Abortion, Circumcision, and Hypocrisy

[Waiways]

Abortion, Circumcision, and Hypocrisy

Some time ago, a question occurred to me: If Anti-abortion (pro-life) supporters argued under the assumption that unborn children had certain rights, (in this case, the right to life) does it constitute hypocrisy if the same person has his or her child circumcised shortly after birth, when the child is incapable of consenting to said operation?

So the questions for debate are as follows:

Does circumcision violate the rights of an infant?

Should cosmetic surgery on infants (excluding reconstructive cosmetic surgery) be considered unethical?

Does it constitute hypocrisy to be both pro-life and have his or her child circumcised?

[bluethread]

There is no reason to circumcise a child other than tradition. The natural growth of the penis is the most beneficial. There are zero side effects.

Could you site an example of significant health problems related to brit milah?

Personally, I believe in patient directed health care. The issue of whether the state should be able to override the presumed power of attorney of the parents is a two edged sword. If the state can ban a procedure, it can also require it.

[Nickman]

There is no reason to circumcise a child other than tradition. The natural growth of the penis is the most beneficial. There are zero side effects.

Could you site an example of significant health problems related to brit milah?

I already did but Ill be glad to do it again.
Here you go, and here you go.

Furthermore, there are no risks to leaving the child's penis alone. Risks only happen when unnecessary surgery and mutilation of the penis are implemented.

"There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn."

In the United States, alone among industrialized societies, and in the two generations born since about 1940, routine newborn circumcision has become such an accepted routine in the process of birth and delivery that for some people it is a surprise to discover that there is controversy over the desirability of the procedure. In 1975, The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published the report of a committee formed to study circumcision, whose opinion was that "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." This statement is contained in the body of the Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision from the Committee on Fetus and Newborn of the AAP (Pediatrics, Vol. 56 No. 4, October 1975, and modified in March 1989). The body of the report addresses most of the commonly voiced concerns, such as phimosis, hygiene, care of the penis, cancer, balanitis and venereal disease, surgical risks, and contraindications to circumcision. The Report also called for "true informed consent " and a "...program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene (which) would offer all the advantages of routine circumcision without the attendant surgical risk. " And finally stated, "Therefore, circumcision of the male neonate cannot be considered an essential component of adequate total health care."

Personally, I believe in patient directed health care. The issue of whether the state should be able to override the presumed power of attorney of the parents is a two edged sword. If the state can ban a procedure, it can also require it.

I think it should be left alone and if the child grows up and decides that they want to be circumcised then so be it. Circumcision is unnecessary.

[AdHoc]

It is a potential living , breathing being.. it is not a living/breathing being yet. It's more than an egg/sperm, yet less than a person.

Not a living/breathing being??? Growing, beating heart, moving, respiration... are these not indicators of life and breath?

Air going into the lungs.. for mammals, is breathing. After a period of time, a fetus can potentially breath, but it's not breathing yet. After 22 yweeks, if you have a LOT of special care, many premature babies can breath. .. with LOTS of intensive care, you can get 53% of them to live. .. although 20% of those premature babies have very sever defects, such as mental retardation, blind, heart problems, the inability to ever walk, etc etc etc. .. and many have other problems their entire lives.

You don't believe unborn children breathe? Doesn't everyone know they breathe amniotic fluid?

[Goat]

It is a potential living , breathing being.. it is not a living/breathing being yet. It's more than an egg/sperm, yet less than a person.

Not a living/breathing being??? Growing, beating heart, moving, respiration... are these not indicators of life and breath?

Air going into the lungs.. for mammals, is breathing. After a period of time, a fetus can potentially breath, but it's not breathing yet. After 22 yweeks, if you have a LOT of special care, many premature babies can breath. .. with LOTS of intensive care, you can get 53% of them to live. .. although 20% of those premature babies have very sever defects, such as mental retardation, blind, heart problems, the inability to ever walk, etc etc etc. .. and many have other problems their entire lives.

You don't believe unborn children breathe? Doesn't everyone know they breathe amniotic fluid?

That is not where they get their oxygen supply from.

[AdHoc]

It is a potential living , breathing being.. it is not a living/breathing being yet. It's more than an egg/sperm, yet less than a person.

Not a living/breathing being??? Growing, beating heart, moving, respiration... are these not indicators of life and breath?

Air going into the lungs.. for mammals, is breathing. After a period of time, a fetus can potentially breath, but it's not breathing yet. After 22 yweeks, if you have a LOT of special care, many premature babies can breath. .. with LOTS of intensive care, you can get 53% of them to live. .. although 20% of those premature babies have very sever defects, such as mental retardation, blind, heart problems, the inability to ever walk, etc etc etc. .. and many have other problems their entire lives.

You don't believe unborn children breathe? Doesn't everyone know they breathe amniotic fluid?

That is not where they get their oxygen supply from.

