Learn to science, maybe? Your claim is nonsense. If you are testing a new drug, I'm 100% with you on the value of RCTs but you would have to be nuts to propose that in the circumcision case, and it is absolutely not the case that observational studies are useless. They are an important and integral part of medicine as well.


Given how you have - utterly laughably - dismissed observational studies as an evidential basis for analysis, I don't know that you will care, but here is the AAP:

You can debate that claim, but to cast it as "known" vs "unprovable" shows a profound misunderstanding of medical science.


Lol. Obviously. But informed consent FOR THE PARENTS. You made some stink about children not being able to consent which is both duh and irrelevant. Parents have complete control over the medical decisions for their children, except in some extreme cases, depending a bit country to country.

relevant here

Again, so what? I know it is an operation. I know it is unnecessary. So what is your argument about some profound harm caused by it that is so harmful we should violate the normally immutable right for parents to freely act to their children as they see fit?

As explained, there are low probability events both positive and negative. It is mainly a wash, or a slight + in the pro circumcision column. So I would stop with the "may cause an issue" bit if I were you.

Ridiculous! There are probably thousands of things that "could be stopped" that parents do that are both worse than circumcision and could be legally stopped. We don't ban backyard swimming pools despite hundreds dieing from them every year. Why not? Why don't we ban soda? Our society accepts at a fundamental level the freedom of people (including parents to their children) to make choices, good or bad, about their lives. We could have a big government state to ban all these things, but even then would circumcision make the list? You can barely even find any harm for it.

What about it? I support states that have minimum ages for tattoos. Having tattoos can have pretty large negative social consequences in ways that are just not true for circumcision. You don't get any points for bringing up this silly line of questioning.

And then the association of pediatricians say that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks of circumcision. Well, maybe. But when do those health benefits accrue? How many dudes are dying of dick cancer or catching virulent foreskin related STDs before they're adults? Basically no one, right? So maybe let the adults decide if they want to cut off part of their dicks to reduce their chances of dick cancer? And, spoiler alert, basically no one gets adult circumcision because of the terrific health benefits, so maybe there's your answer?

Yes there is a continuum shift in responsibility from adults to children as they age that is recognized in the legal canon. You can suss out fringe cases if you want.

An infant face tattoo sounds like it would cause quite a bit of significant and harmful social consequences, rather unlike circumcision. Tattooing foreskins? I guess this is a DS thread, bizarre counterfactuals are kind his thing. Enough of these "but what about [something nobody does]" questions. Maybe make an actual point and not playing 20 questions and I'll get back to you.

Yes observational studies have importance, and it is not to prove efficacy. When Cochrane Reviews starts using observational studies in their meta-analysis of medical protocols I'll start to give them more credibility. Right now it's an interesting data point, not proof.

Which is the point of this law in Iceland. Parents shouldn't have complete control. Parents are ****ing idiots who cut foreskin to please their invisible friend, so the kid looks like daddy, or whatever the **** goes on in their heads. They also refuse to vaccinate their kids for some god awful reasons. The state can and should make this kind of garbage illegal.

Face tattoos have neutral health effects, and maybe the kid will end up liking it. Shouldn't we let parents decide?

So it's bizarre to tattoo a foreskin without caring how an infant might eventually feel about it. Agreed. We probably shouldn't do that. But just cutting it off, well, hell, that's the parent's decision.

And you agree that a ten year old should have a say on whether or not his foreskin gets cut off. So what's the rush? Why not make parents consult their kids before going through with this sort of surgery?

Beautiful. I just love cut and dry failures when someone is trying to sound smart. Shall I quote the Cochrane Review handbook? Yes, lets:
Ouch.It goes on. There is an entire chapter on this! Oh and by the way, since you like the Cochrane Review, you might be aware that they actually published one of the larger pieces comparing observational studies and RCTs:
Ouch! Of course, "prove efficacy" as some sort of hard line that RCTs can do but observational studies can not is just something you made up.



Sure. I agree on vaccines by the way - there is enormous harmful consequences to not do this. What you failed to do was identify the same harmful consequences for circumcision. Note the structure of your argument, you don't compare circumcision to something equally consequential, you compare it to something far more consequential but motivated also by religion. By the way, three quarters of americans get circumcised but a lot of that isn't for pious religious reasons, it's cultural at some level.

It wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the list of priorities, but if it was on the chopping block why would you be against it?

The reasons why the long list of other bad decisions parents make aren't prohibited is mostly because they're impractical to diagnose or enforce.

Freedom is (and should be) the default unless someone can come along and come up with some harm so significant that the state most impose against this. This isn't a conservative vs liberal thing, it underpins most of our society. And tonnes of these are perfectly fine to impose and diagnose, that isn't really a problem.

The subject matter is pretty trivial but the arguments, pro and con aren't. That's why I wrote the OP. Not because I care about Icelandicdic.

