Follow German Court's Lead And Ban Circumcision, Israeli Child Advocate Says

Eran Sadeh, the founder of the Protect the Child website, argues that Israel should follow a German court's lead and ban infant circumcision.

Eran Sadeh, the founder of the Protect the Child website, argues in Ynet that Israel should follow a German court's lead and ban infant circumcision.

Sadeh gives eight reasons why he believes that infant circumcision should be banned:

The following are eight reasons why the circumcision ritual should be abolished:
 
1. A whole member is more natural. Males and females are born with foreskin.

2. A whole member is more pleasurable. The foreskin is the most sexually sensitive part of the penis. Like the tips of the fingers and the lips, the foreskin contains a high concentration of blood cells and sensory nerve endings. The foreskin protects the glans and keeps its surface soft, moist, and sensitive.
 
3. A whole member is more protected. During infancy, the foreskin protects the glans of the penis and the urethra from irritation and infections. When the foreskin is removed, the glans and urethra are exposed to abrasion that can eventually cause scarring and urination problems. Ten out of every 100 circumcised children will have to undergo surgery to expand the opening of the urethra.
 
4. A whole penis is more common throughout the world. Some 80% of men are not circumcised (close to 100% in Europe, not including Jews and Muslims). In Israel, more and more parents are leaving their children's members whole due to the massive amount of information that is available on the Internet on the subject.
 
5. A whole penis is more humane. Parents who do not circumcise their child spare him of a host of painful experiences: The pain of the knife cutting through the flesh and the pain of an open, bleeding wound which takes 7-10 days to heal. The trauma of the pain is etched in the infant's mind and affects the way he reacts to pain in the future.
 
6. A whole penis is safer. Each year hundreds of babies are rushed to the emergency room due to various complications related to the removal of the foreskin: Constant hemorrhaging that requires surgical intervention or an infusion due to the massive loss of blood; dangerous infections; a distortion of the penis; pain during erection and more.
 
7. Parents who leave their baby's penis whole are respecting their child's basic right to grow up with a whole body, with the whole penis he was born with. Due to the availability of information on the subject, more and more men are aware of the irreversible emotional damage circumcision has caused them and feel violated.
 
8. A whole member is more ethical. A surgical procedure is considered justifiable – from a medical standpoint – when it meets two conditions: A - It is performed to treat a medical condition, disease or injury. B - It is the least invasive treatment available. Obviously, circumcision does not meet either requirement, as the procedure is performed on healthy babies.

I think point number three is demonstrably false. Point number six needs a comparison between the number of uncircumcised babies who get urinary tract infections and the number of circumcised babies who are damaged from the circumcision. Point number eight would be true if circumcision did not lower certain disease transmission risks and lower the incident rate of urinary tract infections and penile cancer.

This is a sloppy, poorly written, poorly supported piece – which is sad, because, agree with it or not,  a good argument can be made to ban infant circumcision.

Unfortunately, Sadeh lacks the tools, it seems, to make it.

Comments

[Lubavitchers are Christians]

I guess the rabbis were right when they said that those who are aginst MBP are really against brit milah in general.

Shmarya - you had me convinced that MPB should be stopped. When haredim would tell me that their rabbis are claiming that those who are against MPB are using it just as an excuse to ban circumcision..... I would quote your articles as prrof that there is something inherently dangerous about MBP.

Now I guess they were right.....

While you convinced me that MBP should be stopped, I don't think circumcision should be banned due to freedom of religion. As a free, advanced, enlightened society, freedom of religion is one of the basic tenets of our democracy.

[Shmarya]

Posted by: Lubavitchers are Christians | August 24, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Please.

Stop lying.

Stop trolling.

The German court banned all infant circumcision and all child circumcision – meaning it banned Jewish, Islamic and African tribal circumcision.

It had NOTHING directly to do with MBP.

Similarly, Sadeh's article has nothing to do with MBP.

If Jews did no metzitzah of any kind, Sadeh and the German court would still be opposed to infant circumcision. That's why neither mentioned MBP at all.

[Yoisel]

Shmardiot, LRC was talking about your sympathy towards the article, not about the article itself!
What a dumbell!

[Rabbi David Wolpe Shlita]

Circumcision clearly violates biblical tradition. A Jew who wishes to follow halacha should not have his son circumcised.

[Yaakov]

Whether or not circumcision should be performed is entirely a matter of assumptions that are made by the person judging what should be. Efforts to make an objective case are doomed to failure since the framework of what should be drives what is considered "objectively right".

This being the case, it is my opinion, as a pragmatist, that circumcision should certainly not be banned because it is integral to the ethos of the Jews and Muslims. While MbP can be shown to be inherently dangerous and religiously unnecessary, the same is not true for circumcision itself.

Part of the struggle here is that the zeitgeist is based on an emotional attachment to "objectivity" since the scientific revolution. It is believed, as a constant subtext, that the only real way to decide the correctness of something is to be "objective". Aside from being an epistemic impossibility, this is also simply wrong.

Even science must resort to narrative in the case of complex, chaotic systems. And those are cases where empirical measurements can actually be done in a repeatable way. To demand this sort of thing when dealing with the chaotic cloud of human society, this is not a good method.

Instead, we must focus on human experience, and use "objective" criteria only where the application is trivial. If you are working second- or third-order from numbers with huge error bands and questionable provenance, you are either mistaken or lying if you claim this is in any way "scientific" or "objective".

The idea of banning brit mila in Israel is absurd on its face, and this is also a clue concerning the writers intention. If he believes it could happen, he is deluded, but I suspect he is completely aware of the impossibility. I think his intention is to create outrage, not to make a meaningful proposal.

The misplacement of the ethos of science in the world of human experience and society has done more harm to people than is generally acknowledged. Scientific method is a wonderful thing. I brings us technology in medicine, communications, and transportation (among others) that has the potential to raise the lives of many, many people but its power in the domain to which it lays legitimate claim doesn't make it a universal solution.

