Circumcision

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't mean sexual reassignment therapy - I mean things like IVF and selective abortions, which few people seem to be up in arms about.

Because these procedures are rare to the point of obscurity. In IVF, if you have 10 embryos which have somehow become viable, you must choose which to destroy - so why not preferentially destroy the male embryos if you want a girl? The morality of IVF, then, boils down to the morality of abortion, not eugenics.

Indeed, atheists never do that ...

The majority of atheists and theists condemn those people, be they atheists or theists, who force their beliefs, be they theological or otherwise, down other people's throats.

For the sake of perspective, this thread is now longer than the 'The Japanese Tsunami Punnishment from God' thread.

Good. That thread is disgusting.

 

[Rebekka]

I don't mean sexual reassignment therapy - I mean things like IVF and selective abortions, which few people seem to be up in arms about.

Do you mean in this thread, or in general?
There are many, many people opposed to any form of gender selection. (Most feminists are.) And as this thread isn't about abortion, I felt no need to stress my pro-life stance.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

In IVF, if you have 10 embryos which have somehow become viable, you must choose which to destroy - so why not preferentially destroy the male embryos if you want a girl? The morality of IVF, then, boils down to the morality of abortion, not eugenics.

There are many, many people opposed to any form of gender selection. (Most feminists are.) And as this thread isn't about abortion, I felt no need to stress my pro-life stance.

We're arguing against circumcision because 1) it's not really necessary, 2) it's irreversable and 3) the infant had no say in the matter. Despite all that I've been arguing that circumcision is too minor an issue to ban outright.

However chosing which gender your child will be is a much more life-altering decision than simply removing a foreskin. For one, why are the parents chosing gender in the first place? Is it because after three boys they'd like a little girl? Or - as in the cases in places such as China - is it because boys are so much more valuable than girls? In doing so, aren't they supporting a sexist society? And when it comes to marriage they're going to have serious problems in the future, since the gender ratio is now so unbalanced.

Basically I'm asking why it's acceptable to choose the gender of a child (based on the idea that women are less important than men) but it's unacceptable to remove the boy's foreskin?

(Wiccan Child: Sorry I ignored your reply on diet but I figured chosing gender was a better example.)

 

[Skaloop]

However chosing which gender your child will be is a much more life-altering decision than simply removing a foreskin.

How is choosing a specific sex (not gender, since that doesn't boil down to mere XX vs. XY) life-altering? Nobody's changing a boy into a girl or vice-versa; they're not altering anything.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

How is choosing a specific sex (not gender, since that doesn't boil down to mere XX vs. XY) life-altering? Nobody's changing a boy into a girl or vice-versa; they're not altering anything.

Are you kidding? Wouldn't your life be completely different if you were female - especially if you are born in a country such as China?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We're arguing against circumcision because 1) it's not really necessary, 2) it's irreversable and 3) the infant had no say in the matter. Despite all that I've been arguing that circumcision is too minor an issue to ban outright.

However chosing which gender your child will be is a much more life-altering decision than simply removing a foreskin. For one, why are the parents chosing gender in the first place? Is it because after three boys they'd like a little girl? Or - as in the cases in places such as China - is it because boys are so much more valuable than girls? In doing so, aren't they supporting a sexist society? And when it comes to marriage they're going to have serious problems in the future, since the gender ratio is now so unbalanced.

Basically I'm asking why it's acceptable to choose the gender of a child (based on the idea that women are less important than men) but it's unacceptable to remove the boy's foreskin?

It's not. Barring medical necessity, we defer to the child's decision. If the child cannot yet make a decision, then we wait until the child is old enough to do so. It is only when it is medically necessary that decisions should be put in the parent's hands, such as which embryos to terminate.

Like I said, it boils down to consent. In IVF, we have to to make a decision immediately - it is medically negligent to both the embryos and the mother to let all individuals gestate - so we have to make a decision here and now.

The IVF thing also involves the nature of personhood - the embryo is not a fully grown human, and so does not have the rights and privileges thereof, which is why abortion can occur. A single cell with the potential to be a human is not human, in the same way a single caterpillar with the potential to be a dress is still not a dress.

So the circumcision is immoral because of consent: the boy does not consent to the permanent operation. The gender eugenics thing is more tricky because it involves medical necessity, the controversial topic of when an embryo actually adopts the rights of humanity (including the right to wait till consent), etc, but in general it is just as immoral to arbitrarily abort a perfectly healthy embryo for the sole reason that it is the undesired sex.

