How Large is your Penis?

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Ban Circumcision?

There are some ex-Jews that hold the position that circumcision should be banned because it is a practice that a person (who is now a baby) must accept upon himself when he gets older to an adult. Adults cannot make such a choice on their children. It is therefore unethical to preform circumcision on babies, and so it must be banned.

I understand this argument. I do agree that it is wrong for religious Jews to preform circumcision on their children before they are old enough to be able to agree to do it or not. I am not some defender of circumcision. I think it is a barbaric ritual that Jews inherited from primitive animal sacrificing men. I would certainly love to see circumcision eliminated in my life time. But do I think it should be banned?

Before I answer the question I want to say that it is not just circumcision that I find wrong, it is child indoctrination that I find wrong. In fact, on many of magnitudes more so than circumcision. All what circumcision is, is a minor surgical operation preformed around the penis. It is based on barbaric reasons of the past, but it is really not such a big deal. I am circumcised. My tiny little penis is circumcised. But it does not bother me. I do not wake up during the night and cry to myself, "why, why is my little penis circumcised!". Circumcision is really a trivial issue when compared to the real problem, and that is child indoctrination.

I certainly find it wrong for parents to brainwash their children into a religion. Children should be free to explore and make sense of the world themselves. Parents only proper responsibility is to provide the means and help for their children to do so. But the beliefs and the ideas that children form should entirely be their own. This applies to everything. Including atheism. I do consider it wrong for parents to bring up their children as atheists. Children should be given access to modern science and philosophy and what is known today in the world. Children should learn about religion and atheism. But the final decision that children make should be their own. In fact, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens agree with me. Richard Dawkins objected when atheist parents brought for their babies a baby t-shirt that said "atheist baby". Dawkins said that babies are not Hindus, Muslim, or Jews, nor are they atheists, they are just babies that will develop their own beliefs when they get older. Hitchens said that he does not teach her daughter about atheism. She goes to a Quaker school where she learns a little bit about other religions. But Hitchens himself never once made her be an atheist.

Child indoctrination is worse than circumcision because it has a major effect over the lives of children. Circumcision is just for the most part a trivial physical procedure. While child indoctrination is a major psychological impact. Religion can drive children to commit suicide. Either because they have conflicting religious ideas or because they discover that they are gay. It can lead people who come out as atheists to be completely ignored by their religious communities. Indoctrination can have terrible mental effects on children when they get older, something that circumcision entirely lacks.

Worse of all child indoctrination steals from children their own path in their life. Nobody should be handed a path and be told "this is what to believe". TheAmazingAtheist made an excellent video many years ago, it was directed towards the movie "Jesus Camp", you can fit it here. It discusses the evils of child indoctrination.

Opponents of circumcision who say that it is unethical for parents to do that to their children are not being consistent. They say that circumcision is unethical. This is certainly true. But what about child indoctrination? If you want to ban circumcision then you need to be consistent and say to ban child indoctrination. But not many of these anti-circumcision people actually believe in this ban, that is too much for them.

Now to answer the question of whether or not circumcision should be banned.

I have a bias against bans. Because I hear a new ban proposed every single day. It makes me want to vomit at this point. Just turn on a TV news station and watch some commentator. It will not be long until he proposes a new ban. Nearly ever person you would meet in your life has a few things they like to ban. The whole idea repulses me. How about we try to come up with something more creative than banning? Bans are for the intellectually lazy who are unwilling to fight the problem, but would rather see it banned. So whenever I hear "we need to ban ... ", I am always repulsed by the idea.

But that is just my bias against bans, I did not give a reason for my opposition to the circumcision ban. I oppose bans because I am able to understand the anatomy of bans. I wrote about it back here. All what a ban is, is the declaration of using violence against those who perform the action that is banned. If you say that "cigarettes should be banned" then you are saying that violence should be used against cigarette companies who sell them and against people who buy them. If you say that "circumcision should be banned" then you are saying that violence should be used against Jews who attempt to preform circumcision.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not a pacifist. I defend my property with lethal armed force. I am not always against the use of violence. But for the most part violent solutions are terrible ways to solve social problems. Violence leads to unforeseen consequences that often turn out being much worse than what was intended.

As much as I philosophically oppose Noam Chomsky, he does make a good point. He says that the responsibility of justification for using violence or aggression is always on the one who is willing to be forceful. Thus, if you propose a ban on circumcision you need to justify why you think that violence is the proper method to deal with religious Jews. It is not the responsibility of religious Jews to explain why you should not use violence against them, it is your responsibility.