[Liran]

Eran Sadeh, the founder of the Protect the Child website, argues that Israel should follow a German court's lead and ban infant circumcision.

This is what you call the enemy from within.

[Liran]

Just got this email from someone I know who visited Hungary.

Attached poster describes A local "hunk" in uniform, fairly similar to the SS, holding a "small" Jew by his hair. The little Jew is ugly, his face distorted and he has a hooked nose and is trembling with fear.
The pockets are designed to express that Jews have "Pockets full of money".
In case you are wondering, the poster is not from Germany, in the years of 1932 to 1945, but it is printed now, tens of thousands of copies all over Hungary (Date Picture - March 2012).

http://s18.postimage.org/4n3uub1o7/mime_attachment.jpg

[Shmarya]

Shmardiot, LRC was talking about your sympathy towards the article, not about the article itself!
What a dumbell!

Posted by: Yoisel | August 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Since I don't have any sympathy for the article – which, I noted, is "a sloppy, poorly written, poorly supported piece" – that would be impossible.

[jancsibacsi]

Liran -I saw this over 2 months ago i speak hungarian all i can say is that hungarians are absolute dummies they are digging their own graves with this kind of behaviour.

[A FRUM JEW WHO HATES FRUM RICH JEWS]

SHMARYA THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING SHOOTER WORKED AT A JEWISH CLOTHING MANUFACTURER.

IS THIS THE ONLY WAY FOR NON-JEWS TO EXPRESS THEIR ANGER AT THE ECONOMIC INEQUALITY AND DISCRIMINATION HORRID BUSINESS PRACTICES BY NEW YORK JEWS TODAY?

[devora-torah]

wait until the goyim read what the hardei let the mohel do; we will all be despised? hope they miss failed messiah in their search engines.gut shabbos.

[dh]

I await the thouhts of WSC, my expert on all things penile.

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

The best argument for circumcision is that many girls would try to avoid giving an oral sex to uncircumcised males. Many guys do not clean under their foreskin. 

The vast majority of porn movies show actors with cut penises. 

However, some in the gay community prefer it uncut. 

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yaakov, I beg to differ. science can and does provide a solution in most cases, just not here, but not because this is objectivity vs subjective values. If we were talking about a practice with a clear net harm, demonstrable via science to pose a danger to children, then I think we would easily agree it should not be done. Take the example of MBP. Reasonable people will not disagree in the face of objective data. Those who insist on MBP for religious reasons, knowing the risks, are not reasonable, in the same sense that those who insist on female circumcision or burning witches are not reasonable in the face of the objective science about those practices.

But as to circumscision generally, there is no scientific consensus as to net benefit or net disadvantage, at least that I'm aware. So the science does not provide clear guidance in this case, but that does not mean it can't.

If brit milah were shown by science to be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children each year in Israel, it would not be absurd to discuss banning it. But science has not shown it is posing that danger (outside of MBP).

[ruthie]

i used to think this was soooo important.
i don't anymore.
if i gave birth to a son today....i wouldn't bris mila him. i could care less.
monsey has really helped me see clearly.
cutting a little baby like that. why? because g-d said. people who want to do it for religious reason should have the right.
personally i think it's bullshit.
ps i used to REALLY believe in it. so i'm not against it. i just don't feel it's important.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

@ dh | August 24, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I think you just made his day.

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

Wait for Shmarya to find out that the owners of Hazan Imports Ralph and Issac Hazan are Frum Orthofox Haredi Jews.

[jancsibacsi]

Eli, what me messiah--Maybee the trauma that the baby is subjected to does do damage pshychicdamage, that we just dont know as of yet after allthe baby does fell pain and the babies first experience in this world is accute cruelty,any normal rational person would anesthesize the baby in my oppinion.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Jancs, this is possible. But how harmful?
My point is that it would be wrong to start from a premise that science does not have an answer today, and from there conclude that it cannot ever provide an answer in this area.
Sadeh fails for scientific reasons, because he offers bad science.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Jancs, and you provided a better answer to that particular risk without abandoning circumscision: anesthetize the baby.

[rebeljew]

Sadeh is an imbecile. Does he actually think that he will win over Jews and they will one day say, OK, we aren't going to do milah anymore? Does he actually think he can subvert 3000 years of tradition using some shaky theory? What is he, a Haredi?

Israel very existence is to protect Jews who wish to live a Jewish way of life, however they define it. Clearly, if it will not defend milah, Israel has no reason to be. And he thinks Israel will attack it? What a moron!

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

Ralph -ave J- Hazan catches huge carp for gefilte fish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qct0HlNaHmo&feature=plcp

[rebeljew]

Instead of "shaky", I will settle for "uncompelling" in the light of the strength of the tradition.

[Dave]

IMHO, if a Jewish male child is not circumcised, his parents are basically admitting that they don't care much about any form of theistic rabbinic Judaism (or even Karaism or Samaritanism). They are basically prepared to write their son out of the covenant.

[jancsibacsi]

Eli, what me messiah-I never suggested that we should abandon it , i already wrote many times before that it should be done under anesthetics thats the humane way and the right way to it its a no brainer.

[rebitzman]

....argues that Israel should follow a German court's lead and ban infant circumcision.

First of all - german court ruling is not binding and not likely to stand.

Secondly - ain't gonna happen, so all the wailing and gnashing of teeth pro and con are pretty meaningless.

[Yaakov]

Eli:

Define "most cases". Are you saying that in "most cases" involving social dynamics and questions of ethics science has an answer? This is false on its face.

Deontological ethics can produce some genuine beauty but it cannot answer "most questions". Scientific investigation can unearth empirical facts, but they must be structured into an ethical argument without the help of science.

No, science simply cannot do what is demanded of it when it is taken from the formal to the informal realm and no scientist would claim there is a scientific answer to moral and ethical issues.

