This was brought up quite a bit earlier in the thread but this is a category error. While circumcision surely is "remove bits from people's bodies", it is absolutely not representative to that category. You say it about fingers, I of course agree, but then I can identify clear and major harms that cutting off fingers would have. Not so with circumcision.

The demand for strong arguments is something I've been saying as well, that if we are going to violate freedoms of millions of parents - including strongly held religious beliefs - that we need compelling reasons to do that. This is where the ban circumcision argument fails.

I'm a little confused by the brainwashed part. Like what, exactly, is the mechanism here? Who, exactly, has brainwashed me, and how?

Source: The Lancet, Volume 349, Issue 9052, 1 March 1997, Pages 599-603
Anna Taddio, Joel Katz, A Lane Ilersich, Gideon Koren

The effects last longer than just the period of circumcision.

Probably? If everyone in my family going back generations had a small family crest tattooed under their arm, and a third of the western world did the same, I certainly wouldn't support banning the practice.

So you're saying cutting fingernails is ok because it's not that harmful? My point exactly.

What do y'all think about women who choose not to breastfeed their kids? Harmful AND irreversible. Send them to jail!

My father would be annoyed at me if I did not point out that if the logical and medical arguments against infant circumcision past a certain threshold it would be removed from Jewish law.

The fact that the same word is used for both boys and girls doesn't mean that the procedures are in any way comparable.

Alot of ppl on the internet writes that it becomes a hassle to mastrubate and that you need lube and stuff. Sounds pretty crappy to me, who wants to be dependent on a damn lube wherever they go. In other words its a bit like removing functionality from your body, just like removing a finger would remove functionality, its not equivalent to removing a skin patch from the top of your bicep. So theres no cathegory error there even when you demand that it requires functionality to be count.

On a country like Iceland, the right to decide about your own body surpass religious freedoms and traditions.

As it should.

I'm a bit cynical about the health benefits of circumcision and would argue that the negative effects far outweigh them (impotence, bad sex life etc.). I wonder what the ****storm were if the American doctors would come to conclusion that they being cutting off dicks and causing damage. Would that stance even be possible?

Yeah, tattooing kids is bad even if it were once a tradition. You can use common sense. In other examples that you gave there's no bodily harm done.

I'm a bit confused by this. The previous crop ITT weren't going on about this. I don't really know what you are talking about. Is there some study the AAP was missing where it has all these large effects on sex life, masterbation etc? Or are you guys just making **** up.

Is this really true? The logical and medical arguments against keeping kosher probably don't pass a certain threshhold either - not in contemporary times with modern cleanliness.

How clearly are they different? My guess is that one is socially normalized for peoples of the book, while the other isn't, and that this has much more to do with why we see them as different than that they are substantially so different. Both involve cutting off part of the sexual organ.

I have been going back and forth on this thing. Its a matter of chosing tolerance for other cultures or enforcing your own values. In a democracy we need to have a good mix of these. In iceland cutting in other peoples penis has a very small following while in the US it has a very big following. I think thats going to matter alot and im leaning for tolerance myself at this point for the US but maybe not in the nordic countries for that reason. But i can definitely see that people will have various levels of tolerance in themselves. Around here the populist right wing is the first to support a ban, and there are indications that the far left wing might be next. What do the flanks have in common? They seem to be more intolerant when their values are at play.

You can't google without getting bukkaked by study after study that shows harm to penile sensitivity and generally to other things as well. Did you really spew 1000 ****posts without even bothering to look at primary evidence? (hint: yes)

For example Finnish doctors are against circumcisions unless there's a medical concern. So does the Icelandic ones. It seems the ones that support it are the ones that members have been cutting up dicks for decades.

If you just google it, it comes in several lists. https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/c/c...cumcision.html

But I can't find good sources on that.

There is a historical idea that Hadrian banned circumcision and this is what led to the Bar Kokhba revolt. Most non-religiously motivated scholars doubt this claim, as there is not good evidence that Hadrian banned circumcision before the revolt, but later it was banned, or allowed only for Jews. At any rate, the topic was debated 2000 years ago, in terms not dissimilar from those of the contemporary debate. The Romans considered the practice barbaric, but found outlawing it complicated because they associated it strongly with the Jewish population.

I wonder if I was being sarcastic, already knew the exactly what you allude to but fail to actually produce (hint: yes)

Let's just quote the american association of pediatrics one more time for the slow googlers in the thread

Ya it is a fair point that there is a major difference between america and northern europe here. I wouldn't be shocked if this influences at some level the respective health organizations recommendations. In the US the violation of freedom would be massive. But in northern europe it does seem to be more the right flank as part of a more general assault on religious minorities, and less clear they genuinely care about the underlying issues then hating on muslims

Its more than the right flank even if they are the first to support a ban. Cutting others penises is at odds with rational values you typically find at the left wing. And that is real values, i can tell you that. For example in this forum alot of people typically on the left seems to support a ban, and i myself dont even want to think about this subject because i frankly view it as a bit nasty (so i wonder why im in this thread in the first place tbh). I couldnt even believe how big this was in the US, we almost havent even heard about it around here.

When you opt for tolerance you step on your own values for others to be able to exercise theirs, when you enforce your own values you suppress other peoples values. I have been arguing for tolerance in many situations at this forum, and in the US case of circumcision im inclined to make that case because of its cultural following. However in northern countries where very few people do this crap im having trouble seeing why im the one who should be tolerant and not the minority that is crossing my values, but im a open person.

However it seems like this isnt a pick your poison type of situation for you. Are you attached to some type of culture where circumcision is part of the package or are you like a big fan of religious freedoms or something?

Please cut a piece off your dick and then get back to me.

I don't really understand the question. I'm an atheist if that is what you are asking. Since this just came up for me personally, I can say I didn't circumcise my four month old. I do have a related experience in that my youngest brother got a sever infection when he was I think 4 and it resulted in him getting circumcised (I don't know the exact details of this), but I wouldn't say I'm part of any cultural package. I do support religion freedoms, and freedoms generally. As in, when there isn't a significant identifiable net harm, the government broadly shouldn't be banning things, particularly not deeply held religious actions.

At least attempting to link studies showing the awfulness of circumcision is a valid form of argumentation. If the issue blew up and a new wave of studies complete to show that male circumcision is clearly harmful and that it clearly reduces pleasurable sexual experience, and there was expert consensus there, then I might amend my position.

But it seems that a lot of what's driving this issue is just purely fallacious. Its wrong to alter a newborn at birth because "nature". For people who didn't bother to read the initial article (everyone), apparently it was the progressive party in Iceland that was pushing this through as a weird appeal to gender equality. We have to do the same for boys as we do for girls, never mind that the sex organs, which is the exact issue in question, are entirely different.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...2.11761.x/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6.06685.x/full

Ya, at least TC is trying now. I've been down this road before, and as a scientist myself it gets pretty tedious when people start trying to quote individual papers they haven't read and don't understand opposed to literature reviews, meta-analyses or white papers. I don't really care to dig into the various penile sensitivity studies unless we really, really need to, but I'm happy to bulk quote from the AAP report that TC just entirely ignored.

It's a wash.

I would like to go on record as opposing infants performing surgery of any kind.

I regret that I only had one foreskin to give for my country.

I've actually clicked on every reference in that section in the AAP report. The majority- including everything referenced in your quote- are about ADULT circumcision, some shortly after the procedure. If you stick to primary neonatal circumcision studies, it's not a wash. The report is literally willful misrepresentation. If you look at pediatric society recommendations outside the dick-chopping capital of the western world, you get...

http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/

etc, etc.