Sex and Circumcised POLL

[darkbond007]

So why isn't anyone screaming to defend the 13 year old Muslim kids?

That I don't know. All I know is I would hate for World War 3 to start over foreskin.

I can see it now, "We have to find those weapons of foreskin destruction!!!"

No thanks.

 

[Snozzle]

I focused on the yearly updates on my genitalia, phimosis 16 years straight. This was all fine and well up to the age of 10 but at 11 and beyond it was infuriarating especially when I saw comments like "phimosis, teen should eventually grow out of" ,"acute phimosis, patient conversation needed", "phimosis, adult penis" basically stating to me that the DOCTOR knew what was wrong with me and never informed me. When I asked my mom about it, she says that the doctor informed her and my mom asked several times for me to have a circumcision and the doctor refused.

REFUSED?!?!?!!?

F***...THAT...

So dont talk to be about consent or ethics or whatever. You have no idea.

Well, the doctor was clearly at fault, and if he wrote "patient conversation needed" why didn't it happen? I don't think we need to talk to you about consent or ethics, when the medical practice was simply incompetent.

I can see why you're mad about this long-standing medical neglect of your particular condition, and it's true that infant circumcision would have prevented it in your case. But that has nothing to do with anyone else's case, or the ethics of routine infant circumcision.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

One of the other circumcision threads. It comes off rather condescending.

I didn't think I was implying that. Being a biology major in undergrad is not something I assume people to think of as an accreditation or boast.

I am not mad that the doctor did not circumcise me. I am mad that the doctor lied to my parents so that they wouldnt circumcise me yet recorded that I had an issue with my penis knowing full well what the corrective measures that could have taken place. Look, it's one thing to say no to a circumcision, it's another thing not to provide a solution. She never provided a solution and frankly maybe is she did I would have been able to resolve the phimosis issue and possibly still have a foreskin.

So no it's not a contradiction to my stance.

I took "REFUSED?!?!?!!? ... F***...THAT..." as angry, but OK.

Yes, both your doctor and your mother probably screwed up. It's very rare that treating adolescent phimosis does not completely resolve it; the resolution rate is like 90% or 95%. You probably would not have had to gone through surgery unless you wanted to for non-clinical reasons.

But, under your argument, your mother had no ethical obligation to do the right thing here, and any resentment on your part is irrational. I disagree.

Beating a kid is legal in the Bahamas. If a friend of mine beat his kid I would have nothing to say on it. Truly I wouldnt just as because I am not beating my kid I would not expect my friend to come to me and state that I should beat him, if he did then me and that friend would have words.

Um, let's say he was bleeding him bloody because he thought it was the only way to instill the fear of authority in him. Beating him unconscious, whatever. My point still stands: There are times, both socially or legally, where I imagine that you'd intervene on parental license. I certainly doubt you support the right to kill your kid until they turn 18. Obviously I'm not equating circumcising a kid with killing him, but I think you get my idea. You're treating "you can't tell me what's right for my kid!" like it was some sort of absolute normative stance that you're offended I'm violating; I don't think you actually think it's a normative absolute, you just draw the line in different places.

But you do draw the line, and are willing to enforce it legally. Why are you complaining that I am? There are people who draw the line at no legal enforcement, who could levy the same complaint on you. If everything is so subjective, you have nothing about which to kvetch.

 

[darkbond007]

Well, the doctor was clearly at fault, and if he wrote "patient conversation needed" why didn't it happen? I don't think we need to talk to you about consent or ethics, when the medical practice was simply incompetent.

I can see why you're mad about this long-standing medical neglect of your particular condition, and it's true that infant circumcision would have prevented it in your case. But that has nothing to do with anyone else's case, or the ethics of routine infant circumcision.

I have never said I am a supporter of RIC.

I have only ever stated that in my case in my life it is something that will be an informed decision within my family. It wont happen right after the baby is born either.

Thanks for understanding my mindset however.

I didn't think I was implying that. Being a biology major in undergrad is not something I assume people to think of as an accreditation or boast.

It's akin to me walking into Best Buy and stating I have a Master's in Computer Engineering.

I took "REFUSED?!?!?!!? ... F***...THAT..." as angry, but OK.

Yes, both your doctor and your mother probably screwed up. It's very rare that treating adolescent phimosis does not completely resolve it; the resolution rate is like 90% or 95%. You probably would not have had to gone through surgery unless you wanted to for non-clinical reasons.

But, under your argument, your mother had no ethical obligation to do the right thing here, and any resentment on your part is irrational. I disagree.

I was NEVER asking my mother. She did what she believed was the right thing. She listened to the doctor. I knew no better.

I was asking my doctor. If my doctor was any kind of ethical then I would have at least been treated sooner rather than later. It would have been 4 years of jacking off versus 11 years of jacking off and sex etc. When it came time for me to have my circumcision my mom was the one who I had to talk to and she was understanding.

Um, let's say he was bleeding him bloody because he thought it was the only way to instill the fear of authority in him. Beating him unconscious, whatever. My point still stands: There are times, both socially or legally, where I imagine that you'd intervene on parental license. I certainly doubt you support the right to kill your kid until they turn 18. Obviously I'm not equating circumcising a kid with killing him, but I think you get my idea. You're treating "you can't tell me what's right for my kid!" like it was some sort of absolute normative stance that you're offended I'm violating; I don't think you actually think it's a normative absolute, you just draw the line in different places.

I am so glad you framed your argument in this manner.

I found beating a kid flippant and I told you I would not intervene. You then framed it to a point where you know from a conscious mindset I would want to. Which I would. However, you have also proven the point of ethical variance that I have been trying to convince you of.

1. Yelling at a kid
2. Slapping a kid
3. Beating a kid
4. Beating a kid to a bloody pulp
5. Killing a kid

Along this spectrum are varying degrees. Humans all do not agree on them. My personal threshold is at a 1. I would yell at a kid. Someone may be at a 2, another at a 4. In terms of where I would step in and question a parent would be at 4. You probably feel the need to intervene at 2.