Let's be very clear. Science can potentially test factual assertions made as part of ethical arguments, but, in many if not most cases, such fundamental assertions are made in such a way to defy clear definition, and when clarification is attempted, a new argument arises over that and so no progress can be made.

Science has, by its own light, a very narrow domain of applicability. It can be applied where the assertion being made is falsifiable and no where else. In some cases, the assertion (e.g.: the existence of a Creator) is epistemically immune to falsification and science simply remains mute. It can say nothing.

In other cases, the arguments are posed in such a way as to defy clear specification, and competing arguments are actually framed incompatibly. Science is also mute here. Scientists sometimes do not remain mute in these cases, but they stop being scientists when they do this and become partisans with a rhetorical bludgeon.

[ah-pee-chorus]

heres a recent piece on the possible savings from bris milah.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/21/decline-in-circumcisions-could-cost-billions/

if the American Academy of Pediatrics changes their position in light of new evidence, that would impact my position towards circumcision. however, unless these benefits were lost by waiting till the child is 18, it should still be outlawed to perform on an infant. let the 18 year old decide for himself what to do with his penis.
of course MBP must be banned under all circumstances unless the patient is an adult.
and its so transparent to see the frum screaming about health benefits. they couldnt care less about them. we see their position on MBP which not only has no benefits but is demonstrably dangerous. and if overwhelming evidence surfaced that even normal circumcision provided no benefit while exposing the child to grave risks, they would still demand the right to do it. so the frum should refrain from the 'health benefit' as it could easily backfire.

[Lubavitchers are Christians]

Shmardiot, LRC was talking about your sympathy towards the article, not about the article itself!
What a dumbell!

Posted by: Yoisel | August 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Since I don't have any sympathy for the article – which, I noted, is "a sloppy, poorly written, poorly supported piece" – that would be impossible.

Posted by: Shmarya | August 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Shmarya, I wasn't referring to Germany, or to Israel. I was referring to your sympathy with the banning of brit milah. And I refer you to the following words which you wrote:

because, agree with it or not, a good argument can be made to ban infant circumcision.

Those are your words.

So I now return to my original point. Haredim who tell me that those who are against MBP are really against brit milah, are right.

If you would just keep to bashing MBP, with proof of the dangers involved, you may actually get haredim to listen.

Once you show that the haredi rabbis were correct, that you are really against all brit milah, you lost 'em all.

These people will circumcize their children no matter what - it is part of their religion.

And you are proving that you are very intolerant of other religions, just like other bigots.

[Bassy the Haredi Slayer]

From the CDC Center for Disease Controls and Prevention

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission and Other Health Conditions

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Several types of research have documented that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex.

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1].

A large retrospective study of circumcision in nearly 15,000 infants found neonatal circumcision to be highly cost-effective, considering the estimated number of averted cases of infant urinary tract infection and lifetime incidence of HIV infection, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and phimosis.

It is more biologically plausible that male circumcision would reduce HIV acquisition risk for the insertive partner rather than for the receptive partner, but few MSM (Men Who Have Sex with Men) engage solely in insertive anal sex [40].

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yaakov, we disagree about what science can do. And the assertion is not false on its face. Social behaviors and beliefs, including morality, altruism and a belief in the divine, all have a scientific explanation as to why they exist.

The notion that science cannot speak to the existence of a creator is also false. You express one view, a good one, often referred to as non-overlapping magisteria (Gould), which holds that the notion of a creator exists in a spiritual realm and cannot be assessed by rules and laws applied to the natural realm (nature/science). But it is not the only view, and your statement about falsification sets up the erroneous premise on which it is based, which is that a creator would be immune to the laws of science, like anyone or anything else.

Applying science to divinity, you are placing the burden of proof on the wrong foot. Science is not mute. It just doesn't have to prove the inexistence of a creator. On the contrary, those who advance the theory - existence of a creator - must offer positive evidence that complies with the laws of nature to support it. They don't. That doesn't mean the theory is immune to it.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

If it is abhorrent to have female circumcision, then it is just as abhorrent to have male circumcision.

Can anyone logically prove the difference between mutilating a female child as opposed to mutilating a male child?

Let's say god created us, did he design us with a bit that needs to be modified before "use"? If you believe that, then it opens the floodgates for other "modifications" which could be dreamt up in the future, and be just as justified.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

"If it is abhorrent to have female circumcision, then it is just as abhorrent to have male circumcision."

Not the same. Female circumscision is just mutilation for religious or social purposes inflicting harm with no benefit.

With respect to males, the act is not an amputation of the entire area, and there's just no consensus on whether the negatives or positives outweigh ine or the other.

[rebitzman]

Let's say god created us, did he design us with a bit that needs to be modified before "use"?

Yes - He left the finishing touches of creation to us.

That is mainstream Jewish theology.

"modifications" which could be (sic) dreamt up in the future

It was dreamed up in Genesis 17 - 16 chapters after creation - by God.

If accepting your logic that "Let's say god created us" - if He indeed did, then His command to circumcise is equally valid. You cannot cherry pick.
____________

Your comparison between male and female circumcision is a false one. Other than the fact that they share a common word, the procedures themselves are in no way alike and the results themselves are in no way alike.

________________

There is an EXTREMELY easy solution to this - one available without changing any laws - without stepping on anyone's religious toes. If you don't wish to circumcise your children - don't.

But just as the overwhelming majority of posters here do not wish haredi values jammed down their throats, don't try jamming yours down mine. THAT is simply hypocritical.

[ah-pee-chorus]

With respect to males, the act is not an amputation of the entire area, and there's just no consensus on whether the negatives or positives outweigh ine or the other.

Posted by: Eli, what me messiah?

eli, if thats true, then what right do adults have to make a decision which permanently alters a childs anatomy? and subjects him to pain and a surgical procedure? why shouldnt the state require that the person himself evaluate the pros and cons when he reaches the age of maturity?
and if the benefits are related to sexual activity then why not make the age concurrent with the age of consent for sex since none of the benefits will be lost by waiting till such age?

