Time to end circumcision?

[Tmy]

I tried to convince my brother not to have his baby boys circumcised. He went ahead with it anyway because he didn’t want them to be different. Should we put an end to this barbaric practice? I don’t think you can have your daughter circumcised, why should you do it for your son. Sure female circumcision is much worse but its no picnic for the male. I’m wondering if you can have an older child circumcised or would the state step in?

[Denise]

I started a thread about female circumcision a long time ago, many people were outraged by the practice, but mention male circumcision and mostly one hears irrationality. I have a daughter, but if I had a son, knowing what I know now, I would not have him circumcised. I don't see any significant medical reason for amputating the foreskin.

You can have an older male child circumcised, but it is done with major anesthesia, unlike with the male newborn baby.

Originally posted by Denise
I started a thread about female circumcision a long time ago, many people were outraged by the practice, but mention male circumcision and mostly one hears irrationality. I have a daughter, but if I had a son, knowing what I know now, I would not have him circumcised. I don't see any significant medical reason for amputating the foreskin.

You can have an older male child circumcised, but it is done with major anesthesia, unlike with the male newborn baby.

Bzzzzzzzzz! Wrong answer.

I watched my newborn son's circumcision. He was anesthetized.

While the doctor was performing the task, we chatted. She told me she has had to perform circumcisions on adult males because they kept getting repeated urethral infections.

[Denise]

Originally posted by LukeT


Bzzzzzzzzz! Wrong answer.

I watched my newborn son's circumcision. He was anesthetized.

While the doctor was performing the task, we chatted. She told me she has had to perform circumcisions on adult males because they kept getting repeated urethral infections.

He was under general anesthesia?

[Denise]

Why don't we circumcise our pets, such as our dogs?

[headscratcher4]

An odd topic...and a little off subject...my wife and I were out walking the other day. Our route lead us by the West Lawn of the US Capitol Building (we live in D.C.). It was the early evening and there weren't many about -- save the police -- but there were four people with a huge banner standing in front of the Capitol Building and protesting against circumcision.

Not that there is anything wrong with protest, but both my wife and I thought it was, well, odd because generally, on a daily basis, there are protests about the war, taxes, affirmative action, etc. Indeed, there is a war going on now. But, on that day at least, the big banner was to ban circumcision.

I am sure there is a joke here somewhere about Congress, but I am too slow to make it this morning....

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Denise
Why don't we circumcise our pets, such as our dogs?

Well, we do crop some tails and fix some ears...depending on the breed...

[Denise]

http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm

Urinary Tract Infections
Although studies show the relative risk of developing a urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life is higher for baby boys who are uncircumcised, the AAP policy concludes that their absolute risk of developing one is low ¾ at most approximately 1 percent.

A nurse telling you something is a litte appeal to authorityish to me.

[Denise]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Well, we do crop some tails and fix some ears...depending on the breed...

Yes all for a human defined idea of beauty, just like male circumcision IMHO. So tell it like it is.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Denise


Yes all for a human defined idea of beauty, just like male circumcision IMHO. So tell it like it is.

Don't really disagree with you...I am opposed to circumcision...just wanted to point out that for a variety of reasons -- cultural, etc. -- we do in fact, surgically alter our animals.

[Akots]

Originally posted by LukeT
While the doctor was performing the task, we chatted. She told me she has had to perform circumcisions on adult males because they kept getting repeated urethral infections.

... have you tried soap and water? Oh... but then you'd have to touch it. Them god fearin' folk won't allow that. :rolleyes:

If it is just an issue of hygene, I'd rather teach a child to keep clean, rather than remove the obstacle.

Anyways, I don't really agree with the idea of getting something removed because it might cause problems later (you know... just to be safe). I still have my turtleneck, and I turned out fine.

[Akots]

Originally posted by Denise


Yes all for a human defined idea of beauty, just like male circumcision IMHO. So tell it like it is.

Wait, it makes us beautiful? :eek:

Sign me up!!! :D

[Denise]

Ok! You're signed up!

[Tmy]

Its mutilation! Its natural to have your foreskin, its not dangerous.

Im going to sue Women and Infants. I want my foreskin back. Lousy statute of limitations......

At least I still have my tonsils.

[LuxFerum]

its about time to end this stupid stuff

[Denise]

I just wish people would quit spouting the crap (imho) that there are super solid medical evidence that it's a good thing and admit that they do it to conform to culture.

[Denise]

Why not leave it up to the boys? Wait until they are able to consent say 16 years old and then they can have it done if they want?

[Skeptic]

Male circumcision, unlike female circumcision, is simply the removal of a piece of skin; it does not inhibit sexual activity (or urination) in any way, and might even have some side health benefits.

This is, of course, not the reason it was started--it was for religious reasons--but unlike some other religious practices, it is not harmful.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Male circumcision, unlike female circumcision, is simply the removal of a piece of skin; it does not inhibit sexual activity (or urination) in any way, and might even have some side health benefits.

This is, of course, not the reason it was started--it was for religious reasons--but unlike some other religious practices, it is not harmful.

It would also not be harmful per your reasoning to tattoo a child at birth. I disagree that it is not harmful. There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read. I have an amputation of a couple of fingertips. They are on my left hand, so I can function normally. Would it be ok to amputate fingertips for religion or beauty? Edited to clarify a point.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Tmy
I want my foreskin back.


I don't think it'll fit you any more ;)

Personally, I think that having any sort of surgery "because you don't want to be different" is the worst sort of reason - even more so, perhaps, when it's on a part of your anatomy that isn't on public display (heh! my lousy fingers typed "pubic display" first time :D)

I'm sure that if you waited until the boys were old enough to choose for themselves, you'd get a 100% "No thanks!" vote.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Denise
There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read.

Yes indeed, and I have heard that circumcision has been recommended in order to prevent boys masturbating. Yikes.

[Soubrette]

Plus I would be concerned about the small number of circumcisions that go wrong every year.

Sou

[Saturn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Male circumcision, unlike female circumcision, is simply the removal of a piece of skin; it does not inhibit sexual activity (or urination) in any way, and might even have some side health benefits.

This is, of course, not the reason it was started--it was for religious reasons--but unlike some other religious practices, it is not harmful.

There's plenty of evidence that cutting off the foreskin reduces sensitivity and sexual pleasure. You can't destroy 40,000 nerves and not have that effect. In addition, there's a chance of medical complications.

Regarding "female circumcision", that's a catch-all term referring to a number of different procedures, some of which have no greater effect upon a woman that the male variety has upon men. Excising the clitoral hood is particularly analogous.

What particularly irritates me is the double standard, that parents are free to cut off a boy's foreskin but any procedures upon a girl's genitals are outlawed. If we believe in equality between the sexes, then parents should be allowed to excise their daughter's clitoral hood. Or we can stop the involuntary foreskin amputations performed upon baby boys.

[Supercharts]

It decreases sensitivity. It does not decrease sexual pleasure. It allows one to 'perform' for a longer period of time. This is an asset for the woman involved. [Or maybe not. When they say 'Hurry up and get it over with - I have to do my nails!']

[Alaric]

I find it such an strange topic to fight over which is a little odd considering how much i loath female circumscision<ugh..that word> Frankly, since it was done to me and I remember no trauma or disfunction from it<Mr Winky is doing fine thanks> I dont see why we should stop it as a general practice. If parents dont want it done-dont get it done. The end. Why regulate it more than that? There HAS been proof listed. There HAS been arguements against it listed. So what?
We also neuter our pets to prevent them from breeding. Im a big fan of the current system in comparison to our animals system. Dont compare the two.

[DrBenway]

I think it's not quite accurate to compare female and male circumcision.

Female circumcision, as practiced in Egypt, for example, involves removal of the clitoral hood, clitoris, and labia minora, and sewing the opening to the vagina nearly closed, save for a small passage to allow urine and menstrual blood to flow. The reason given for this practice: protection of female virginity. Removal of the female external genitalia removes most sexual feeling from the area. It's believed that women who don't feel a whole lot of sexual pleasure will stay faithful to their husbands.

On the wedding night, the vaginal opening has to be cut to allow intercourse.

In some areas, female circumcision is more benign. Sometimes it's just a symbolic cut inflicted upon the clitoral hood.

Male circumcision is far less damaging than female circumcision, and it lacks the connotation of political control and domination that female circumcision has.

Yet I don't doubt that some men are harmed by the procedure to a certain degree. So I think the rational choice is avoidance of the procedure.

Because most circumcised men do not feel damaged and believe they benefit from the procedure, if only for cosmetic reasons, it will not be outlawed.

Originally posted by Denise


He was under general anesthesia?

Why would anyone need general anesthesia for a circumcision?

And when you quoted the AAP article, you left out something important.


Research indicates that during the first year of life an uncircumcised male infant has at most about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI, while a circumcised male has about a 1 in 1000 chance.

That is a significant difference. More on that after this:

originally posted by Akots
... have you tried soap and water? Oh... but then you'd have to touch it. Them god fearin' folk won't allow that.

Ah, it's the "religious maniacs" conspiracy. Always gets a sympathetic audience here.

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis? Even if your son is "gifted", we're talking about a very small, very sensitive organ.
It is very difficult to clean, even without the foreskin. Try it sometime and see.

You're lucky if your kid never gets a diaper rash on his relatively huge butt, never mind some uncleanliness around the tiny area under his foreskin. It doesn't matter how good a parent you are.

[Tmy]

We also put our animals down when they are gravely ill, yet it's illegle to do that to a suffering human.

I couldnt imagine the horror of having Mr. Happy cut up. I was a clueless baby with no voice. Oh the horror!!!

What if the parents disagree on the proceadure? Do you need the go ahead from both mom and dad? I wonder how a judge would rule in this situation.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

Male circumcision, unlike female circumcision,Female circumcision comes in three varieties -- clitoridectomy (the kind people usually mean), clitoridectomy + removal of labia majora and labia minora, and removal of clitoral hood. the latter form is exactly equivalent to male circumcision, and uet it's illegal in USA under our FGM laws, which prohibit any surgical alternations of genitalia that's not medically necessary.

is simply the removal of a piece of skin; it does not inhibit sexual activity (or urination) in any way, and might even have some side health benefits. yes, it does inhibit sexual activity. First of all, it reduced penis sensitivity (that's why it started in Victorian england as a common practice -- to prevent boys masturbating). it sometimes leads to painfully tight erections in adulthood (if too much skin was removed); furthermore, women report better intercourse experience with uncircumcized males (because the foreskin allows for a much less abrasive motion -- the foreskin slides up and down the penis as a sheath, instead of the penile skin moving back and forth against labia and vaginal walls).

What's more, we don't routinely perform tonsilectomy on newborns just because they might get tonsilitis. That's simply barbaric.

This is, of course, not the reason it was started--it was for religious reasons--but unlike some other religious practices, it is not harmful.yes, it is harmful; it's both harmful physically, and it infringes upon the child's rights.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Supercharts

It decreases sensitivity. It does not decrease sexual pleasure.it seems to decrease women's sexual pleasure.

It allows one to 'perform' for a longer period of time. This is an asset for the woman involved.duration of intercourse is a matter of technique, and easily adjusted through practice; abrasion is a matter of physics, and not as easily handled.

[Saturn]

Originally posted by LukeT

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis? Even if your son is "gifted", we're talking about a very small, very sensitive organ.
It is very difficult to clean, even without the foreskin. Try it sometime and see.

You're lucky if your kid never gets a diaper rash on his relatively huge butt, never mind some uncleanliness around the tiny area under his foreskin. It doesn't matter how good a parent you are.

FYI, the foreskin adheres to the glans until the boy is several years old. All that is needed is to wash the outside of the penis.

Regarding your ideas about UTIs, you should know that females have about four times higher chance of getting UTIs than males. Excision of the exterior labia would probably reduce this rate considerably, yet it is illegal to do so in this country. Doctors have this strange idea that proper hygiene and treatment is better than amputating the body part. But some, strangely, reject this idea when it comes to the foreskin.

[Victor Danilchenko]

LukeT

That is a significant difference.No, it's not. Girls have about 4 times greater chance of getting a UTI than boys in the 1st year, due to shorter lenght of the urinal tract; but you hear no stink about it. Circumcision of boys has the effect that about 4 times less than the mere gender difference -- that's certainly not significant, not as a reason for a minor surgery at any rate.

Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis? Even if your son is "gifted", we're talking about a very small, very sensitive organ.I have three sons. You know what? Within the first year, the foreskin doesn't separate anyway, so it's a moot point. Nice try though.

You're lucky if your kid never gets a diaper rash on his relatively huge butt, never mind some uncleanliness around the tiny area under his foreskin. It doesn't matter how good a parent you are.For some mysterious reason, UTIs are a lot less frequent than diaper rashes. Must have something to do with that thing they call "natural selection".

[Soubrette]

Victor - out of interest, do you know if there is alot of pressure on Jewish people to perform circumcisions on their sons - even if they aren't Jewish in the religious sense?

Thanks

Sou

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by LukeT
Have you ever tried to clean an infant's penis?
If I had to choose between suffering a UTI during my first year of life, verses possibly suffering diminished sexual pleasure for my entire adult life....

gee, what would I choose.....

[Samus]

When my sister visited Washington D.C. last year, she told me that there was a protest going on to end circumcision. I got a good laugh out of that, I had no idea it was such an issue!

A co-worker of mine had his son circumcised, he said that they have this new technique where they basically attach some kind of device to it, and it falls off in the diaper a couple days later. No pain, no big deal.

Being that my father's side of the family is Jewish, circumcision was pretty much a given for me. I'm not sure if they did it for religious or health reasons, though. Since I can never appreciate "how the other half lives" so to speak (I'm not going to grow a foreskin any time soon) I can't speak to whether it's a good thing or a bad.

I'll say this for it. I've never felt as though I was at a disadvantage, either for sensitivity or otherwise. To me, it's not a significant issue, as long as its done right, there's no compelling reason to end the practice.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If I had to choose between suffering a UTI during my first year of life, verses possibly suffering diminished sexual pleasure for my entire adult life....

gee, what would I choose.....

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.

There are benefits besides medical for circumcision, and the medical benefits are not necessary to show the validity of the practice. Is there a medical benefit for piercing of Nipples, Genetalia, or even ears? No, of course not. Likewise for rastafarian hairdos and other strange practices we choose to accept.

The most obvious benefit of circumcision is its requirement for joining several religious orders to have been circumcized. This is a free country. If people wanted to cut off their own finger, or sterilize themselves by medical procedure, or change their breast or penis or but size, they can. What's the deal with "getting rid of" circumcision, except to discriminate against those who are required to have it?

Also, unlike the piercings, it has an obvious alterior benefit (which is why it was first used, but not necessarily why it is currently used), of reducing infections.