The same can be said about circumcision

1. Leaving uncut
2. Having the child RIC
3. Having the child cut in adolescence

You are at a 1. I am in between a 2 and a 3. There is a difference. Does that make any belief wrong? No. You feel the need to intervene at 2. I dont feel the need to intervene at all.

I hope this adequately explains our differences.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

It's akin to me walking into Best Buy and stating I have a Master's in Computer Engineering.

Except that wouldn't be in context, and a Master's degree is way more than "I'm studying this in school and have some work experience." That's what I was meaning to communicate. I looked back at the post you were alluding to, and it doesn't seem braggy to me. I'm sorry if you felt it came across otherwise.

I was NEVER asking my mother. She did what she believed was the right thing. She listened to the doctor. I knew no better.

I was asking my doctor. If my doctor was any kind of ethical then I would have at least been treated sooner rather than later. It would have been 4 years of jacking off versus 11 years of jacking off and sex etc. When it came time for me to have my circumcision my mom was the one who I had to talk to and she was understanding.

You're missing my angle. You apparently think your doctor was just spiting you by refusing circumcision. What if he was acting in what he thought to be your self-interest? I mean, it demonstrably wasn't; he should have treated you. But that's the sort of utilitarian argument you're arguing that's none of my business. I think RIC fails this test as badly as not properly treating your phimosis did.

Maybe you think for some reason that doctors have an ethical treatment to conduct empirical cost-benefit analyses, but parents don't. I'm just saying that someone could take your argument, apply it to doctors (who aren't even tasked with caring for their patients in the ways parents are for their children) and argue that it was perfectly acceptable for him to do what he did, especially if your mother could have theoretically gotten a new doctor.

I am so glad you framed your argument in this manner.

I found beating a kid flippant and I told you I would not intervene. You then framed it to a point where you know from a conscious mindset I would want to. Which I would. However, you have also proven the point of ethical variance that I have been trying to convince you of.

1. Yelling at a kid
2. Slapping a kid
3. Beating a kid
4. Beating a kid to a bloody pulp
5. Killing a kid

Along this spectrum are varying degrees. Humans all do not agree on them. My personal threshold is at a 1. I would yell at a kid. Someone may be at a 2, another at a 4. In terms of where I would step in and question a parent would be at 4. You probably feel the need to intervene at 2.

The same can be said about circumcision

1. Leaving uncut
2. Having the child RIC
3. Having the child cut in adolescence

You are at a 1. I am in between a 2 and a 3. There is a difference. Does that make any belief wrong? No. You feel the need to intervene at 2. I dont feel the need to intervene at all.

I hope this adequately explains our differences.

Arguing "ethical variances" would be great if my argument required you substituting my ethical premise for your own, but in case you haven't noticed, that isn't what I've been doing.

My entire argument is demonstrating that your opinion on RIC is in conflict with itself, or other ethical beliefs I suspect you hold. You keep saying it's consistent, and telling me to stop questioning it, but I suspect otherwise. I'm waiting for you to answer JTalbain to explain why I think your ethical claims here are internally inconsistent and/or in conflict with other values you hold.

My entire point was that, you argue these subjective spectra, and that it's offensive to enforce your spectral position on the other person. Then you're complaining that I'm daring even to argue with you that 1 is better than 2-3, when in other instances, you probably support legal intervention (like if someone beats their kid within an inch of his life...although maybe you'd tolerate that?) It's hypocritical at worst, circular at best. My argument is neither.

 

[Snozzle]

I have never said I am a supporter of RIC.

Sorry, I was blurring you and gravitor there, right after he said he agreed with you 100%.

I have only ever stated that in my case in my life it is something that will be an informed decision within my family. It wont happen right after the baby is born either.

This is the classic ambiguity of "routine". If it means
1. without consulting the parents, then true, you don't support RIC, but this has not been its meaning for two or three decades, inasmuch as they always make some show of consulting the parents.

Nowadays it means
2. Without medical indication. If you're proposing to do it pre-emptively, then by that definition, yes, you do support it.

Because of that ambiguity, I avoid* the expression in favour of "non-therapeutic circumcision".

* usually

 

[darkbond007]

Except that wouldn't be in context, and a Master's degree is way more than "I'm studying this in school and have some work experience." That's what I was meaning to communicate. I looked back at the post you were alluding to, and it doesn't seem braggy to me. I'm sorry if you felt it came across otherwise.

It's not what you said but just your timing of what you said.

You're missing my angle. You apparently think your doctor was just spiting you by refusing circumcision. What if he was acting in what he thought to be your self-interest? I mean, it demonstrably wasn't; he should have treated you. But that's the sort of utilitarian argument you're arguing that's none of my business. I think RIC fails this test as badly as not properly treating your phimosis did.

She had to be spiting me when she clearly said she needed to discuss with patient and never discussed with me.

I understand that that is your angle. However, I do not subscribe to the thought that not treating my phimosis is the same argument as the failure of RIC else I would be damning RIC just as you are.

My stance is that I am an informed male on circumcision that happens to have experienced all there is to life with both and uncut penis and a cut penis. I think I am well informed enough to make a decision for my son.

Maybe you think for some reason that doctors have an ethical treatment to conduct empirical cost-benefit analyses, but parents don't. I'm just saying that someone could take your argument, apply it to doctors (who aren't even tasked with caring for their patients in the ways parents are for their children) and argue that it was perfectly acceptable for him to do what he did, especially if your mother could have theoretically gotten a new doctor.

This doctor...it's a she...was the best doctor in the Bahamas at the time. There was no option to get a new doctor. You get a new doctor your asking for a sick kid.

Arguing "ethical variances" would be great if my argument required you substituting my ethical premise for your own, but in case you haven't noticed, that isn't what I've been doing.

My entire argument is demonstrating that your opinion on RIC is in conflict with itself, or other ethical beliefs I suspect you hold. You keep saying it's consistent, and telling me to stop questioning it, but I suspect otherwise. I'm waiting for you to answer JTalbain to explain why I think your ethical claims here are internally inconsistent and/or in conflict with other values you hold.

