Circumcision Debate

Isn't this the crux of any debate which discusses the norm versus the adverse? I know some will argue that the USA's normality is a circumcised penis, but in fact we must accept the ubiquitous presence of foreskins across the world. THIS is the norm.

Therefore, the burden of proof for the worthlessness of the foreskin - or the perceived benefits of removing it which surmount its usefulness - lies with those who aver.

The link below is an Australian, medical website (and none the less instructive for that). But its format is academic: it's not user-friendly for general, Joe Public, consumption. Some may prefer to skim its content and look for pertinent statements.

So I stress the fact that the onus of proof lies with those who advocate male circumcision, especially boys. We can discuss this in a user-friendly manner -  taking in every reason parents and medical practitioners use to promote the practice - just as long as we acknowledge that the belief in its efficacy is the duty of its supporters to prove.

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1/

Christopher

"Isn't this the crux of any debate which discusses the norm versus the adverse? I know some will argue that the USA's normality is a circumcised penis, but in fact we must accept the ubiquitous presence of foreskins across the world. THIS is the norm."

Actually, the fact that all boys are born with a foreskin establishes intact as normal and circumcision is an aberation.  This is called Munchausens by Proxy where parents take the child to a doctor insisting on treatment of non-existent problems.  The belief that circumcision is normal is a variation of Munchausens by proxy called Munchausens by Collective Transmission.  Both of these are variations from normal psychology.

Physicians have an onerous task to address Munchausens by Proxy.  In extreme cases, it calls for the child to be removed from the parent's custody.  Physicians have avoided addressing the issue when it comes to infant circumcision because they also suffer from Munchausen's by Collective Transmission.

Frank

"Actually, the fact that all boys are born with a foreskin establishes intact as normal and circumcision is an aberation."

I hoped this is what I inferred, Frank.

Christopher

Frank~

This is called Munchausens by Proxy where parents take the child to a doctor insisting on treatment of non-existent problems.  The belief that circumcision is normal is a variation of Munchausens by proxy called Munchausens by Collective Transmission.  Both of these are variations from normal psychology.

Hmmm....not sure that circumcision would qualifiy as Munchausen's....either one form or the other. 

This is called Munchausens by Proxy where parents take the child to a doctor insisting on treatment of non-existent problems.

No offense, but I think labeling what we American's think of as a "routine" procedure in order to "prevent" problems in the future as Munchausen's  is a reach.  Munchausen's indicates that the parent WANTS the attention by having a "sick" child.  I don't think the parental mentality when choosing circumcision for the PARENT is 1) to garner attention because of having a sick child and 2) to injure the child to garner more attention, 3) following a religious belief or ignorance...which isn't used to garner attention from the medical staff.

"Actually, the fact that all boys are born with a foreskin establishes intact as normal and circumcision is an aberation."

This is implicit in the phrase 'He who avers, proves.'

Baron Munchausen is a fictional character who declared his end as "only one of the many occasions I met my death." However, his usefulness lies in representing the hypochondriacs among us.

Perceived ailments are the bain of secular, habitual circumcision.

American physicians' "onerous task" is to recognise hypochondria and treat it accordingly.

Christopher