-Ben

[Saturn]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.
-Ben

Since it was done to me when I was a baby, I had no choice in the matter. But I have no problem with the guy with the foreskin deciding what to do with it, when he's old enough to make an informed decision.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
You choose for you, I'll choose for me.

UTI in infancy vs. an adult life with better sexual sensitivity? I would have thought that choice would be a "no brainer."

I understand that religious groups are still very powerful and there are advantages to being a member of some of them. But most Jews I know eat cheeseburgers. Don't think they'd be excluded from all Jewish communities for not being circumcised.

[Advocate]

It is very sad to see that so many men have been so indoctrinated into the belief that this horrible, barbaric practice is somehow "harmless". It is a form of child abuse and like other forms of abuse, tends to be perpetuated by those who were themselves victimized.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Denise

There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read.

Then my wife would definitely be in favor of it. If I had any more sensitivity working down there, I'd never let her leave the house.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Soubrette

Victor - out of interest, do you know if there is alot of pressure on Jewish people to perform circumcisions on their sons - even if they aren't Jewish in the religious sense?Yes. There is pretty heavy cultural pressure. This of course assumes that our secular jew is participating in jewish culture.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ben Shniper

You choose for you, I'll choose for me.Exactly. Choose for yourself whatever you wish; don't force a permanent, irreversible, damaging physical change on your children.

The most obvious benefit of circumcision is its requirement for joining several religious orders to have been circumcized. This is a free country. If people wanted to cut off their own finger, or sterilize themselves by medical procedure, or change their breast or penis or but size, they can.Indeed, Anyone should be free to do it to themselves.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by richardm



I don't think it'll fit you any more ;)

Personally, I think that having any sort of surgery "because you don't want to be different" is the worst sort of reason - even more so, perhaps, when it's on a part of your anatomy that isn't on public display (heh! my lousy fingers typed "pubic display" first time :D)

I'm sure that if you waited until the boys were old enough to choose for themselves, you'd get a 100% "No thanks!" vote.


Thinks about "body art" and what people voluntariliy choose to do to modify their bodies. I can imagine some males would get circumcised, just to be different.

[Fade]

There is no good reason to have your child circumcized. The chance to develop a urinary tract infection is offset by the likelihood that you will develop complications resulting from the circumcision later in life.

I have been with a guy who's surgery was botched. His erections are bent in a way that is painful for him if too much pressure is put on him in a certain way. He can't enjoy penetrating intercourse because of this. He is sexually crippled (or at least was, have no idea if he corrected it) all because his mother decided that mutilating her children was a-okay.

It's a barbaric practice that we need to do away with non-consensually.

When the child grows up and wants to get snipped, more power to him, but the option ought to be non-existant for parents at any time in their childs life.

[subgenius]

It's continued because its a money maker.

Forty skins a week and a chance to get ahead.

(Sorry I just had to revive that old one.)

[kourama]

I thjink I can offer a somewhat unique perspective.

I had it done when I was 18.

First, I had too much skin removed and had painful erections for about 6 months until the pink skin stretched out.

I lost a LOT of sensitivity. Before, just exposing the glans to the air felt arousing. I remember that during an exam afterwards, the doctor manipulated the glans with a gloved hand and I swear I felt absolutely nothing at all.

The tip of the penis often catches against my underwear and that is very uncomfortable.

Sex is OK, but with a condom on, I basically have to be in the right mood, or it just won't work since I can't feel a damn thing.

Climax can be a bit painful, but after all these years, it's not something I notice much anymore.

I do remember that the glans stayed quite sensitive for a coupe of weeks after the operation, and I've heard that wearing a condom or something to cover the tip constatntly will restore sensitivity in a couple of weeks. Must try it...

I tried to restore my foreskin through stretching, but since I've been so tightly cut, it didn't work, although it does feel a lot better that the skin isn't so tight now.

What else? I was left with a scar which is painful even now, 12 years later.

No woman I have ever been with (since the GF I had when I was 18) really cared wether I was cut or not.

Before the operation I never had any of the problems that I've heard about. I never had any UT infection. Actually, the first infection I ever had was afterwards. Never had the head 'caught' outside the foreskin. Never caught the foreskin in my zipper.

I did feel 'different' though. The only pornography I had seen up to that point was american, and all the men were circ'd. Though, I never felt that I was too different that my peers.

Summary: I regret having it done, but it is not a complete tragedy, since sex is not the biggest part of my life anyway.

[Skeptic]

It would also not be harmful per your reasoning to tattoo a child at birth. I disagree that it is not harmful. There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read.

...dooming the child to a lifetime of lasting longer during sex...

I have an amputation of a couple of fingertips. They are on my left hand, so I can function normally. Would it be ok to amputate fingertips for religion or beauty?

No, but removing a piece of skin is not the same as amputation.

[Skeptic]

it seems to decrease women's sexual pleasure.

???

This--like the claim that it decreases the sensitivity of the penis--seems to me like an urban legend. Everybody here seems to forget that, when the penis is erect (during sex or mastrubation) the foreskin withdraws and the penis "grows out" of it--which means that the foreskin plays little role in either activity, from either the man's or the woman's point of view.
From personal experience, I must say that I found not the slightest evidence for either claim. Besides, shouldn't the removal of the foreskin, if anything, make the penis MORE sensitive to stimulation, since there is more direct contact?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Skeptic

...dooming the child to a lifetime of lasting longer during sex..."Dooming" indeed. how about letting them decide?

Remember, theproblem is not circumcision here, but involuntary circumcision.

This--like the claim that it decreases the sensitivity of the penis--seems to me like an urban legend.neither is an urban legend. penile sensitivity is decreased; and women do report enjoying intercourse more with circumcised penises. the difference is sometimes negligible, and sometimes drastic; it depends on a number of physiological variables.

Everybody here seems to forget that, when the penis is erect (during sex or mastrubation) the foreskin withdraws and the penis "grows out" of it--which means that the foreskin plays little role in either activity, from either the man's or the woman's point of view. that's simply not true. Yes, the foreskin retracts; but it's still mobile. The skin on a circumcised penis is a lot tighter than on an uncircumcized one, and the sheath of uncircumcized penis can glide back and forth on the shaft, acting as a permanent lubricant of a sort.

From personal experience, I must say that I found not the slightest evidence for either claim.Do you have pre- and post-circumcision sexual experiences to draw upon?

Besides, shouldn't the removal of the foreskin, if anything, make the penis MORE sensitive to stimulation, since there is more direct contact?It's the other way around. Glans penis is usually protected by the foreskin; when the foreskin is removed, it constantly rubs against clothing and stuff, eventually developing a thin layer of dead cells -- a callus of a sort, about 10 cells thick as i recall; it acts similarly to a very thin condom, in terrms of decreasing sensitivity.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Skeptic
it seems to decrease women's sexual pleasure.

???

This--like the claim that it decreases the sensitivity of the penis--seems to me like an urban legend.


nope. read my post above.


Everybody here seems to forget that, when the penis is erect (during sex or mastrubation) the foreskin withdraws and the penis "grows out" of it--which means that the foreskin plays little role in either activity, from either the man's or the woman's point of view.

nope. I had to push the foreskin back on myself if I wanted to expose it, otherwise it would stay in. Also, when uncut, sex requires less in-and-out type motion, and more sort of gentle massaging. The in-and-out motion is all you really have when you have no foreskin.


From personal experience, I must say that I found not the slightest evidence for either claim. Besides, shouldn't the removal of the foreskin, if anything, make the penis MORE sensitive to stimulation, since there is more direct contact?

No. Less. If you pull off your fingernails, the quick will get tougher. If you cut off your eyelids, the surface of your eyeball would get tougher (and your vision would blur). Exposing sensitive skin toughens it up, it doesn't make it more sensitive.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Skeptic


*SNIP (so to speak)*

No, but removing a piece of skin is not the same as amputation.

Yes it is.

Medically, amputation of a digit is more serious than removal of foreskin, especially on an infant. What's at issue here, I think, is whether it is any less right to do it.

If I claim it is better to gouge out an eye that to remove both legs, does gouging out an eye somehow become more moral because it is less dramatic?

Of course not. Is it right to mutliate someone's genitals without their consent? no.

[Troll]

Circumcised at birth, so I have no experience with the extra foreskin. But after having had the partners I have had I would have probably had it done later anyhow given their preferences.

DrBenway pretty much described the difference between male and female circumcision.

It may not be the most logical thing to say at the moment, but one could ask themselves simply, "How many adult women would volunteer to be circumcised versus how many adult men would?" It does sort of bring the point to light.

For men it's not all that inhibitive or preventive. The opposite is true for women. Men can still get all the pleasure with a circumcision, it's harder to next to impossible in the case of women. Which is why female circumcision is mostly practiced in cultures where they have a different view on male dominance in a relationship as a whole.

[Christian]

There is one other medical benefit that hasn't been mentioned.

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, although rare (2/100,000). The disease makes it a consideration.

(Only 2 flights out of 100,000 crash *kind of thing* ):D

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tmy
I tried to convince my brother not to have his baby boys circumcised. He went ahead with it anyway because he didn’t want them to be different.

He did it because he didnt want his kids to be different? There's a good reason. I can just imagine his boy standing at a urinal while two other guys watch going "look at the uncut nerd".

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

There is one other medical benefit that hasn't been mentioned.

Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, although rare (2/100,000). The disease makes it a consideration.Circumcision also increases the risk of prostate cancer, albeit only a little. Either way, there's no sufficient reason to force a permanent surgery on a child.

Also, penile cancer strikes almost exclusively at rather advanced age, by which time the person had enough time to decide for themselves whether they wish to be circumcised. This excuse certainly has zero bearing on circumcision of children.

[Darat]

Curious to know how a doctor squares the ethics of elective surgery (that does carry some risk) on a child that cannot consent to the procedure when there is no immediate medical reason for the operation?.

I don't suppose a doctor would perform purely cosmetic surgery on a three year old (not counting reconstructive surgery etc.).

[Kiri]

Originally posted by Akots


Wait, it makes us beautiful? :eek:

Sign me up!!! :D

I rather think UNcircumcised penises are more... uh, aesthetic.
I wish MINE had remained unaltered!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Don't really disagree with you...I am opposed to circumcision...just wanted to point out that for a variety of reasons -- cultural, etc. -- we do in fact, surgically alter our animals.

cropping tails is almost gone here. cropping ears is illegal. the pain involved is huge.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by richardm


Yes indeed, and I have heard that circumcision has been recommended in order to prevent boys masturbating. Yikes.

Obviously, this doesn't work... :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
I just wish people would quit spouting the crap (imho) that there are super solid medical evidence that it's a good thing and admit that they do it to conform to culture.

I am circumcised, but none of my boys are. Just one more barbaric relic that is dying out.

Now, as for body piercing, where the hell did that come from. Ears, ok, but nipples, eyebrowes?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise


It would also not be harmful per your reasoning to tattoo a child at birth. I disagree that it is not harmful. There is decreased sensitivity to the penis, from what I have read. I have an amputation of a couple of fingertips. They are on my left hand, so I can function normally. Would it be ok to amputate fingertips for religion or beauty? Edited to clarify a point.

So I have heard too. What have I been missing out on all these years?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
furthermore, women report better intercourse experience with uncircumcized males (because the foreskin allows for a much less abrasive motion -- the foreskin slides up and down the penis as a sheath, instead of the penile skin moving back and forth against labia and vaginal walls).

I've never seen an uncircumsised dildo. :D

I would think the rim of the head of the penis actually stimulates the G-spot.

And abrasiveness? What kind of penis do you have anyway?

[Christian]

Thanks Victor for the response.

Three more benefits that should be considered are:

1)circumcised males are at a lower risk to contract HIV

2) 20% of of uncircumcised males cary the papiloma virus (which causes 99% of cervical cancer). Only 6% of circumcised males do.

3) Women with high "risk lovers" (more than 5 sexual partners) are 58% less likely to develop cervical cancer if their lover is circumcised.

Dr. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, epidemiologist, at the Harvard University School of Public Health told Newsday says he would recommend the practice for all male babies.

*The Week* reports that scientist predict that the general adoption of this practice could reduce cervical cancer death by 23 to 43%.

With all the benefits conbined, the practice is, as I said before, worth considering.

[Smalso]

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

FYI

Edit: Dr. Brigman is currently Chairman of the Political Science Department at the University of Houston.

[KillerX]

For those out there who feel they've been slighted:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restore.html
Grow it back.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Christian
Thanks Victor for the response.

Three more benefits that should be considered are:

1)circumcised males are at a lower risk to contract HIV

2) 20% of of uncircumcised males cary the papiloma virus (which causes 99% of cervical cancer). Only 6% of circumcised males do.

3) Women with high "risk lovers" (more than 5 sexual partners) are 58% less likely to develop cervical cancer if their lover is circumcised.

Dr. Dimitrios Trichopoulos, epidemiologist, at the Harvard University School of Public Health told Newsday says he would recommend the practice for all male babies.

*The Week* reports that scientist predict that the general adoption of this practice could reduce cervical cancer death by 23 to 43%.

With all the benefits conbined, the practice is, as I said before, worth considering.

So are you advocating a position of non-consensual medical treatment, surgery etc. for a potential reduction in a health risk to another person in later life?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by LukeT


I've never seen an uncircumsised dildo. :D



Thats because youv'e only seen american dildo's;)

[corplinx]

Now that I think about it, in one of those gospels that was left out of the Bible, I think Jesus basically told someone that circumcision was not mandatory (I believe it was the gospel of Thomas).

Now you know why they had him crucified, obviously he was bigtime heretic.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I am circumcised, but none of my boys are. Just one more barbaric relic that is dying out.

Now, as for body piercing, where the hell did that come from. Ears, ok, but nipples, eyebrowes?

I consider the deliberate mutilation of the genitals of a baby to be a barbaric practice for which there is no justification, and nothing I have read so far has convinced me otherwise. Some people pierce the ears of baby girls and I am against that, too. When a person is of an age to decide for him or herself what type of mutilations he or she wants to have done to his or her body--circumcision, body piercings, tatoos or what have you--fine.

Why is it ok to pierce the ears but not other body parts? Different strokes for different folks.

[CSSMariner]

Puts me in mind of a line I heard when I was a kid.

In the Classified Section of a paper.

"Wanted, one circumcision specialist. Several skins a day with a good chance to get ahead."

No, I am not, and I was born in 1944.

[Fade]

1)circumcised males are at a lower risk to contract HIV

If this is true, the difference is negligable. The size of the HIV virus (really tiny) wouldn't be effected by the slightly tougher skin of a circumcized penis. It has the wonderful urethra to get into anyway.

So, instead of just saying so, want to provide a link and/or an explanation of the physical process involved?

