I did not know of this view.

I thought secular reasons were science based - or claims to science

Quick google search says CDC and AAP agree on benefits of circumcision - lowered risk of HIV, UTI, penile cancer

A woman may prefer it. But that is likely because it is familiar

Considering the negatives is it worth the risk?

Yea - but 64 % of the 68% women that said they prefer circumcised cited lower risk of STIs (again - quick google search, first academic looking non reddit type result)

If you lob your penis off you will never have penis cancer. I don't see a line for that procedure.

Was that first google search authored by Brian Morris by any chance?

Yes. Of the NCBI

Oh boy

I would like to reframe this as infant circumcision

Also Catherine A Hankins

@DarthEquus what’s wrong with Brian Morris?

Sorry I gotta step away.

He's a circumcision fetishist who publishes tons of heavily biased reports

Like that one you referenced above.

Ok @Malachi - even if infants - if there are health benefits that outweigh the risks, parents should have that choice. As I Said, I’m not sure of the literature.

American women claimed to prefer it because they think it's cleaner and has less STDs. No checking of they have actually experienced uncircumcised penises, just playing off of cultural myths

Even if there are. Is it likely to have penis cancer before the age of 18? Couldn't one make that decision for themselves?

Wearing a condom decreases std risk much more reliably

What other healthy body parts may parents have amputated for purported health benefits?

So you’re right about this Brian guy - first 5 academic results are him - also claims that in countries where circumcision is not prevalent, even then women stated preference as circumcised

@Malachi if the risk of penile cancer or any other serious sti or uti is significantly low at a younger age, then you’re right - the point though is you are still entertaining the cost benefits analaysis based on health- so i would need to ‘know’ that there isn’t a significant risk prior to the age of 18

For the purposes of the discussion - if you want me to grant you the scientific position, let’s do that.

> What other healthy body parts may parents have amputated for purported health benefits?
@DarthEquus that’s a good question. If there was health benefit to it (whichever body part), would you agree parents should be allowed then to get rid of it or significantly change its physical properties to lower the risk?

Well, one also has to consider the value of the body part being removed. Removing toes will reduce your risk of cancers, prevent toe injuries, one could even argue it makes it easier to clean your feet. But toes are also used for balance and gripping. Sure, you can live while missing a few toes. But that is hardly a justification to remove healthy toes off of newborns because the parents want it that way.

Are you pointing out the innate complexity of arriving at a crystal clear position of what is and isn’t a big enough risk to give parents that right?

Falls back to my first question: what other healthy, normal body parts do we allow parents to have amputated off of children? Well the answer is none. So why is the male prepuce (foreskin) the only exception?

I want to explore the example you gave. Because as long as you’re willing to say that health benefit -significant enough, will outweigh not letting parents cut up/ get rid of/ physically change their infants bodies... then giving an example where it is actually difficult to ascertain the balance of costs and benefits doesn’t help - let me put it another way

If it was discovered that removing an internal organ altogether or altering it in some way - reduces risk of xyz disease by 85%. Assume The cost of removing it (as you pointed out toes are used for balance) is not high. Would it then be ok to do so?

Well one has to look at the absolute chance of getting xyz disease. If you're overall chance of getting xyz is 10%, then that 85% reduction is really only bringing you down to 1.5%.

Also, the standard to interven on another person's body is medical necessity. Now, if the doctors made a diagnosis that thick child *will* get xyz disease but removing this organ will increase their chances of surviving, that may be an appropriate solution.

*But*, before that, we also have to take into account alternative, tissue preserving solutions that may be available, as amputation is viewed as a last resort

If someone got conjunctivitis, it could be cured by removing the eye.

I mean, it works.

But is that an appropriate response when it could be healed within a week with $20 of antibiotics?

Ok - just wanted to make sure health could be a factor.

And yes, I meant 85% chance of getting the disease and it being moderately dangerous

So do you also disagree with tonsil removals decisions parents take for kids?

If there is a medical reason that tonsiliectomy is warranted, no. Because that would be medical necessity. But that wouldnt be the parents bringing their kid in to the doctors office saying "Hey doc, take put my kid's tonsils." A doctor would have to find an present condition where the tonsils need to be removed.

Btw, tonsillectomy is not anywhere near as common as it once was because a) we can treat tonsillitis without removing them and b) doctors finally had to admit that tonsils have functions. Tonsiliectomy used to be a trendy thing for a while and many people would get their tonsils removed even without any problems

Yes - I refused to get them removed as a kid even though doctors insisted to my parents that it must be done. Glad it turned out this way.

The thought of an emergency circumcision makes me giggle.

Also, I like the distinction between doctor prescribing it and parents forcing it.

That wasn’t the point malachi - I was steelmanning the position of whether any health benefit or condition could be a factor in letting parents alter bodies. So now that we agree there are some circumstances where this would be ok - let’s talk about the science.

I just thought it was funny.