Should we routinely circumcize

[Sherlock Holmes]

Today the US is perhaps the only developed nation that routinely circumsizes baby boys, some estimates put the figure at close to 80% of new borns are subjected to this.

Given that no country other than the US circumcises for non-religious reasons, do you think this should continue or be discouraged, perhaps banned? is there any credible science based justification for what is - to all intents and purposes - genital mutilation?

[The Barbarian]

Yes. A relatively small study in a peer-reviewed journal shows there are very small, but significant differences. A much larger metastudy of many such research reports shows no such differences. There's a very small health advantage to circumcision, mainly due to lower urinary tract infections and lower rates of cancer. But not much lower.

There just isn't much difference.

Unless you have aesthetic or emotional objections, like the Seleucid Greeks. Supposedly, the successful Maccabee revolt was at least partly inspired by attempts of Antiochus IV to ban circumcision in Israel. There's another revolt brewing, it seems...

During the last decade, we’ve become accustomed to viewing anti-Semitism in relation to the assault on Israel’s legitimacy. But in the last two years, Jews have faced another distinct threat in the context of an offensive against Judaic rituals. In countries as varied as New Zealand and Poland, the ritual slaughter of animals for kosher consumption has come under sustained legal attack. And from San Francisco, where anti-circumcision campaigners have gathered under the banner of a viciously anti-Semitic cartoon called “Foreskin Man,” through to European countries like Germany and Norway, there have been similar efforts to place circumcision outside the law.

It’s notable that much like today’s anti-Zionists, the anti-ritualists furiously deny that they are in any way motivated by anti-Semitism. Just as opposition to Israel’s existence is motivated by concern for Palestinian human rights, we are told, so opposition to Jewish ritual is grounded upon a commitment to the welfare of animals and the rights of infant boys.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/02/c ... in-europe/

Who would have guessed? None of this matters much to me, but I'm thinking this one is just another place for cultural war to be waged, for reasons I'm not going to guess about. But it was interesting to know that such a thing is going on.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. A relatively small study in a peer-reviewed journal shows there are very small, but significant differences. A much larger metastudy of many such research reports shows no such differences. There's a very small health advantage to circumcision, mainly due to lower urinary tract infections and lower rates of cancer. But not much lower.

There just isn't much difference.

Unless you have aesthetic or emotional objections, like the Seleucid Greeks. Supposedly, the successful Maccabee revolt was at least partly inspired by attempts of Antiochus IV to ban circumcision in Israel. There's another revolt brewing, it seems...

During the last decade, we’ve become accustomed to viewing anti-Semitism in relation to the assault on Israel’s legitimacy. But in the last two years, Jews have faced another distinct threat in the context of an offensive against Judaic rituals. In countries as varied as New Zealand and Poland, the ritual slaughter of animals for kosher consumption has come under sustained legal attack. And from San Francisco, where anti-circumcision campaigners have gathered under the banner of a viciously anti-Semitic cartoon called “Foreskin Man,” through to European countries like Germany and Norway, there have been similar efforts to place circumcision outside the law.

It’s notable that much like today’s anti-Zionists, the anti-ritualists furiously deny that they are in any way motivated by anti-Semitism. Just as opposition to Israel’s existence is motivated by concern for Palestinian human rights, we are told, so opposition to Jewish ritual is grounded upon a commitment to the welfare of animals and the rights of infant boys.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/02/c ... in-europe/

Who would have guessed? None of this matters much to me, but I'm thinking this one is just another place for cultural war to be waged, for reasons I'm not going to guess about. But it was interesting to know that such a thing is going on.

Eyes don't matter much to a blind man either.

[The Barbarian]

Yes. A relatively small study in a peer-reviewed journal shows there are very small, but significant differences. A much larger metastudy of many such research reports shows no such differences. There's a very small health advantage to circumcision, mainly due to lower urinary tract infections and lower rates of cancer. But not much lower.

There just isn't much difference.

Unless you have aesthetic or emotional objections, like the Seleucid Greeks. Supposedly, the successful Maccabee revolt was at least partly inspired by attempts of Antiochus IV to ban circumcision in Israel. There's another revolt brewing, it seems...

During the last decade, we’ve become accustomed to viewing anti-Semitism in relation to the assault on Israel’s legitimacy. But in the last two years, Jews have faced another distinct threat in the context of an offensive against Judaic rituals. In countries as varied as New Zealand and Poland, the ritual slaughter of animals for kosher consumption has come under sustained legal attack. And from San Francisco, where anti-circumcision campaigners have gathered under the banner of a viciously anti-Semitic cartoon called “Foreskin Man,” through to European countries like Germany and Norway, there have been similar efforts to place circumcision outside the law.