This is why I oppose a ban on circumcision. I agree that circumcision is wrong. I agree that parents have no right to circumcise their children (or brainwash them for that matter). I think that parents who make their children religious are in a way kidnapping their own lives, and take away from their freedom to develop themselves intellectually. But at the same time taking out a gun and pointing it at religious Jews who do these wrong things is not the correct way to deal with the problem. Both circumcision (and child indoctrination) and violence against Jews are evil actions but the lesser of these two evils is circumcision.

I have another reason to oppose a ban on circumcision. This is more of an economical objection to it. I just simply do not think that it will do anything. Jews have be mutilating the genitals of boys for thousands of years (and sucking on their penises too). They were willing to die for this practice in every generation. What makes you think that a ban on circumcision will end circumcision?

Advocates of bans, not just circumcision, but any ban, always fall into this standard fallacy. They imagine that a ban will put a stop to whatever they are against. But that is not how bans really work. A ban is put into place and there remains a great deal of people who still ignore it. A ban on drugs is one big failure. Is there any reasonable person in US today that thinks that another ban on drugs will eliminate them? No matter how hard you try you just cannot stop the flow of drugs. Bans do not work that way. The idea that a law is put into place and the citizens respect it immediately is a foolish way to look at bans. The way it really works is that a ban is put into place and there is an opposition to this ban. The people who oppose it keep on doing what they are doing. Sometimes they might go into the black market to do it but they keep on doing it. And in that way bans become entirely useless. Not just useless, but even harmful, because they end up putting people into jail for no good reason.

If a ban on circumcision is passed do you really think it will stop Jewish circumcision on children? Can you really believe it will do anything when most other bans that are puts into place turn out being economic failures? What is likely to happen with a ban on circumcision is that the Jews will preform circumcision is non-hospitals. Circumcisions will still be done. But just not anymore in a hospital environment. Maybe in a mohel's apartment, or something like that (through the black market). As much as you can hate circumcision you have to agree that circumcision would be a lot less safe being preformed in someone's apartment rather than in a hospital. In effect, a ban on circumcision has created a greater problem than what it was intended to solve. Banning circumcision will be just like a ban on prostitution. Prostitution does not end with a ban. Rather it gets redirected to the black market. If prostitution was not illegal it could have been a more safe practice, now that it is illegal it is not eliminated, just redirected to a more dangerous environment. Hence, a ban on prostitution did more harm than good. Do you not think that a ban on circumcision will backfire and do more harm than good?

I will always keep in mind what Thomas Sowell says about economics, "economics is not the study of intentions and hopes, but the study of causes and effects". People who propose a circumcision ban certainly have good intentions. But that is all irrelevant. I want to hear a reason to why such a ban would produce the desired conclusion that they seek. When I read other Jew blogs about people arguing in favor of a ban on circumcision they do not address whether or not such an intention is realizable. We must accept that such a ban would work as a given to us. They simply are arguing intentions. Which I find to be totally and completely irrelevant to whether or not it is a good or bad idea.

This does not really have much to do with what I said above, so I will mention it here. Jews who oppose a ban on circumcision argue that circumcision has health benefits. I hate this argument so much. It is such a ridiculous argument. I do not want to address it again. You can read about what I wrote here.

I oppose circumcision, but I also oppose a ban that opposes circumcision.

12 comments:

  1. So what do you think of the existing ban on cutting girls' genitals? I'm not talking about Africa, but what used to be done in the US. You can see from this gadget (image NSFW) that the clitoris was protected and only the clitoral hood taken, so it was very similar to male circumcision.

    Earlier this year, the AAP flirted with allowing a ritual pinprick on girls "less extensive than male genital cutting" but had to back down, so great was the uproar. This ban seems to have worked, contrary to your objections.

    Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and Auldous Huxley said "The only completely consistent people are dead." Child indoctrination is a different issue from circumcision. It can more easily be undone, for one thing. You trivialise the damage and harm of circumcision in order to make that comparison.

    Calling a ban "violence" is grotesque, when strapping a child down and cutting part of his genitals off IS violence, in a much more literal sense.

    Some of the most prominent advocates of the proposed ban admit that it has little hope of going through. But you have to admit that it has brought the issue into public notice. Until so few people want to do it that a ban will make little difference, we need to raise public awareness, and especially strengthen the ethics of doctors and nurses who hate doing it and would be glad to give it up.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "So what do you think of the existing ban on cutting girls' genitals?":

    I do not really know the mechanics of female genital mutilation but I figure it is similar to male genital mutilation. People are just so strongly against female genital mutilation because it is not commonly done in the US. But male genital mutilation is. I predict that if male genital mutilation was not common at all then people who have the exact same reaction to male genital mutilation as they do to female one. So all my arguments apply.