2) 20% of of uncircumcised males cary the papiloma virus (which causes 99% of cervical cancer). Only 6% of circumcised males do.

A quick run on google found gobs (http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=2755) of sites (http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/med-argu.htm) which have quotes like
The hypothesis that cervical cancer is caused by smegma of the male foreskin was invented in 1954 by Wynder. His study was found to be invalid, because most of the cervical cancer patients in his study incorrectly reported that their husbands were uncircumcised. These women had no idea whether their husbands were circumcised or not. They gave the answer they thought the doctor wanted to hear.

and

Preston established quite clearly that there was little evidence to support a relationship between lack of circumcision and penile cancer, cervical cancer, or cancer of the prostate

3) Women with high "risk lovers" (more than 5 sexual partners) are 58% less likely to develop cervical cancer if their lover is circumcised.

And 87.3% of all statistics are invented on the spot :rolleyes:

Anyway. If your partner is a dirty bastard.. sure.. he will more likely give you some sort of disease. But, cleaning your penis effectively negates -any- drawbacks to being uncircumsized.

[HarryKeogh]

i am uncircumcised and very glad for that. growing up in america i was definitely the odd man (or penis) out and was teased a little bit. y'know how kids can be. but i've never had so much as a rash down there. i just wash it everyday like any other part of my body. it seems odd to me to lop something off because it might get infected. i'll let nature decide through evolution which bodyparts to modify or get rid of at birth.

[Christian]

Darat wrote:
So are you advocating a position of non-consensual medical treatment, surgery etc. for a potential reduction in a health risk to another person in later life?

This is an interesting question. I believe the answer depends on the location.

In a population (third world country) that is ignorant of many aspects of higene, and that anthropological study reveals historical risk habits (well ingrained), this procedure can save many lives.

I think it is unnecessary in develop countries where education in this regards is high.

Fade wrote:
So, instead of just saying so, want to provide a link and/or an explanation of the physical process involved?

Yes, of course, I'm sorry.

Cervical Cancer (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1921837.stm)

And 87.3% of all statistics are invented on the spot

I'm sure you're not suggesting I did that. :D


Anyway. If your partner is a dirty bastard.. sure.. he will more likely give you some sort of disease. But, cleaning your penis effectively negates -any- drawbacks to being uncircumsized.

Well, I see your point of reference is develep country where men (supposedly) don't have multiple partners, use condoms, clean themselves regularly, etc.

As you can understand that is a high standard rarely held up in third world countries. As I understand it, scientist advocate the practice because faced with this reality, the simple procedure saves many women's lives.

So, until most of the world population evelates its educational level in this area, it seem to me it is a legitime procedure under those conditions.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Christian
In a population (third world country) that is ignorant of many aspects of higene, and that anthropological study reveals historical risk habits (well ingrained), this procedure can save many lives.

The third world isn't aware of the benefits of washing the penis? I'm not sure I buy this.

What well ingrained historical risk habits are you thinking of?

[Denise]

I've actually heard this reason for why humans started male circumcision. Don't laugh now... It's because a lot lived in desert regions and they had a problem with sand getting under the foreskin.:D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
I've actually heard this reason for why humans started male circumcision. Don't laugh now... It's because a lot lived in desert regions and they had a problem with sand getting under the foreskin.:D

As humans have managed to work out how to live in just about every continent and climate, they have had to adapt to an incredible range of conditions. I have heard this theory too. As most of us don't live in deserts, then it is hardly a reason to continue the practive now, or, if we do, we get to wash properly.

Can't imagine what it would have been to perform the circumcision in the tribes that waited for puberty.....

[Denise]

Christian, from the website you cited..

But it adds many now thought that as long as uncircumcised men are careful about keeping their genitals clean, the risk of cervical cancer in their partners should not be any greater than that for circumcised men.

Cancer Research UK adds: "It is likely that this association has risen because certain religious groups who practice circumcision, such as the Jews, also have a low risk of cervical cancer due to low levels of promiscuity."


Either way, why not let a male decide for himself when he is an adult?

[DrBenway]

The sand theory makes some sense.

There's also the Star Bellied Sneetches theory: circumcision was a means of proving tribal affiliation. At least, until everyone started doing it.

[Christian]

DrBenway asked:
The third world isn't aware of the benefits of washing the penis? I'm not sure I buy this.

I live in a third world country. A lot of men here don't even shower daily here. :D

But, it is not only a matter of washing the penis, it is properly washing the penis.

Many people here have fungus on the skin, finger nails, etc. because they don't shower correctly.

Remember, lot of people get cavities not because they don't brush their teeth but because they do it incorrectly.

My wife is a dentist, and she says most people don't do it properly (this includes highly educated people all over the world)

What well ingrained historical risk habits are you thinking of?

Yes, latin american men are notorious for promiscuity. The expression *macho* comes from this culture of multiple women. Here, as in many cultures, it is a sign of virility and superiority in the male population.

These habits, passed on for centuries, can't be erradicated with seminars, or sex education courses. This is why I mentioned that it must be looked at from an anthrological perspective.

[Christian]

Denise wrote:
Either way, why not let a male decide for himself when he is an adult?

This is a fair question. If the procedure were as fast, cost effective, convenient, then, yes, I would think that to wait for approval would be best.

This is clearly not the case.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Christian
Many people here have fungus on the skin, finger nails, etc. because they don't shower correctly.

Ok, I see what you mean. Although I wonder if the climate has something to do with the increased fungal infections.

Reminds me of a very bad joke:

A man goes to a doctor because he's got an awful, oozing problem on the skin of his penis.

The doctor says, "I'm sorry. You've got the Chinese crud. I'm afraid we'll have to amputate."

The man says, "Amputate!!! I think I'll get a second opinion first."

The man decides to see a Chinese doctor, thinking, "Hey, if I've got the Chinese crud, who would know more about it?"

The Chinese doctor examines him, then gives him several bags of herbs and teas to use over the next couple of weeks.

The man says, "Thank God I found you, Doctor. I'm so relieved. The other doctor I went to wanted to amputate!"

The Chinese doctor laughed. "Amputate? No, not necessary! With Chinese crud, in few days, it fall off all by itself."

ROR

[Christian]

There is one more thing.

The statistics in the US on sexually transmitted diseases clearly indicates that most people don't follow the basic precautions to be at par with circumcised benefits.

Yes, the link:

Statistics (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/bl10thingscondoms.htm)

(please click on the *condomania* link in #10

From there:

In one recent U.S. study* about one-half of the sexually experienced teenagers had failed to use a condom the last time they had intercourse.

Only 13 percent of Americans surveyed said they practice safer sex by using a condom every time. (Durex Global AIDS Survey, November 29, 1997)

One in four women has human papilloma virus, an infection that makes them 10 times more likely to develop cervical cancer.

Gonorrhea strikes 150 times per 100,000 Americans, vs. just three times per 100,000 people in Sweden and 18 per 100,000 in Canada.

Sexually transmitted diseases are diagnosed 12 million times a year in the United States -- including a staggering 3 million cases among teen-agers.




One statistic would support people in the US are less educated about this subject than people in Sweden. That would support the idea that circumcision would even be a good thing (from a health to the overall population perspective).

[Denise]

Condoms do not prevent genital warts or herpes. The AIDS virus is much smaller than the human sperm. Condoms may help but they do not mean safe sex. I know a lot of people that got knocked up while using condoms.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Christian
Denise wrote:
Either way, why not let a male decide for himself when he is an adult?

This is a fair question. If the procedure were as fast, cost effective, convenient, then, yes, I would think that to wait for approval would be best.

This is clearly not the case.

Why is it less cost effective to do it when a man is older? Do babies not feel the same amount of pain? Why not do it under local anesthetic which is used in infants?

[Christian]

Denise wrote:
Why is it less cost effective to do it when a man is older? Do babies not feel the same amount of pain? Why not do it under local anesthetic which is used in infants?

As I understand it, that procedure would require multiple visit to the doctor, (pre and post surgery). Plus any of the medicines needed on those instances. The procedure on an adult is more traumatic (medical physical term) than on an infant.

The procedure for a baby is quite simple and fast in one visit. I believe not even a doctor is required for it.

Blood clotting is also a curious thing. It has been reported that on the eighth day of the human life span, vitamin K, which causes blood to clot, reaches it's peak. (please confirm this inf. anyone, I can't absolutely verify it).

The procedure done on an infant is much more simple.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Christian
Denise wrote:
Why is it less cost effective to do it when a man is older? Do babies not feel the same amount of pain? Why not do it under local anesthetic which is used in infants?

As I understand it, that procedure would require multiple visit to the doctor, (pre and post surgery). Plus any of the medicines needed on those instances. The procedure on an adult is more traumatic (medical physical term) than on an infant.

The procedure for a baby is quite simple and fast in one visit. I believe not even a doctor is required for it.

Blood clotting is also a curious thing. It has been reported that on the eighth day of the human life span, vitamin K, which causes blood to clot, reaches it's peak. (please confirm this inf. anyone, I can't absolutely verify it).

The procedure done on an infant is much more simple.

Or maybe, just maybe, that the adult male actually wants to be put under general anesthetic for the procedure, but has no problem putting an infant through that pain? It's just skin right? I would think it would be easier for an adult male to have the procedure done because most of the foreskin is not adhered to the penis as it is in a newborn.

[Troll]

I'm sorry. But I don't recall some traumatic experience from having been circumsized. does anyone here recall a great amount of pain or trauma as the result of being circumcised as a child?

Screw it man, I was snipped against my will at the age of less than 1. Know what? Me and most of the women I've been with like my wang as is. That's barbaric? Call me Conan and get on your knees before the snipped wang. I'm happy with it.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Troll
I'm sorry. But I don't recall some traumatic experience from having been circumsized. does anyone here recall a great amount of pain or trauma as the result of being circumcised as a child?

Screw it man, I was snipped against my will at the age of less than 1. Know what? Me and most of the women I've been with like my wang as is. That's barbaric? Call me Conan and get on your knees before the snipped wang. I'm happy with it.

Well, considering that most children don't remember anything before the age of three or so, it's not surprising. Would you circumcise your male child? And if so, why?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Denise


Well, considering that most children don't remember anything before the age of three or so, it's not surprising. Would you circumcise your male child? And if so, why?

I once thought I wouldn't and would hope that women found it gross and kept him from being sexually active that much longer. haha

But to be honest, I don't know for sure. Apparently it's somewhat reversable, in so much as you can stretch what remains back out. But wopuld the little bastard come to me at the age of 16 and ask if he can get circumsized because Susie finds his current pecker unlikable.

Would it be perverse of me to show him mine and tell him him if he wants he can get one that looks like it later?

If and when I have a child, this is one of those decisions I hope his mom has a stronger opinion about than I do. Because frankly, I don't know nor care. I just hate hearing that I'm the result of some "barbaric practice" I'm happy with me

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Denise


Why is it less cost effective to do it when a man is older? Do babies not feel the same amount of pain? Why not do it under local anesthetic which is used in infants?

From the link I provided:

Amazingly, it has been argued that the infant suffers little or no pain in the circumcision process. The evidence which is offered is that in the ritual Jewish circumcision, the infant, who is given an alcohol teat during surgery, cries little and almost immediately goes to sleep. That argument shows an ignorance of the effects of alcohol on infants and fails to acknowledge that "sleep" may be response to pain. Studies of infants circumcised in hospitals show that the surgery is physiologically stressful. Talbert and others examined adrenal-cortical response to circumcision and found responses congruent with severe stress.19 Three studies of non-REM sleep patterns following circumcision of infants lead to the same conclusion.20 Although there is some disagreement as to the effect of the intervening variable of wakefulness (itself a stress indicator), the studies clearly demonstrate a pattern of sleep disorganization consistent with major stress.

[Fade]

So, until most of the world population evelates its educational level in this area, it seem to me it is a legitime procedure under those conditions.

On the surface, this sounds reasonable.

However, if we are indeed talking about 'third world' countries with improper hygeine.. wouldn't these circumcisions be more likely to cause problems than in a developed nation?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

With all the benefits conbined, the practice is, as I said before, worth considering.I won't address these specific issues; others have done it. Instead, let's look at the principle here.

Given that all the benfits you listed only come into effect after sexual maturation, these still don't support forcible circumcision of children. And let's not forget about the many possible complications of appendicitis and tonsilitis -- so let's remove appendix and tonsils at birth. :mad:

Don't you get it? An adult man can decide for himself whether the benefits of circumcision are worth it!!!

If the procedure were as fast, cost effective, convenient, then, yes, I would think that to wait for approval would be best.Right. let's force circumcision on a baby because he wouldn't find it easy and convenient to do it later on.

Don't forget appendix and tonsils.

[Christian]

Denise wrote:
Or maybe, just maybe, that the adult male actually wants to be put under general anesthetic for the procedure, but has no problem putting an infant through that pain? It's just skin right?

Yes, I think that is it. It is less of a hassle and to many, the multiple benefits outweight it.

The important thing here is to acknowledge there are many benefits to consider.

However, if we are indeed talking about 'third world' countries with improper hygeine.. wouldn't these circumcisions be more likely to cause problems than in a developed nation?

I don't see why. It is a very simple procedure.

Victor wrote
I won't address these specific issues; others have done it. Instead, let's look at the principle here.

Ok.

Given that all the benfits you listed only come into effect after sexual maturation, these still don't support forcible circumcision of children.

Ok, let's look at it from principle's perspective. What you are saying is that the *right to choose* of males is above the benefits of the procedure.

This is valid position. What you must understand is that the other position is as valid as that one.

That is: The common good of the society is above individual rights.

In other words, there is a point where one must give up individual rights in favor of the common good. A simple example of this is that a law could be passed that one must be inoculated against a certain disease. Even if the vaccine has risks associated with it, the State can force us to get the injection against our will.

In the case of circumsicion, if cervical cancer can be reduced significantly by the procedure, then there is a case to be made that the common good outweights the right of the individual.

And remember, children don't have the same rights as adults. And parents make most of our decisions for us. That is their role. Children have very little to say in terms of many important decisions. The reasons, of course, are obvious.

And let's not forget about the many possible complications of appendicitis and tonsilitis -- so let's remove appendix and tonsils at birth.

Clearly, a different case here, there are no common good issues here to consider. The risks of these procedures are much, much greater and are more complex.

But, ok do children choose (after recurring infections) whether or not to have their tonsils taken out. Legally, the final choice is of the parents. In a technical sense, to the State, children don't have the right to choose this surgery, only the parents do.

So, if after looking at all the pros and cons of circumcision, parents decide that circumcision is best for their child, then they, not only have the right to choose the procedure, but have a valid medical reason to do so.

Don't you get it? An adult man can decide for himself whether the benefits of circumcision are worth it!!!