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Rebitzman, if you truly think that there is a difference between one unnessesary cut, and another, then you are mistaken.

As well, there is a huge difference between god creating us, and the subsequent so-called commanding us of this and that. You can believe in god without the extra claptrap.

If your religion demanded that children have one ear cut off, as a sign of a covenant with god, then you would be doing that as well, and possibly making some kind of medical justification for it.

Yes, I would make any of them illegall to be done to children who have no recourse, but allow one of consenting age to choose for themselves.

[Yaakov]

Eli, you wrote:

Yaakov, we disagree about what science can do. And the assertion is not false on its face. Social behaviors and beliefs, including morality, altruism and a belief in the divine, all have a scientific explanation as to why they exist.

Having "scientific explanations" is irrelevant to what I was asserting. Whether theories testable scientifically can be constructed to explain the function of social behaviors (e.g. evolutionary value) is orthogonal to using science to assess the ethical content of an argument. Science can test the falsifiable assertions being made, nothing more. If an argument is presented that is purely logical, and depends in a testable assertion which can be shown false, that argument can be disregarded.

However, if the testable assertion is shown to be true, the ethical value of the argument is still not, in any way, proven. There is no "scientific morality". There is no way to test moral judgements except against their own rules.

In addition, complex, chaotic systems can not be deconstructed. They don't have that property. Emergent phenomena like societies cannot be "traced back" to a source because they are emergent and not the direct result of the forces involved. You cannot reverse the arrow of time and return to where you started no matter how accurate a simulation you attempt to construct. So, while science can describe a multitude of local effects and systems, it cannot do that for the overall system. Even a small number of degrees of freedom overwhelm the abilities of Newtonian-like descriptions.

The notion that science cannot speak to the existence of a creator is also false. You express one view, a good one, often referred to as non-overlapping magisteria (Gould), which holds that the notion of a creator exists in a spiritual realm and cannot be assessed by rules and laws applied to the natural realm (nature/science). But it is not the only view, and your statement about falsification sets up the erroneous premise on which it is based, which is that a creator would be immune to the laws of science, like anyone or anything else.

I made no such construction. If someone proposes a testable Creator, it can be tested. If someone proposes an untestable Creator it cannot be. I have made no assertion about the nature of any Creator, however, you know very well that the commonplace theology is an untestable Creator who can be seen only in relationship to an apparent design for the world. This view is naïve concerning progress in the area of dynamic systems in chaos theory.

Applying science to divinity, you are placing the burden of proof on the wrong foot. Science is not mute. It just doesn't have to prove the inexistence of a creator. On the contrary, those who advance the theory - existence of a creator - must offer positive evidence that complies with the laws of nature to support it. They don't. That doesn't mean the theory is immune to it.

This is philosophically confused. The "rule" you site, placing the burden of proof on the one who asserts something is a heuristic, not a law. Further, there is no reason at all a person has to prove that anything they believe "complies with the laws of nature". That is precisely the question-begging argument of the scientific zeitgeist against which I initially wrote.

To apply your own rules, you must first prove the necessity of conforming to your demands, not just assert them. You can't do this because as Wittgenstein would say, at some point you hit bedrock and your shovel is turned aside. These assertions are you bedrock, and you cannot prove the stone exists except to say, "my shovel was turned".

[ah-pee-chorus]

That is mainstream Jewish theology.
Posted by: rebitzman

and mainstream christian science theology is to NOT treat a child medically. we as a country dont permit such nonsense when a childs health or life is at risk so this statement is meaningless.

If accepting your logic that "Let's say god created us" - if He indeed did, then His command to circumcise is equally valid. You cannot cherry pick.

youre making a huge double leap here. firstly, there could be a god who created the world, but that doesnt mean he wrote a book and gave it to desert nomads. secondly, you are implying that todays bris is what was mandated in the bible.

But just as the overwhelming majority of posters here do not wish haredi values jammed down their throats, don't try jamming yours down mine. THAT is simply hypocritical.

they hypocrisy here is your own. i dont want charedi or any other values shoved down my throat or anyone elses. i wouldnt wish to prohibit YOU , an ADULT from engaging in whatever form of circumcision you choose. and my position is wholly consistent with attempting to prevent ANYONE from imposing their views and scalplels on an infant who has no vote.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Oh, and I am not shoving anything down your throat, I am merely voicing my opinion, and you are voicing yours.

Intelligent people can decide for themselves, those who are not of consenting age cannot.

[Yaakov]

rebitzman:

For the record, "dreamt" is perfectly orthodox orthography. Both "dreamed" and "dreamt" are considered correct in American English.

You "sic" was also misplaced as it should have followed the word, and you used parentheses instead of the correct brackets (i.e.: [sic]).

[Eli, what me messiah?]

APC, all surgery requires consent.
You make a sensible argument. Sure, if we tossed out all religion or personal beliefs, then I'd agree.
But by the same argument, and if we don't toss out all religion, by not snipping our sons we are making a choice for them.
My point is that basic circumscision, without MBP, is not that bad.
I don't think my sons will grow up and demand their foreskin back.
I do think my sons, as adults, would be upset with me for not having them circumsized.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

And if it was an ear?

[rebitzman]

Oh, and I am not shoving anything down your throat

Really? Then why did you write: Yes, I would make any of them illegall to be done to children who have no recourse, but allow one of consenting age to choose for themselves.?

That is simply forcing what YOU believe on others.

if you truly think that there is a difference between one unnessesary cut, and another, then you are mistaken

One removes the organs that allow for pain free and enjoyable sex, the other removes a flap of skin (and I assure you, does not in any way impact either). You really should study the procedures - and anatomy.

