[effy2014]

If it is legal to make Jimmy look like Daddy, then it should be legal to make Jenny look like Mommy.

Conversely, if it is illegal to make Jenny look like Mommy, then it should be illegal to make Jimmy look like Daddy.

You have no idea what people think about before deciding on circumcision, only what you thought and perhaps your friends. I am sure most doctors talk about health benefits if people have not asked for the procedure.

However, *** for tat legality or illegality of FGM and male circumcision is absurd. FGM is illegal because of the health consequences and how/where it is practiced. If male circumcision had 1/10 of the health consequences it would be illegal as well. But it's not.

[DreamP346]

I have never heard of the moral right of intact genitals nor do I believe there is one. What gives rise to this moral code?

Regardless, what right does anyone have to inflict their morality on me? If this were an abortion debate do you have the right to say to a person who had one that she is immoral and a baby killer? Imposing one's moral code on another (or looking down on those that don't practice your form of morality) is a very slippery slope since we all have vastly different moral codes. That's why most countries banned abortion, why some countries have the death penalty for homosexuality and why others find it acceptable to discriminate based on sexual orientation. All to enforce their conceptions of morality.

You don't want others to question your decision not to circumcise you son; yet, you feel comfortable questioning the moral code of others that do. Allowing others the space to make these decisions is not being kind .... It's acknowledging that any one person is not the arbiter of "universal" morality.

Effy, I agree with most of what you have said expect this. One person's morality does not make it right. We, as human being and as Americans, transfer our morality to others all the time. Sometimes it is good and sometimes not. There are times when imposing our morality on others is the right thing to do. There are parts of the world that believe honor killing is moral. Most here would agree that this is a situation where inflicting our morality on those people would be acceptable. Individual morality does not give immunity to actions.

[DreamP346]

You have no idea what people think about before deciding on circumcision, only what you thought and perhaps your friends. I am sure most doctors talk about health benefits if people have not asked for the procedure.

Every parent I have met who circumcised (not for religious purposes) did it because it was the norm or they themselves had been circumcised so "of coursed my son will be too." I have yet to meet anybody who did it to prevent STIs and infections.

[Little]

I was never very good at Philosophy, so I can't tell you how morals form and what makes them legitimate or not. That's a different conversation entirely. I never mentioned imposing my code on others ... nor do I want others to not "question my decision." Certainly somebody who supports RIC should question my decision and disagree with it but also leave me alone about it as long as I leave them alone. The people making these decisions are human and complex and are made of more than whether they circumcise. It does take a special relationship and a special environment to have this kind of conversation; it's like talking about religion ... it's often related to religion in a lot of cases.

I disagree with many varied types of people's choices - sometimes vehemently, often on a moral level - but any of those choices and even ALL those choices are not the whole person.

I'm not saying that RIC should be made illegal or even be penalized on a more social level. I don't stop interacting with and respecting people I know believe in RIC just like I don't stop interacting with and respecting people who have different religious or political views as I do - neither do I treat them as lesser. Certainly I'd have a hard life if I did. And criminalizing any controversial act is a poor way to end it, IMO.

But what you're suggesting is that others should not make private thought decisions about what is right or wrong that might disagree with their neighbor, that people aren't permitted to feel deeply in ways that do not converge with the majority because it might make them question themselves or others. In polite society, this is what we all pretend to do, but if polite society were our entire makeup it would be an awfully boring world.

[effy2014]

Effy, I agree with most of what you have said expect this. One person's morality does not make it right. We, as human being and as Americans, transfer our morality to others all the time. Sometimes it is good and sometimes not.

I largely agree with you. In my view, there needs to be some universality for the "export" to be in the "good" bucket. Generally, Americans abhor murder for reasons other than killing another. Therefore, our murder statutes do not have an honor killing exception. The bad would be the US refusal in the 1980s and 1990s to include contraception in our aid to the developing world because of our morality. But the statement "individual morality does not give immunity to actions", applies both ways in this debate. Immunity by whom from what?

For things that are clearly not illegal, practiced by a majority of Americans and for which there are little or no medical or health consequences, I would hesitate to inflict my moral beliefs on others.

[Stillness]

This is a great discussion, because it’s pulling me in different directions. Every one of the recent posts sways me a bit.

When we use RIC, I think there needs to be some clarification. I don’t think that anyone should automatically have any procedure done, even if it’s viewed to have health benefits. To me, that’s bad. I don’t think that anyone here advocated for that. Even if it’s a vaccine, I think that the person should be consulted.

But if a Muslim, Jew, or someone with that tradition wants to circumcise their child, I don’t think that anyone should interfere. When you’re a member of a persecuted religious group, I think you have some different sensitivities. Up until this day, all over the world, including in the US, my faith has been attacked – often over medical issues. We’ve been forced to have procedures. Our children have been taken from us. That alters perspective. I feel very strongly that a person should have great freedom to practice their sincerely held religious beliefs. When you start stripping that right from someone else, it can also be stripped from you.