Victor, this is not a black or white issue. Rights are not absolute.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

What you are saying is that the *right to choose* of males is above the benefits of the procedure.No, What I am saying is that men can get basically the same benefit at a later date, when they are empowered to make their own decisions.

That is: The common good of the society is above individual rights.then why don't we force all adult men to get circumcised?!.

Why don't you actually think a little, dude? Your excuses are just that -- excuses. If public health reasons were valid, we would be pressing every adult to circumcise; but medical professionals have repeatedly concluded that whatever health benefits circumcision may or may no thave, it's not enough to warrant routine neonatal circumcision.

In other words, there is a point where one must give up individual rights in favor of the common good. A simple example of this is that a law could be passed that one must be inoculated against a certain disease. Even if the vaccine has risks associated with it, the State can force us to get the injection against our will.In theory, this is correct. In practice, no such reasons exist for circumcision.

Clearly, a different case here, there are no common good issues here to consider. The risks of these procedures are much, much greater and are more complex.but the benefits are also much, much more pronounced! appendicitis is a very common condition, after all.

But, ok do children choose (after recurring infections) whether or not to have their tonsils taken out. Legally, the final choice is of the parents. In a technical sense, to the State, children don't have the right to choose this surgery, only the parents do.Bingo -- after repeated complicaitons. There are valid reasons to circumcise a child -- valid medical reasons; there are no valid medical reasons to circumcise infants routinely.

So, if after looking at all the pros and cons of circumcision, parents decide that circumcision is best for their child, then they, not only have the right to choose the procedure, but have a valid medical reason to do so.they precisely do not have a right to do absent compelling immediate reasons -- because most of the supposed benefits or circumcision don't manifest until adulthood, at which time each person could make their own decision anyway. So unless you are advocating legally mandated universal circumcision, you are talking caca.

Victor, this is not a black or white issue. Rights are not absolute.No, of course not; but with circumcision, there is no compelling reason to circumcise infants universally; and thus absent such a compelling medical reason, circumcision must be considered a violation of the child's rights.

Remember, parents' power of medical decision is only a proxy for the child's such power, and to be used in the child's bvest interest; as long as the child is incapable of consent, the parent's choice is used as a substitute. Had there been medical factors necessitating circumcision in infancy, the parents would have the power to make that choice; but most of the benefits you listed don't manifest until much later, when the child would be capable of consent. Thus, parents, by electing to circumcise the infant, are making a completely unecessary choice that denies their child a later opportunity to choose for himself.

I don't know about anyone else's kids, but my two boys were circumcised 14 years apart in two different states, and in both cases, they were anesthetized. So there is no pain involved.

I am also wondering if those people who are opposed to circumcision for infants are also opposed to underaged children getting their ears pierced. I see a lot of young girls, some as young as two (!) with pierced ears.

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
No, What I am saying is that men can get basically the same benefit at a later date, when they are empowered to make their own decisions.

Ok, yes, this is true, but in no way invalite's parents rights to circumcised their children.

then why don't we force all adult men to get circumcised?!.

Because the principle clearly does not apply in this case. If later it were found that it did apply, it would probably be legislated. I doubt that, though.

Why don't you actually think a little, dude? Your excuses are just that -- excuses. If public health reasons were valid, we would be pressing every adult to circumcise;

No, not necessarily. Many injections are beneficial for public health reasons and very much valid, and States don't press for them.

And the fact that adults are not pressed does not mean it isn't a public health concern. Clearly respected scientist seem to think so.

but medical professionals have repeatedly concluded that whatever health benefits circumcision may or may no thave, it's not enough to warrant routine neonatal circumcision.

Is is also true that medical professionals have concluded the opposite.

Bingo -- after repeated complicaitons. There are valid reasons to circumcise a child -- valid medical reasons; there are no valid medical reasons to circumcise infants routinely.

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but the discussion, as I understood it, was not if circumcision should be generalized, but if it should be proscribed.

I have said that it should not.

they precisely do not have a right to do absent compelling immediate reasons -- because most of the supposed benefits or circumcision don't manifest until adulthood, at which time each person could make their own decision anyway. So unless you are advocating legally mandated universal circumcision, you are talking caca.

You are changing my position completely. I do not advocate universal circumcision, nor would I ever defend that position. Where you got that, I have no idea.

The thread asked the question if it is time to ban circumcision (paraphrased). My position is *no*. I have given my reasons. The jump from don't ban to universally adopt is your fabrication.

No, of course not; but with circumcision, there is no compelling reason to circumcise infants universally; and thus absent such a compelling medical reason, circumcision must be considered a violation of the child's rights.

Well, I agree with the first part, I do not on the second part.

And all the judicial systems in the world, to date, do not conclude that it is a violation of the child's rights. The right of the parent's is universally accepted.

So, time to end circumcision? I don't think so.

[Smalso]

Ok, yes, this is true, but in no way invalite's parents rights to circumcised their children.

Since when do parents have the "right" to mutilate their children's genitals? It is a barbaric practice and it is child abuse. The law just hasn't caught up with it yet.

[Akots]

If I got one without my permission, I'd be mad as all get out, purely on the basis of having my decision made for me; i do trust my parents, but I can still disagree with them.

What's the problem here? Why is this even an issue? Your going to lop off apart of my body, without even consulting me?

You can get one later. You can NOT "un-get" one later.

[kourama]

I suspect that those who support the practise for non-religious reasons have not really put in the effort to verify whether any of the "pro" reasons carry weight.

They don't.

It could be psychological, along the lines of "Well, there's nothing wrong with me, and I was circ'd, therefore it must be good for you."

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Since when do parents have the "right" to mutilate their children's genitals?

I suspect, since the beginning of time. And they do today in every since State in the world.

It is a barbaric practice and it is child abuse.

Absolutely no judicial system in the world agrees with this view.

The law just hasn't caught up with it yet.

Every single State in the world would have to catch up to your criteria.

Akots wrote:
If I got one without my permission, I'd be mad as all get out, purely on the basis of having my decision made for me; i do trust my parents, but I can still disagree with them.

What's the problem here? Why is this even an issue? Your going to lop off apart of my body, without even consulting me?

You can get one later. You can NOT "un-get" one later.

Most children get a lot of things done without their permission.

Kourama wrote:
I suspect that those who support the practise for non-religious reasons have not really put in the effort to verify whether any of the "pro" reasons carry weight.

And you would suspect wrong. Please visit the link I provided on page two. Eminent scientists advocate the procedure.

[Akots]

Most children get a lot of things done without their permission.



I never thought of it that way... in that light, i guess circumcision is correct after all. I know when i'm wrong, i guess. :o

[Smalso]

I suspect, since the beginning of time. And they do today in every since State in the world.

I disagree. They do not have any such "right." They have the power.


And you would suspect wrong. Please visit the link I provided on page two. Eminent scientists advocate the procedure.

And many do not.


Every single State in the world would have to catch up to your criteria.

Keerect! And about time, too.


Most children get a lot of things done without their permission

Sure they do. They are beaten, starved, sexually abused, kidnapped, murdered.... Just because they are helpless and dependent on adults does not make these things right; and it doesn't make the mutilation of their genitals--or any other part of their bodies--right.Absolutely no judicial system in the world agrees with this view


Absolutely no judicial system in the world agrees with this view

Well, I don't see any sense in rushing headlong into the 19th century.

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
I disagree. They do not have any such "right." They have the power.

The right to do something is the power to do it, with the blessing of the State. They absolutely have the right.

[Smalso]

The right to do something is the power to do it, with the blessing of the State. They absolutely have the right.

So children have no rights because they have no power. And the poor and unfortunate have no rights as human beings because the state gives them no power. The people of Iraq have no rights as human beings because the state, under Saddam's regime, does not empower them. Interesting point of view.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by LukeT

While the doctor was performing the task, we chatted. She told me she has had to perform circumcisions on adult males because they kept getting repeated urethral infections.

If you can't take care of it and keep it clean, you don't deserve it. Keep what nature gave you.

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
So children have no rights because they have no power. And the poor and unfortunate have no rights as human beings because the state gives them no power. The people of Iraq have no rights as human beings because the state, under Saddam's regime, does not empower them. Interesting point of view.

You are erecting strawmen left and right here, creating false dichotomies, as well.

I think I'm at the end of this discussion, if want to jump into a discussion of children's rights, State authority over citizens, etc. go ahead and create a thread on them, if you wish. I will contribute, if I can.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

Absolutely no judicial system in the world agrees with this view [that it's a barbaric practice to mutilate your children's genitals].In USA, any form of female genital mutilation is illegal; this includes removal of clitoral hood, which procedure is anatomically equivalent to male circumcision. In fact, the language of the law on this matter is pretty strong... it surely wouldn't be enough to make minor FGM legal on infants, if it was found to have some minor eventual health benefits to adults.

Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.

Most children get a lot of things done without their permission.yes, and if it's something non-trivial and irreversible, they should get mad at their parents fo rit. had my parents tattooed me, i would be mad too!

Some reasoning! They have other things done without permission, so circumcision is OK as well. You know, if I mug you, then me breaking your legs will be OK as well... as long as i am mugging you anyway, you see...

And you would suspect wrong. Please visit the link I provided on page two. Eminent scientists advocate the procedure.And many don't. The point is that, absent clear and compelling medical reason to the contrary, child's rights should take precedence over parents' whims.

[Smalso]

Christian: You are erecting strawmen left and right here, creating false dichotomies, as well.

Nope. Just carrying your reasoning to its logical (to me) conclusion. If you wish to refute my viewpoint, feel free. If not, that's fine, too. As for quitting this discussion, I think I will, too. You are not going to change my opinion, nor I yours. You may have the last word if you wish.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Christian

And many don't. The point is that, absent clear and compelling medical reason to the contrary, child's rights should take precedence over parents' whims.



Absolutely agree Victor.

In the UK only a small minority of children are circumcised, mostly I think by religous wierdo's.

I cannot recall a whisper of a suggestion that failure to circumcise carries any health risk for males. Our son was born in Belgium and the paedaetrician(sp?) never raised the issue. It's just never mentioned.

A priori the foreskin is unlikely to come as standard equipment without a good reason. That benefit may only be physical protection but perhaps research will establish other benefits in the future.

As regards those guys who say "I haven't got one and I'm OK". How can they possibly know what they are missing?:D

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Hazelip


If you can't take care of it and keep it clean, you don't deserve it. Keep what nature gave you.

The secret is to use it properly, so the foreskin gets aired out in regular intervals ;). To get serious again: If it were so dangerous and urethral infections would occur so much more, we should see that in the medical statistics of, let's say Germany, where next to nobody gets circumsized (or anywhere else in Europe for that matter). Does anybody have information on how Germany compares with the US regarding UIs?

[Ove]

Just to add my opinion here. In Denmark like in the rest of Europe children are NOT circumsized unless the parents (religious) beliefs demands this. To the best of my knowledge there are not any difference in the occurrence of penile and other types of cancer in Europe compared to USA.

To the best of my knowledge the wawe of circumsizion was started by some (greedy) American surgeons who wanted to make a fast buck. They succeded in convincing people that uncircumsized faired higher risks of disease.

Christian you MIGHT have a point that it could be preferrable to carry on chopping in countries where hygeine standards are low but really it sounds loke a hollow argument to me. There are at least a dozen other things you could use the same money to, that would save considerable more lives. Clean drinking water f.inst. or better sanitasion.

Kick out the Catolics and get people to use condoms, BOY would that save lives (and misery in the over populated citicies). I get sick every time i see poor people faithfully coming to their church every Sunday with their 8 to 10 children.

I am circumsized myself. I had it done a couple of years ago because my foreskin "crept", basically i couldnt retract the foreskin without great pain. I had only a partial circumsition though and boy am i happy. I still have enough foreskin to cover the head (at least in relaxed mode) and that is fine.

I tried the other situation in the weeks after the surgery and it was sheer hell. Not just the woonds but the exposed head rubbing against my shorts. I wore the LARGEST pair of boxer shorts i could find and still it was irritating.:(

IT IS a violation of childrens rights. IF you use your arguments i would also have the right to tattoo my children or have children sterilized if they had mental defects f.inst. You are on a slippery slope there. True, parents have rights but they have at least as many responsibilities.

[GovtSlave]

Didn't see this posted yet (may have just missed it):

http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ6HG9QE8C&sub_cat=4

American Academy of Pediatrics says: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

This is a hard issue for me because the man I want to marry thinks circumcision should be done. I'm not sure why he thinks this, except that he had it done, and thinks everything is fine, and views my criticism of circumcision as a criticism of him.

My only experiences that can be used as arguments...

Neither of my brothers were circumsized- not for any good reason but just because there father wasn't. Neither of them have had any problems, mom showed them how to clean it early, and it's been no problem at all for either of them.

I've dated both circ'd and uncirc'd men. Though my current SO is circumsized, and I'd never consider it a huge issue, I definitely enjoyed relations more with the uncirc'd man. Absolutely no contest in that department.

My biggest reason for being opposed to it is simply that I don't think I should decide for anyone to remove parts of their body. It may be "harmless" and not cause any real "problems"- but if it were me I'd want to decide that for myself. I also believe that removing body parts of babies is a way of criticizing God. IF you believe that God made people, cutting off the foreskin is like saying "God made people wrong" and that he made a mistake or is imperfect. I know, I'm supposed to be a skeptic and all, but I do believe in God (just not religion, LOL)

I don't know what's going to happen when/if we have children, because I really feel strongly about this. And apparently he does too.

:(

[Victor Danilchenko]

GovtSlave

This is a hard issue for me because the man I want to marry thinks circumcision should be done. I'm not sure why he thinks this, except that he had it done, and thinks everything is fine, and views my criticism of circumcision as a criticism of him.Don't criticize circumcision, criticize parents' right to do it to an infant; criticize the fact that the infant is denied his own choice at a later date.

I've dated both circ'd and uncirc'd men. Though my current SO is circumsized, and I'd never consider it a huge issue, I definitely enjoyed relations more with the uncirc'd man. Absolutely no contest in that department.really? interesting. What made the difference for you?

My biggest reason for being opposed to it is simply that I don't think I should decide for anyone to remove parts of their body.Exactly. make it very clear that it's not circumcision that you are criticizing. Comapre it to a tatoo -- tatoos are perfectly OK, but not when they are done without the subject's choice.

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
In USA, any form of female genital mutilation is illegal; this includes removal of clitoral hood, which procedure is anatomically equivalent to male circumcision. In fact, the language of the law on this matter is pretty strong... it surely wouldn't be enough to make minor FGM legal on infants, if it was found to have some minor eventual health benefits to adults.

Yes, of course. I have not spoken about female circumcision, only male.

Now, on male circumcision is legal in every single State in the world.

Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.