I have replied to all of JTalbain's posts and as you can see we are two pees in a pod.

I have stated time and time again that our outlook on RIC differ from an ethical standpoint. I went so far as to show you just now where they differ. I have had the same exact stance on RIC I have always had.

1. I dont care what other parents do with their kids whether they leave them uncut or the circumcise them.
2. I would like my son circumcised between the ages of 2 and 10.

Whatever other values I hold with any other subject are separate and apart from what I think of circumcision and vice versa.

My entire point was that, you argue these subjective spectra, and that it's offensive to enforce your spectral position on the other person. Then you're complaining that I'm daring even to argue with you that 1 is better than 2-3, when in other instances, you probably support legal intervention (like if someone beats their kid within an inch of his life...although maybe you'd tolerate that?) It's hypocritical at worst, circular at best. My argument is neither.

I am now at a point where I dont get your argument and you are consistently assuming. I told you where I would stand on a spectrum of beating a kid. You dont stand on the same spectrum but I am fine with that. In the Bahamas it is legal to beat a kid. Kids are beaten all the time here. I was beaten when I was younger. I am still alive. My mother loves me dearly after every punishment she would sit me down and explain why. It was a tactic that worked well for her and I hold no animosity towards her for it. Would I do it to my kids...No. Does that mean I should automatically hate for someone else to do it to their kid....NO! And here is what you dont understand and what you feel is being inconsistent.

Here is another one...I'm an aetheist but I dont go around and tell people their religion is dumb. I feel religion is still needed in the world just to keep some people from doing really crazy stuff. I am quite complex in my beliefs and I just dont think it sits well with you. By your assertion me being an aetheist I should automatically be rude and incoherent to anyone who is religious. Frankly I could care less.

-------

Now...every post you have had replying to me has had GRAVE assumptions on your part that frankly are not representative of what you perceive is my stance. I have repeated it countless times yet now you say my stance is not consistent I have circled back to prove to you that my stance has always been consistent and now it appears you are questioning my ethics.

We are now back at square one and from the very first interaction we had I exclaimed to you that I am not interested in getting into whose ethics are superior because I inherently believe there are differing ethical spectrums over the vast societies and cultures within the world. You now appear to be attacking my ethical feelings towards circumcision and/or RIC and quite frankly I dont see where you have grounds to do so when the vast majority of people have differing ethical beliefs. You will say that either thats not what you are arguing or that I brought the argument back to this point but at this point I really dont get what you want from me. I've participated in diluting a perfectly good poll I made into just one of these other cut vs uncut threads due to you (from day one you had an issue with the poll).

Seriously...even if you have to send it in a PM...what do you want from me? We wont ever agree on circumcision.

 

[darkbond007]

Sorry, I was blurring you and gravitor there, right after he said he agreed with you 100%.

This is the classic ambiguity of "routine". If it means
1. without consulting the parents, then true, you don't support RIC, but this has not been its meaning for two or three decades, inasmuch as they always make some show of consulting the parents.

Nowadays it means
2. Without medical indication. If you're proposing to do it pre-emptively, then by that definition, yes, you do support it.

Because of that ambiguity, I avoid* the expression in favour of "non-therapeutic circumcision".

* usually

For me the ROUTINE in RIC means performing a circumcision without an informed basis of what a circumcision is or what impact it has on a child just for the basis of performing a circumcision.

This I do not support.

However if the parent is fully aware of the what a circumcision entails and have been provided the advantages and the disadvantages of each of the statuses and makes an informed judgement call for their son then I am fine with that parents decision.

What I take away from these arguments is not that this is a cut vs uncut thing. I really see this as an education and awareness issue for BOTH SIDES. As JTalabain and I have discussed in our last few points of communication it would be great to be able to talk hard concrete facts about male genitalia. Not ambiguous references and toss away research articles.

A perfect world for me is one where circumcision is legal however the parents have to do like a 6 hour crash course on the male penis and understand how an uncut penis is and how a cut penis is. This I would only subject people to if extensive research was done that can formally state the possibilities of both.

I really dont think the world as a whole understands the penis at all.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

It's not what you said but just your timing of what you said.

Hey, you can either believe me or not.

She had to be spiting me when she clearly said she needed to discuss with patient and never discussed with me.

I understand that that is your angle. However, I do not subscribe to the thought that not treating my phimosis is the same argument as the failure of RIC else I would be damning RIC just as you are.

So...you just identified one distinction and just declared it a meaningful difference. Is it just that doctors have the obligation to do cost-benefits analyses, but parents can just default to whatever they intuit is right, without being responsible to poor cost-benefits? Why?

I mean, the doctor is providing a service that the proxy holder (the parent) consents to; with parents, there's no consent involved. This is a difference, but where's the meaningful distinction?

I have replied to all of JTalbain's posts and as you can see we are two pees in a pod.

I have stated time and time again that our outlook on RIC differ from an ethical standpoint. I went so far as to show you just now where they differ. I have had the same exact stance on RIC I have always had.

1. I dont care what other parents do with their kids whether they leave them uncut or the circumcise them.
2. I would like my son circumcised between the ages of 2 and 10.

Whatever other values I hold with any other subject are separate and apart from what I think of circumcision and vice versa.

Somehow I don't think that JTalbain is morally on board with your intention to circumcise your kid without his consent, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

As much as I'm enjoying hearing your argument repeated for the nth time (why would it matter if you get your kid cut at birth or 2?), I can still explain to you why your argument is internally inconsistent or violates ethic principles you also hold. Like I've explained a few times now.

I've looked back at your exchange with JTalbain. Where did you answer the question about the acceptability of utilitarian arguments? If RIC's cost-benefits were proven to be unjustified (as your physician's cost-benefits were) would you, or would you not, be OK with me judging your decision? If your standard is objective harm, recall what you previously defined "objective harm" as and tell me if you're still comfortable with it.