@ah-pee-chorus

Have a nice day.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Eli-

i think the ideal situation would be for a ceremonial rite of sorts which causes no permanent alteration, followed up by a surgical procedure by the boy at maturity. but at least i'd like to see rabbis agree to as minimal a procedure as possible, ala what was done in judaism prior (as posted on FM), again with the option to go more drastic later. i dont want to limit anyones religious freedom, but i want to make sure the infants right to be free of a religious circumcision, which is permanent,are respected as well. the only way that can be accomplished is to remove or limit the right of a parent to fulfill what he sees as his religious obligation.

[Drive-by Dan]

Yaakov, the reputed existence of a creator who is also reputed to influence and otherwise affect our physical universe is indeed a testable and falsifiable assertion that is well within the realm of scientific method to address. (but I see that you must be worshiping the god of Spinoza? or at least trying to dodge proper epistemology in terms of moving goalposts into the parking lot?)

If you posit the existence of a "creator" who nevertheless has zero interaction with this continuum after the act of creation, and you do so without any reason to posit such a being, then you are putting the cart before the horse. At some point you must have a reason to make such a claim. If it is just a thought experiment, then there should still be a basis for your original assertion...or be lumped in with people who believe in magical unicorns.
Spinoza thought the universe was also the creator, thinking to distance himself from having to defend his baseless assertion by claiming something without proof or any reason to suggest such a being existed.

(but here I am continuing this off topic argument. My apologies.)

As to circumcision, I begin my deliberations from the standpoint of the human rights of the child.

To protect the children from harm should be everyone's goal here regardless of how we feel about circumcision.

Anesthesia only helps at the moment of cutting.
I remember the pain afterwards. I don't know how long it took me to heal, but I remember refusing to pee because it hurt like fire. Perhaps this helped me in some way, but there is no super-being who commanded my baby penis get mutilated - that is entirely the province of the primitive and ignorant tribal nomads who made it all up in the first place.

In terms of personal trauma, perhaps it could be that the negative effects were minimal, but I was almost murdered before I could speak by a babysitter, and that massively traumatic experience overshadowed the mere physical pain from the circumcision.

It may have played a part in how I respond to different sorts of pain, but that is for the scientists and doctors to study and I cannot be very objective about it and so will not pretend to know what has barely been studied at all.

Getting back to circumcision, I can only say that: if it were completely painless, including the long days of healing afterward, I cannot really feel it is anything like child abuse.

If you don't mentally associate pain with something, it loses a lot of it's possible negative after-effects...or so I would like to think.

But then again, ...if you don't use anesthesia, and let some filthy-mouthed herpes-and-other-STD-ridden sleazeball put his diseased mouth on the naked and open wound of an innocent baby to, get this, "suck the blood" out, then I consider that not only child abuse and felony assault upon a child, but also a disgusting perverted thing to do under the umbrella of a primitive and nasty religion.

Religion is a madness on the face of the world. There are no gods and no suggestions whatsoever that any exist, so I would circumcise using medical reasons, if any, and leave the rabid and primitive religious justifications to those who remain brainwashed and unable to think for themselves. What they do is and always will be unjustified. Until they are willing to act like intelligent human beings, they should be banned from any contact with children whatsoever.

Medically safe and painless = ok, but it needs to be studied by professionals to make sure any harm is minimal.

Diseased and filthy perverts causing massive pain and permanent damage from filth and disease = not ok...and it will never be okay in my book.

The health and mental health of the children should always be paramount to any who profess to be "good" or "moral".
Without raising healthy children, what hope is there for everyone's future?

[Eli, what me messiah?]

APC, I'd prefer the option you propose. Frankly, I'm ambivalent in general. I find sympathetic the view expressed by Dawkins that there is "no such thing" as a "Jewish child, or Christian child, or a Muslim child" and that we should not indoctrinate children immediately into a religion. let them decide when they're old enough.

Yaakov, I have more to say but my time has expired. Will try to get to this over the weekend given the amount of thought you've put into responding, even if you're wrong. ;-)
And you did indeed say science cannot speak to the existence of a creator. Yes, the untestable/unfalsifiable creator is the one most often proposed by theologians, although this is relatively recent (as Galileo would know) and counter to creation science and the few oddball scientists who claim an intelligent designer can be inferred/proven via information theory and "irreducible complexity". But why do you believe a deus ex machina should be reserved for a deity in order for it to opt out of nature the moment the hard questions arrive?
By that measure, all gods are equally valid, including Bertrand Russell's cosmic teapot and the FSM. Any way, I owe you a more thoughtful reply.

BeenThereDoneThat, then your kid would be a Dutch artist.

[dh]

@3:58

"you 'sic '" is misspelled as it should have been spelled correctly and your use implies that he is a dog.

[BeenThereDoneThat]

Eli, how many Dutch artists do we need? :)

Besides, he did that to himself.

Ear ear!!

[Yaakov]

Eli:

I have asserted nothing about the "true" nature of any Creator. You assume that I have some particular idea about this without any input from me. You are really off base in your speculation about my beliefs, they aren't even involved in this argument. My point was not to defend any position but to contest the necessity of "science" in every argument.

Generally the arguments run this way: You and your opponent agree that "unnecessary human suffering is bad". You don't agree on the definitions of unnecessary or suffering. You bring "proofs", possible derived by scientific method that something you call "suffering" happens, and by some logic show that it is unnecessary. Your opponent either disagrees that it is unnecessary, disagrees it is suffering, or by turns disagrees with both assertions. Your "scientific proof" might be completely valid, but it cannot prove either of the sticking points of the argument.

If you agreed on the nature of suffering, and the necessity of certain suffering, then the argument is occurring in a common framework and you can use your scientific methods to prove factual things that can convince. If the argument is in two different frameworks, the proof of the facts serves only to convince you that you are right, and the opponent "just doesn't get it".

[Yaakov]

dh:

You really should get a new hobby. You aren't very good at this one. Don't you feel silly wasting your time like that?