Your view and parallel is not accepted anywhere in any judicial system in the world. Think about that. There isn't a single body of legislators in the world that agrees with you.

yes, and if it's something non-trivial and irreversible, they should get mad at their parents fo rit. had my parents tattooed me, i would be mad too!

Again, these comparisons are not warranted.

Parents have to make many important decisions for their children that can/wil affect their lives in multiples ways in the future. Three obvious examples.

1. The school(s) that our parents chooses for us is a crucial decision.
2. If we are injured, what type of treatment, surgery, etc. is decided by them
3. Where we will live is chosen by our parents (our environment)

This decision and many others, I think, have much more impact.

All States in the world recognize these responsibilties and parents right to decide. The same with circumcision.

Some reasoning! They have other things done without permission, so circumcision is OK as well. You know, if I mug you, then me breaking your legs will be OK as well... as long as i am mugging you anyway, you see...

The logic does not follow here at all because absolutely no legal system considers circumcision an infringment on the dignity of a child.

And many don't. The point is that, absent clear and compelling medical reason to the contrary, child's rights should take precedence over parents' whims.

This is your opinion and I respect it. It is not the opinion, not of the mayority, of all legal systems in the world.

According to *all* of them, parents have the right to decide whether their male children will be circumcised or not. This choice to decide is universal.

So think about that.

Nikk wrote:
In the UK only a small minority of children are circumcised, mostly I think by religous wierdo's.

And it is a legal right in the UK for parents to decide.

Yes, the wierdo's and all who profess Judaism.

Ove wrote:
IT IS a violation of childrens rights. IF you use your arguments i would also have the right to tattoo my children or have children sterilized if they had mental defects f.inst. You are on a slippery slope there. True, parents have rights but they have at least as many responsibilities.

No, you are *factually* wrong. Circumcision does not violate children's rights. There is not one single law in the world that gives them this protection. No slippery slope here.

Parents universally have the right to choose this, children do not. If you want to argue that they should have the right, then that is a whole different thing. But, currently they do not, anywhere in the world.

[kourama]

Thinbk about it; just draw the parallel with FGM, which we aren't acculturated to accept unquestioningly. Maybe you will realize what a barbarous practice circumcision is.

Your view and parallel is not accepted anywhere in any judicial system in the world. Think about that. There isn't a single body of legislators in the world that agrees with you.

This means nothing. The number of people who believe something is so has no bearing on wether or not it is so.


"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions" Proverbs 18:2


clearly. :rolleyes:

[Christian]

Kuorama wrote:
This means nothing. The number of people who believe something is so has no bearing on wether or not it is so.

Oh, but this is not simply numbers. This is all the legal minds in the world.

A parallel, if all scientists were to agree on a particular conclusion, don't you think it would be foolish to conclude it means nothing?


clearly

Yes, ironic :D

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Christian
Yes, of course. I have not spoken about female circumcision, only male.

Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?

Now, on male circumcision is legal in every single State in the world.

And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?

Parents have to make many important decisions for their children that can/wil affect their lives in multiples ways in the future. Three obvious examples.

1. The school(s) that our parents chooses for us is a crucial decision.
2. If we are injured, what type of treatment, surgery, etc. is decided by them
3. Where we will live is chosen by our parents (our environment)

This decision and many others, I think, have much more impact.

There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.

No, you are *factually* wrong. Circumcision does not violate children's rights. There is not one single law in the world that gives them this protection. No slippery slope here.

That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.

[kourama]

Originally posted by Christian
Kuorama wrote:
This means nothing. The number of people who believe something is so has no bearing on wether or not it is so.

Oh, but this is not simply numbers. This is all the legal minds in the world.

A parallel, if all scientists were to agree on a particular conclusion, don't you think it would be foolish to conclude it means nothing?




I think the reason it is not made illegal is because there would be civil unrest if it were to be recognized as the ugliness that it is.

All the legal minds of the world at one time determined that females weren't capable of electing a government (OK, that's a hyperbole, but the point is still correct). Most scientists in the world at one point concluded it was flat.

In any case, I'm not saying it means nothing, but what does it mean? Well, there's the civil unrest business I mentioned, the political clout of religions, the general attitude towards it...

There's not enough political power in the hands of groups like NOHARMM to change the law, but it really should be changed IMO.

[Christian]

Advocate wrote:
Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?

I believe legal protection depends on the circumstances of individuals or groups. Females, in many instances, have more protection than males. Just think of children's custody cases.

Blacks in the US have more legal protection than whites. Illegal immigrants have less protection than residents.

Protection of the law is based on circumstances.

And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?

So, are you willing to argue that there has been no progression in jurisprudence as to compare both moments in history?

There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.

Yes, I understand completely the reasoning. What I'm saying is that this reasoning is not shared by the legal system in regards to parental rights.

That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.

It is not a matter of believing or not. As it stands today, most States are governed by the rule of law. The only rights we have are those that the State grants. We might not like to hear that, but it is the truth.

Now, your conclusion is erroneos, the fact that the State grants rights in no way means I believe in the infallibility of the State. To believe that would be naive.

The key thing to remember is that most governments have come to a progression where natural rights have been incorporated into the fundamental prescription of law.

If someone wants to argue that sooner or later legislator will come to their senses on circumcision, that is fine. But, then, they would have to explain why, at this stage the development of justice and its branches, they have not.

To me, that is a dificult sell.

[Christian]

Kuorama wrote:
I think the reason it is not made illegal is because there would be civil unrest if it were to be recognized as the ugliness that it is.

This is an interesting theory. But, in every State? Don't you think that there would be at least one place in the world where most everyone would agree with your view.

Remember the poster from the UK, this person said the mayority don't do it. I'm sure this is how it is in most of Europe. So, in those places it is the reverse of what you think. The legislators are protecting the minority. The *weirdos* the poster said.

All the legal minds of the world at one time determined that females weren't capable of electing a government (OK, that's a hyperbole, but the point is still correct). Most scientists in the world at one point concluded it was flat.

Yes, they did and now they don't. Clearly a progression has occurred. Please give the legal minds that benefit of the doubt that they have progressed as well.

There's not enough political power in the hands of groups like NOHARMM to change the law, but it really should be changed IMO.

As I said, most government in Europe are secular. What explanation can there be in these countries?

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Christian
As I said, most government in Europe are secular. What explanation can there be in these countries?

Well, in Portugal,it's not forbidden, but it's definetly not encouraged.

It's a procedure that is normally only done in extreme situations. I suppose that if the parents insist on it, it is done, but the vast majority of parents doesn't ask for it.

The fact that we have a good public health system probably explains why the medical doctors didn't exagerate the pros of circumcision. They can't make an extra buck on it.

I suppose that the fact that it's still legal is due to the presence of a jewish community, were the practice is mandatory. But even that may change in the near future. Some african communities started performing FGM in Portugal, and the Assembly was quick in outlawing the procedure... I don't know if the legislation covers the male circumcision, though.

[Christian]

Megalodon wrote:
I suppose that the fact that it's still legal is due to the presence of a jewish community, were the practice is mandatory.

This is another interesting theory.

It seems to me, most here will give any other explanation possible except the most obvious one. Ok, let's throw Occam's razor out the window.

[Bentspoon]

It is hard to believe that all these posts have gone down without the mention of the quack who started it all - and the real reason why circumcision is so prevalent in the United States. (I was skimming so maybe I missed it)

[URL=http://www.goofyfootpress.com/foreskins/foreskinwhydoit.html[/URL]

During the 1880s, a few influential men like John Harvey Kellogg, physician and founder of a famous American cereal company, started preaching that boys masturbate because the foreskin rubs on the head of the penis. Until that time, most American men were not circumcised. As a leading anti-masturbation fanatic, Dr. Kellogg believed that boys who were circumcised at birth would be less likely to play with themselves. His influence helped circumcision to become a routine operation in America. Swell guy that he was, Dr. Kellogg also recommended that girls who masturbate have their clitorises burned out with acid.

It is also a known fact that Dr Kellogg never made love to his wife because of his sick perspective on sexual pleasure.

So this is it. this is why. Dr. Kellogg had some great ideas on nutrition (yes it is the corn flake guy) he is a certified known quack for his other strangeness. This is just plain sick; and look at the debate going on about its merits!!! People will make up anything to support it.

So this is why we do it - a sick Victorian mind. The only thing my son's ped/obstetrician could come up with was "it is standard general accepted practice" i.e., "gee everyone else is doing it"

It is as digusting as finding homeopathy products at Rite Aid. I mean we are mutilating babies sexually and think absolutely nothing of it. It is appalling.

By the way, I am not and I have had no trouble from it (50+ yrs). I had one girlfriend say it didn't look natural to her.

I had to laugh and never hesitated to point out Greek statues to her.

Bentpeni er................. spoon

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Christian
I believe legal protection depends on the circumstances of individuals or groups. Females, in many instances, have more protection than males. Just think of children's custody cases.

Blacks in the US have more legal protection than whites. Illegal immigrants have less protection than residents.

Protection of the law is based on circumstances.
And here lies our disagreement. You are describing things as they are. No one is disputing this. The question is do you think things should be the way they are? For instance, should there be specially protected groups like that? And if so, why? IMHO there would have to be good justification for any such cases before I would accept them as being right.
So, are you willing to argue that there has been no progression in jurisprudence as to compare both moments in history?
Exactly the opposite. I am arguing that there has been progression and there must continue to be such. Any moment in history has its flaws, this happens to be one of ours - one I believe is badly in need of correction.
Yes, I understand completely the reasoning. What I'm saying is that this reasoning is not shared by the legal system in regards to parental rights.
So because things are not a certain way, no one should ever try to change them? Come on. No one is THAT conservative.
It is not a matter of believing or not. As it stands today, most States are governed by the rule of law. The only rights we have are those that the State grants. We might not like to hear that, but it is the truth.
Again, we are arguing definitions. Does the fact that you can't enforce a right mean it does not exist? Do you realize how much this sounds like "the state is always right"?
Now, your conclusion is erroneos, the fact that the State grants rights in no way means I believe in the infallibility of the State. To believe that would be naive.
Explain then exactly how your position differs from that.
The key thing to remember is that most governments have come to a progression where natural rights have been incorporated into the fundamental prescription of law.
Then your idea of natural rights must be vastly different from mine. Many governments don't even recognize the rights of the people under their rule at all. And even Western governments disagree on what rights to recognize.
If someone wants to argue that sooner or later legislator will come to their senses on circumcision, that is fine. But, then, they would have to explain why, at this stage the development of justice and its branches, they have not.

To me, that is a dificult sell.
And people could have said the same thing about slavery in 1800. IMHO it is not the legislators that will come to their senses but their constituents who will demand that they do so. It really sounds to me like you are saying that no one ought to believe differently and even if they do, they should not be able to even try to change things. I sincerely hope I am wrong about that, but that is how you come across.

[Ben Shniper]

Islam, and some Christian sects consider male circumcision a requirement.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=7073&dgn=3

So many reasons are given for circumcision, it's impossible to split fact from fiction when deciding whether to circumcize children. Thus it is best left as the parents' decision. Making it "against the law", or "ending the practice" will only discriminate against those parents who want to do it, whether for religious tradition, or for other reasons. I don't considder it barbaric, nor do I think it is entirely without medical benefit. I don't know if there are medical problems that balance out the benefit, and can't testify to the difference with being circumcized or not, when one is circumcized from birth. I don't know if it is important, either, as people will still go to the trouble of having sex either way.

Also, who decides to get themselves circumcized? Ouch! Much better when they are just born, and they only cry for an hour or so and are sore for a week after. So the practical decision is either right away after birth, or not at all. You won't be scarred for life, so I don't considder it important to worry about that. Comparing those who were circumcized later in life to those circumcized at birth is not quite valid.

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
Islam, and some Christian sects consider male circumcision a requirement.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=7073&dgn=3

So many reasons are given for circumcision, it's impossible to split fact from fiction when deciding whether to circumcize children. Thus it is best left as the parents' decision.



Best left up to the owner of the penis, when they can make an informed decisison.



Making it "against the law", or "ending the practice" will only discriminate against those parents who want to do it, whether for religious tradition, or for other reasons. I don't considder it barbaric, nor do I think it is entirely without medical benefit. I don't know if there are medical problems that balance out the benefit, and can't testify to the difference with being circumcized or not, when one is circumcized from birth. I don't know if it is important, either, as people will still go to the trouble of having sex either way.

Also, who decides to get themselves circumcized? Ouch! Much better when they are just born, and they only cry for an hour or so and are sore for a week after. So the practical decision is either right away after birth, or not at all. You won't be scarred for life, so I don't considder it important to worry about that. Comparing those who were circumcized later in life to those circumcized at birth is not quite valid.

-Ben

The idea that babies don't feel pain is a strange one.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper
So many reasons are given for circumcision, it's impossible to split fact from fiction when deciding whether to circumcize children. Thus it is best left as the parents' decision. Making it "against the law", or "ending the practice" will only discriminate against those parents who want to do it, whether for religious tradition, or for other reasons.

The same reasons could be given for the "circumcision" of female children and that has been banned. While the practice normally used on females is more damaging, male circumcision is no less barbaric. Neither are male infants less valuable or less in need of protection than their sisters. It has been well established that religious freedom does not entitle people to abuse their children and IMHO this is exactly what circumcision of infants is - child abuse, even if it is not yet legally recognized as such.

[Christian]

Advocate wrote:
And here lies our disagreement. You are describing things as they are. No one is disputing this. The question is do you think things should be the way they are?

Tha would depend on the protection and on the circumstance of course.

For instance, should there be specially protected groups like that? And if so, why?IMHO there would have to be good justification for any such cases before I would accept them as being right.


Women protected as guardians, yes. Affirmative action, yes. Status of illegal immigrants as not protected of some rights, yes. Forgive me if I don't go into to the why's, each of these merit a thread of their own, you understand.

Exactly the opposite. I am arguing that there has been progression and there must continue to be such. Any moment in history has its flaws, this happens to be one of ours - one I believe is badly in need of correction.

That's not what I mean. What I mean is that the progression (and you do accept that there has been one) has gone beyond the point of where you place it.

You are saying that all the judicial systems in the world have overlooked, to this day, a clearly barbaric act done to a male child and disregarded his right in favor of the parent's.

That interpretation seems unacceptable to me. The advancement of justice today makes this *flaw* in *all* of the system highly unlikely.

What most likely has occurred is that, after debate on it, it has been concluded that it is not barbaric and that the parents right to choose is above the child's. This is the most obvious scenario IMHO.

So because things are not a certain way, no one should ever try to change them? Come on. No one is THAT conservative.

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that this issue, I'm sure has been argued ad nassium and the concensus is the same. It cannot be illegal.