I am now at a point where I dont get your argument and you are consistently assuming. I told you where I would stand on a spectrum of beating a kid. You dont stand on the same spectrum but I am fine with that. In the Bahamas it is legal to beat a kid. Kids are beaten all the time here. I was beaten when I was younger. I am still alive. My mother loves me dearly after every punishment she would sit me down and explain why. It was a tactic that worked well for her and I hold no animosity towards her for it. Would I do it to my kids...No. Does that mean I should automatically hate for someone else to do it to their kid....NO! And here is what you dont understand and what you feel is being inconsistent.

My point was that you're simultaneously complaining that I have a threshold, and then complaining when I criticize your threshold. Even if "this is all subjective," when you criticize another parent -- through social or legal means -- you're engaging your threshold in the same way you're complaining about me doing. Unless you'd allow a parent to beat their kid into a coma without say anything, this is hypocritical.

Here's my standard on when I'm willing to intervene to prevent a harm: If the costs (primary and secondary) of intervening are lesser than the benefits associated with preventing the harm. Anything else allows more harm than benefit for no particular reason, and is wrong.

As far as I can tell, your standard involves arbitrarily allowing harm in arbitrary circumstances.

Here is another one...I'm an aetheist but I dont go around and tell people their religion is dumb. I feel religion is still needed in the world just to keep some people from doing really crazy stuff. I am quite complex in my beliefs and I just dont think it sits well with you. By your assertion me being an aetheist I should automatically be rude and incoherent to anyone who is religious. Frankly I could care less.

I have no problem with complex arguments or people. I'm not stupid.

Nothing in my argument obligates you as an atheist to be a jerk to theists, or "incoherent." I'm an atheist too, and have no problem with theism as long as it doesn't negatively impact a third party; the costs (impacting their happiness) wouldn't outweigh the benefits. I don't hate people for supporting RIC either.

 

[darkbond007]

Hey, you can either believe me or not.

I would like to believe.

So...you just identified one distinction and just declared it a meaningful difference. Is it just that doctors have the obligation to do cost-benefits analyses, but parents can just default to whatever they intuit is right, without being responsible to poor cost-benefits? Why?

Is this what you do? I never said I wanted a cost benefit analysis with the doctor.

I simply would have liked the doctor to discuss with me if there was a problem with my penis. AT THE VERY LEAST let me know that it is a problem. You clearly stated it as a problem on my medical records. At the time of this I didnt even know what phimosis was dude. The tangent you are going off on here has nothing to do with my argument. All I am asking for is for the doctor to do the human thing and tell me what is wrong with my penis.

I mean, the doctor is providing a service that the proxy holder (the parent) consents to; with parents, there's no consent involved. This is a difference, but where's the meaningful distinction?

The distinction is the doctor saw that something was wrong and did not inform the patient.

Somehow I don't think that JTalbain is morally on board with your intention to circumcise your kid without his consent, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

I never said he was. I am not looking for a bandwagon train for people to agree with me. And again...I am circumcising my son between 2 and 10. When he can talk and understand what a circumcision is, is when we will discuss. You and I have been down this road.

As much as I'm enjoying hearing your argument repeated for the nth time (why would it matter if you get your kid cut at birth or 2?), I can still explain to you why your argument is internally inconsistent or violates ethic principles you also hold. Like I've explained a few times now.

It doesnt. You have explained nothing whatsoever.

I've looked back at your exchange with JTalbain. Where did you answer the question about the acceptability of utilitarian arguments? If RIC's cost-benefits were proven to be unjustified (as your physician's cost-benefits were) would you, or would you not, be OK with me judging your decision? If your standard is objective harm, recall what you previously defined "objective harm" as and tell me if you're still comfortable with it.

Read the above. I was not looking for any type of analysis from my physician.

My point was that you're simultaneously complaining that I have a threshold, and then complaining when I criticize your threshold. Even if "this is all subjective," when you criticize another parent -- through social or legal means -- you're engaging your threshold in the same way you're complaining about me doing. Unless you'd allow a parent to beat their kid into a coma without say anything, this is hypocritical.

You are missing my point. Everyone has a threshold. I understand we both have thresholds. My threshold DIFFERS FROM YOURS!!!! What about this do you not get? Answer me this one question. Dont respond to anything else but this ONE question. There is nothing hypocritical about me having a threshold and stepping in on the threshold...lets give an example involving circumcision

1. Leave Uncut
2. RIC when baby is born via an informed parent
3. Circumcise when an adolescent via an informed parent and informed child
4. Pierce son's penis before 18.

My threshold is a 3. Your's is a 1. I would be fine with 1-3. You are only fine with 1. WE ARE DIFFERENT in our mindset.

Here's my standard on when I'm willing to intervene to prevent a harm: If the costs (primary and secondary) of intervening are lesser than the benefits associated with preventing the harm. Anything else allows more harm than benefit for no particular reason, and is wrong.

Great I get that. That's your standard. Mine differs.

As far as I can tell, your standard involves arbitrarily allowing harm in arbitrary circumstances.

That's how you perceive it. My standard is in the aspect of circumcision a parent should be allowed to make an informed decision.

I have no problem with complex arguments or people. I'm not stupid.

Nothing in my argument obligates you as an atheist to be a jerk to theists, or "incoherent." I'm an atheist too, and have no problem with theism as long as it doesn't negatively impact a third party; the costs (impacting their happiness) wouldn't outweigh the benefits. I don't hate people for supporting RIC either.

Here is the difference. You have a problem with people who dont share your outlook on RIC. I dont.

I am sure you have a problem with people who are not Atheist. I dont. As long as youre not killing people and flying planes into buildings all is well.

 

[maxcok]

Stupidest fucking poll ever!!!

I've only made it to the bottom of page one (only lightly skimming) and I seriously can't go any further.

. . . . the above poll will tell you nothing about the effect of circumcision, since you have nothing to compare it to.

Precisely, since the vast majority of men have only experienced one or the other.

. . . . So what youre saying is...a circumcised man has no idea if sex is good being circumcised versus being uncut...just like an uncut man has no idea if sex is good being uncut versus circumcised?

The question is, does one status provide for more pleasure than the other. For the answer, see Snozzle above.

