lack of unwilling does not equate to consent, or permission.

I can think of plenty of examples where taking lack of unwilling as permission to do something would land that person in jail.

You keep trying to justify it evilDr by claiming that it's a beneficial operation that causes no harm.

When if fact it's an entirely unnecessary medical procedure that mutilates the child (albeit in a small way).

This is your only apparent defence to the practice that it might have some medical benefit. Medically speaking though, it could be removed if any of the conditions which it might help ever arose, it could also be removed voluntarily by the person years later when they have the ability to understand and consent for themselves. There is no good argument to apply the procedure to a baby.

You keep trying to justify it evilDr by claiming that it's a beneficial operation that causes no harm.

When if fact it's an entirely unnecessary medical procedure that mutilates the child (albeit in a small way).

This is your only apparent defence to the practice that it might have some medical benefit. Medically speaking though, it could be removed if any of the conditions which it might help ever arose, it could also be removed voluntarily by the person years later when they have the ability to understand and consent for themselves. There is no good argument to apply the procedure to a baby.

Agreed.

When people start insisting that there are health benefits to circumcising boys, I just suspect it's Stockholm Syndrome at work.

All the studies into this, on both sides, have been irrelevant due to the sizes of the studies and the bias involved.

We do have a very large study though, the US v Europe. The US had circumcision rates of 90% in the 70's, (thankfully) falling to just over 50% now. The rate of circumcisions on boys in Europe is about 5%. The incidences of all those ills that circumcision is supposed to "cure" are higher in the US than in Europe.