|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Wilf on 12:01 AM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The study involved too small a sample to be conclusive. A small fraction of the sample developed HIV.
In any case, it's often considered morally strongly justified for parents to authorize nonreligious routine infant circumcision (RIC). By this I mean that it is often assumed that all fully informed impartial rational persons find nothing morally wrong with authorizing and performing a circumcision for non-therapeautic (and non-religious) reasons. Before I proceed, let me say that I am NOT discussing religious circumcision: I am discussing nonreligious circumcision. I leave the discussion of circumcision as a religious observance to others with religious affiliations, such as Jews Against Circumcision, among others (pro and con).
Moreover, when I refer to routine infant circumcision, I specifically exclude any of the medical indications: HPLV, genital warts, diabetic balanitis (possibly frenulum breve), and in children hypospadiasis and malformed preputial meatus and urinary meatus. These are medical reasons for undergoing a therapeautic circumcision, and are specifically excluded in my analysis.
Since the reader's time is valuable, I summarize my conclusions; more detailed arguments are available elsewhere.
The controversy surrounding routine infant circumcision (RIC) indicates that it cannot be strongly morally justified in the sense that amputating a limb to save a life is strongly morally justified. The reason is that since there are significant numbers of equally-informed impartial rational persons who favor RIC, and significant numbers of equally informed impartial rational persons who are opposed to RIC, the strongest possible moral argument in favor of RIC could conclude at most that RIC is weakly justified. Such an argument cannot conclude that RIC is justified, as David Benatar and Michael Benatar argued in "How not to argue about circumcision." Accordingly, persons who authorize and perform routine infant circumcision who are aware of either: the harms caused by RIC; or the controversy surrounding RIC are not excluded from moral judgment. Only those persons who could not possibly have known about either: the harms of RIC; or its controversial status are excluded from moral judgment.
This is not as strong a conclusion as some anti-circumcision activists (intactivists) would like, however, it is sufficient to undermine the commonly held opinion that RIC is morally unexceptionable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The future sexual activity, and sexual welfare, of a child is none of the parent's business. The response will be typical:
"But my child's welfare is my business!"
Not so. When that child becomes an adult and starts to engage in sexual activity, it will no longer be any of the parent's business. Whether or not circumcision reduces risk of HIV is a moot point. When the child comes of age and is no longer a child, his sexual health is his own business. Any risks he takes are his own risks, and the consequences are on his own head.
A parent has no right to mutilate a child on the basis of a potential health benefit. If (IF!) there is a benefit to circumcision, the child can choose it for himself when he becomes an adult. If he chooses not to be circumcised, then he takes that risk for himself, and it is none of the parent's business.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll take the moral argument a step further:
If a parent (or parents) has a child circumcised, then said parent(s) is morally responsible for providing for that child's foreskin restoration, should that child ask for it later in life. In fact, the child is not only entitled to ask for it, but to demand it.
There is a simple moral principle involved: If you damage something, you fix it.
If you cause damage to your child's penis, then you'd damn well better be willing to have it fixed. And if the child decides he wants to go the surgical restoration route, then you'd better be able to cough up several thousand dollars, because that's what it'll cost.
If you had your child circimcised and are reading this, let there be no misunderstanding: YOU ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO FIX IT. Don't think for one minute that insurance will cover it, because it probably won't. That money will have to come from your own pocket. "But I cannot afford to have that done!" You should have thought of that before you had your child mutilated.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 12:08 PM November 22nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't they just sew skin from other parts of the body to the penis in "surgical restoration"? That would just be a cosmetic fix, and I think even a rather bad one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surgical restoration involves cutting the skin at the base of the penis, pushing it up over the head (glans) so that it is then covered, then grafting skin onto the exposed area where the incision was made. (Do a search for "epispasm" and you'll get the idea.)
The problem with surgical restoration is that it often results in a "look" which is fake. The preferred method of restoration is to manually stretch the skin over a period of time, thus facilitating the growth of new skin. (Much like Fat Bastard in the Austin Powers films when he lost a ton of weight, and had a lot of excess skin, LOL!) Fortunately manually stretching the skin is extremely cheap, so you parents out there that had your son(s) mutilated might want to mention that to them. However, should they still decide to go the surgical route, let's hope the parents have a few thousand dollars saved up, since that is what it will cost.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:44 PM November 25th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Once again I am amazed! Arguing about the moralisation of a deforming act on the human body. I believe that people like you like to hear themselves speak, without saying anything, but with the intent to confuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 11:56 PM November 25th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Arguing about the moralisation of a deforming act on the human body. I believe that people like you like to hear themselves speak, without saying anything, but with the intent to confuse.