I'm not wanting, willing or able to turn this into a circumcised versus uncircumcised discussion.

BULLSHIT!

Get over yourselves.

You first.

This isnt a debate guys. Its a poll. A simple poll with simple questions that can be checked or not checked. If the majority of people were checking that they hated sex you would not have a problem with this poll. Really...get over yourselves and stop trying to convince circumcised men that what they have is no good.

Stop exaggerating and creating strawman arguments. Your agenda could not be more transparent.

 

[darkbond007]

I bet you voted!

 

[maxcok]

I bet you voted!

And you would be dead wrong about that too. So much for your assumptions.

Besides the fact I couldn't be bothered with stupid polls, your "poll" is utterly meaningless - purposely, shabbily and disingenuously designed to reach one conclusion and one conclusion only - to bolster your argument that men suffer no significant loss of sexual pleasure through circumcision. As Snozz and others have pointed out, the vast majority would never know if they had, never having experienced what sex was like with a foreskin.

As I just said:

Your agenda could not be more transparent.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

darkbond,

This is the third post where you haven't clarified my questions so I can explain why I think your argument is logically flawed in a formal way. Unless arguing that I was not modest enough a dozen posts ago is more important, would you mind doing that? You agreed to previously.

The question I was asking is whether a parent has a moral obligation to...

1. Perform a holistic cost-benefits analysis, and do whatever causes more good than harm.

2. Determine whether any of the options cause "objective harm." [If you answer this, I'll make sure I know what you mean by "objective harm" before I show you the formal logical argument.]

3. Neither. Parents have proxy rights, and can do whatever they want. Avoiding objective harm is just your preference you have, but not a moral obligation, and parents should not be bullied or argued into doing so.

***

Is this what you do? I never said I wanted a cost benefit analysis with the doctor.

I simply would have liked the doctor to discuss with me if there was a problem with my penis. AT THE VERY LEAST let me know that it is a problem. You clearly stated it as a problem on my medical records. At the time of this I didnt even know what phimosis was dude. The tangent you are going off on here has nothing to do with my argument. All I am asking for is for the doctor to do the human thing and tell me what is wrong with my penis.

The distinction is the doctor saw that something was wrong and did not inform the patient.

Read the above. I was not looking for any type of analysis from my physician.

Why does a doctor have the obligation to inform a patient so he can make an informed choice, when a parent does not have an analogous obligation? Or is that just how it is to you? I don't like how many seemingly arbitrary, situation-specific "rules" you make, and I'm about to explain what kind of logical trap it gets you into (if you ever answer my questions above.)

It doesnt. You have explained nothing whatsoever.

Are you attempting a vapid zinger, or something? You keep going "it's subjective so stfu." I keep going "subjectivity does not allow for internal, formal logical inconsistency, and does not preclude an opinion from leading to other undesirable moral rules." Even when you create all of these distinctions-with-arbitrary-difference, it does not get you out of that reality. Do you concede that, or do you disagree with formal logic?

You are missing my point. Everyone has a
threshold. I understand we both have thresholds. My threshold DIFFERS FROM YOURS!!!! What about this do you not get? Answer me this one question. Dont respond to anything else but this ONE question. There is nothing hypocritical about me having a threshold and stepping in on the threshold...lets give an example involving circumcision

1. Leave Uncut
2. RIC when baby is born via an informed parent
3. Circumcise when an adolescent via an informed parent and informed child
4. Pierce son's penis before 18.

My threshold is a 3. Your's is a 1. I would be fine with 1-3. You are only fine with 1. WE ARE DIFFERENT in our mindset.

...

Great I get that. That's your standard. Mine differs.

...

That's how you perceive it. My standard is in the aspect of circumcision a parent should be allowed to make an informed decision.

...

Here is the difference. You have a problem with people who dont share your outlook on RIC. I dont.

I don't understand why you're ranting on and on about this. None of this addresses my pointing out that it's hypocritical to morally oppose some uses of parental proxy rights (beating your kid to within an inch of death, which I assume you're OK with illegalizing?) and then complain that I'm doing the same, while also complaining that I'm not sympathetic to subjectivity. Unless you're going to explain how this is illogical (re-asserting your opinion is not a rebuttal!), you're pretty much inherently obligated to drop the complaints about my asserting my position on RIC.

I am sure you have a problem with people who are not Atheist. I dont. As long as youre not killing people and flying planes into buildings all is well.

No...I actually completely agree with you. If theism doesn't cause harm, I have no problem with it, and if it makes people happy, I think that's pretty cool, even if it's something I can't believe.

I fundamentally believe that people should be free to pursue their own happiness so long as it doesn't impact the ability of others to do the same. There are gray areas (positive/negative rights conflicts), but I'd think my view on religion would be pretty self-evidently what it is, not what you're assuming for some reason.

 

[Snozzle]

For me the ROUTINE in RIC means performing a circumcision without an informed basis of what a circumcision is or what impact it has on a child just for the basis of performing a circumcision.

Well that is an idiosyncratic definition of routine, which usually has some trace of "as a matter of course" left in it, but if that's your definition, now we know clearly what you mean.

This I do not support.

However if the parent is fully aware of the what a circumcision entails and have been provided the advantages and the disadvantages of each of the statuses and makes an informed judgement call for their son then I am fine with that parents decision.

My problem with that is that there is no need for them to make such a judgement call at all. If they didn't have circumcision thrust upon them, it simply wouldn't arise (and where it isn't customary, and doctors are taught conservative treatment, it arises very, very rarely).

What I take away from these arguments is not that this is a cut vs uncut thing. I really see this as an education and awareness issue for BOTH SIDES.

And my position is that leaving a baby or child's genitals alone does not even need a side.

A perfect world for me is one where circumcision is legal

Mine too, for pressing medical need. It would not be offered or done otherwise, and need not even be illegal, just so bizarre as to be a rare option, like a tattooed face - an extreme body modification.

however the parents have to do like a 6 hour crash course on the male penis and understand how an uncut penis is and how a cut penis is. This I would only subject people to if extensive research was done that can formally state the possibilities of both.