Again, we are arguing definitions. Does the fact that you can't enforce a right mean it does not exist?

That's exactly what it means. I know what you are saying, the confusion here is that you are making a phylosophical distinction. On that arena, yes, a right is a right even if the State does not recognizes it. But this distincition, remember, is only conceptual. In real practical terms, the only rights you have are those recognized by the State. This is a strictly legal distinction.

Do you realize how much this sounds like "the state is always right"?

No I don't because it does not. It is not the same to say the State is the only grantor of rights as to say the State is always right. That there is homophony is only coincidental.

I will even be more clear on this. A State can perfectly grant a right that is *totally unfair*, or as you put it, can be wrong to grant a right. Some would say women's right to choose an abortion is unjust, for example.

Explain then exactly how your position differs from that.

I hope I did.

Then your idea of natural rights must be vastly different from mine. Many governments don't even recognize the rights of the people under their rule at all. And even Western governments disagree on what rights to recognize.

I don't know what natural rights you refer to but there is a concensus on the universal rights of human set forth by a UN proclamation (these are based on the phylosophical natural rights as you have mentioned). Most constitutions (specifically of Western States) have incorporated this right as fundamental tenents.

I assure you there is little disagreement in these rights. So, circumcision definately falls under those considerations and no government has taken the position set forth by many posters here.

It seems, and this is only my appreciation, that it is a little presumtious to think that no State in the world has been enlightened as some poster have been here.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Christian

It seems to me, most here will give any other explanation possible except the most obvious one. Ok, let's throw Occam's razor out the window.

I guess you didn't bother to understand my post :rolleyes:

The practice of circumsicion is almost inexistent in Portugal, as far as I know. MD's don't recommend it to the parents, because there are no medical advantages, and guess what, they can't charge for it either.
So, it's basically restricted to very small pockets of the population that require it as a tradition. And even the "traditional" circumcision may be outlawed in the near future, leaving only the medical procedure for when it's really necessary (almost never)

And yes, that's my point, let's throw the razor out the window ;)

[blackpriester]

All excellent points below, Advocate.
Just something I needed to say ;).

Originally posted by Advocate


Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?

[B]

And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?

[B]

There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.

[B]

That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.

[blackpriester]

I don't know if it is important, either, as people will still go to the trouble of having sex either way.

Also, who decides to get themselves circumcized? Ouch! Much better when they are just born, and they only cry for an hour or so and are sore for a week after. So the practical decision is either right away after birth, or not at all. You won't be scarred for life, so I don't considder it important to worry about that. Comparing those who were circumcized later in life to those circumcized at birth is not quite valid.

-Ben

Ben, according to your logic , girls should be deflowered and sexually abused at birth. I mean, after all, they're gonna lose that pesky hymen anyway and it will be painful later in life - so better to do it when they're babies and can only cry for an hour and then go to sleep, right? Obviously they won't remember anything and will not be scarred for life - and for you, in their baby state, they don't seem to have any rights to their body anyway, ain't it so?

Jesus... this logic is inhumane!

[GovtSlave]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've dated both circ'd and uncirc'd men. Though my current SO is circumsized, and I'd never consider it a huge issue, I definitely enjoyed relations more with the uncirc'd man. Absolutely no contest in that department.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

really? interesting. What made the difference for you?

Well, Victor, hard to explain, but it felt more comfortable. Perhaps I would not have noticed a difference had I been being good and using protection. But I wasn't, whatever, older and wiser now... It felt softer, if that's any way to explain it.

[Victor Danilchenko]

GovtSlave

Well, Victor, hard to explain, but it felt more comfortable. [...] It felt softer, if that's any way to explain it.Ah, that's what I was expecting; i just wanted to check.

Intercourse with uncircumcized men is supposed to be gentler for the women (due to the mechanics of foreskin), which is why womem who tried both tend to prefer uncircumcized partners sexually.

[Christian]

I guess you didn't bother to understand my post

I don't know what I missed, but it is possible that I'm missing what your point is.

The practice of circumsicion is almost inexistent in Portugal, as far as I know. MD's don't recommend it to the parents, because there are no medical advantages, and guess what, they can't charge for it either.

I understand circumcision is not practiced on Portugal and it is not covered by medical insurance. (I believe this is also true in the US)

So, it's basically restricted to very small pockets of the population that require it as a tradition. And even the "traditional" circumcision may be outlawed in the near future, leaving only the medical procedure for when it's really necessary (almost never)

And I understand you are saying circumcision is legal in Portugal to accomodate those that require it for tradition.

And you add that it may become illegal in the near future, so even those few will have to abandon it.

And yes, that's my point, let's throw the razor out the window

And this is an excellent pun. :)

So, my comment again is that, even though a marginal part of the population adheres to the practice, it is a legal practice in Portugal. I ask why, you answer to respect those few.

Now, listen to your reasoning, it is legal, to respect those few who do practice this barbaric act, that one else adheres to.

I'm sorry, it is difficult for me to accept that explanation. It seems highly unlikely.

But, again, I might be missunderstanding what you are saying.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by blackpriester


Ben, according to your logic , girls should be deflowered and sexually abused at birth. I mean, after all, they're gonna lose that pesky hymen anyway and it will be painful later in life - so better to do it when they're babies and can only cry for an hour and then go to sleep, right? Obviously they won't remember anything and will not be scarred for life - and for you, in their baby state, they don't seem to have any rights to their body anyway, ain't it so?

Jesus... this logic is inhumane!

You are the one comparing circumcision to rape. I find your lack of logic to be inhumane. Having gone through the process myself, and my son as well, I have no regrets, and neither did hundreds of generations of my family.

Regardless, the question of whether the practice should be "ended" seems splendidly anti-Jewish (and anti-Islamic) to me. What other "barbaric" practices should we end? Passover Communion? (PETA recently called for the ending of using lamb shanks in Passover/Communion)? Baptisms? Bar Mitzvahs?

Strange argument that a common medically accepted and widely practiced procedure is somehow so very "old" and "barbaric" it has lost legitimacy. How about we end appendectomies? Many people get this "unnecessary" procedure to prevent future illness, if they have a family history of needing it.

I'm sure people who oppose circumcision will deny doing so because they dislike the religions that keeps it a modern world practice. But sure seems like many of those same people want Israel destroyed, want to ban the Ten Commandments from any puplic place, and feel strongly that Jewish influence was the main culpret behind America's recent wars. Strange coincidence, hey AUP?

Anyway, as for children having "rights" to "their bodies" when babies, how do you know they want to have that umbilical cord cut? Or that baby baptism? Or that choice of religion or culture or even parents they get forced into? The argument makes as much sense to me as wet toast, because if you don't have circumcision performed as a child when a baby, you can't have it done properly afterwards without scarring. If you don't like it, don't do it to your child.

-Ben

[Christian]

Ben:

Your angle on it is quite interesting too. I have three girls, all had their ears pierced at birth. This is part of Latin American culture 99.9999% of baby girls get it done, all women here in El Salvador wear earings regularly.

I would have been appalled at the notion that someone from another culture (etnocentrism) would tell me our cultural practices are objectionable.

It is part of our identity, of who we are.

Great post Ben.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by LukeT


Bzzzzzzzzz! Wrong answer.

I watched my newborn son's circumcision. He was anesthetized.

While the doctor was performing the task, we chatted. She told me she has had to perform circumcisions on adult males because they kept getting repeated urethral infections.

This is the only reason I'm in favor of them. Ease of cleaning and a less inviting area for bacteria seems like a sufficient selling point for me...

(I was "cut" as an infant, BTW, even though I was raised by two devout Catholics...go figure)

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

This is the only reason I'm in favor of them. Ease of cleaning and a less inviting area for bacteria seems like a sufficient selling point for me...Cleaning an uncircumcized penis is ridiculously easy -- extra 2 seconds in the shower. Furthermore, Luke's point is utterly bollocks -- the doctors who told him that she performs circumcisions for reasons of repeated UTIs, performs them on those who get repeated UTIs! That's like a psychiatrist proclaiming that gays tend to mental illness because the gays who seek psychiatric help tend to mental illness. This sort of "reasoning" is nothing but an excuse, as it certainly holds no weight under scrutiny.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ben Shniper

Regardless, the question of whether the practice should be "ended" seems splendidly anti-Jewish (and anti-Islamic) to me.So I, a jew, am anti-jewish. Great.

IMNSHO, circumcision is a practice of a sort similar to chinese foot-binding or sudanese (i think it's sudanese) neck-ring stacking; or FGM.

What other "barbaric" practices should we end?Well, the ones I listed above would be a good start...

How about we go the other way around: Let's allow FGMs if the parents' culture demands it! How about that, Ben? Willing to do it? let's permit foot-binding, too; it's a cultural practice, it would be ethnocentric to forbid it, right?

Strange argument that a common medically accepted and widely practiced procedureit's both of those things only in USA, outside of countries where it's done for religious reasons. Islam BTW does not demand that circumcision be done in infancy -- circumcision is sometimes undertaken at a much older age, even adulthood.

Remember, it's only involuntary infant circumcision that is a problem, not circumcision per se.

is somehow so very "old" and "barbaric" it has lost legitimacy. How about we end appendectomies? Many people get this "unnecessary" procedure to prevent future illness, if they have a family history of needing it.First of all, this is the first time I hear about appendectomies being routinely done based on family medical history alone; references? Secondly, if true, there is a compelling medical reason here -- high hereditary risk of infection. Again, in thefew cases where infant circumcision is medically indicated, it's not a problem -- the problem arises when it's done routinely based on nothing more than the parents' whim.

I'm sure people who oppose circumcision will deny doing so because they dislike the religions that keeps it a modern world practice.I certainly will deny having enmity of judaism. As you should well know by now, I am jewish abd very much pro-israel and anti-anti-semitism.

But sure seems like many of those same people want Israel destroyed, want to ban the Ten Commandments from any puplic place, and feel strongly that Jewish influence was the main culpret behind America's recent wars. Strange coincidence, hey AUP?There are plenty of people who don't feel enmity to israel or jews, who still think it's a barbaric and inhumane practice.

Anyway, as for children having "rights" to "their bodies" when babies, how do you know they want to have that umbilical cord cut?it's a medical necessity; and it doesn't inflict any permanent damage upon the child, unlike circumcision.

Or that baby baptism?No damage.

Or that choice of religion or culture or even parents they get forced into?the child can choose a different religion; he cannot choose to get un-circumcized.

The argument makes as much sense to me as wet toast, because if you don't have circumcision performed as a child when a baby, you can't have it done properly afterwards without scarring.Feet bound in childhood function much better than feet compressed in adulthood; so let's bind the girls' feet! And a severed or de-hooded clitoris will heal much better in infancy, so let's allow FGM too!

If you don't like it, don't do it to your child.i didn't -- but neither will I simply stand back and keep silent, just as I wouldn't about Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of life-saving blood transfusion for a child, or FGM. Sure, circumcision isn't as bad -- but that fact is balanced by its widespread use.

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
...of a sort similar to chinese foot-binding or sudanese (i think it's sudanese) neck-ring stacking; or FGM...Feet bound in childhood function much better than feet compressed in adulthood; so let's bind the girls' feet! And a severed or de-hooded clitoris will heal much better in infancy, so let's allow FGM too!

In those cases cited you have judicial precedent to back you up. Not only do you have it, but it is almost universal.

Why is it that as barbaric as you say it is, no judicial system in the world equates circumcision to the practices you have cited?

didn't -- but neither will I simply stand back and keep silent, just as I wouldn't about Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of life-saving blood transfusion for a child, or FGM. Sure, circumcision isn't as bad -- but that fact is balanced by its widespread use.

Wait a second Victor, circumcision is barbaric but it isn't that bad?

Victor, please, acknowledge at least I have a point here. Just once please :D

[Smalso]

I know that I wrote that I would draw out of this discussion, but I have become curious about something.

Christian, you keep using the judicial systems of various countries to justify the mutilation of infants. Could you explain how one justifies the other?

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Christian, you keep using the judicial systems of various countries to justify the mutilation of infants. Could you explain how one justifies the other?

Sure, that is a good question. I wont have time to answer today but, please wait for my response tomorrow morning. Thanks.

[NullPointerException]

I'm more upset about the way society treats children. Until humans reach the age of 18 they aren't part of society. Unless you kill someone, at which point you're tried as an adult. Either way, it's a perverse and ridiculous double standard. My stance? Don't allow non-medical neccesary things. I think risking 1/100,000 for a UI is better then being the lucky guy to get the circum from a drunk nurse and get a sex change operation to cover it up.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by Christian

I understand circumcision is not practiced on Portugal and it is not covered by medical insurance. (I believe this is also true in the US)

No, circumcision is absolutely free for the parents, if they want it done. But the MD's won't get extra money for it, since it's performed in a public hospital.

So my point is, if the medical advantages are so significant, then why isn't the procedure done routinely in Portugal? Would it be that the same MD's that defend the practice so fervorously have some ulterior motives?

Now, listen to your reasoning, it is legal, to respect those few who do practice this barbaric act, that one else adheres to.

Well look at it this way. Although it is a barbaric act, the fact that it is so deeply rooted in tradition makes it acceptable by the main population, and most don't even think about it. No one in my family has been cut, so I can say the matter doesn't cross my mind very often.

But I'm against any kind of body modification done to a baby, and that includes pierced ears. If circumcision is so good for you, then an adult, or even a teenager can make that decision. I don't think it's up to the parents..

I'm sorry, it is difficult for me to accept that explanation. It seems highly unlikely.


Circumcision is so restricted to defined groups that it's far more likely to have a cultural cause than a medical one

Cheers

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Kodiak

Cleaning an uncircumcized penis is ridiculously easy -- extra 2 seconds in the shower. Furthermore, Luke's point is utterly bollocks -- the doctors who told him that she performs circumcisions for reasons of repeated UTIs, performs them on those who get repeated UTIs! That's like a psychiatrist proclaiming that gays tend to mental illness because the gays who seek psychiatric help tend to mental illness. This sort of "reasoning" is nothing but an excuse, as it certainly holds no weight under scrutiny.

Sadly, too many men don't take those extra two seconds...

"Bollocks" you say??? (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_uti.html)

[richardm]

Kodiak -

A rebuttal to one of the reports in your link is here (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/) .

Wiswell's statistic, that circumcision resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys," has often been quoted; however, it is misleading. In fact, UTIs are so rare in any case that, using Wiswell's data, 50 to 100 healthy boys would have to be circumcised in order to prevent a UTI from developing in only one patient. (Using more recent data from a better-controlled study, the number of unnecessary operations needed to prevent one hospital admission for UTI would jump to 195.39)

A general disputing-of-the-pro-circumcision-statistics is here (http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html) For every circumcision that prevents a Urinary Tract Infection, 194 circumcisions do not (The Lancet, 1998) .