[dh]

Dan, while reading your post I recalled something. I had a friend that was circumcised when he was 32 (I know where all your hands are!) . Anesthetized, he felt nothing during the procedure. He was sore and kept an ice pack in his lap all night and took Tylenol. When my son was circumcised he was only a tiny baby so didn't get either. His first, possibly his greatest ouie.

[Yaakov]

I see that I responded to the wrong person above. Not Eli (sorry for the misattribution, rather Drive-by Dan should be the address.

[rebitzman]

I see that I responded to the wrong person above.

Finger slips happen.

[Yaakov]

That wasn't a "finger slip", it was sloppy reading. I didn't look at the signature until after I posted it. Typing "You" instead of "Your" in my comment to you was a "finger slip".

[Drive-by Dan]

Yaakov, I can appreciate that you took the time to respond to my modest post.
In the future, should you continue to fail to refute anything I have written (as you have done so far), you may find that my responses become less polite.

As with any hobby, I only do it for my own enjoyment. If I can help children like you with my poor efforts, than that is merely a bonus. One does not have to be good at a hobby to enjoy it. But I thank you for your concern on my behalf.
Perhaps I could return the favor and suggest that you kiss my online ass? Thanks. :)

[dh]

Drive -by Dan, you're my new best friend. Gooooood Shabbos!!

[Rebitzman]

@dh

Yes, I know.

Thanks

[Drive-by Dan]

Thanks, dh!
Have a great weekend yourself!

[Yaakov]

Dan:

The comment you responded to was to dh, not you. dh has some fixation on me and insists on making vapid comments on things I say. If you look back, you will see that I answered you seriously, but mistook you for Eli.

Sorry that things got confused there. I will assume your impolite response was on account of the perceived slight. The only comment I made to you was the one mistakenly directed at Eli.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Drive-by Dan -

great post @| August 24, 2012 at 04:47 PM

as for what followed, i have no idea who is talking at whom and what was written on purpose and what not.

[dh]

Yay for you Dan .... you didn't respond to yourself per 6:15. Always a good sign in a new best friend.

[Yaakov]

ah-pee-chorus:

It's simple. I responded to Dan marking it "Eli" because I though it was a continuance of the previous conversation. Then I made a comment to my "admirer", dh. Looking back, I saw that I had mistaken Dan's post as coming from Eli and so I made a correction referring to "above" but not quoting the message. Immediately above was my (properly addressed) message to dh.

When Dan saw my correction, he (apparently) didn't notice the reference to Eli in it and so assumed "above" meant immediately above. Given the comment, it appeared very dismissive (it wasn't really, not even to dh in the context of his continued low-rent sniping), and in any case it wasn't ever intended for Dan.

But, if that was my response to his thoughtful post, it would seem exceptionally dismissive. I don't particularly care for the style of his response, but given the perceived provocation, I can understand some intensity.

I hope this clears things up, since anyone who has read the corpus of my writing here will know that I never make comments like that to a person who has seriously responded to something I said.

[zibble]

Circumcision might reduce a man’s risk of developing prostate cancer by 15 percent, according to new research published online March 12 in Cancer. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/12/circumcision-cuts-prostate-cancer-risk/

American Pediatricians Endorse Circumcision
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/08/24/american-pediatricians-endorse-circumcision/

Circumcision Rates Decline - Health Care Costs May Increase (link already quoted)

If one really strives to be objective about this, one must admit that there DOES seem to be a wide-ranging consensus among health professionals (these are only a few of the most recent articles) that circumcision is beneficial health-wise. Some folks like to nitpick and claim that this study is flawed or that study is agenda-driven, but there are just SO many more studies that chalk up in the net health positive column. To claim otherwise is to ignore consensus science and reject a very strong argument on one side of the circumcision debate.

[dh]

ROFL!!

[dh]

Not at you zib.

[Drive-by Dan]

Yaakov, thank you for the clarification.
As far as I could see, your post to (me) that discusses shovels being turned..(is that the one?
I admit to some confusion myself here)...did not appear to necessarily refute anything of mine beyond my mentioning the possibility of you worshiping the god of Spinoza.

If you are an atheist, you have my sincere apologies for my assumptions in that area, as I was trolling for a religious response as a matter of course. I find it much more entertaining and revealing to do it automatically when the obverse is not indicated clearly. Nothing personal.
.....
Science is, at its most basic, a method of examination and analysis, so I fail to see how you would prefer to dismiss it as a tool one could use to arrive at a more accurate conclusion on almost any topic.

Even with subjective opinion, at some point it is based upon something that can be examined and analyzed by an outside observer.

Yes, there are no absolute morals or morality. Yes, some people cannot be reasoned with to a more accurate point of view, but I think you left out the extremely large number of people suffering from delusions and other sorts of mental illness.
They are the ones who are most likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, be completely dismissive, etc., as these are often side effects of brainwashing.

I think if you added that sort of thing in, at least to qualify your statements and as a sort of useful disclaimer, your arguments would have one less hole for anyone to find and point to.

I'm a great believer in conditional statements, qualified statements, proper disclaimers and modifiers.
This nitpicking of mine is an actual hobby, so I assumed that post was to me.
See what happens when you don't proofread? lol

I am also glad to hear you do not usually make comments like the one you made in dh's direction.
But you are guilty of hypocrisy to make such a post and then say it's bad when others do it.
I haven't been reading this blog much lately so perhaps dh deserved your snarky post. I really have no idea. But I guess I'm his/her new best friend now.
dh must not like you very much for some reason. Perhaps dh could enlighten us as to your perceived crimes against him...

