This is not a moral relativist problem. In the same way stoning should be banned in all societies, even those in which it's currently acceptable, lopping off a part of your child for no good reason should be banned as well.

For almost any other body part, say and arm, there is significant medical harm that is done. In the case of circumcision, however, this is not the case. It appears to make either zero difference or so darn close to zero difference that studies can't even figure out whether it is positive or negative. Given this obvious reality, we default to one of the most fundamental tenets of our society: parental jurisdiction over their children except in cases of extreme harm. You have yet to make the case for what this egregious and clear harm actually is, you just resort to the deepity that the foreskin is indeed damaged when it is removed. So what?

What annoys me about this is that there are a whole lot of other things that stupid parents - particularly religious ones - do that really harms their children whether it is entrenching obesity, forcing a religious education, backyard swimming pools (they are surprisingly dangerous, far more than the 1/500000 for circumcision), no vaccines because of autism conspiracy, bizarre foods and medicines, suppression of gender identity, the list is endless. The harm from a lot of things is really significant, a lot more than circumcision. Yet you don't want to ban any of these things (I suspect). You might retort that some of these are reversible (although the ones that lead to risks of childhood deaths or illnesses clearly are not) but I think we both know that as a aggregate these things often do persist and have significant negative social consequences.

I am not saying it has anything to do with moral relativism. I am saying that if you are going to include "no circumcision" as one of those grand universal moral presups that should extend across all societies no matter what, you better have a really, really good reason for it. Stoning creates a clear and measurable harm. What you have not done is demonstrate what this gigantic harm is from circumcision. As far as I can tell, it doesn't make a shred of differences one way or the other, it is just an arbitrary cultural thing where peoples lives are almost exactly as good or bad as they were with or without it. So it is a monstrous false equivalence to compare stoning and circumcision.

I am not saying there is an extreme amount of harm being committed here. I'm saying the child's rights are being violated, in the exact same way any other example of unnecessary infant body modification should be banned.

And no, we shouldn't "default to one of the most fundamental tenets of our society," we should default to basic human rights.

Again, this is a rights issue. Whether or not any of the above examples qualify is another topic entirely.

I have a foreskin and I couldn't walk around with it pulled back rubbing on my underwear as its sensitive, so you chopped guys must of lost sensation to your nob as you don't feel the same sensation as I.

Human rights, clearly a grand universal moral presupposition.

Changing the word to "human rights" just begs the same question I asked before hand. What is the significant harm (so significant you think it should be mentioned in the same breath as....stoning? seriously?) of circumcision such that it deserves the status of a "human right"?

In the same way it's not allowed to tattoo your child without his consent, it should not be allowed to remove an infant's foreskin.

How are you not getting this? There doesn't have to be significant harm.

Is it not the case that parental control of their children's upbringing is, itself, a basic human right? One that has a wide precedent and one which I am sure you would uphold in any of the numerous other situations which cause vastly more harm to children but you don't want to ban. At the very least you should try and cast it as a contrast between the basic human rights of the child and that of the parent.

Personally, I think that children suffer harm from their parents in innumerable ways that are vastly more harmful than this totally arbitrary, consequenceless issue of whether one has a foreskin or not. I am glad that you are not trying to push back and and deny that it doesn't seem to make any meaningful difference.

No. Sex occurs generally around the age of some accountability. It can, in theory be just as effective without treating the child as property. Secondly, even if we assume that diminishing HIV is the prime motivation, one of the main reasons that people cannot get circumcised at an older age in Africa is because they can't afford to take off work. In Germany this is rarely a problem so the whole rational of effectiveness evaporates. You're left with wanting to treat kids like property on the whims of their parents.

I think there is significant harm of a tattoo on a child in today's culture. A child with a swastika on their face, as I gave an example earlier, would clearly suffer significant harm.

If there was no harm, what would be the point in the ban that violates the long standing precedent of parental control over their parents.

How about a infant with a cute heart tattoo on their tushie, should that be allowed?

a tattoo saying "property of parents X and Y" on a thigh would be ok though.

Edit: There us even a benefit to mine. What if the kid gets lost?

Except that in practice, abstinence only education is horrific, even if someone has a stupid theory that it should be just as effective. The simple reality is that, rightly or wrongly, some measures are effective and others are not. And the WHO seems to think that circumcision is a cost effective way of reducing HIV rates. Whether it is theoretically possible to find some other method of "accountability" or whatever else that is utterly unproven seems entirely seperate.