Whereas I don't think it's any of the parents' business, beyond basic washing, unless and until there is something the matter with it - any more than they have to concern themselves with removing his appendix or gall bladder.

I really dont think the world as a whole understands the penis at all.

And I agree with you there, too. Intact men take theirs for granted, because sex for them is holistic and the foreskin's contribution is integral to that of the rest of the apparatus. Cut men can't imagine what they're missing, in every sense of that expression. (And since you had lifelong phimosis before your operation, you never enjoyed the full rolling action the way it was "designed" to be enjoyed.)

 

[Snozzle]

She had to be spiting me when she clearly said she needed to discuss with patient and never discussed with me.

Could it be that by "patient" she meant your mother, since you mother was your proxy? (Doctors often use strange terminology. If I remember correctly, a "grande multipara" is a woman who has had more than two children.) We often see that merging of the child and the parent in discussions of consent, and it drives Intactivists wild. Maybe you have been hoist by your own petard - she did discuss it with "the patient" - your mother on your behalf. (That's what happens when you let one person decide on behalf of another person.)

Is the doctor still around - could you have it out with her?

I think I am well informed enough to make a decision for my son.

You may think so, but will he, when he is old enough to understand what you had done to him?

2. I would like my son circumcised between the ages of 2 and 10.

Whether he agrees or not at 10? I hope that an ethical doctor would refuse to circumcise a protesting 10-year-old with no medical problem. An Oregon judge recently ruled that a 14-year-old could refuse. Fortunately for the child, the case had dragged out since he was nine.

 

[darkbond007]

And you would be dead wrong about that too. So much for your assumptions.

Besides the fact I couldn't be bothered with stupid polls, your "poll" is utterly meaningless - purposely, shabbily and disingenuously designed to reach one conclusion and one conclusion only - to bolster your argument that men suffer no significant loss of sexual pleasure through circumcision. As Snozz and others have pointed out, the vast majority would never know if they had, never having experienced what sex was like with a foreskin.

As I just said:

I'm glad you put it that way. And the same can be said for a man who has never experienced sex without a foreskin. Yet I see many holding a foreskin as superior.

I still stand by my point that if the poll was different it would have a different tone. Anti-Circ supporters cant stand that circumcised men are happy with their penises.

darkbond,

This is the third post where you haven't clarified my questions so I can explain why I think your argument is logically flawed in a formal way. Unless arguing that I was not modest enough a dozen posts ago is more important, would you mind doing that? You agreed to previously.

The question I was asking is whether a parent has a moral obligation to...

1. Perform a holistic cost-benefits analysis, and do whatever causes more good than harm.

I've done this before with you. I am not doing it again. This is the first time during this discussion you have asked for it. The last time we had this very argument we had a difference in opinion to what is "harm".

2. Determine whether any of the options cause "objective harm." [If you answer this, I'll make sure I know what you mean by "objective harm" before I show you the formal logical argument.]

See 1

3. Neither. Parents have proxy rights, and can do whatever they want. Avoiding objective harm is just your preference you have, but not a moral obligation, and parents should not be bullied or argued into doing so.

That's not consistent with your thought process

Why don't you just make your point and move on. Regardless we will not agree with whatever comes out of your mouth on this subject. No matter what I say you will twist it to fit your needs and I will have to correct you. This is how our discussions have always transpired.
***

Why does a doctor have the obligation to inform a patient so he can make an informed choice, when a parent does not have an analogous obligation? Or is that just how it is to you? I don't like how many seemingly arbitrary, situation-specific "rules" you make, and I'm about to explain what kind of logical trap it gets you into (if you ever answer my questions above.)

You dont like it because you ask general questions I give a specific answer and really all your looking to do is apply your logic to the situation.

Look, the doctor tells me everything about myself and chooses to not discuss with me. The doctor never informed my mother that it was a problem. The doctor presented the facts to my mother like it was something normal and nothing to worry about. My mother was not an informed party so she could not make an informed choice.

Are you attempting a vapid zinger, or something? You keep going "it's subjective so stfu." I keep going "subjectivity does not allow for internal, formal logical inconsistency, and does not preclude an opinion from leading to other undesirable moral rules." Even when you create all of these distinctions-with-arbitrary-difference, it does not get you out of that reality. Do you concede that, or do you disagree with formal logic?

I disagree that your morality equates to global formal logic.

I don't understand why you're ranting on and on about this. None of this addresses my pointing out that it's hypocritical to morally oppose some uses of parental proxy rights (beating your kid to within an inch of death, which I assume you're OK with illegalizing?) and then complain that I'm doing the same, while also complaining that I'm not sympathetic to subjectivity. Unless you're going to explain how this is illogical (re-asserting your opinion is not a rebuttal!), you're pretty much inherently obligated to drop the complaints about my asserting my position on RIC.

Dude...

Your obviously not listening to me. Not everyone is wired like you. It is not hypocritical at all. I dont look at every situation in the world through the same lens.

I have shown time and time again the difference based on personal ethical variance based on different situations.

My thoughts about abortion do not mirror my thoughts on child beating which do not mirror my thoughts on circumcision. This is not logical in your eyes but for millions of people around the world it is.

Look i dont care about your complaints about RIC. You can have them. You are entitled to them but you have no right to question mine. I've never questioned yours. I just simply stated that we do not agree on the matter.

Let me go through this again:

- I support abortion but I would never have a child of mine aborted.
- If a parent beats a child as punishment I would not personally question the parent but if they abuse a child to the point where blood is involved then I would choose to step in. I personally would not beat my child. I dont expect you to understand this. It is a cultural variance we have between us.
- If a parent wants to have their child circumcised or not, I dont feel it is any of my business, and I dont care what they do.

These situations I all look at them differently. I have a separate opinion and threshold over them all. Logically this works for me. I am not wired much like you are where you have one ultimate truth that you apply to all aspects in your life. We differ. I am willing to accept that.

Do you understand now?

No...I actually completely agree with you. If theism doesn't cause harm, I have no problem with it, and if it makes people happy, I think that's pretty cool, even if it's something I can't believe.