It’s notable that much like today’s anti-Zionists, the anti-ritualists furiously deny that they are in any way motivated by anti-Semitism. Just as opposition to Israel’s existence is motivated by concern for Palestinian human rights, we are told, so opposition to Jewish ritual is grounded upon a commitment to the welfare of animals and the rights of infant boys.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2013/12/02/c ... in-europe/

Who would have guessed? None of this matters much to me, but I'm thinking this one is just another place for cultural war to be waged, for reasons I'm not going to guess about. But it was interesting to know that such a thing is going on.

Eyes don't matter much to a blind man either.

Particularly if it were true that all indications showed that eyes weren't required for vision:

A relatively small study in a peer-reviewed journal shows there are very small, but significant differences. A much larger metastudy of many such research reports shows no such differences. There's a very small health advantage to circumcision, mainly due to lower urinary tract infections and lower rates of cancer. But not much lower.

There just isn't much difference.

It's like you're arguing that the epicanthic fold makes a significant difference in vision.

[Clownboat]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

[Sherlock Holmes]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

Only the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.

What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.

[Clownboat]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

Only the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.

What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.

How do you think we can best cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs?
How do we get fathers to stop teaching their children the teachings of their fathers?

Perhaps we just need to let them die off?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography,

From what I've heard, it took a generation to die off before the shape of the earth and it's planetary trajectory became widely accepted even though it had been determined to be a scientific truth.
The resistence to new scientific truths (things supported by evidence and testing is what I'm meaning) is what I find astounding. I personally welcome new info, like for example, if a god were evidenced, I would be very interested, or a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but in the fossil record. Bring it on, I'm ready to learn! I lose nothing if a god/gods are shown to be real or the theory of Evolution falsified afterall.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

Only the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.

What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.

How do you think we can best cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs?
How do we get fathers to stop teaching their children the teachings of their fathers?

Perhaps we just need to let them die off?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography,

From what I've heard, it took a generation to die off before the shape of the earth and it's planetary trajectory became widely accepted even though it had been determined to be a scientific truth.
The resistence to new scientific truths (things supported by evidence and testing is what I'm meaning) is what I find astounding. I personally welcome new info, like for example, if a god were evidenced, I would be very interested, or a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but in the fossil record. Bring it on, I'm ready to learn! I lose nothing if a god/gods are shown to be real or the theory of Evolution falsified afterall.

Its easy to stop, just pass laws prohibiting male genital mutilation, have the medical industry refuse to perform surgery on healthy babies, babies not suffering from any form of illness.

[Clownboat]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

Only the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.

What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.

How do you think we can best cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs?
How do we get fathers to stop teaching their children the teachings of their fathers?

Perhaps we just need to let them die off?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography,

From what I've heard, it took a generation to die off before the shape of the earth and it's planetary trajectory became widely accepted even though it had been determined to be a scientific truth.
The resistence to new scientific truths (things supported by evidence and testing is what I'm meaning) is what I find astounding. I personally welcome new info, like for example, if a god were evidenced, I would be very interested, or a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but in the fossil record. Bring it on, I'm ready to learn! I lose nothing if a god/gods are shown to be real or the theory of Evolution falsified afterall.

Its easy to stop, just pass laws prohibiting male genital mutilation, have the medical industry refuse to perform surgery on healthy babies, babies not suffering from any form of illness.

Would this also work to cure the world from god beliefs and would it be fair pass laws to prohibit such things? My mother for one, she needs her religious beliefs and I would hate for them to be outlawed. She will be gone eventually afterall and she is sure done having babies that would be circumsized due to her religious beliefs.

I think all religions will be gone (for the most part) in the not so distant future, can't we just let them die off instead of punishments due to laws enacted? Even though their religion may be false, or their reasoning faulty for whatever we are deeming to be unacceptable (like you are with circumcision) do we really need to outlaw them? I'm not sure I can get behind such a thing.

Obviously, not everyone feels the way you do towards circumcision:
Male circumcision is compulsory for Jews and is commonly practiced among Muslims. When circumcision is performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God but it may also be done to promote health and hygiene.

What is so bad about the bold that we need to pass laws to prevent such a thing?

[Sherlock Holmes]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

Only the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.

What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.