    "This ban seems to have worked, contrary to your objections.":

    I have no idea what you are talking about. But I will play along. Let us say that you are correct and it has "worked". Then that does not impress me. Because female genital mutilation is considered morally wrong by people in the US while male genital mutilation is not.

    I said that a ban on male genital mutilation would be an economic failure because there are so many people who want to do it, especially the Juden. Such a policy would simply divert the mutilation to the black market and so the policy would be a bad policy.

    If something is not commonly done then a ban "works". Like the ban on murder. The only reason why illegality of murder "works" is because it is not in the nature of people to commit murder. Compare this to a ban on people having sex before 21, that would be contrary to the nature of people and so it would fail.

    So this ban "worked" only because the way people feel about female genital mutilation is that it is evil. This means if you really truly want to eradicate male genital mutilation the best approach to this is to make people aware that it is evil. Rather than just banning it.

    "Child indoctrination is a different issue from circumcision. It can more easily be undone, for one thing.":

    Child indoctrination is not worse?

    "You trivialise the damage and harm of circumcision in order to make that comparison.":

    I do not trivialize the damage. I just do not put on an unnecessary exaggeration to its harm. Yes, it is wrong. But it is not anywhere close to abuse. Opponents of genital mutilation like to over exaggerate its evil. It is not as bad as some people make it. There are thousands of things more wrong than it, it is not anywhere near the top of the list of wrong things, speaking as a circumcised person myself.

    "Calling a ban violence is grotesque, when strapping a child down and cutting part of his genitals off IS violence, in a much more literal sense.":

    A ban is violence, or based on the threat of using violence. No reason to put quotations on it. If you say that I am wrong that bans are not violence or the threat of using violence against a particular group of people then tell me where I am wrong. And yes, genital mutilation is violent. But I just do not support a ban because I see the ban as a greater evil in this instance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The type of modified female circumcision that you mention is only one form of female circumcision. I think the other types are more common- removing the entire clitoris, and some contries remove the entire external genitalia and sew the whole thing shut with only a tiny hole for menstrual blood.
    This lead to huge health problems. There is really no comparison to male circumcision.

    I think that banning the whole thing (if at all) is more effective than picking and choosing what type is banned and what isn't. (In halacha its called a lo plug. ) Otherwise no one take it seriously.

    Regarding the AAP, they are not a legislative body. They came out with that bullshit trying to be politically correct and "culturally sensitive" although without actually listening to the people of that culture, the girls and women who were circumcized, who were horrified by that AAP idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really am amazed by some people who advocate for mutilation of men but do not agree that women can be mutilated, too.

    I am amazed by how people make a difference between male genitals and female genitals (and not only regarding mutilation).

    If one is wrong, evil, and whatever you want, the other is just as evil.

    If you are mutilated, and don't mind it, it is your problem. But allowing other boys to be mutilated just because you don't mind it, IS VERY WRONG.

    For the girl that worote before: the attitude of AAP and of the american (and that of other cultures who do not ban on MGM) people is also idiot. How do you think are babies who undergo this terific agression? Do you believe they liked to be stripped naked, tied to some cold plastic boards, and mutilated ALIVE? Would you like it? Would you like to lie tied to a hard plastic board, unable to move, and some crazy maniacs to play with your genitals???

    You, people, are amazing!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I really am amazed by some people who advocate for mutilation of men but do not agree that women can be mutilated, too.":

    Where do I advocate for male genital mutilation? And where do I create a double standard for female genital mutilation? Show me directly where I say that.

    "I am amazed by how people make a difference between male genitals and female genitals.":

    Again where do I make this distinction? Show me directly where I say that.

    "If one is wrong, evil, and whatever you want, the other is just as evil.":

    Where do I say it is not? Show me directly where I say that.

    "If you are mutilated, and don't mind it, it is your problem. But allowing other boys to be mutilated just because you don't mind it, IS VERY WRONG.":

    How do I allow boys to be mutilated? I want to see it abandoned. But the reason why I do not support a ban is because I see a ban on it as doing more damage than the actual practice itself.

    "How do you think are babies who undergo this terific agression? Do you believe they liked to be stripped naked, tied to some cold plastic boards, and mutilated ALIVE? Would you like it? Would you like to lie tied to a hard plastic board, unable to move, and some crazy maniacs to play with your genitals?":

    Do you not think that you are blowing the evils of genital mutilation way out of proportion? It is wrong but there way worse things than that. For example, child indoctrination.