 

[Skaloop]

Are you kidding? Wouldn't your life be completely different if you were female - especially if you are born in a country such as China?

But I wouldn't have been me, I would never have been me, I would never have existed. Choosing a male over a female is not changing anyone; they were and always were and always will be the sex you chose. It's not changing them the way circumcision changes someone. If babies were born female and then genetically and surgically altered to be male, then I'd agree on the life-changing part. But as it is, since there's no changing, there's no life-change.

Yes, being raised male is different than being raised female, oftentimes dramatically so. But if it's a boy cell that becomes my child, they would face being a boy whether I chose it or it happened naturally. No change to what they would have experienced.

The way it might be life-changing is that the chosen cell gets to live a life an the unchosen ones don't. But it's not life-changing if there's not a life to change.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

If babies were born female and then genetically and surgically altered to be male, then I'd agree on the life-changing part. But as it is, since there's no changing, there's no life-change.

Yes, being raised male is different than being raised female, oftentimes dramatically so. But if it's a boy cell that becomes my child, they would face being a boy whether I chose it or it happened naturally. No change to what they would have experienced.

So it's not life-changing because the change does not occur (barring gender-reassignment surgery)? I could argue that if circumcision was routinly done to every baby boy they wouldn't know the difference either. But that was not quite the point I was making:

Let's say you live in a heavily patriarchal country such as China or India. Your parents chose to make you a girl simply because they already have boys and they want balance out the gender ratio. Wouldn't you be angry that your parents consented to a surgical act knowing it would put you at a disadvantage? Being a woman in India is a far, far bigger problem to deal with than simply missing a foreskin.

To go back to my original point, it's not enough to say circumcision is wrong because it was preformed without the infant's consent - we allow parents to make huge life-altering decisions for their all the time. If a child is fed an improper diet when young (although this depends on your definition of 'improper' - some people consider formula improper) it can affect their brain development, not a mistake they can correct when they are older.

 

[Skaloop]

So it's not life-changing because the change does not occur (barring gender-reassignment surgery)? I could argue that if circumcision was routinly done to every baby boy they wouldn't know the difference either.

But it's a change. Choosing a fertilized egg of a specific sex does not change the fertilized egg in any way. This is not about whether they "know the difference", it's about whether they are being changed. And they are not.

But that was not quite the point I was making:

Let's say you live in a heavily patriarchal country such as China or India. Your parents chose to make you a girl simply because they already have boys and they want balance out the gender ratio.

Who said anything about "making" anyone a girl? I'm talking about choosing a fertilized egg of one sex over the other. Again, that is not making anyone a girl. That is selecting a girl. Huge difference. And as I mentioned earlier, I would be opposed to people deciding to change a fertilized egg from one sex to another (if that were possible) or parents deciding to get gender re-assignment surgery on their newborns. Just as I am in regards to circumcision, because it is a life-changing surgery, done unnecessarily, without consent.

Wouldn't you be angry that your parents consented to a surgical act knowing it would put you at a disadvantage?

No surgery involved in my scenario. But yes, I imagine in your scenario I would be angry. Which is why I would be opposed to said practice.

Being a woman in India is a far, far bigger problem to deal with than simply missing a foreskin.

But it's part of their religious heritage! Who are you to disrespect their traditions and values?

To go back to my original point, it's not enough to say circumcision is wrong because it was preformed without the infant's consent - we allow parents to make huge life-altering decisions for their all the time. If a child is fed an improper diet when young (although this depends on your definition of 'improper' - some people consider formula improper) it can affect their brain development, not a mistake they can correct when they are older.

And that's a sad and horrible thing. But children have to eat. They have to eat something. And they have to do it mutliple times a day, every day. There's no way to realistically monitor or control how that is done, and for the most part, it is not done in a harmful way. If it is, the children can be removed from their parents.

Circumcision, though, is a one-time thing that isn't necessary for survival. It could be regulated in a way that monitoring feedings cannot. But again, I am not calling for such regulation. I'm merely hoping that people on the fence about circumcision end up choosing to go on the un-cut side for their children.

And pointing out how something I think is bad can be compared to something else that is bad isn't a great argument for showing how the thing I think is bad is good.

