Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[ppp]

If you feel circumcision is wrong without consent, do you also feel that way for the Jewish people? Their religion demands that they do this, right? Is it wrong for a Jewish person to circumcise their baby?

Yes. It is wrong to circumcise a baby irrespective of its genitals, or the religion of its parents.
It is also wrong for doctors or parents to decide the sex or gender of an intersex baby.

 

[ppp]

And this is just a medical procedure with little consequence.

If it is of little consequence, then don't do it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I meant of old. Not necessarily currently.

So then that would be "no, they didn't have antibiotics."

... so even though we're talking about an era where even routine infections could be life-threatening, you think that unnecessary cosmetic surgery is the healthiest option?

Discussing how/why it was and maybe still thought to be important. (Cleanliness is often referenced by both parents and doctors as a valid reason)

You go ahead and find even one doctor who says that parents who can't handle basic hygiene for their baby should be trusted with post-op wound care.

 

[fantome profane]

So is the issue really that it can be OK to perform medically
unnecessary genital modification on infant males, but it's
always wrong on females?

I did not say it was ok. I understand your confusion, it is difficult to make a nuanced argument, and even more difficult to understand one. I said it was wrong. In the poll I selected “always wrong”. And that is what I believe.

But somethings and not as simple as they seem.


I am sure you still misunderstand me, but I don’t know what more to say.

 

[Wildswanderer]

If it is of little consequence, then don't do it.

I had it done to me... it never affected my life negativity. Obviously I didn't know about it until much later. No little kid gets to decide what medical procedure they need. If they did most would opt out of needed surgeries.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Those who are circumcised are often circumcised when they are just a few days old, like me. Can an 8 day old baby consent to such a procedure? Of course not.

Its not a big deal. Even if we could theoretically replace the parents ourselves we would not, so its silly to say that we actually care about someone's baby enough to have a say in the matter. Its simply not a big enough issue to threaten to replace the parents, which is essentially what we are talking about.

Secondly 'Consent' is and always has been a shaky basis for saying when something should or shouldn't be done to children (or animals either). Its an attempt to get around setting moral rules, but its just another arbitrary moral rule. Consent is a weak basis for almost any sort of question about children.

The question is not "Has the child consented?" but "Is this so harmful that we should take the parents away?" It isn't harmful enough to make a law over.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I think a lot of us gentile americans were, when were born in the 80's, from what I read. For me, no explanation ever given, no realization until way later, I guess its just one of those many anomalies of variation in existence, that go unexplained. I don't have a real view on it

 

[Revoltingest]

I did not say it was ok. I understand your confusion, it is difficult to make a nuanced argument, and even more difficult to understand one. I said it was wrong. In the poll I selected “always wrong”. And that is what I believe.

But somethings and not as simple as they seem.


I am sure you still misunderstand me, but I don’t know what more to say.

I wasn't asking about you, but rather the weak
public consensus....which appears to be sexist,
Jewish oriented, & just plain cultural inertia.
As for your position, it seems clear & reasonable.
(I'm more strict in banning all such surgery in USA.)

 

[The Hammer]

So then that would be "no, they didn't have antibiotics."

... so even though we're talking about an era where even routine infections could be life-threatening, you think that unnecessary cosmetic surgery is the healthiest option?


You go ahead and find even one doctor who says that parents who can't handle basic hygiene for their baby should be trusted with post-op wound care.

You'll see I voted idk.

I don't have a stance here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I feel like Moses had some reservations about circumcision. He didn’t circumcise his kids, even at the threat of God killing him. It was his wife who cut the foreskins off their sons when God was chasing them.

Maybe Moses was smart enough to know that if God didn't like the penis that He created, He wouldn't have created it that way. He certainly doesn't demand that you alter any (and I mean ANY) other part of the anatomy of your children.

If the plan was to be a "sign that you are in the covenant," there are a lot of easier ways to do that. A little ink and an infant footprint ought to do it, don't you think?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

So you can terminate someone who depends on you for survival but can not remove a tiny bit of skin from someone else who also depends on you for survival? Nope, that's not making sense to me.

Yes, similarly to how, even if you caused a near fatal collision with someone that put their child in mortal jeopardy, hospital or police could not so much as force you to give them blood. Your medical consent trumps their need.

But if you're not compromising body autonomy of another person, then the child's body autonomy comes second. And I'd even go so far as to not let parents do much less invasive surgeries for cosmetic reasons, such as ear piercing and tattoos.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It did. It meant that you were permanently missing your foreskin. Obviously you are not aware of the loss of sensitivity you have suffered because you have never experienced the full-fat version, so in that respect it is relative.
It also makes masturbation more difficult and less pleasurable (which was likely the intended purpose).

While I agree that this is a procedure that an individual should decide for themselves whether or not to get - and that if that were the case I suspect that virtually no one would willingly go through with it - I don't think you can jump to the conclusions that you have.

