Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[Aquitaine]

That was weazled around and ignored.I think someone said "there is a difference in cutting "the clitoris off" and the foreskin of a penis.When i clarified not all just a "piece" there was no response..Not only that as I mentioned what if we found some benefits to not having as "much' labia ?Should we start trimming that off too?And just because we like the way it looks better ??????????????????

The funny thing is, that the clitoral hood essentially is the female foreskin.

 

[DallasApple]

The funny thing is, that the clitoral hood essentially is the female foreskin.

Hmm...I wonder if it would look better with it whacked off?

 

[Aquitaine]

Hmm...I wonder if it would look better with it whacked off?

Possibly, it could even have the same "benefits" as male circumcision!

 

[Curious George]

The entire point in asking would be in CONTRAST to experiencing life (including sex) as in tact.

So, circumcised at birth opinions are irrelevant, always intact opinions are irrelevant and I am guessing those without penises opinions are irrelevant all because of lacking the others experience .... hmm I disagree.

 

[Curious George]

Possibly, it could even have the same "benefits" as male circumcision!

Fail to see your point. If cutting of the clitoral Hood was a "zero sum" medical procedure that promoted easier cleaning, aesthetic value, and parents really wanted it done, I sure wouldn't stand in their way. Because I would have to have a reason to stay their choice.

Simply repeating over and over that it is mutilation is not valid. The only rational argument against circumcision, unless the medical data becomes more weighted, is that the child cannot consent to a permanent body modification.

And while this argument may be rational, the body modification does not cause significant issue at a rate even close to the parade of acceptable choices which parents make in the first year of the child's life, yet I see no call to arms there.

I think that you might be right about the obsession with the penis. People opposing circumcision have so many more options of parental choices, negatively affecting the lives of children, to oppose besides circumcision. Yet they seem preoccupied with a zero sum parental choice despite real children and real suffering elsewhere.

 

[DallasApple]

So, circumcised at birth opinions are irrelevant, always intact opinions are irrelevant and I am guessing those without penises opinions are irrelevant all because of lacking the others experience .... hmm I disagree.

Never mind.

 

[DallasApple]

Fail to see your point. If cutting of the clitoral Hood was a "zero sum" medical procedure that promoted easier cleaning, aesthetic value, and parents really wanted it done, I sure wouldn't stand in their way. Because I would have to have a reason to stay their choice.

I would never want you to be my parent.

 

[Aquitaine]

Fail to see your point. If cutting of the clitoral Hood was a "zero sum" medical procedure that promoted easier cleaning, aesthetic value, and parents really wanted it done, I sure wouldn't stand in their way. Because I would have to have a reason to stay their choice.

Easier cleaning? Wow, so essentially for convenience.....

Aesthetic value? Totally subjective.....

Parents really wanted it done? Tough titty, not their body.

We've got to ask ourselves why would the parents really really want it done, and for as long as circumcision has been around, it has generally been religious/cultural ritual, nothing more. Not including genuine medical reasons of course.

I'd rather keep my foreskin intact (which is an erogenous zone BTW) rather than having my parents think it looks "cooler".

Simply repeating over and over that it is mutilation is not valid. The only rational argument against circumcision, unless the medical data becomes more weighted, is that the child cannot consent to a permanent body modification.

I'm not "just repeating over and over that it's circumcision". I'm giving my reasons for why I think it's basically a redundant practice, unless there is a genuine medical necessity.

And while this argument may be rational, the body modification does not cause significant issue at a rate even close to the parade of acceptable choices which parents make in the first year of the child's life, yet I see no call to arms there.

It's generally a good idea to reduce the total amount of unnecessary practices, even if it's done on a one-by-one basis.

I think that you might be right about the obsession with the penis. People opposing circumcision have so many more options of parental choices, negatively affecting the lives of children, to oppose besides circumcision. Yet they seem preoccupied with a zero sum parental choice despite real children and real suffering elsewhere.

The topic of this thread is circumcision, hence why we're all focusing primarily on it. Just because there may be "worse stuff" out there doesn't mean we have to ignore this. As I said, it's about reducing the total amount of unnecessary practices.

 

[Curious George]

Easier cleaning? Wow, so essentially for convenience.....

Aesthetic value? Totally subjective.....

Parents really wanted it done? Tough titty, not their body.

We've got to ask ourselves why would the parents really really want it done, and for as long as circumcision has been around, it has generally been religious/cultural ritual, nothing more. Not including genuine medical reasons of course.