How do you think we can best cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs?
How do we get fathers to stop teaching their children the teachings of their fathers?

Perhaps we just need to let them die off?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography,

From what I've heard, it took a generation to die off before the shape of the earth and it's planetary trajectory became widely accepted even though it had been determined to be a scientific truth.
The resistence to new scientific truths (things supported by evidence and testing is what I'm meaning) is what I find astounding. I personally welcome new info, like for example, if a god were evidenced, I would be very interested, or a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but in the fossil record. Bring it on, I'm ready to learn! I lose nothing if a god/gods are shown to be real or the theory of Evolution falsified afterall.

Its easy to stop, just pass laws prohibiting male genital mutilation, have the medical industry refuse to perform surgery on healthy babies, babies not suffering from any form of illness.

Would this also work to cure the world from god beliefs and would it be fair pass laws to prohibit such things? My mother for one, she needs her religious beliefs and I would hate for them to be outlawed. She will be gone eventually afterall and she is sure done having babies that would be circumsized due to her religious beliefs.

I think all religions will be gone (for the most part) in the not so distant future, can't we just let them die off instead of punishments due to laws enacted? Even though their religion may be false, or their reasoning faulty for whatever we are deeming to be unacceptable (like you are with circumcision) do we really need to outlaw them? I'm not sure I can get behind such a thing.

Obviously, not everyone feels the way you do towards circumcision:
Male circumcision is compulsory for Jews and is commonly practiced among Muslims. When circumcision is performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God but it may also be done to promote health and hygiene.

What is so bad about the bold that we need to pass laws to prevent such a thing?

I really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?

[Clownboat]

It become institutionalized in the US, cultural, men circumcize their sons just because they were themselves circumcized by their fathers, it is ongoing child genital mutilation dressed up as science, no different to eugenics in my opinion.

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to remove ideas like this once they make it into a culture?
Men will bring their children up in their religion because they were themselves brought up in religion by their fathers.

How can we cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs I wonder?

Only the US (and some other religious fundamentalist states) have this problem of routinely mutilating baby boys.

What is odd is how Paul goes to great lengths to explain that circumcision is not necessary for salvations, meaningless under the new covenant yet US Christians by the truck load continue to do it.

How do you think we can best cure this imposed need for circumcision and religious beliefs?
How do we get fathers to stop teaching their children the teachings of their fathers?

Perhaps we just need to let them die off?
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.

— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography,

From what I've heard, it took a generation to die off before the shape of the earth and it's planetary trajectory became widely accepted even though it had been determined to be a scientific truth.
The resistence to new scientific truths (things supported by evidence and testing is what I'm meaning) is what I find astounding. I personally welcome new info, like for example, if a god were evidenced, I would be very interested, or a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but in the fossil record. Bring it on, I'm ready to learn! I lose nothing if a god/gods are shown to be real or the theory of Evolution falsified afterall.

Its easy to stop, just pass laws prohibiting male genital mutilation, have the medical industry refuse to perform surgery on healthy babies, babies not suffering from any form of illness.

Would this also work to cure the world from god beliefs and would it be fair pass laws to prohibit such things? My mother for one, she needs her religious beliefs and I would hate for them to be outlawed. She will be gone eventually afterall and she is sure done having babies that would be circumsized due to her religious beliefs.

I think all religions will be gone (for the most part) in the not so distant future, can't we just let them die off instead of punishments due to laws enacted? Even though their religion may be false, or their reasoning faulty for whatever we are deeming to be unacceptable (like you are with circumcision) do we really need to outlaw them? I'm not sure I can get behind such a thing.

Obviously, not everyone feels the way you do towards circumcision:
Male circumcision is compulsory for Jews and is commonly practiced among Muslims. When circumcision is performed for religious reasons, it usually symbolises faith in God but it may also be done to promote health and hygiene.

What is so bad about the bold that we need to pass laws to prevent such a thing?

I really don't know what to make of that post, anyone else any ideas?

Let me condense this for you:

1) Would this also work (the passing of laws that you brought up to prohibit genital mutilation) to cure the world from god beliefs? The mechanism that causes both to persist is the same, fathers telling their sons the teachings of their fathers. If we pass laws to prevent one, should we do so to prevent the other?

I'm not sure I can get on board with what you seek to outlaw via enacting legislation.

Consider this:
- You don't want circumcisions and you suggest outlawing them.
- What would you say to a person that doesn't like a religious belief (pick one) and would seek to outlaw it via legislation?