We allow parents to make all sorts of decisions about their kids' bodies on issues ranging from corrective surgery to vaccines to skin-tag removal. So the question is, Where is circumcision on that spectrum? Based on discussions with a urologist I know, I tend to think it's more on the inconsequential end of the spectrum medically. But r…
We allow parents to make all sorts of decisions about their kids' bodies on issues ranging from corrective surgery to vaccines to skin-tag removal. So the question is, Where is circumcision on that spectrum? Based on discussions with a urologist I know, I tend to think it's more on the inconsequential end of the spectrum medically. But reasonable people will disagree, and if there's reasonable disagreement, I don't think we should be going for legal bans as a method of persuasion. It's not going to work.
I don't think that's really equivalent. Ear piercing doesn't remove an actual body part. If you leave the holes long enough, they skin just grows back in.
Well...if I were to draw a line I'd put everything you provide as an example would seem to clearly be in the positive outcome side of the scale.
I haven't dug into the research on this one. But the point of the podcast seemed to be that there's not good evidence of any positive outcome. Which would put it on the other side of the above line.
The judgment calls about surgeries for complicated conditions can be very difficult, even with the guidance of the fanciest doctors, and there can be bad downstream effects ranging from infection to death. Yet we allow parents to make these decisions all the time. Circumcision, whether you're pro or con, isn't nearly as weighty an issue.
That may be, but the surgery is meant to fix an actual problem, even if the risk benefit isn't totally clear. Being born with a functioning foreskin isnt a problem.
We allow parents to make all sorts of decisions about their kids' bodies on issues ranging from corrective surgery to vaccines to skin-tag removal. So the question is, Where is circumcision on that spectrum? Based on discussions with a urologist I know, I tend to think it's more on the inconsequential end of the spectrum medically. But reasonable people will disagree, and if there's reasonable disagreement, I don't think we should be going for legal bans as a method of persuasion. It's not going to work.
Wait 'til these folks find out about how early Hispanic families pierce little girls' ears.
Pretty sure it's done with a staple gun on the way home from the hospital.
I jest, but it's pretty early.
If the practice of "circumcision" meant poking a hole in a piece of the foreskin, you'd hear a lot less complaining about it.
A closer but still not accurate analogy would be mothers cutting ear lobes off of their daughters entirely.
I don't think that's really equivalent. Ear piercing doesn't remove an actual body part. If you leave the holes long enough, they skin just grows back in.
Well...if I were to draw a line I'd put everything you provide as an example would seem to clearly be in the positive outcome side of the scale.
I haven't dug into the research on this one. But the point of the podcast seemed to be that there's not good evidence of any positive outcome. Which would put it on the other side of the above line.
The judgment calls about surgeries for complicated conditions can be very difficult, even with the guidance of the fanciest doctors, and there can be bad downstream effects ranging from infection to death. Yet we allow parents to make these decisions all the time. Circumcision, whether you're pro or con, isn't nearly as weighty an issue.
That may be, but the surgery is meant to fix an actual problem, even if the risk benefit isn't totally clear. Being born with a functioning foreskin isnt a problem.