You - "A is good!"
Me - "A is bad!"
You - "Well, B, which I will use as an analogue for A, is bad!"
Me - "Yes it is."
You - "So A is good!"
Me - "No, it's still bad."
You - "But B is bad!"
Me - "Yes, as is A."
You - "No, it's not, because B, which is like A, is bad."
Me - "I'm going to do a ludicrous fake conversation between us to show how this is starting to sound to me..."

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Who said anything about "making" anyone a girl? I'm talking about choosing a fertilized egg of one sex over the other. Again, that is not making anyone a girl. That is selecting a girl.

So we're arguing about language use? Fine, selecting a girl ...

But it's part of their religious heritage.

What is? Abusing women?

And pointing out how something I think is bad can be compared to something else that is bad isn't a great argument for showing how the thing I think is bad is good.

Users throughout this thread have been using this exact tactic: comparing circumcision to natal mastectomies, tattooing, FGM etc. They've compared them because they are both are unneeded, irreversable (or difficult to reverse) and done without the infant's consent - the difference being that circumcisions are socially acceptable and the others are not. I'm comparing other socially accepted practices which are also done without the child's consent, are irreversable and unneeded. In this case, diet and gender selection.

children have to eat. They have to eat something. And they have to do it mutliple times a day, every day. There's no way to realistically monitor or control how that is done, and for the most part, it is not done in a harmful way. If it is, the children can be removed from their parents.

Indeed the very fact that food is more vital than a foreskin shows that we should be more concerned children's diets than circumcison. Again, take formula as an example:

Children don't turn into drooling imbeciles if they are given formula, just as men who are or aren't circumcised are not very different from one another. Nevertheless it has few benefits and several disadvantages (just like circumcision), it's the parents choice rather than the child's (just like circumcision) and the child won't able to reverse the effects it's had on it's brain and body (again, just like circumcision).

It's generally accepted that breast milk is significantly better than formula. Do we punish parents because they chose to give their children this lesser subsitute rather than the better option? Should formula only be medically subscribed when the mother is physically unable to feed her baby?

 

[Rebekka]

Basically I'm asking why it's acceptable to choose the gender of a child (based on the idea that women are less important than men) but it's unacceptable to remove the boy's foreskin?

Neither is (are? in Dutch it would be "is") acceptable to me, but I don't think it is relevant to this discussion that something else, which you see as more serious (and I do, too), is acceptable to some people while circumcision is not. They're two different things. Someone says: "A is not acceptable because of 1 and 2." Then someone else (you) say: "But 1 and 2 are irrelevant, because B is more serious than A, and B is accepted, so no one should fuss over A."
Maybe B should not be accepted either, but that does not make A acceptable. A greater evil does not make a smaller evil good.

 

[Skaloop]

So we're arguing about language use? Fine, selecting a girl ...

Fine. Selecting a girl is not life-changing because nothing changes.

What is? Abusing women?[/quote}

Abusing maybe not, but being seen as lesser than men, sure.

Users throughout this thread have been using this exact tactic: comparing circumcision to natal mastectomies, tattooing, FGM etc. They've compared them because they are both are unneeded, irreversable (or difficult to reverse) and done without the infant's consent - the difference being that circumcisions are socially acceptable and the others are not. I'm comparing other socially accepted practices which are also done without the child's consent, are irreversable and unneeded. In this case, diet and gender selection.

Yes, but the difference is that "we" are using bad things as analogues to circumcision to illustrate how circumcision is also bad. You are using bad things as an analogue to circumcision to try to illustrate how circumcision is not bad.

Me - "A is bad!"
You - "A is not bad!"
Me - "Then is B, an analogue of A, bad?"
You - "Yes, it would be bad."
Me - "Then why isn't A bad?"
You - "Because it's not as bad as B."
Me - "But B is still bad?"
You - "Yes, B is bad."
Me - "But A, which is in many ways comparable to B, is not?"
You - "No, A is not bad, just B is."
Me - "I can't believe you're making me write another silly fake conversation..."

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Fine. Selecting a girl is not life-changing because nothing changes.

We've been through this already: nothing changes but the woman is aware that her quality of life was basically chosen for her.

Yes, but the difference is that "we" are using bad things as analogues to circumcision to illustrate how circumcision is also bad. You are using bad things as an analogue to circumcision to try to illustrate how circumcision is not bad.