It's true that since I've been circumcised since birth that means that I'm not aware of what I might be missing. But that also holds true for anyone who has not been circumcised. Unless you've had the procedure you can't know for certain that masturbation is more difficult or in any way less pleasurable. There may in fact be certain benefits to being a little less sensitive, in that it increases endurance which might just lead to more intense and pleasurable orgasms. I'm not claiming that it definitely does, just that it's impossible to know for certain since everyone only has their own personal experience to go by.

 

[nPeace]

Those who are circumcised are often circumcised when they are just a few days old, like me. Can an 8 day old baby consent to such a procedure? Of course not.
In the Protestant church my parents were going to when I was born, it was common practice for the Christians there to circumcise their children. So that’s what my mom did. We aren’t Jewish. It’s not required of us Christians. When I realized I was circumcised (whilst in high school) I was quite quite mad.
Circumcision has permanent effects on the male who is at the receiving end. At the very least shouldn’t they get a say in it? Imagine if a female got an equivalent to a male circumcision. That would F up their capacity to be intimate at least in some degree.
If you feel circumcision is wrong without consent, do you also feel that way for the Jewish people? Their religion demands that they do this, right? Is it wrong for a Jewish person to circumcise their baby?
I feel like Moses had some reservations about circumcision. He didn’t circumcise his kids, even at the threat of God killing him. It was his wife who cut the foreskins off their sons when God was chasing them.

Is circumcision wrong? If yes, then it is wrong, period, just like it is wrong to have sexual intercourse with anyone without consent.
If circumcision is not wrong, then no. Just as it is not wrong to pierce ones daughter's ears without consent... Or is that wrong.
Did I just open a can of worms.

 

[nPeace]

I think putting off circumcision until old enough for the child to decide would be rather uncomfortable the older one gets. Our son was circumcised at 4days. As one gets older there are health benefits.

Thank you.
The eighth day is the ideal time.
...scientists found that before the 8th day, the baby doesn’t have enough vitamin K to seal a cut. On the 8th day, however, vitamin K surges to a maximum 110%! This never happens again throughout the entire life of a human. Only on the 8th day does a baby boy get an extra 10% vitamin K!

The instruction Moses got, came from one whose wisdom surpasses any creature alive. That's why the Bible has the eighth day recorded, and not the seventh. It's no coincidence.
(Leviticus 12:3) On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin will be circumcised.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I wasn't asking about you, but rather the weak
public consensus....which appears to be sexist,
Jewish oriented, & just plain cultural inertia.
As for your position, it seems clear & reasonable.
(I'm more strict in banning all such surgery in USA.)

Male circumcision is far different from FGM. It's still unnecessary and, in my opinion, should be banned except for consenting adults, but millions of men live normally even after circumcision, unlike what FGM often does to women.

By the way, this is my opinion as a circumcised male.

 

[fantome profane]

Thank you.
The eighth day is the ideal time.
...scientists found that before the 8th day, the baby doesn’t have enough vitamin K to seal a cut. On the 8th day, however, vitamin K surges to a maximum 110%! This never happens again throughout the entire life of a human. Only on the 8th day does a baby boy get an extra 10% vitamin K!

The instruction Moses got, came from one whose wisdom surpasses any creature alive. That's why the Bible has the eighth day recorded, and not the seventh. It's no coincidence.
(Leviticus 12:3) On the eighth day, the flesh of his foreskin will be circumcised.

This Wordpress blog you quoted provides no footnotes, no reference, nothing for us to check out. I have no idea if this vitamin K claim is true or not.

I could make a blog on Wordpress and tell you than in 1975 a group of biologists from Harvard proved that little boys are actually made from snips and snails and puppy dog tails.

 

[nPeace]

This Wordpress blog you quoted provides no footnotes, no reference, nothing for us to check out. I have no idea if this vitamin K claim is true or not.

I could make a blog on Wordpress and tell you than in 1975 a group of biologists from Harvard proved that little boys are actually made from snips and snails and puppy dog tails.

I just picked that, but a quick google will confirm the article.

 

[fantome profane]

I just picked that, but a quick google will confirm the article.

Well if you want to provide one that has a valid scientist peer reviewed article feel free to do so.

I am not claiming it is false, it could be true as far as I know. But I need more than just “some guy on the internet said it”.

 

[nPeace]

Well if you want to provide one that has a valid scientist peer reviewed article feel free to do so.

I am not claiming it is false, it could be true as far as I know. But I need more than just “some guy on the internet said it”.

Are you able to get a copy of Dr. S. I. McMillen's "None of These Diseases"?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand your point. Which is why I concluded there isn't a right answer IMO.

The only right answer is circumcising infants (or any permanent body modification that isn't medically necessary) is always wrong.