That's rather shocking.

I fundamentally believe that people should be free to pursue their own happiness so long as it doesn't impact the ability of others to do the same. There are gray areas (positive/negative rights conflicts), but I'd think my view on religion would be pretty self-evidently what it is, not what you're assuming for some reason.

I assumed. I admit to that.

Well that is an idiosyncratic definition of routine, which usually has some trace of "as a matter of course" left in it, but if that's your definition, now we know clearly what you mean.

My problem with that is that there is no need for them to make such a judgement call at all. If they didn't have circumcision thrust upon them, it simply wouldn't arise (and where it isn't customary, and doctors are taught conservative treatment, it arises very, very rarely).

And my position is that leaving a baby or child's genitals alone does not even need a side.[/quoted]

Noted

Mine too, for pressing medical need. It would not be offered or done otherwise, and need not even be illegal, just so bizarre as to be a rare option, like a tattooed face - an extreme body modification.

I wouldnt go that far but we have a medium of agreement here.

Whereas I don't think it's any of the parents' business, beyond basic washing, unless and until there is something the matter with it - any more than they have to concern themselves with removing his appendix or gall bladder.

We have a difference in opinion there but I see your point.

And I agree with you there, too. Intact men take theirs for granted, because sex for them is holistic and the foreskin's contribution is integral to that of the rest of the apparatus. Cut men can't imagine what they're missing, in every sense of that expression. (And since you had lifelong phimosis before your operation, you never enjoyed the full rolling action the way it was "designed" to be enjoyed.)

But at the same time I believe many men are out there like me and are ill informed about the way their penis functions. I have even seen it here where people would say its better to live with a penis with phimosis than a cut penis which I think is completely wrong.

But then again I lost no sensitivity after my circumcision.

Could it be that by "patient" she meant your mother, since you mother was your proxy? (Doctors often use strange terminology. If I remember correctly, a "grande multipara" is a woman who has had more than two children.) We often see that merging of the child and the parent in discussions of consent, and it drives Intactivists wild. Maybe you have been hoist by your own petard - she did discuss it with "the patient" - your mother on your behalf. (That's what happens when you let one person decide on behalf of another person.)

She did not present phimosis as a problem to my mother. My mother was ill informed. At the year she was to discuss it with me I was already having tears in my foreskin. 2 and 2 would have been put together.

Is the doctor still around - could you have it out with her?
You may think so, but will he, when he is old enough to understand what you had done to him?

Nope moved back to England.

My son and I will discuss his circumcision to the point he will understand. Even before he has it.

Whether he agrees or not at 10? I hope that an ethical doctor would refuse to circumcise a protesting 10-year-old with no medical problem. An Oregon judge recently ruled that a 14-year-old could refuse. Fortunately for the child, the case had dragged out since he was nine.

If he refuses then he refuses and that will be the end of it.

 

[Hoss]

Whether he agrees or not at 10? I hope that an ethical doctor would refuse to circumcise a protesting 10-year-old with no medical problem. An Oregon judge recently ruled that a 14-year-old could refuse. Fortunately for the child, the case had dragged out since he was nine.

While it can be seen as nice that the child didn't have to have a circumcision that he didn't want, I fail to see this as being anywhere near fortunate. A full 1/3 of his life in a family fiight and with appeals the parents can drag this off to another judge that'll side with them. A childhood lost. Kept the skin, hates the parents.

I prefer darkbond007's statement that if the boy says no thats the end of iit, it won't be done. My parting of ways with darkbond is when he says between the ages of "2 and 10" Does a 2 yr. old or even a 5 yr. old really have an understanding what's happening? At 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 maybe even 10, they may be making the decision more in either making Daddy happy or wanting to look like Daddy. The 10 yr. old that fights it, may be doing it becase he's angry at Daddy, if it hadn't been medically necessary at 11 and my Dad had said I had a choice I'd have said no. Not because I understood it but because we had a very strained relationship at the time. The truth is at 11, I really didn't have any actual comprehension of what a foreskin was. It was in my view just a piece of extra skin.


I am sorry that I added to taking the OP topic and further derailing but I felt I needed to say something here.

 

[D_Miranda_Wrights]

To start off, I agree with Hoss. I actually don't have a problem with offering your kid circumcision as an informed choice. However, unless you're going to have a detailed discussion of sexual physiology with a 10-year-old or even 2-year-old, which is ridiculous/creepy/ridiculously creepy, that can't be a meaningfully informed consent -- putting aside that our decision-making abilities don't really develop until preadolescence.

If you're willing to wait until 10, I see no reason not to wait until 15, when the choice can actually be informed, and even experienced, considering he's used the damn thing by then.

I've done this before with you. I am not doing it again. This is the first time during this discussion you have asked for it. The last time we had this very argument we had a difference in opinion to what is "harm".

See 1

That's not consistent with your thought process

Dude, I was asking you which one of the three you supported (or another if you think it is a false choice.) Hence "the question I was asking is whether a parent has a moral obligation to..."

Look, the doctor tells me everything about myself and chooses to not discuss with me. The doctor never informed my mother that it was a problem. The doctor presented the facts to my mother like it was something normal and nothing to worry about. My mother was not an informed party so she could not make an informed choice.

Yes, which does not contradict the argument I was making at all. I don't know why you think that re-asserting your argument and then going on about how we have "different opinions" somehow rebuts assertions that your opinion has negative secondary consequences and/or is logically flawed.

(I understand now that you believe that doctors just have higher ethical burdens than parents in this respect, and that's "just how it is," which isn't a formal logical violation, even if I think it's odd that your entire ethical system seems to conform to which parts of your circumcision experience you did and didn't like. But that isn't going to be my argument.)

I disagree that your morality equates to global formal logic.

....

Your obviously not listening to me. Not everyone is wired like you. It is not hypocritical at all. I dont look at every situation in the world through the same lens.

...

I have shown time and time again the difference based on personal ethical variance based on different situations.