Anyway, thanks for the mass confusion.
I don't see it very often but it's always exasperating when it happens and I'm in the middle of it. I'll shut up now and return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

[ah-pee-chorus]

Yaakov- "simple" it isnt, but i know youre a mentsch and wouldnt be abrasive if unprovoked.

zibble- there are known benefits that derive from circ. and known risks and negatives. but unless you can provide a study in which the positives only accrue to those that have been circumcised before they become sexually active, they are almost irrelevant to the debate. even if it was crystal clear that the benefits far outweigh the risks and loss of potential enjoyment , it still wouldnt matter. when a male reaches the age of sexual activity or maturity he can choose for himself. theres NO justification for permitting adults to alter an infants genitalia unless there are clear benefits that require its performance near birth.

[Hugh7]

Point No3 is NOT demonstrably false.

J Pediatr Urol. 2011 Oct;7(5):526-8.
Incidence of asymptomatic meatal stenosis in children following neonatal circumcision.
Joudi M, Fathi M, Hiradfar M. (Iran)
PATIENTS AND METHODS:
Male children (5-10 years old) who had been circumcised during the neonatal period and presented at our pediatric clinic for reasons other than urinary complaints were examined and interviewed regarding urination problems.
RESULTS: Of the 132 cases, 27 (20.4%) had severe meatal stenosis [narrowing of the urinary opening, commonly caused by ulceration at the opening.]

zibble: The prostate cancer study is really bad science and does not justify that conclusion. Their "control" (no cancer) group were only not diagnosed with cancer, they didn't do biopsies to make sure, and about 30% of men have prostate cancer on autopsy. The study didn't reach statistical significance except in one subgroup, and then only just. This is typical of the science used to promote circumcision.

[Yaakov]

Dan:

It was just a confused thread and I apologize for my part in it.

On disclaimers: I find attempting to make each of my comments stand alone is not practical. As a matter of course, I depend on the body of on-going dialogue here to ensure that my meaning is understood. I do make clarifications and disclaimers when I suspected that some particular confusion is exceptionally likely but in this case I thought I was talking with someone familiar with me.

On hypocrisy: my post was a direct response to his behavior, and it was legitimately provoked. Being snarky is something I find particularly distasteful. In context, my comment was actual quite a bit more gentle than dh's own output. I feel completely at ease with my behavior in this regard and have no fear that a legitimate accusation of hypocrisy can be made.

In a purely speculative effort, I am guessing that dh finds me priggish and prolix. He may imagine I consider myself better than others on account of prodigious output and writing style (which he may take as affected, precious, or false erudition). The truth is, I am sincere, and have no motivation aside from communication of my ideas to people who wish to read them. And there is the trouble.

dh could simply not read my comments, but instead he chooses not only to read them but to make silly attempts to embarrass me, and to provoke others to do the same. It's ineffective since I really don't care what he has to say about me it being almost universally without substance. (I have seen him make intelligent, insightful posts with substantive content about other things, making the childish sniping all the more confusing.)

In any case, it is my impression that you and I disagree on some fundamental points, which is not something terrible, and not uncommon. I am rather heterodox when it comes to the rôle of science in the current western Weltanschauung. This is not from ignorance ( I work in academia, with scientific research programs) but on account of my own philosophical investigations.

Sorry, again, for the confusion.

[spacedout BT]

Don't confuse two separate issues. The arguments presented against circumcision are neither scientific nor rational. The arguments against MBP are based upon reason, halachic svora and empirical evidence.The attacks upon circumcision have been present since Hellenistic times- nothing new here.

[Jeff]

The arguments presented against circumcision are neither scientific nor rational.

A ridiculous statement and demonstrably untrue. You really don't know what you're talking about. Your comment on Unpious was similarly ignorant; I just replied to you there.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yaakov, if that is you... And I respond to the last comment you directed at me, over here in the corner, but intercepted by Dan.
Our fundamental difference is based, I think, on your statement:
"there is no reason at all a person has to prove that anything they believe "complies with the laws of nature"."
Actually, they do, if they wish to convey that their belief is rooted in reality. This is the challenge that creationism fails again and again, the attempt to prove the "truth" of religious beliefs via the laws of nature.
People are free to hold beliefs that do not comply with the laws of nature, like dragons and fairy godmothers, but they are not assumed to have any basis in reality.
What I was saying is that science provides a basis in reality on which religious or ethical decisions can based.
Taking us back to circumscision: science does not indicate that the net negatives outweigh the positives. But it does say MBP is harmful and unnecessary.
So it would be fair to say that on the best available information today, one could be neutral on circumscision, but should be negative towards MBP. To practice MBP despite modern evidence that it causes harm, is unethical.
Not so 100 years ago when the danger was unknown.
What is the difference between then and now? Information available through science.

[Yaakov]

Eli: (yes, this is for Eli!)

You have introduced a question begging definition of "reality". This is the problem, again. For you "truth" is "agreement with reality" and "reality" is agreement with science. The problem with this is that you take a species of truth, scientific truth and drop the specification. There is no reason other than something you consider self-evident to do this. In other words, it is an assumption, not something provable.

On the rest, let me quote myself:

This being the case, it is my opinion, as a pragmatist, that circumcision should certainly not be banned because it is integral to the ethos of the Jews and Muslims. While MbP can be shown to be inherently dangerous and religiously unnecessary, the same is not true for circumcision itself.

As you can see, I have already said this very thing. I don't reject scientific evidence, I reject its elevation to exclusive form of truth. I believe in its domain it must be answered to, but its domain is the falsifiable, and that is a far cry from everything in human experience.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yaakov, we have identified our area of fundamental disagreement. I do indeed equate reality as agreement with science or, more precisely, with that which is observable in the natural world. And it is of course provable.
What truth do you perceive that is outside of science?

[Yaakov]

Eli:

My human experience, that is, my perception of "I", and the experience I consider my history is almost certainly an emergent phenomenon of physical processes. However, while science can tell me the bits and pieces of "how" I come to be, it can no more explain the nature of what I experience as my life, nor can it answer the "why" of anything.