I am using examples which are comparable to circumcision - things which are done without the child's consent, are irreversable but generally have little impact on their lives (depending on circumstance).

I've noticed you're ignoring my question and are resorting to silly 'fake conversations'. I've outlined my comparison to circumcision and diet here.

 

[Aradia]

I know people whose lives are so bad that they wish they were never born. Had they known they were "selected", I guarantee that would make them even more angry and bitter than they already are.

 

[Umaro]

We've been through this already: nothing changes but the woman is aware that her quality of life was basically chosen for her.

How would the quality of her life be chosen for her? If a male was chosen, the woman wouldn't exist in the first place. It's a completely different issue.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We've been through this already: nothing changes but the woman is aware that her quality of life was basically chosen for her.



I am using examples which are comparable to circumcision - things which are done without the child's consent, are irreversable but generally have little impact on their lives (depending on circumstance).

You analogies don't work: they're comparing medically necessary procedures (choosing sex, choosing food, etc) to an unnecessary procedure (i.e., circumcision).

Consent is ideal.
But if the child can't consent yet, the next best thing is to wait for the child to be able to make a decision himself.
But if we can't wait that long, then we have to place the decision in the hands of the parents.

So with circumcision, we should wait for the child to be able to consent. There is nothing lost or gained by having the surgery at birth that cannot wait till later in life.
But with emergency situations, we can't wait till the child can give consent, so we have to defer the decision to someone else.

 

[laconicstudent]

We've been through this already: nothing changes but the woman is aware that her quality of life was basically chosen for her.



I am using examples which are comparable to circumcision - things which are done without the child's consent, are irreversable but generally have little impact on their lives (depending on circumstance).

I've noticed you're ignoring my question and are resorting to silly 'fake conversations'. I've outlined my comparison to circumcision and diet here.

Why are you so insistent that it has "little impact"? You aren't in any position to know compared to the opposite sex.

 

[katautumn]

My husband is sitting here and he says circumcision whining is stupid. Those are his words. He is glad he's circumcised and insists it has had zero negative impact on his life. He's of the opinion that if you don't want to circumcise your son, that's fine. He says if you want to circumcise your son, that's fine also. He also wanted me to say that if you're a guy and you've been circumcised it's really goofy to whinge about it now, unless the procedure went horribly wrong and rendered you completely unable to experience sexual pleasure. So, there ya go. Straight out of a dude's mouth to my keyboard.

 

[katautumn]

Something else I also find interesting - most men who feel anger over being circumcised as infants are under the age of thirty or just over, whereas most men I know over the age of, say, thirty-five are either completely unmoved, or even grateful, that they were circumcised. I wonder if it's a generational thing.

 

[Umaro]

My husband is sitting here and he says circumcision whining is stupid. Those are his words. He is glad he's circumcised and insists it has had zero negative impact on his life. He's of the opinion that if you don't want to circumcise your son, that's fine. He says if you want to circumcise your son, that's fine also. He also wanted me to say that if you're a guy and you've been circumcised it's really goofy to whinge about it now, unless the procedure went horribly wrong and rendered you completely unable to experience sexual pleasure. So, there ya go. Straight out of a dude's mouth to my keyboard.

Why would your husband being a man with an opinion about it have any bearing over the other men who hold the opposite opinion? I'm a guy, and I'm unhappy I was circumcised, so there's my opinion right out of my mouth and straight to my keyboard.

And why is it goofy to whine about it? Is it goofy for women who have had mastectomies to be unhappy they're missing a side? It's not like it ruined their sex life or anything.

Something else I also find interesting - most men who feel anger over being circumcised as infants are under the age of thirty or just over, whereas most men I know over the age of, say, thirty-five are either completely unmoved, or even grateful, that they were circumcised. I wonder if it's a generational thing.

It could be, especially because the stance on circumcision is changing. As more and more medical communities come out in support of not cutting off part of your kids penis, younger men probably feel annoyed they were still cut despite there being no real reason to. It's a lot different to learn you were cut for no reason when you're 20 and in the prime of your sex life than when you're 50 and it's already going downhill. But just because some men end up happy with it, doesn't mean we should force it on everyone. I know people who have had plastic surgery to their face they're ecstatic about, but that doesn't mean if we forced it on everyone we should just ignore those who end up unhappy.