I'd rather keep my foreskin intact (which is an erogenous zone BTW) rather than having my parents think it looks "cooler".

I'm not "just repeating over and over that it's circumcision". I'm giving my reasons for why I think it's basically a redundant practice, unless there is a genuine medical necessity.

It's generally a good idea to reduce the total amount of unnecessary practices, even if it's done on a one-by-one basis.

The topic of this thread is circumcision, hence why we're all focusing primarily on it. Just because there may be "worse stuff" out there doesn't mean we have to ignore this. As I said, it's about reducing the total amount of unnecessary practices.

Yep, convenience and subjective aesthetics. We can add to look like dad, and religious reasons too. And your reason- it's not necessary and its not their body. Well, its not your kid. So unless you are going to have to have a better reason. You cannot make choices for parents based on its not necessary and its not the parents body. Finally just to let you know, you are up against the freedom of religion as well, since not only do you just want to make a decision for parents, you want to prevent a select group from exercising their first amendment right. So, to tell parents this, you are going to need some serious evidence. Have you read the studies? so many pro so many against. You yourself called it zero-sum. Look around the world, how many countries currently ban circumcision? Unless you have some factoid hidden in your back pocket you are going to have to file it away with the rest of the "I don't like it when parents..." cards. Because you have no legal standing. Doctors can challenge it (Didn't we have one that was attacking the practice?) Doctors. Can report parents (they are actually mandated reporters) that believe parents are making harmful or negligent medical decisions. I wonder how many families our doctor reported. I wonder how many families doctors report each year. I am guessing few if not none. Why? Because despite using tough words like mutilation and abuse, they know that it's really not abuse. The issue is ethical: consent. And when it comes to kids it is not your ethics, or my ethics, or even the doctors ethics if the child is not being harmed, it's the parents ethics that matter.

 

[Curious George]

I would never want you to be my parent.

Well, that's okay. I would not want you to want that: i want you to be happy with your parents.

 

[Aquitaine]

And when it comes to kids it is not your ethics, or my ethics, or even the doctors ethics if the child is not being harmed, it's the parents ethics that matter.

The area in bold, is the fundamental reason why we're disagreeing on this whole subject. I believe they are, you believe they're not.

If people want to remove their own foreskins as adults, fine. But would you want someone to remove your foreskin from you, without your consent, basically over a non-reason like "aesthetics"?

As a grown adult, would you tolerate someone doing it to you now? Would you tolerate your own parents forcing you to get circumcised because "oh well it looks nice, or daddy/religion/it's easier to clean"?

What about a Right not to have part of your genitals permanently removed from you as an infant, over what is essentially a non-reason?

 

[Curious George]

The area in bold, is the fundamental reason why we're disagreeing on this whole subject. I believe they are, you believe they're not.

If people want to remove their own foreskins as adults, fine. But would you want someone to remove your foreskin from you, without your consent, basically over a non-reason like "aesthetics"?

As a grown adult, would you tolerate someone doing it to you now? Would you tolerate your own parents forcing you to get circumcised because "oh well it looks nice, or daddy/religion/it's easier to clean"?

What about a Right not to have part of your genitals permanently removed from you as an infant, over what is essentially a non-reason?

No, I would not tolerate it but would you tolerate a spanking or a time out? Sure let's outlaw those too. How about being forced to move across the country? Would you tolerate that. Parents can choose what they feel is best, parents choose. You cannot equate harm to whether you or I would tolerate it would tolerate it. As far as harm is concerned, medical professionals around the world have continued to leave circumcision to the decision of the parents. This is not true for medical procedures which they deem harmful. It is true most recommend against circumcision for your exact reasoning. But the bottom line is they still leave the choice up to the parents.

 

[Aquitaine]

No, I would not tolerate it but would you tolerate a spanking or a time out? Sure let's outlaw those too. How about being forced to move across the country? Would you tolerate that. Parents can choose what they feel is best, parents choose. You cannot equate harm to whether you or I would tolerate it would tolerate it. As far as harm is concerned, medical professionals around the world have continued to leave circumcision to the decision of the parents. This is not true for medical procedures which they deem harmful. It is true most recommend against circumcision for your exact reasoning. But the bottom line is they still leave the choice up to the parents.

I'm not sure you can compare the permanent removal of an erogenous zone to spanking or time-out. There's no way they're on the same scale.

Out of curiosity, if American medical professionals advocated banning unnecessary circumcision tomorrow, what would be your thoughts on it?