Ideas like that become most important when people disagree passionately. The tolerance it calls for requires humility. Through your passion, you have to acknowledge that you don’t have absolute knowledge and that you could be wrong. So you’d better be very certain before you start imposing your will on other people. In this case, it’s pretty clear that this is not a harmful procedure, or at least it’s not clear that it is. So my answer to the question in the title is, “it depends” or “neither.” When there’s that kind of uncertainty, the responsibility has to be left to the individual (or their guardians) to decide.

I read Little’s entire FGM study in all its neon glory. Let’s say it were true (which the researchers themselves doubt when they attribute the correlation to “irreducible confounding”) that the practice offered some disease protection. The flip side is the cost. Does anyone doubt that removing the clitoris or external genitalia affects pleasure and function? Do we even need to talk about the other problems and risks associated with this practice, including, and very commonly, death? What would be analogous to this would be removing the male glans and a portion of the shaft. That’s why my comments and the medical authorities talk about the benefits and risks and consequences of male circumcision.

[Little]

Stillness, if we limit protected feelings to those feelings promoted by religion, are the nonreligious always relegated to last place? We are a growing group worldwide.

How do you feel about FGM (and honor killings, since they're recently on the table) being sincerely held religious beliefs? How do we know where to draw the line?

I obviously don't have an answer for the last question, and try not to comment on religious feelings since my lack thereof put me way out of the land of pertinent discussion, but I think it has something to do with acts that hurt others.

And yes, I'm suggesting that male circumcision is a harmful procedure. The family in Memphis whose son lost his penis in November of 2013 might agree. RIC (which I'm using to describe all male circumcisions in infancy because RIC is shorter and accurately describes the act I'm talking about) may have a very low rate of complications, but when we're talking about 4 million births in 2012 with a rate of ~0.2% complication (both stats from CDC website,) that's still 480 children suffering yearly from an unnecessary procedure in the US alone(~60% of children in the US are circumcised.)

EDIT: on the FGM study, since realistically nobody in the western world wants FGM to have any benefits, I find the description of the data as "confounding" to be a throwaway phrase to make the researcher feel better about her findings.

[effy2014]

Little:

One of my favorite legal cases involved whether the violation of business ethics gave rise to a legal claim. I deposed a business ethicist for three days discussing when and how ethical ideas became universally recognized such that they could be considered laws. In the end, it was all a matter of opinion. When ideas morph into moral truths are even more difficult to identify.

I agree whole-heartedly with your last post but did not understand you prior post as allowing for the differences of opinion without comment. When you wrote:

"If you find something morally wrong, it's hard not to object to others doing it. I find it unsavory that others practice RIC; the practice of not condemning those that do is a matter of being polite and kind to other people presumably acting to their best ability, a concession to the humanity of others that come to wildly different conclusions than I do with the same data. I assumed that you vocally objected to the choices made by others and did not feel parental choice was a sufficient.

I think debate is crucial and I have no problem with people disagreeing with my choices or conclusions. While it is certainly difficult to discuss issues on the basis of morality, people who consider circumcision should know that there is another side to the issue and that the apparent medical support is equivocal. I researched it thoroughly and decided that, in the absence of any adverse medical effects, it would be appropriate for my sons to be a part of my religious experience.

[Little]

You say "the apparent medical support is equivocal." My position is that it is not, above and beyond the issue of morality. My objections to RIC are many and varied, can't boil them down to one position.

To double-clarify, I try not to bring up this topic in real life so that I don't have room to offend people. If I notice a child is circumcised, I don't mention it (ignoring other peoples' kids' genitals is polite, to say the least.) It's my general survival act for Believing Everything Wrong in the American South.

[effy2014]

How do you feel about FGM (and honor killings, since they're recently on the table) being sincerely held religious beliefs? How do we know where to draw the line?


And yes, I'm suggesting that male circumcision is a harmful procedure. The family in Memphis whose son lost his penis in November of 2013 might agree. RIC (which I'm using to describe all male circumcisions in infancy because RIC is shorter and accurately describes the act I'm talking about) may have a very low rate of complications, but when we're talking about 4 million births in 2012 with a rate of ~0.2% complication (both stats from CDC website,) that's still 480 children suffering yearly from an unnecessary procedure in the US alone(~60% of children in the US are circumcised.)

EDIT: on the FGM study, since realistically nobody in the western world wants FGM to have any benefits, I find the description of the data as "confounding" to be a throwaway phrase to make the researcher feel better about her findings.

There are easy ways to draw the line. Honor killings involve murdering someone. That's a pretty bright line. The medical complications from FGM are well documented and every country has outlawed it. Again, a very bright line.

Using remote medical complications of circumcision to state that it is a "harmful" procedure is a real reach. To make sense of your statistics, this is what the CDC reported: "In large studies of infant circumcision in the United States, reported inpatient complication rates are approximately 0.2%. The most common complications are bleeding and infection, which are usually minor and easily managed." Yes, there are doctors who botch lots of medical procedures, but the "loss of part of his penis" in a circumcision is not just rare, it one of a kind. A medical procedure in which the complication rate is so low and the usual complications so treatable is far from harmful.