Some horrendous posting in this thread.

Comparing circumcision to not vaccinating? Jesus wept.

It's amazing how often you call an argument ridiculous and then say something really daft. It's also funny how you call a question silly as you can't answer it and be consistent with what you have said.

The question about the tattoo specifically said the back, but I could ask the same question about it being in a more discrete place - ie somewhere not visible in school or an office etc. But, apparently it's not OK but removing a body part - which also alters appearance - is.

I mean, you can draw the line between the two, but your main argument is basically that parents should have the freedom. Doesn't seem consistent.

Nice.

The debate is straying from the key issue. It is not where you draw the line as far as where the government steps in when the parents are making a bad decision regarding their kids. Almost everyone would agree that slightly bad decisions should be tolerated. The question is whether to move your line further than normal when the reason for that bad decision is a religious belief. (In other words in this particular case suppose that everyone agreed that infant circumcisions should be outlawed not realizing that such a law would insult Muslims and Jews. Is that an acceptable reason to now allow it even though it had been previously considered worthy of overruling parents rights to make mildly bad decisions for their kids?)

Personally, I wouldn't move the line at all for religion. People have a right to be free from religion as much as people have the right to follow any religion. Asking for special privilege for religion isn't about freedom. (It's off topic slightly, but religious schools are the worst thing for me - in the UK there are various types and people are basically all white or all non-white, which is not want society needs imo.)

It is a bit funny that we should move the line further if its because of religion vs something non religions. For example parents cut in a childs penis because they read some shady research article that it was good for some type of reason, at least they were appealing to rational reasons then, although maybe premature, instead of appealing to gods and fairies which we know doesnt exist.

I think we need to tolerate religious freedom as much as possible, but i think we need to draw a line in the sand whenever things are getting too dumb, for example where you cut in someones penis and it has lasting physical effects.

So i suspect that this is a situation where religion and rationality collides to such an extent that we just need to take a stand.

No. My argument is that parents should have freedom except in case with significant, identifiable harm. As in, the default is freedom, but if you meet a burden of demonstrating harm - which you have utterly failed to even start - then it could be considered for restriction. And throughout the thread a bunch of you have tried to compare to all sorts of things from vaccines to...uh....uh...tattooing a foreskin, which come with a spectrum of various harms.

Also, the harm of violating freedoms depends on social context. As mentioned, 3/4 of Americans get circumcised. This is a huge cultural practice, sometimes for genuinely felt strong religious reasons. So it depends an especially high burden of proof to show it causes some big harm that deserve banning.

So when it comes to tattooing children, firstly this is exceedingly rare so there doesn't seem to be some large scale imposition of freedoms, religious or otherwise, as exists for circumcision but secondly tattoos have qualitative differences. There can be significant social consequences, and tattoos in our society often represent reflections of personal identity and individualism. There is definitely a meaningful line between the two here. But I also don't care all that much, states without the no young tattoo bans don't seem to have some big problem.

Maybe if you had put what you thought was the key issue in the OP like a normal person we wouldn't have strayed from what you want to talk about.

But to answer your question, our society DOES specifically enumerate religious freedoms as protected in a way that isn't just subsumed within the other freedoms of speech, assembly, etc. And it matters not just in terms of foundational documents like constitutions, but in the jurisprudence that has sprung from that in the legal canon. This seems correct to me. Religious beliefs are very deeply held and core aspects of many peoples' identity, significantly influencing their actions in society. It thus seems correct that they are specifically called out for protection.

Another way to think about this is the harm that violating a freedom causes. When the freedom is religious, it often tends to be these deeply held and core aspects, and thus more egregiously harms people. This is just a general trend, of course, it isn't like people don't have deeply held beliefs about nonreligious things, but it is a reasonable rule of thumb to help people operate.

This is a tough one for me. My wife wanted to get our infant daughter's ears pierced and I was against it and argued that we should at least wait until she is old enough to ask us to get her ears pierced. But I doubt I'd have a second thought about going ahead with circumcision at the hospital. These two points of view seem to clash and I should probably reconcile them.

At the risk of straying further off topic: I find the "deeply-held" standard completely loathsome in a legal sense as it is impossible to prove or disprove. Some might argue that even if you could somehow prove it, it doesn't (or shouldn't) move the needle at all. Much evil has been done and will continue to be done in the name of "deeply-held" beliefs, religious or otherwise. It reeks.

So if there was a flu-shot for a rare virus, it should be made ILLEGAL because you are putting a needle into a baby without CLEAR BENEFITS.

Cutting a baby's nails should probably be illegal too until they are old enough to decide if that's what they want.

Great standard you guys have there. uke_master is obviously correct, nanny-state apologists are not.

It's fundamentally WEIRD, let's ban it.

Stay woke; support the mutilation of children!

Tattooing a baby is similar then? Obviously parents should be permitted to tattoo their baby?