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

Sadly, too many men don't take those extra two seconds...how does that give the parents the right to deprive their children of an opportunity to make their own choice about their own bodies?

"Bollocks" you say??? (http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_uti.html) [/B]Yes. Bollocks. if the infant has repeated UTIs and it's not due to hygiene, circumcision may be medically warranted. I have no problem with medically warranted circumcision; but only about 4% -- and that's by the most aggressive study, there are indications that this number is ridiculously over-inflated -- of uncircumcised male infants get UTIs. See http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/altschul/ for a counter-view.

So, even if we accept the figure of 4%, are we to circumcise everyone because there is 1/25 chance of developing UTIs, which condition is generally little more than an easily managed annoyance?

[LW]

The issue of legality of circumcision surfaced in Finnish media this week. Currently, circumcision is not mentioned anywhere in Finnish laws. The thing that made it news is that there was a botched operation where six young muslim boys got severe complications and required hospital treatment after they had been circumcised in a private apartment. The immediate question now is that should the doctor who performed the operation be persecuted. Also, there is a discussion on should circumcision of infants and children be made illegal. Some people say that it should, by mostly the same arguments that have been presented in this thread. On the other hand, some say that it would be better to do them in hospital because they will be done in any case. Few hospitals in Finland do them, most don't.

There are only two groups of men who routinely get circumcised in Finland: Jews and Muslims. Before 1990s both groups were very small: at its largest (1929), the Helsinki synagogue had ~1750 members, currently there are ~1300, and the number of Finnish Tatars has been around 1000 for a century or so (both groups were established when Finland was under Russian rule in the 19th century and originally consisted of retired soldiers and their families). Both groups had their own doctors who performed circumcisions and it didn't concern the majority of Finns in any way.

Things started to change in 1990 when the first group of Somali refugees came to Finland, and now there are ~6000 Somalis here. While earlier there might be less than twenty circumcisions in whole Finland annually, the number has now risen to well over a hundred (in addition to Somalis there are also quite many Turkish and Kurdish immigrants). This number is still miniscule when compared to the total number of births in Finland (~50000), it's now large enough that now the common populace has noticed that circumcision happens. A large proportion of the Somali circumcisions is done by men with no real medical training and using traditional methods. One reason for this is the reluctancy of public medical care workers to perform operations that are not strictly necessary. Also, the Somalis are not as closely-knit group as Jews and Tatars are and in general they are quite poor, so they don't have as good access to private doctors as those groups have.

Few days ago our Parliament established a work group to study the issue of circumcision, in particular, should it be legislated in some way or another. It is expected that they take a couple of months to create a recommendation.

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Christian, you keep using the judicial systems of various countries to justify the mutilation of infants. Could you explain how one justifies the other?

Ok, the business of the judicial system (I'm talking here in a holistic sense) is to impart justice. I define justice as *giving each what he or she is entitled to*.

The medical industry is in the health business, physicists are in the *how the world works* business. So, the judicial system is in the *justice* business.

If we want wisdom on medicine, we look at those scientists and their conclusions for it. If in the physics arena, the same.

So, if we want criteria to what is fair or just, we can seek in the judicial system. Of course, no system is perfect, but there is a level of confidence associated with each field according to how mature the field is.

Humans have been in the justice business for a long time, I would say maybe longer than any other field in human endevours.

What does it say to you that at this stage in jurisprudence, there isn't a single State that makes circumcision illegal?

What it tells me is that, when all the elements are examined, the legislators of the world consider that parents are *entitled* to make this choice. Maybe the strongest argument for justice here is the right to privacy.

If you examine your argumentation carefully, it is very similar if not identical to the ones used by the pro-life movement. To them, the protection of the unborn supercedes the right to privacy of the woman. Although not unanimously, most judicial systems in the world have ruled that it is the other way around.

This right to privacy is one of the most sacred protections in most countries. If you outlaw circumcision, you have taken away this right of parents. I don't think it will happen, the implications of this would be enormous.

You see, I respect your right not to circumcise your male children, I also respect your right not to pierce the ear of your female children. But, you are advocating that my right be taken away.

Let me ask you, what is worse, in your opinion, that I pierce the ears of my daughter at birth or that I raise her to be Christian?

If your posts are any indication, I would suspect the latter. So, should I be prohibited from indoctrinating her? Should laws be enacted to protect their minds? Hey, why not let them choose their religion, if any, when they are adults and have full capacity to discern what is right for them to believe?

I hope you see my point.
Megalodon wrote:
No, circumcision is absolutely free for the parents, if they want it done. But the MD's won't get extra money for it, since it's performed in a public hospital.

So my point is, if the medical advantages are so significant, then why isn't the procedure done routinely in Portugal? Would it be that the same MD's that defend the practice so fervorously have some ulterior motives?

I don't know, maybe because most parents feel it is unnecessary. But, I don't know what that has to do with my argumentation.

Well look at it this way. Although it is a barbaric act, the fact that it is so deeply rooted in tradition makes it acceptable by the main population, and most don't even think about it. No one in my family has been cut, so I can say the matter doesn't cross my mind very often.

Fine, if this your explanation, I respect it.

But I'm against any kind of body modification done to a baby, and that includes pierced ears. If circumcision is so good for you, then an adult, or even a teenager can make that decision. I don't think it's up to the parents..

Here is where I totally disagree. I respect your right to choose that view and that position with your children. But, IMHO it would be unjust to impose your view on other parents.

Victor wrote:
how does that give the parents the right to deprive their children of an opportunity to make their own choice about their own bodies?

Parents have the right to deprive their children of many opportunities to make their own choice about their own bodies. Tattoos come to mind. And not only parents do, but the State as well, a child can't drink alcohol or smoke and most are required to take virus shots if they want to go to a particular school, even if the risk of the disease is almost non-existant. Oh and don't forget some children can die of a reaction to these shots, they are still mandatory.

NullPointerException wrote:
I'm more upset about the way society treats children. Until humans reach the age of 18 they aren't part of society. Unless you kill someone, at which point you're tried as an adult. Either way, it's a perverse and ridiculous double standard.

Aren't you glad that children can't drink or smoke? Isn't it a good thing that adults can't have sex with minors? Isn't a good thing that children are not allowed to watch violence (without parental supervision)?

[Smalso]

Of course, no system is perfect

Bingo.

If you examine your argumentation carefully, it is very similar if not identical to the ones used by the pro-life movement. To them, the protection of the unborn supercedes the right to privacy of the woman. Although not unanimously, most judicial systems in the world have ruled that it is the other way around.

Strawman. One is a mass of cells, the other is a human being.

This right to privacy is one of the most sacred protections in most countries. If you outlaw circumcision, you have taken away this right of parents. I don't think it will happen, the implications of this would be enormous.

What about the right of a child not to be abused or mutilated?

You see, I respect your right not to circumcise your male children, I also respect your right not to pierce the ear of your female children. But, you are advocating that my right be taken away.

No, I am advocating the right of the child not to be mutilated. You, as a parent have no such right, so I am not advocating that any right be taken from you.

Let me ask you, what is worse, in your opinion, that I pierce the ears of my daughter at birth or that I raise her to be Christian?

Strawman. One has nothing to do with the other.

If your posts are any indication, I would suspect the latter.

Please don't read more into my posts than is actually there.

Hey, why not let them choose their religion, if any, when they are adults and have full capacity to discern what is right for them to believe?

Yeah, why not? It worked for me and my children as well.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christan,

You are comitting naturalistic fallacy; you use how things are as a stand-in for how things ought to be. Just because circumcision isn't illegal, doesn't mean that it's not unethical (ethical is all about "ought" rather than "is"). Similarly, your comparison with anti-choice protesters is worth considering -- but you must understand that the question of what ought to be done about abortions, is distinct from the question of what is legal.

The normative ("oughtness"-related) argument has to be won on its own merits. Anti-choicers aren't wrong because abortions are legal, they are wrong because their arguments are unethical; they are wrong because they lose the ethical argument, not because they already lost the legal argument.

So, you harping on the fact that circumcision is universally legal, says exactly nothing about whether it's ethical or not. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. You have to understand this.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Kodiak

how does that give the parents the right to deprive their children of an opportunity to make their own choice about their own bodies?

An infant is incapable of making a choice. The parents, using their own judgement, act on their behalf. Parents do that on a nearly constant basis well into the child's teenage years.

[Denise]

People circumcise their children to conform to their culture. Period. There is no other reason to really do it. People were circumcising boys before there were any medical studies to support it or to show no support for it. Circumcision (to me) is the foot binding of our time.

I really believe that if circumcision was unknown to the world, and if the practice just started in the last decade, that most of us on this forum would think that it's barbaric. I realize that it's an uncomfortable issue for a lot of people to talk about.

There is no compelling medical reason to circumcise a child in infancy. None.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Denise
People circumcise their children to conform to their culture. Period. There is no other reason to really do it. People were circumcising boys before there were any medical studies to support it or to show no support for it. Circumcision (to me) is the foot binding of our time.

I really believe that if circumcision was unknown to the world, and if the practice just started in the last decade, that most of us on this forum would think that it's barbaric. I realize that it's an uncomfortable issue for a lot of people to talk about.

There is no compelling medical reason to circumcise a child in infancy. None.

Circumcision = foot binding?!?

A minor surgical procedure adult men no longer have memory of = a lifetime of crippling deformity and excruciating pain?!?

I still don't know what the big deal is.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Circumcision = foot binding?!?

A minor surgical procedure adult men no longer have memory of = a lifetime of crippling deformity and excruciating pain?!?

I still don't know what the big deal is.

You don't know what the big deal is because your parents had it done to you and your father's parents had it done to him. It is viewed as no big deal because people don't really talk about it. To me- it's kind of like 99 percent of people stay in the religion they were raised in- ok not sure of the statistic there and no I don't have a citation.

I see you don't like the equation with foot binding. How about the ethnic group that wraps their kids heads so that they are deformed because it is their ideal of beauty. Clearly, the children are not harmed. But it is irreversable.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Denise


You don't know what the big deal is because your parents had it done to you and your father's parents had it done to him. It is viewed as no big deal because people don't really talk about it. To me- it's kind of like 99 percent of people stay in the religion they were raised in- ok not sure of the statistic there and no I don't have a citation.

I see you don't like the equation with foot binding. How about the ethnic group that wraps their kids heads so that they are deformed because it is their ideal of beauty. Clearly, the children are not harmed. But it is irreversable.

As a matter of fact, my father, as well as all of my uncles on both sides (8 total), are uncircumcised! I don't know about my myriad male cousins...

The foot binding comparison was clearly inaccurate.

As far as your mentioning of head wrapping, you could have also mentioned the wearing of neck rings and lip disks...even tattooing. While western culture certainly does not employ these practices on their young, I'm often reluctant to judge a culture from the outside.

After all, it's pretty traumatic getting your head dipped in cold water when you're 6 months old...how do we know he or she didn't want to become a Rastafarian or a Zoroastrian? ;)

[Denise]

Originally posted by Kodiak


As a matter of fact, my father, as well as all of my uncles on both sides (8 total), are uncircumcised! I don't know about my myriad male cousins...

The foot binding comparison was clearly inaccurate.

As far as your mentioning of head wrapping, you could have also mentioned the wearing of neck rings and lip disks...even tattooing. While western culture certainly does not employ these practices on their young, I'm often reluctant to judge a culture from the outside.

After all, it's pretty traumatic getting your head dipped in cold water when you're 6 months old...how do we know he or she didn't want to become a Rastafarian or a Zoroastrian? ;)

I was incorrect in my assumption. Sorry. Why did your parents have you circumcised?

I don't think the foot binding comparison was inaccurate. I was trying to point out that it was a way of identifying with their group same as circumcision. I think circumcision is just as silly as the lip disks, ear disks, etc.

Having a child's head dipped in water in no way changes them physically for the rest of their life like circumcision.

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
Strawman. One is a mass of cells, the other is a human being.

I'm sorry, it is not a strawman, I didn't say you hold this position.

What about the right of a child not to be abused or mutilated?

Well, it is not considered abuse.

No, I am advocating the right of the child not to be mutilated. You, as a parent have no such right, so I am not advocating that any right be taken from you.

But, this is where you are wrong. Parents have this right and countless exercise it every year.

Strawman. One has nothing to do with the other.

How can there be a strawman in a quetion of camparison?

Please don't read more into my posts than is actually there.

That is exactly why I suspect it, your posts clearly indicate that Christianity is a negative thing to teach children. If I'm wrong, please correct me unequivocally.

Yeah, why not? It worked for me and my children as well.

Because a comment like this clearly indicates I'm suspecting right.

Victor wrote:
You are comitting naturalistic fallacy; you use how things are as a stand-in for how things ought to be. Just because circumcision isn't illegal, doesn't mean that it's not unethical (ethical is all about "ought" rather than "is").

No, it clearly does not. But it is clear indication that (it is correct use of a reference to authority) that it is not. It is evidence that it is not unethical. That you consider it to be, does not make it so, either.

Please explain why your ethical standard is superior. What is the basis for it? Just because you believe to be barbaric or unethical does not make it so?

How do I support my contention that is not barbaric or unethical, I using an appeal to authority saying that no judicial system in the world comes to that conclusion. Hey, it's find if that is not convincing for you, in this types of subjects, I don't think there would be anything that would change anybody's mind.

Similarly, your comparison with anti-choice protesters is worth considering -- but you must understand that the question of what ought to be done about abortions, is distinct from the question of what is legal.

Victor, laws are enacted with purpose of syncronizing what is from what ought to be. Yes, many do not fulfill it, but more and more (and as civilization advances), the judicial system carries out it's purpose quiet well.

The normative ("oughtness"-related) argument has to be won on its own merits. Anti-choicers aren't wrong because abortions are legal, they are wrong because their arguments are unethical; they are wrong because they lose the ethical argument, not because they already lost the legal argument.

Yes, but the best way to understand that the argument has been lost is through the legal system. All ethical arguments are just that until the justice system picks it up and rules on it.

So, you harping on the fact that circumcision is universally legal, says exactly nothing about whether it's ethical or not. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zero. You have to understand this.

I don't agree. It shows me evidence that it is. Remember the whole British and US system of *justice* is based precisely on the premise you are denying. Common law is used by judges to determine what is fair, how to proceed.

And common law is nothing but looking at how things have been resolved in the past and what the reasoning of the ruling was. Once, it has been establish that it is *common* to rule this way, judges consider to have legal precedents and justification for their ruling.

My argument is exactly like that. I'm saying, based on precedents and universal rule of law, circumcision is not barbaric or unethical.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Denise
I was incorrect in my assumption. Sorry. Why did your parents have you circumcised?