My thoughts about abortion do not mirror my thoughts on child beating which do not mirror my thoughts on circumcision. This is not logical in your eyes but for millions of people around the world it is.

So, do you, or do you not, have trouble holding moral views that contradict under formal logic? I'm not saying you can't account for situational variables (although I think you tend to do so in a way that seems arbitrary to me.) I'm talking about formal inconsistencies between your espoused beliefs. I'm talking about situations where you are saying something logically akin to "x is both true and not true regardless of y, z, and any other variable." Got it?

- If a parent beats a child as punishment I would not personally question the parent but if they abuse a child to the point where blood is involved then I would choose to step in.

Right...so you do have a point where you intervene/question parental license (I'm thinking "objective harm" at this point.) Whatever criteria you use apparently means that, in this situation, you intervene in parental license even if the parent thinks they're doing the right thing because of "objective harm." I personally think cost-benefits (including costs of intervening) is a much better standard for anyone who wants to minimize harm in the world, and I'll explain why once you answer my ^^^ question at top and confirm your standard.

My point was that I'm responding to your complaints about my criticizing RIC exactly how you'd probably respond to someone complaining about you criticizing their license to beat their child bloody: Sorry, but whatever. No reason to waste your energy restating this opinion ("you have no RIGHT!") unless you're going to rebut my rationale. You've engaged in plenty of position-staking already.

That's rather shocking.

I assumed. I admit to that.

It shouldn't be shocking. I have spent this entire debate talking about an ethically utilitarian argument predicated on two ideas, one about consent ethics and one about liberty. The liberty argument, the one relevant here and the source of the latter argument, is: People should be free to pursue their own happiness whenever that isn't a burden/harm on others (which is essentially the argument underlying Western civilization's idea of liberty.)

Why you think that would lead me to morally object to harmless religious beliefs, especially those who make people happy, is beyond me.

 

[JTalbain]

Somehow I don't think that JTalbain is morally on board with your intention to circumcise your kid without his consent, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

No I'm not, but Darkbond has more common ground than many others I argue against on the subject. He'd prefer to have people consent, even if he doesn't see it as a necessity. More to the point though, he doesn't assume we know everything there is to know about the foreskin and would actually like for us to find out more. This is a huge step up from people who try every logical bend to try to justify circumcision being better than or equal than intact. Arguing with Darkbond on the subject is about like a Democrat vs. Republican debate, both have ideas, have the same stuff available and come to different conclusion. Arguing with most people on the subject is like the US Senate in the past two year. Democrats argue, plead, whine, provide evidence, compromise, and the Republicans still do nothing but say "No" and filibuster.

It's refreshing to see someone who hasn't hopped on board the completely illogical HIV prevention train. If more studies emerged tomorrow giving more facts about foreskin and the effects of circumcision, I think Darkbond would be more likely to consider them than other people. He may not switch sides and could continue debating procirc to "offset the heavy anticirc opinion" as he has put it, but posting the study wouldn't be like beating your head aginst a brick wall.

While it can be seen as nice that the child didn't have to have a circumcision that he didn't want, I fail to see this as being anywhere near fortunate. A full 1/3 of his life in a family fiight and with appeals the parents can drag this off to another judge that'll side with them. A childhood lost. Kept the skin, hates the parents.

I agree. We can tell just from these boards the emotional reactions that people have on the subject when it is questioned. As more research is done on both sides, it'll become even more polarizing until the medical community takes a stand one way or the other.

Looking at the current status of science on the subject (some studies indicate possible harm and there has been an explosion of information compared to just 20 years ago) it makes most sense to me to just wait. The foreskin isn't going anywhere, and if you decide to get circumcised later, so be it. That anyone would think it was worth fighting in court for 5 years for "their right to circumcise" their 9 year old is beyond me. That honestly smells like someone trying to make a point to their ex-wife. Our courts should not support parents using their children as a weapon to hurt their spouse.

I prefer darkbond007's statement that if the boy says no thats the end of iit, it won't be done. My parting of ways with darkbond is when he says between the ages of "2 and 10" Does a 2 yr. old or even a 5 yr. old really have an understanding what's happening? At 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 maybe even 10, they may be making the decision more in either making Daddy happy or wanting to look like Daddy. The 10 yr. old that fights it, may be doing it becase he's angry at Daddy, if it hadn't been medically necessary at 11 and my Dad had said I had a choice I'd have said no. Not because I understood it but because we had a very strained relationship at the time. The truth is at 11, I really didn't have any actual comprehension of what a foreskin was. It was in my view just a piece of extra skin.

I think it's this argument that polarizes the issue between doing it at birth and waiting for adulthood. Parents can exert a very undue influence on children without even intending to, just by voicing their own opinions. It's the same logic behind contract law; people cannot enter into a legally binding contract until they are over 18, because they can't be consistently relied upon to make decisions for themselves with future consequences. Some people over 18 can't either, but you have to cut the cord sometime.

The consent issue really gets to me because of all the research we have on the differences between child and adult circumcisions. Infant circumcision has a much higher complication rate, which is to be expected of any pediatric surgery. Adults can be fully anesthetised and infants can't. Most of the proposed health benefits for circumcision only apply after the individual is sexually active. Even studies for the nerve-rich structures of the penis removed by circumcision are taken into account. Adults can choose a circumcision style, choose whether or not to keep their frenulum, choose to cut off a little or a lot, or even have a "sleeve recission" which cuts away shaft skin and leaves the more sensitive structures intact. Infants have none of the above options. To top it all off, hospitals make about 10x as much money from an adult circumcision.

So why do they push for circumcising in infancy? About the only answer that makes any sense consistent with the above is that they circumcise in infancy to avoid the child saying no later. Given the rates for adult circumcision in the US, this equates to less money for them, and if they changed policies, there would be an 18 year dry spell of no circumcisions performed while they waited for the new wave of kids to grow to adulthood. It would sadden me if the big reason it keeps going was really just money.

I am sorry that I added to taking the OP topic and further derailing but I felt I needed to say something here.

Less of an issue on polls. No matter how the subject changes, the poll stays the same.