I agree with you that routine infant circumcision is not morally justified. However, I disagree that I am deliberately intending to confuse anyone.
If you have a specific criticism, I'd like to know what it is.
What I am attempting to do is appeal to the broadest number of persons with this line of argument. Many people think, and some bioethicists, who are mistaken, in my view, have argued that RIC is morally permissable, without any repercussions. However, it is not morally justified in the sense they would like to believe: absolute freedom from moral judgment and moral consequences (unless there was no way they could have possibly known about the harms or controversial status of RIC).
I find it dismaying to think that there are persons who are confused by arguments I consider straightforward. I assure you there is no intent to confuse, and that your belief about me is mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:33 AM November 26th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I am sorry if I have offended you, but having a background in science, possesion of an analyitical mind, and having a partialy photogenic memory I tend to focus on the intent of the information. Where did it come from, what is the bias, how were the controls handled? I by nature am an individual that doesn't like to cloud peoples minds if I know an argument is based soley on the manipulation of humanity. I would like to find a group of researchers that push this to be adult males not having previously experienced RIC that voluntarily have had it done as adults. Now when that group does its' research I then will feel the need to argue with them. I have a degree in psychology, I would tell them to seek professional help outside of their field of influence so that they might regain their senses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 10:32 AM November 26th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
but having a background in science, possesion of an analyitical mind, and having a partialy photogenic memory I tend to focus on the intent of the information.
I have a doctorate in mathematics. While it is useful to separate statements into their intellectual and emotional components, I find it helpful to stay focused on the intellectual content if I am attempting to follow an argument, whatever the motivation of the speaker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 12:27 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf, I have never been able to seperate my emotions from anything, for they are a part of my humanity. My intellectual pursuits during my life have been to observe and learn about as much as I could on how and why our lives are like they are, for we are not in balance. I correct myself, that was photographic memory. In my own personal experience I have found most people that concentrate on the intellectual side of any argument are losing the big picture, they perform to the audience in their mind instead of answering to their own humanity. That can happen because most "intellectuals" have been seperated from the masses by position and privilage, therefore since their intellectual musings have liitle real affect on them, they feel safe in postulating. I do not include you in this description, for I do not know you, this is just my experiences with intellectuals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:03 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to ad hominem responses. If you have a holistic response, so much the better. But it cannot be an emotional and intellectual response if it doesn't also address the argument, in addition to perceived apparent psychological motivation. Then it's only ad hominem. I'd exercise caution about generalizations about intellectuals. Incidentally, Richard Hoftstadter wrote a book on American attitudes towards intellectuals entitled, "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 09:42 AM November 26th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf, I had another thought. When sitting on the fence one must always protect themselves from splinters. I have known many people that found themselves impaled on the fence post that they sat on, hard times for the anal orifice! Then again I have known many people that have jumped off the fence, and that is where Karma, and the intent of the individual has its' final say with us all. No harm intended Wilf, but I as any of us have my own opinons about "TRUTH", for some it is something that can be felt, for others it is something that must be found. I wish you luck on your journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:10 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf, I had another thought. When sitting on the fence one must always protect themselves from splinters.
That's the point I'm attempting to make, if by sitting on the fence one means believing that
1. it is possible to be fully informed about RIC, which would mean being informed about its controversial status and its negative medical and sexual consequences; and
2. believing that it is possible to be neither for nor against RIC, being fully informed as in 1, so that one is fully justified in authorizing an involuntary circumcision, without any moral consequences or any possiblity of any moral criticism whatsoever.
I don't see how to avoid this level of "verbiage" about it; perhaps a better writer could do it.
My other point is that one must articulate why it is that being on the fence won't suffice; it's not enough to say it's wrong. There have to be arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Wilf on 03:12 PM November 26th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
2. should be corrected for clarity:
. believing that it is possible to be neither for nor against RIC, being fully informed as in 1, and believing, therefore, that one is fully justified in authorizing an involuntary circumcision, without any moral consequences or any possiblity of any moral criticism whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 08:44 AM November 25th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I am reasonably educated, and I have friends in the medical field, as well as a BS in psychology. What I know about aids is that without a host, direct entrance into the human body, it is a fragile virus. It dies without a home, ASAP. Therefore, removing a natural body part by a practice that was started to prevent staff infections in this day and age is perpetuating nothing more than a hideous tribal practice to deform the human male body. Makes good sense for a Shaman, or a greedy doctor. But for us everyday folks who just want our dignity.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