I do not make what I think is a leap of illogic by saying that anything non-falsifiable is, perforce, false. That's a misapplication of Occam which is a heuristic for the domain of the falsifiable., It is misplaced when is it used to bludgeon the evidence of personal experience. Some things about being human cannot be addressed by science, even if it can describe aspects of how it arises.

For me, that is why I consider people as the most important thing, and animals in which I can see similar consciousness, are also important in a similar way. I love what science can do for me, but I don't discard those things which it cannot talk about, I embrace them. I don't ignore the power of science in its domain, but when it comes to my inner life, science has little application.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yaakov, I am with you that everyone has the right to exclude science from their inner life and view the world as they wish.
but that does not change what the world is.

I leave you with one of my favorite poems, by Stephen Crane:

A man said to the universe:
"Sir I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation."

[Yaakov]

Eli:

You continue to define "world" circularly, and the idea that there is any idea the universe is "obligated" in any sense whatever is bizarre.

This is a basic epistemic befuddlement.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Yaakov, hardly. You're talking about beliefs and things spiritual, and I'm talking about cold, hard, measurable reality.

anyway, I'm glad you agree Crane's poem is a good one. it deserves to be put in its context, at the end of the 19th century, only shortly after science had moved the earth and mankind from the center of the universe to being just another consequence of it.

[Eli, what me messiah?]

Çorlu,
Söyleyecek bir şeyin var mı?

[rebitzman]

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/27/13460930-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-but-parents-should-choose-pediatricians-say?lite

[PrettyBoyFloyd]

http://health.yahoo.net/news/s/ap/circumcision-pluses-outweigh-risks-pediatricians

[Drive-by Dan]

Yaakov,
Thanks and I am sorry I don't always respond in a timely manner. Moving on...

To your apparent personal opinion that science cannot currently provide answers to personal experience...My opinion is that we are nothing more than biochemical feedback loops that have evolved electrochemical cells and organs that provide us with perceptual feedback loops.
For example, I consider our self-awareness to be a self-referential feedback loop that incorporates our available electrochemical input into a self-referential process that, in the end, gives us the illusion of self-awareness.

By extension, if we only have the illusion of self-awareness, then we also have the illusion of self-will, the illusion of choice, and everything we think and feel are comparable to badly-written programs in a haphazardly-grown-and-evolved organic computing matrix commonly referred to as a brain.

What, then, would be the difference between a program that only runs as physics allows it to run, and what we have going on in our brains?

I do not see any difference from a physics and biology standpoint, but I understand how people can find this hard to grasp much less face, if only because the ramifications are so personal in terms of impact and world-view.

You, on the other hand, appear to maintain that our personal awareness of our minds is beyond reach of science.

Were I to say, "From within the program, you cannot see the program because you are the program.", you might consider that your "programming" contains sections that you have been "culturally programmed" to avoid dealing with in a scientific way.
If I am correct, then your mere assertion that science cannot examine or analyze our personal, custom-grown internal experiences is premature at best.

Science moves apace and only illusions are left behind.

I submit that you are laboring under a misapprehension that is extremely common and quite normal. Our primitive brains have evolved to incorporate internal biases that give us a slight edge in survival situations. This does not give any legitimacy to the biases themselves.

If you want to say our self-awareness is mystical and cannot be quantized, that is okay.
You would not be the first to say such a thing, nor the last.
But I do not see how you can be correct in your opinion, as you have only the thinnest of assertions on your side, whereas I have a great many scientific fields of study to bolster the possibility that I am correct.

Perhaps the reality is a blend of both our opinions, but I very much doubt it.

[Yaakov]

Dan:

What would be the difference between the "illusion" of self-awareness and "actual" self-awareness. The very fact that you can posit an "illusion" means there is something experiencing it.

The most thorough, complete, and accurate description of the material brain cannot tell us anything about the experience, illusory or not, whatever illusory could mena in this context.

[Drive-by Dan]

Yaakov

The difference would be the degree to which you identify most closely with either description, I guess, and to the extent that you prefer to characterize it according to the label you prefer, and whether you intend to prefer the subjective view or the objective view.

That I label our brains as organic computers is not an analogy here, but a real description of our neurological processes.

Our brain cells can only function as they are able.
They cannot suddenly function in impossible ways.
They are constrained by the biochemical and electrochemical structures of the cells themselves.

You appear to insist on describing it in a subjective way, whereas I prefer the more objective and, dare I say it, the more accurate view of the situation.

From within the 'computer program' we all experience as individualized versions of basically the same thing, but that does not remove the fact that we are all using cells that can only work in certain ways.

Our brain cells take in various inputs, process them according to how they can work at that instant in time, and produce "output" which can only be processed using the same brain.
Our brain cells are organized, and have evolved, to "experience" the output, which is clearly a feedback loop, which exists for as long as we live, but can be interrupted and even stopped for short periods.

You seem to be unwilling to address the increasingly advanced direction of modern medical science concerning neurobiological processes, preferring, perhaps, to cover your ears at anything that suggests we might be nothing more than organic robots using feedback loops to gain the illusion of self-awareness.

What if I say there is NO such thing as actual self-awareness but only the pervasive and overwhelming illusion of self-awareness that we "experience"?

If your illusion is constantly refreshed and reiterated and thus appears as a constant background to your thoughts, then it is likely an evolved holdover from more primitive forms of animal "awareness" as being a type of distorted or modified "instinct".
Did you seriously think self-awareness only happens in humans and did so in a flash of genetic light once homo sapiens appeared on the scene?
(I will refrain from talking about glatt kosher stuff here)

As to the definition of illusion here, it is almost a misnomer for the process, yet in the end it is indeed accurate, for were we to say the same thing about a Cray-type computer, we would have programmed the necessary responses that such an "illusion" would require in the programming or processing chips.
It would not be an illusion if we had somehow created our own consciousnesses or even could have minds that existed outside of our brain cells, but the reality is different.
We "inhabit" our brain cells as a feedback loop and so I will maintain.
Gotta go. Thanks for the interesting arguments.