I don't know...I'll ask them tonight and let you know tomorrow.

Originally posted by Denise
I don't think the foot binding comparison was inaccurate. I was trying to point out that it was a way of identifying with their group same as circumcision. I think circumcision is just as silly as the lip disks, ear disks, etc.

The comparison is valid, then, in the limited scope you mentioned.

Originally posted by Denise
Having a child's head dipped in water in no way changes them physically for the rest of their life like circumcision.

I know...that's why I added the "smiley-wink"! :)

[dingler44]

I hear some people saying that because they don't think circumcision is harmless, let it continue.

This rationale is absurd.

There should have been a reason for the circumcision in the first place, shouldn't there? I see no compelling reason to use circumcision and therefore, I say, let it NOT continue.

But I definitely don't believe the government should regulate it. Just let people decide for themselves. If there are no benefits to circumcision, eventually people will stop using it.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Christian

Please explain why your ethical standard is superior. What is the basis for it? Just because you believe to be barbaric or unethical does not make it so?Ah, here comes the cool part.

i don't judge circumcision solely by my personal ethical standard. rather, I take the principles we all (I hope) accept -- basic humanistic ethics -- and show how these principled are contradicted by circumcision; which is to say, the sole reason you don't consider circumcision unethical is because your ethical belief system contains an explicit exception; 'other reasons notwithstanding, infant circumcision isn't unethical'.

In short, what is being done here is the demonstration of circumcision's unethicality by others' standard, not by my -- and I certainly hope your ethics is among those others, prohibiting arbitrary infant mutilation (except when it comes to circumcision, you see).

The situation here is kinda like coming up to someone who is a skeptic in all other respects but believed JE, and saying; "See, your believing JE is irrational by the very standards you hold, and you think otherwise simply because you don't apply those standards to JE"

Now it is possible that you sincerely believe that "legal" implies "ethical"; but if so, you are a very, very bad person.

Victor, laws are enacted with purpose of syncronizing what is from what ought to be.No, it's not. A law is enacted with the purpose of creating a certain social environment. Laws are enacted in sync with ethical beliefs only in countries which have moral-police-type of thing; otherwise, helping little old ladies across the street would have been a law.

All ethical arguments are just that until the justice system picks it up and rules on it.Justice system does not rule on ethical arguments at all. it rules on legal arguments. legislature might take some ethical arguments into account -- but only some.

I don't agree. It shows me evidence that it is. Remember the whole British and US system of *justice* is based precisely on the premise you are denying.That's simply wrong. Enacting ethics is not the purpose of the Roman legal system (on which US and british legal systems are based).

My argument is exactly like that. I'm saying, based on precedents and universal rule of law, circumcision is not barbaric or unethical. No. All you are showing is that circumcision wasn't considered barbariuc and unethical by enough people in the past. Well, neither was slavery or gender inequality.

[Smalso]

I think back to a program I saw on TLC or some such about ancient Troy, where it was the custom to drown infant girls. They wanted boys so that they could grow into warriors. Males who were physically deformed were killed, too. Enough girls were spared for breeding purposes. This was sanctioned by law and custom. Since it was legal, I must assume that it was also ethical and moral. Ditto for the Nazi practice of sterilization and elimination of certain races, the mentally incompetent and other undesirables. These actions were permitted--even mandated--by the laws in force at the time. Now, if the government throught the justice system can grant the power to mutilate children to parents, surely the government itself has the power to perform the act. Christian's reasoning about the power of the government to sanction brutality towards children is not only warped, but also scary.

I fathered four boys. None of them were circumcised. None of them were brainwashed in any religious teachings. Each was allowed to make up his own mind about what to believe or not believe. The oldest is now 40 and the youngest is 24. Two of them practice a denomination of the Christian faith--although one is not realy active in it--one is an avowed atheist, and one does not discuss his beliefs. (None of their male children were circumcised.)

[Tesserat]

Christian;

If I wanted to clip a quarter inch off of each of my new born child's ears, would you say I had a right to do so?

It would not impare the baby's hearing, and they wouldn't remember the pain after they had grown up.

If you agree that I do have the right, is there any point at which you would draw the line? Or would what you think is right only depend on what is legal at the time?

[Victor Danilchenko]

Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you circumcized my father, prepare to die! :)

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
i don't judge circumcision solely by my personal ethical standard. rather, I take the principles we all (I hope) accept -- basic humanistic ethics -- and show how these principled are contradicted by circumcision;

Principles we all accept? Humanistic ethics? I'm not sure you are aware of the definition of ethics. Remember, ethics is exactly like judicial laws, only judicial laws have a distinct quality no other set of *norms* possess. Ethics is a system of norms, exactly like the body of judicial laws (not content but form). They are exactly the same animal: *norms* (rules, if you prefer).

From a clearly, secular perspective (this is the only one you have available to you) you need to show me the source of these these norms. In other words, who got together and said this is ethical and this is not. If you believe that, these are universal principles that humans have discovered, then you got a problem.

the sole reason you don't consider circumcision unethical is because your ethical belief system contains an explicit exception; 'other reasons notwithstanding, infant circumcision isn't unethical'.

Ok, you are saying, look at the characteristics of action A, then look at the characteristics of action B. You will see that they hold the same qualities. So, if you consider A to be unethical, you must consider B to be. Is this your reasoning?

On that argument, I clearly see flaws.

In short, what is being done here is the demonstration of circumcision's unethicality by others' standard, not by my -- and I certainly hope your ethics is among those others, prohibiting arbitrary infant mutilation (except when it comes to circumcision, you see). The situation here is kinda like coming up to someone who is a skeptic in all other respects but believed JE, and saying; "See, your believing JE is irrational by the very standards you hold, and you think otherwise simply because you don't apply those standards to JE"

Yes, I guess that is what your argument is. It obvious, of course that I don't agree that A=B.

Now it is possible that you sincerely believe that "legal" implies "ethical"; but if so, you are a very, very bad person.

No, it does not imply it, as it would not mean that I think cats implies dogs because I say both are mammals.

No, it's not. A law is enacted with the purpose of creating a certain social environment. Laws are enacted in sync with ethical beliefs only in countries which have moral-police-type of thing; otherwise, helping little old ladies across the street would have been a law.

Victor, the *what is* and the *what ought to be* is clearly what laws are all about. Maybe a little help here with definitions. Law=norm=rule of conduct. So, the State passes a rule of conduct so that you and I act (or not act) like we ought to act.

All system of norms whether judicial or ethical want to be in sync with the highest value of all norm systems: what is good. In the case of these two systems, what is the common good.

Ethical belief to not have to pass through the rigourous test of heteromony. This is why, you can trumpet yours to be superior. Your autonomy in choosing them allows you the comfort of self regulation.

Not the case with legal norms. They must pass the test of heteronomy which is a much higher standard. Why isn't helping an old lady across the street mandatory, because the right to choose to do it above it. These are the kinds of considerations legislators and judges have to make constantly, trying to attain to the highest level of justice.

Justice system does not rule on ethical arguments at all. it rules on legal arguments. legislature might take some ethical arguments into account -- but only some.

I have no idea what you are saying here. With the expression, *it rules on legal arguments*, what do you mean? Do you understand the process of formation of the law, in modern times? Do you understand why a law can be *unconstitutional* and why that is so important.

Are you sure how ethics are formed? Do you understand that (and this is the only option you have) it is body of laws too created in a similar way as judicial norms?

That's simply wrong. Enacting ethics is not the purpose of the Roman legal system (on which US and british legal systems are based).

You are factually mistaken, US and British law are not based on Roman law (by the way, my country *is* based on codified law). US is and British law are based on *Common Law*

Common Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09068a.htm)

No. All you are showing is that circumcision wasn't considered barbariuc and unethical by enough people in the past. Well, neither was slavery or gender inequality.

No, Victor, not the past. *Today* all judicial systems of the world consider circumcision not to be barbaric or unethical.

Oh, just to get this straight. It is unethical to force anyone to help old ladies across the street.

Smalso wrote:
Christian's reasoning about the power of the government to sanction brutality towards children is not only warped, but also scary.

I'm not advocating anything, or reasoning that the States should sanction brutality towards children. By the way, that *is* a strawman. I'm stating a *fact*: no State in the world currently holds circumcision to be barbaric or brutal (now you have added brutal).

None of them were brainwashed in any religious teachings.

So, I guess I was right.

Tesserat wrote:
If I wanted to clip a quarter inch off of each of my new born child's ears, would you say I had a right to do so?

It doesn't matter what I think. You don't, nor do I.

If you agree that I do have the right, is there any point at which you would draw the line?

Everybody, without exception must obey an objective line (judicial norm) as opposed to subjective one (ethical norms). This is a good thing. Imagine if each decided based on his or her own subjective line.

Or would what you think is right only depend on what is legal at the time?

This is where semantics gets in the way (confuses things). Let me repeat it.

TO SAY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS TO SAY I THINK IT IS RIGHT TO DO THIS.

The first is an observation of a objective condition, the second of subjective valuation.

I'm sorry about the caps, they are only as to make the text standout, (no shouting or emotion there)

So, to answer your question, I think most legal things today are the right thing to do and most importantly most illegal things to do are the wrong thing to do. I find very few exceptions.

Now, I think most everyone believes that the legal standard is a minimun level in terms of good. In that respect, I have a higher standard for doing.

With respect to the bad, I think the legal has most of it down. Some would argue that the bar is set really high in some Western Countries, some would argue not.

My obligation is to understand what is not allowed and adjust my behavior accordingly, even if I don't agree with it. (this pertains to prohibitions in the law.)

Victor wrote:
Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you circumcized my father, prepare to die!

That sound really funny, did you intend the twist? ( of young guy fighting a really old guy):D

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Christian
My obligation is to understand what is not allowed and adjust my behavior accordingly, even if I don't agree with it. (this pertains to prohibitions in the law.)
Is it ever correct to disobey a particular law? How are we to judge when a law is wrong and in need of change?

[Denise]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Is it ever correct to disobey a particular law? How are we to judge when a law is wrong and in need of change?

Of course not, render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Yep, obey, obey.

[Smalso]

There is no law in the United States or any other country that I know of that reqiures the circumcision of male infants. It is, or seems to be, Christian's position that, since it is not specifically prohibited by law, this form of mutilation should be accepted and practiced if a parent wants it and that a parent has the right to direct this unnecessary medical procedure to be preformed. I disagree.

[Christian]

DrBenway wrote:
Is it ever correct to disobey a particular law?

Yes, when it clearly goes against universally accepted human rights.

Where can I read about this universal accepted rights? They are in here:

You, see some people might be under the illusion that they have no UN Proclamation (http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html)

I want you to consider this. Most constitutions contain (in their dogmatic section) a version (in some almost identical) of this proclamation. This means that the highest law of most countries uphold them and no secondary law can violate it.

So, when people say that laws are not ethical or that laws have nothing to do with principle, is because they have absolutely no idea of the evolution in this field and don't know very much about jurisprudence.

Constitutional law garantees the most fundamental of human rights. And it contains the most fundamental principles for humans to follow. If there is something to admire in human progression, it is this understanding of what is just, what is worthy.

How are we to judge when a law is wrong and in need of change?

If it goes against Constitutional principles, it is wrong.


Ok, I know what is coming. Many may argue that circumcision violates constitutional principles. That is a case to be made. Do I have the definitive answer on that, of course not. What I do know is that all countries who have constitutions that share the principles of the proclamation do not think so. To me that is strong evidence that it does not violate these principles. It supports my personal view.

Yes, this does not precude that my view and the world's is wrong, but I gives me piece of mind that my view has this intellectual support.

Denise wrote:
Of course not, render unto Caesar what is Caesars. Yep, obey, obey.

It is called *the rule of law*. The alternative is anarchy. I would not like to live in a world where people can arbitrarily decide which laws to obey.

[Christian]

Smalso wrote:
It is, or seems to be, Christian's position that, since it is not specifically prohibited by law, this form of mutilation should be accepted and practiced if a parent wants it and that a parent has the right to direct this unnecessary medical procedure to be preformed. I disagree.

Smalso, you have clearly put forth a principle in jurisprudence. I didn't invent it, it has a long history. The principle is:

What is not specifically prohibited by law, you are absolutely free to do.

It is not my position, it is legal fact.

[Tmy]

Well it is illeagle to mutilate your kids. Do you think you could file a child abuse complaint with Protective Services if you knew someone who was going to circumsize their child?


Funny how more people will show more outrage for parents 'forcing" kids into playing sports or beauty pagents, but slicing a kids penis is just fine.

[DrBenway]

From the UN document:

Article 17 sec 2: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

One could argue that a child's body is his property. Thus, his property ought not be irreparably altered without his consent.

You argue that if infant circumcision were in conflict with principles of human rights, more governments would oppose it. This is an appeal to popularity, not a rational argument.

[Christian]

Tmy wrote:
Well it is illeagle to mutilate your kids. Do you think you could file a child abuse complaint with Protective Services if you knew someone who was going to circumsize their child?

Yes, I could.


DrBenway wrote:
Article 17 sec 2: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

One could argue that a child's body is his property. Thus, his property ought not be irreparably altered without his consent.

You argue that if infant circumcision were in conflict with principles of human rights, more governments would oppose it. This is an appeal to popularity, not a rational argument.

Property, I don't think that is the route. Listen, if you want to see heavy hitters taking a crack at the legal issue. Take a look at the links provided.

You will find most of the legal arguments against circumcision. After reading the material, you will see that legislators and courts have had ample argumentation on this.

And don't forget that, even with all those arguments, circumcision remains legal.

Circumcision: Legal and Constitutional Issues (http://www.nocirc.org/legal/bonner2.html)

CIRCUMCISION AS CHILD ABUSE (http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/brigman/)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Christian
And don't forget that, even with all those arguments, circumcision remains legal.
I doubt it will remain legal forever. People are becoming more aware of the fact that infant circumcision isn't medically necessary, and has some serious, albeit rare, risks.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Christian
Smalso wrote:
It is, or seems to be, Christian's position that, since it is not specifically prohibited by law, this form of mutilation should be accepted and practiced if a parent wants it and that a parent has the right to direct this unnecessary medical procedure to be preformed. I disagree.

Smalso, you have clearly put forth a principle in jurisprudence. I didn't invent it, it has a long history. The principle is:

What is not specifically prohibited by law, you are absolutely free to do.

It is not my position, it is legal fact.

Child abuse is prohibited by law; mutilation of an infant's genitals is child abuse. I know you don't agree. Mutilations of many types are permitted by custom and the law is slow to catch up. That is no justification for parents intentionally to mutilate their children.

I think that by now I understand both positions, pro and con. I persist in my opinion that nobody is going to change anybody's mind and I feel that further debate is useless; therefore, this is really my last post on this topic.