• Support more videos like this at patreon.com/rebecca.

    Sort of transcript:

    Last week, a judge in Florida decided that a 4-year old boy would be forced to undergo a circumcision against the wishes of his […]

    • Ugh. This makes me feel sick to my stomach. That poor child and his helpless mother.

      • I really don’t understand your feelings on this. There are literally millions of circumcisions performed yearly on boys who cannot consent to or even understand the procedure. If an individual case of this is sickening, why are we not talking about this as an epidemic? Why is it only sickening when it’s done against the mother’s wishes?

    • While I agree circumcision is ridiculous and unnecessary, arguing that a 4% risk of complications trumps a 38-66% of HIV infection doesn’t make sense.
      Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that it’s not necessary to have male or female circumcision done AS A CHILD, that people can have it done as adults, so just don’t do it and let the children choose for themselves when they’re grown up? Because they know the children won’t choose it.

      • That’s not how the math works. It’s a 4% risk of complications PERIOD. It’s a 38-66% REDUCED chance of HIV infection. The HIV rate in the US varies from region to region, but is about 0.3% overall.

        We can roughly estimate the risk of lifetime infection from percent of people living with HIV (which assumes it’s at a stable rate in the population), so we get a reduction in HIV contraction on the order of 0.2%.

        So, doing the math like this, it’s a 20x higher chance of complications from circumcision than that circumcision would help avoid HIV.

    • I’m a nurse. Back in nursing scool, 30 years ago, I assisted with an infant circumcision and I swore I would never participate in another one. Back then they didn’t use even topical anesthesia (today there’s a good anesthetic cream) and they didn’t even give the babies Tylenol after. Nurses had to do atudies showing that circumsized babies acted more irritable to get any pain relief for the poor things.

      It’s a little less barbaric today, but it still involves taking a new born and strapping him down on a special cold plastic board. Given that the medical benefit in the developed world is so small, I still say “No Way!”

    • Wow, that’s horrible. I tend to think that banning male circumcision, because of the religious element, does more harm than good. Not because I think genital mutilation of babies is OK, but because banning something that so many people feel is symbolic of who they are would cause a major social crisis.
      But that’s when both parents are on board with it. If someone tried to force me to circumcise my kid, I would flee into hiding with that kid.

    • What confuses me is that in cases like this I thought that the interests of the child were held to be paramount, trumping the wishes of either parent.

      Is that not so in Florida? Could an appeal be mounted on that basis? Have things regressed to the point where circumcision is indeed thought to be in the best interests of the child? Because I thought that debate was settled 40 years ago.

      • I suspect circumcision being against the interests of the child just hasn’t been established as fact in a legal sense. If it were, I suspect the government would effectively have to outlaw all circumcision.

        Given the massive support it has in public opinion and the implications such a precedent would set, that’s hardly surprising.

        • Sounds reasonable. I suspect that reality itself hasn’t yet been established in a legal sense.

          • Who talks about reality in a court of law? If we used reality, we couldn’t make millions of dollars screwing people out of things.

            (As an aside, I find it interesting that of all religious practices, everyone seems to insist circumcision has some rational basis. Never mind that it has been alleged to ‘cure’ or ‘prevent’ as many things as chiropractic and homeopathy put together, most of them as implausible as the above two modalities curing anything.)

            • Too right mate. You and your people well know how the law works to screw people out of things.

            • Fuck. Was that ambiguous again? I meant to imply that you had been screwed by the law, not that you were the screwer(s). At first I never considered that it could be taken the opposite way, but stranger things have happened.

            • I understood what you meant, don’t worry. I don’t use any excuse to prove I’m the most noncompetitive, intersectional person of all. Mostly because in the last year, ‘intersectionality’ has totally excluded Indians.

              Most ndn law actually does have some sense to it these days, at least when they follow Felix Cohen’s ideas. Though Congress often forgets to; just look at KXL. And I have nothing but Schadenfreude for blue dogs who lost their Senate seats for trying to run as Republicans this year.

      • The judge treated this case as strictly a contract enforcement matter. Requests by the mother’s attorney for a guardian ad litem or a psychologist to be appointed by the court were denied. Quite frankly, the child is being no differently than if he were a piece of furniture, despite the fact that he is now 4 years old, understands what circumcision involves, and has stated clearly that he doesn’t want it.

    • Thanks for this video, but there are two STRONG arguments that you left out. 🙂

      1) At this age, this boy will have to undergo a GENERAL ANESTHESIA (not just a local anesthesia) which carries a whole other host of potential health risks for the boy, including death. The reason for this GENERAL ANESTHESIA is because the procedure is so PAINFUL.

      2) Regarding HIV and other STDs, his potential exposure to these will not become a medical issue until the boy is SEXUALLY ACTIVE. When the boy/man becomes sexually active HE CAN MAKE THE DECISION HIMSELF to be circumcised, if he so chooses.

      His body, his choice.

    • There were other, even more ridiculous reasons, given. Some doctor named Sayers claimed he could cure paraplegia with circumcision. It has also at various points been asserted that circumcision cures or prevents bipolar, schizophrenia, asthma, tuberculosis, cancer (Pick a cancer.), HIV, syphilis, diarrhea, and, really, just pick any disease or symptom you can name.

      The current HIV claims fall into what I call Rath’s Law: “As awareness of just how divorced from reality an alternative medical modality approaches one, the probability that said modality’s proponents will claim it prevents AIDS approaches one.”