    But what is the alternative that you propose? What do you propose that be done? To kidnap the baby from the parents who perform genital mutilation and throw the parents into jail? If you propose this then you are doing way more damage to the baby and to the parents that way. And you are ruining its future life even more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, you responded to one question which was not addressed to you. First of all.

    Second of all, if it isn't written that you said it, it means that it is understood from what you are saying. Insulting people's intelligence is not the best way to gather support.

    What do I propose? EQUALITY!

    Is there a ban on FGM? It is!
    Than you need a ban on MGM, too.

    Simple as that.

    You don't want a ban on MGM? Fine.
    Remove the ban on FGM, too.

    Simple as that.

    I don't see why a part of population can and must be protected by law against violence, and the other part should say: "there are worse things than that" and keep violating babies's rights and keep being aggressed and treated with violence (and I am not talking only about genital mutilation)???

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Second of all, if it isn't written that you said it, it means that it is understood from what you are saying.":

    How? How do I imply it?

    "What do I propose? EQUALITY! Is there a ban on FGM? It is! Than you need a ban on MGM, too.":

    Wow, how can I argue with such a powerful argument? I guess this means that if you want equality you should cut of people's arms because some people do not have arms. If some people have arms and others do not then that is inequality.

    "You don't want a ban on MGM? Fine. Remove the ban on FGM, too.":

    What you are saying is not equality. It is called "double standard". What you are trying to say is that you do not want there to be a double standard between male and female genital mutilation. Okay. But where do I make a double standard? I am not trying to ban anything. Show me where I create a double standard?

    "I don't see why a part of population can and must be protected by law against violence, and the other part should say: "there are worse things than that" and keep violating babies's rights and keep being aggressed and treated with violence.":

    You missed my entire question that I asked you. I asked you what will happen to parents who circumcise their children? What will you do to them? Throw them into jail and then kidnap the baby away from them? If you do that then you create a much worse problem.

    I said that between circumcision and throwing the parents into the jail the one that is less worse is circumcision.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, throw a couple of thousands of parents in jail (both parents) and you will see no more parents willing to mutilate their babies.

    And it is less worse to have the child living without some stupid parents who advocate violence against their child than living with them.

    From this aggression comes the whole violence against men that is visible in your society. Men can be aggressed, women don't, it's forbiden.

    Have a nice mutilated-world.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Well, throw a couple of thousands of parents in jail (both parents) and you will see no more parents willing to mutilate their babies.":

    I already addressed this. This is not going to work. Your mentality is the exact same mentality as the anti-drug people. Or any prohibitionists. They claim that by putting people into jail it will stop whatever they want to prohibit. It never works and it will never work. All it does is put people unnecessarily in jail and ends up ruining lives.

    Tell me this. Juden have been prepared to die to defend their rituals for thousands of years. This was under the pain of death or torture. What makes you think that something so trivial as jailing them would stop circumcision?

    "And it is less worse to have the child living without some stupid parents who advocate violence against their child than living with them.":

    Why are you a neo-Nazi?

    Oh, I know, you are going to tell me "me? a neo-Nazi? how?". See I can play the exact game you play. I can make up accusations without defending them about you.

    This is the second time you said that I advocate circumcision. I axed you above. I axed you to show me where I say that. You then confessed and said that I imply it. Well if I imply it then show me how I imply it. You did not do this. You avoided this entirely.

    Stop making empty statements if you cannot defend them. If you want to continue saying this then you must provide a defense to how I advocate circumcision.

    ---

    Do you realize that you create a bigger problem with jailing people? Forgetting the part about how it is utter fail for the reasons I explained above, it also destroys families. If you jail the parents. Who will the baby have? Go to a foster home. Or have no parents? Who will take care of it?

    Do you not realize that what you propose would really destroy the babies future? Because these parents who circumcise it can be good people and good parents. They circumcise it not because they hate their baby. But because they are doing something foolish. It does not make them evil people, nor does it make them bad parents. By jailing the parents you create a way worse problem then already is.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
    ----------------------------
    Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds In The Adult Penis
    British Journal of Urology International,
    2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 864-869
    Sorrells et al.


    ============================


    "The Reason for circumcision is to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. Violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished."
    ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Moses Maimonides (Rabbi, Philosopher, Scholar, Physician) 1135-1204 AD

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.":

    I know that the original purpose of circumcision is to dull sex. Where do I defend circumcision in my post? The question is whether or not it should be banned. Most people in US would probably say that the KKK is wrong but they should not be banned. The main question here is not whether it is wrong or not, but whether it needs to be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All erogenous sensation is in the foreskin. The glans is non erogenous. You think it should be legal to give men sexual dysfunction, ED and no sexual pleasure?

    Retard

    ReplyDelete