 

[Curious George]

I'm not sure you can compare the permanent removal of an erogenous zone to spanking or time-out. There's no way they're on the same scale.

Out of curiosity, if American medical professionals advocated banning unnecessary circumcision tomorrow, what would be your thoughts on it?

Well I would prefer to get more than one medical association guiding that ship before I jumped on, but I suppose I would be say that at least in the u.s. circumcision should be illegal. I am for the protection of rights not what people do with penises. If the consensus of medical professionals says that circumcision constitutes a substantial harm then I would respect and defer to their expertise.

 

[Aquitaine]

Well I would prefer to get more than one medical association guiding that ship before I jumped on, but I suppose I would be say that at least in the u.s. circumcision should be illegal. I am for the protection of rights not what people do with penises. If the consensus of medical professionals says that circumcision constitutes a substantial harm then I would respect and defer to their expertise.

Homosexuality used to be considered a form of mental illness in the US by medical professionals. All I'm saying is it's very possible that one day unnecessary circumcision may be unilaterally advised against and considered harm - when that day comes, I'd love to hear the same arguements for "Parental Rights" and "Freedom of Religion" by those adamant on carrying on a ritual which existed long before proper medical ethics and research.

 

[metis]

Think of it the other way around. Ask yourself why people are making a mountain of a defence for a practice that should have people seeing clearly its moral failings.

You say circumcision is not that bad, well the alterative for comparison is not doing it. Compared to that option, its pretty damn severe.

You may be personally ok with it retrospectively, but you never had the choice. These infants dont choose this to be done to them. Its done because of religion, and nothing to do with the health and well being of the child.

You might personally be in good health, but the fact of the matter is there is a complication rate associated, as is the case with any surgery. Some people will have suffered immediate and long term complications such as bleeding, infection aesthetic and functional issues. All of these would have been avoided if the procedure had never been done in the first place. A procedure that wasnt even medically indicated or recommended to be done at all.

Cutting off the foreskin of a beautiful and innocent baby boy, because religion tells you to. Its morbid if you really think about it.

Ask yourself why are people defending it?

As far as the health aspect is concerned, it's pretty much a wash as there's pros and cons. I don't know what you mean by "its moral failings", so I can't really comment on that.

As far as defending it is concerned, this is a sign of our faith, so please do not tell me what to do as I'm not going to tell you what to do in reference to your own faith or non-faith, nor am I going to tell you how to raise your own children.

If the evidence was convincing that it is an unhealthy practice, my wife and I wouldbn't have had it done to our son, but that simply isn't the case. BTW, my wife is Christian.

 

[metis]

That's the point.You cant ask a person if they regret being circumsized if they were circumsized at one day old if they regret it..they have nothing to compare it too.Whatever benefits to being in tact have never been experienced...lost forever.

I notice that you're a Christian. OK, how would you like it if I said this:

Taking your young children to church whereas they have no choice exposes them to all sorts of illness possiblities that could harm or even kill them. Therefore you should at least wait until their older whereas they can make their own determination as to whether they want to go to church and take these risks?


I would suggest that if I had made this statement earlier to you that you probably would tell me to mind my own business-- and I would agree that you'd be correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

First, I'll state I accept that male circumcision is a minor alteration of the kid, with minor health effects, either pro or con. Even though I oppose it because the decision to alter one's body in such a way belongs to the owner of that body, this is over-ridden by the cultural importance of doing it in some groups. So I wouldn't take steps to prevent parents from continuing the practice.
Now, I've a question for pro-circ posters here:
If some forms of female circumcision are as benign in effect, & as culturally important,
should it also be acceptable? If not, what is different about altering a boy vs a girl?

 

[Huey09]

First, I'll state I accept that male circumcision is a minor alteration of the kid, with minor health effects, either pro or con. Even though I oppose it because the decision to alter one's body in such a way belongs to the owner of that body, this is over-ridden by the cultural importance of doing it in some groups. So I wouldn't take steps to prevent parents from continuing the practice.
Now, I've a question for pro-circ posters here:
If some forms of female circumcision are as benign in effect, & as culturally important,
should it also be acceptable? If not, what is different about altering a boy vs a girl?

If its benign and doesn't cause problems I can't really say I would mind. Just like while I may not understand African scarification its their culture/religion and I have to respect that.

 

[jetson]

I think that is up to the parents at the child's birth. A few years ago they started it in Africa and when this happened, aids cases went down there. Possibly , because of the removing the skin made it more sanitary and could be cleaned much better.