I have no idea why you think germans getting time off work is at all relevant. The goal post here remains the same: if you want to ban something, you have to argue why it causes sufficient harm to justify banning it. What is that harm?

As should be obvious, both of these have a reasonable chance of causing harm as the child grows up in western society. I suspect most adults would NOT want either of these things when they were older. But this does not seem to be the case with circumcision. As far as I can tell, there is not some big group of circumcised adults who are "omg i desperately wish i had my foreskin back i cannot ever be with someone i am so embarassed" or whatever, then sure, based on this harm, I would support a ban of it. But that does not seem to be the case.

What does abstinence have to do with anything? I was talking about giving children the option of circumcision at an age of accountability which is usually around the time when the benefits of circumcision would happen anyways.

The harm shown is the autonomy and future autonomy of the child's body.

And if our society had evolved where tushie tattoos were prevalent, but circumcision were not, your argument would be exactly flipped. This is not a good basis for fair lawmaking. It is, however, a textbook example of the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Abstinence was the example given in the post of mine you quoted...

The simple reality is that the WHO supporting a policy of allowing children to get circumcisions at age whatever is going to be, for obvious reasons, less effective than a policy of circumcision at birth in terms of preventing HIV. Are you really denying this? Just because they could, theoretically, get it done does not mean, practically, that it would be done in anywhere close to the same kinds of numbers and would be far less effective.

As to the harm, I know there is a difference in the anatomy (i assume you mean this not autonomy) of the bodies. What I am asking for is what is the harm (or heck, any meaningful difference) that results from this anatomical difference. As far as I can tell, people's lives are more or less exactly the same and it hardly has any consequence negative or positive. So what is the harm?

Bandwagon fallacy but more of an appeal to tradition. The issue isn't how much they regret the action but should they gave been given a choice beforehand.

And clearly my tattoo on the thigh is a good idea. It even has immediate benefits, which is better than circumcision. If everyone did it then there wouldn't be little popular support against the idea, especially when a lost kid was found that way.

Exactly. Because, in that case, one might indeed suffer significant consequences of circumcision if every girl looked at it and said "omg eww what is that!" or whatever.

The metric is "does it cause harm". I am not willing to ban things willy nilly unless it can be shown to be the case. And it is simply a reality - not a "popularity fallacy" - that the harm caused by certain things IS culturally dependent.

The nudist example is perfect. In our society, a nudist walking on the subway can be said to harm children. In a nudist society, it would not. This isn't an argument for or against nudism, it is an acknowledgement that what society you are in changes the kinds of harm.

Except, of course, everybody does NOT do it. And so it causes an obvious harm, namely that when kids grow up they would wish they did not have this. So no, your tattoo on the thigh idea is a terrible idea, which is precisely why nobody does it.

As for "children give a choice beforehand" the basic reality of child/parent relationship is that children do NOT get the choice on any number of things such as the food and medicine and education and upbringing and environment that they are brought up in. All of that can, and often does, pose significant dangers and they don't get a say in any of it. It is just a biological reality. Every once in a while (and it is very rare) society steps in when there is enormous harm being done to the child to say that it cannot happen. So you have to argue - if you want a ban - that this is one of those cases and the harm is very large.

You have yet to demonstrate ANY harm.

It's fine that you think that we can modify our children's bodies anyway we like so long as it's not 'harmful' and the majority of society thinks it's okay. It's fine, but wrong.

I agree it's effective but that still misses the point, it could be just as effective with a strong emphasis on the child autonomy. I assume for various reasons of practicality WHO isn't doing this in Africa but the point still stands. Forced circumcision is not necessary to get the results wanted in Germany.

Im speaking of autonomy, the idea that the child is a distinct human being from his/her parents and should be afforded certain rights as such, not anatomy. The unnecessary violation of which is the harm.

If you date rape some kid, and keep them on a morphine drip or something else to sedate the pain so they don't feel it once they wake up, did you not do something terrible? Just because something doesn't harm someone, doesn't mean you should be allowed to do it to them.

Probably should specify it such that the person being raped didn't know it happened, so there's no emotional harm later on.

(You may have already meant that, dunno).