I stand corrected

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

This is hardly Brit Milah.

This thread isn't about Brit Milah, but circumcision. I think that death is a significant potential side effect that is worth pointing out.

Personally, I believe in patient directed health care. The issue of whether the state should be able to override the presumed power of attorney of the parents is a two edged sword. If the state can ban a procedure, it can also require it.

You seem to be assuming that the rights of the child are not at issue. Shouldn't the state protect children from being subjected to unnecessary surgery and amputation at the hands of their parents?

[PhilosoRaptor]

There is no reason to circumcise a child other than tradition. The natural growth of the penis is the most beneficial. There are zero side effects.

Could you site an example of significant health problems related to brit milah?

I already did but Ill be glad to do it again.
Here you go, and here you go.

Furthermore, there are no risks to leaving the child's penis alone. Risks only happen when unnecessary surgery and mutilation of the penis are implemented.

"There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn."

In the United States, alone among industrialized societies, and in the two generations born since about 1940, routine newborn circumcision has become such an accepted routine in the process of birth and delivery that for some people it is a surprise to discover that there is controversy over the desirability of the procedure. In 1975, The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published the report of a committee formed to study circumcision, whose opinion was that "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." This statement is contained in the body of the Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision from the Committee on Fetus and Newborn of the AAP (Pediatrics, Vol. 56 No. 4, October 1975, and modified in March 1989). The body of the report addresses most of the commonly voiced concerns, such as phimosis, hygiene, care of the penis, cancer, balanitis and venereal disease, surgical risks, and contraindications to circumcision. The Report also called for "true informed consent " and a "...program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene (which) would offer all the advantages of routine circumcision without the attendant surgical risk. " And finally stated, "Therefore, circumcision of the male neonate cannot be considered an essential component of adequate total health care."

Personally, I believe in patient directed health care. The issue of whether the state should be able to override the presumed power of attorney of the parents is a two edged sword. If the state can ban a procedure, it can also require it.

I think it should be left alone and if the child grows up and decides that they want to be circumcised then so be it. Circumcision is unnecessary.

Have you read the latest AAP policy statement on circumcision? It's worthwhile, some of the things you say here are somewhat outdated:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3/686.full

I will note, however, that I do in general still agree with you: I do not think the meager benefits outweigh the risks and damage to autonomy over such a personal body part. I resent it somewhat that I was circumcised without my consent.

[Nickman]

There is no reason to circumcise a child other than tradition. The natural growth of the penis is the most beneficial. There are zero side effects.

Could you site an example of significant health problems related to brit milah?

I already did but Ill be glad to do it again.
Here you go, and here you go.

Furthermore, there are no risks to leaving the child's penis alone. Risks only happen when unnecessary surgery and mutilation of the penis are implemented.

"There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn."

In the United States, alone among industrialized societies, and in the two generations born since about 1940, routine newborn circumcision has become such an accepted routine in the process of birth and delivery that for some people it is a surprise to discover that there is controversy over the desirability of the procedure. In 1975, The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) published the report of a committee formed to study circumcision, whose opinion was that "There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." This statement is contained in the body of the Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision from the Committee on Fetus and Newborn of the AAP (Pediatrics, Vol. 56 No. 4, October 1975, and modified in March 1989). The body of the report addresses most of the commonly voiced concerns, such as phimosis, hygiene, care of the penis, cancer, balanitis and venereal disease, surgical risks, and contraindications to circumcision. The Report also called for "true informed consent " and a "...program of education leading to continuing good personal hygiene (which) would offer all the advantages of routine circumcision without the attendant surgical risk. " And finally stated, "Therefore, circumcision of the male neonate cannot be considered an essential component of adequate total health care."

Personally, I believe in patient directed health care. The issue of whether the state should be able to override the presumed power of attorney of the parents is a two edged sword. If the state can ban a procedure, it can also require it.

I think it should be left alone and if the child grows up and decides that they want to be circumcised then so be it. Circumcision is unnecessary.

Have you read the latest AAP policy statement on circumcision? It's worthwhile, some of the things you say here are somewhat outdated:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3/686.full

I will note, however, that I do in general still agree with you: I do not think the meager benefits outweigh the risks and damage to autonomy over such a personal body part. I resent it somewhat that I was circumcised without my consent.

Thanks for the reply. I would like to post this from the link

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

Im glad you agree with me, in general. I think circumcision is completely unnecessary. The results of the tests done in favor of circumcision are very marginal and are still not conclusive, as is stated in the article. Altogether from the article, uncircumcision is optimal. The risks of circumcision are much higher than leaving it alone.

[AdHoc]

I think it's interesting that people can be more concerned about a tissue blob than a human being.

[PhilosoRaptor]

I think it's interesting that people can be more concerned about a tissue blob than a human being.

Wow. Mind=blown by that double double entendre. If I didn't already know, it would be impossible to tell what side you are on, hahaha.