Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Legally, yes. They are the parents, and the State is not the parent. This has to do with freedom and also separation of church and state and the interpretations that have been based upon those things and the way that laws & precedents have grown up for the last two centuries or so.

Something else that the law has established over the last few centuries is that children are persons with full rights under the law. Parents aren't the owners of their children; they're their stewards, and their status as stewards is predicated on them acting in the child's best interest.

Morally, too, I must insist that parents who bring lives into the world have the right to make decisions like this. It is because they are responsible for the child's life. Laws are both good and bad. They help people but they're also intrusive and take away from the quality of life. I see nothing wrong with trying to convince parents that circumcision is a bad choice, but I see a problem meddling with their authority as parents.

The law is like a big dog that keeps out thieves but takes big craps in the living room.

So your position is that circumcision may be bad, but the laws we'd need to stop it are even worse?

If so, your position may be pretty close to mine. I don't think we should outlaw it, just not encourage it, not pay for it with insurance (either public or private), and support the right of doctors not to perform it if they don't want to.

There's a very strong correlation between whether routine circumcision is free in a society and the frequency of circumcision. I think that if parents had to pay the full cost of the procedure (as is normal for other cosmetic procedures) and if it might be an inconvenience trying to find a doctor willing to do it, that would take care of most of the problem without having to pass intrusive laws.

 

[Alex_G]

And if a parent offered similar balancing for circumcision then I guess that's their decision.

I’m saying there is no comparable balance when it comes to religiously fuelled infant circumcision. It doesn’t need to be done at all, I mean completely not needed.
Tell me the benefits, or the moral virtues of doing such a thing because of religion. If you think about mentioning any medically relevant pros, tell me why the parents aren’t having this conversation with their doctor instead.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, thats what you're saying im doing, because its easier to argue against. You're using a straw man. Im not attacking all parents and parenthood in general. Im just stating why i dont think religiously fuelled infant circumcision is morally defensible. You arnt addressing whats on the table.

You replied to me (thanks for your reply) when I had been talking about legality. I started by saying the freedom of religion of the parents trumped your moral consideration. I brought it up, but that was what we were discussing. The morality of a parent's choices are often guesses. Circumcision is a parental choice, because its cultural and not unbearable. It marks them about as much or less than the parent's religion itself does. Believe me, religion does mark the child much more. Legal standing is a very important point of discussing, so it was reasonable for me to think your reply to me was about legality. Morally I think its a gray area but legally not.

 

[Curious George]

However, the state can take away the parental rights of an individual.



That they are responsible for the child's life does not make them owners of this child.

If something bad happens as a result of the procedure, what should be done with the parents?

If something bad happens while driving what should be done.

 

[Alex_G]

I tend to think some people make a mountain out of a mole-hill. If my son's circumcision is supposedly the worst thing that ever happened in his life, he probably would be the happiest person on the planet. I was circumcised as an infant, but for some reason I can't seem to remember anything about it, and I doubt that anyone else here can remember that event either.

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?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Something else that the law has established over the last few centuries is that children are persons with full rights under the law. Parents aren't the owners of their children; they're their stewards, and their status as stewards is predicated on them acting in the child's best interest.

Yes though 'The child's best interest' is up the to the parents when it comes to religious and cultural decisions and many life-changing decisions. The child has rights, but the child is completely helpless. This gives the parent responsibility and with it rights over the child's life. Before the laws can step in there has to be some unbearable burden placed upon the child so that there is no legal ambiguity about a law's authority, otherwise the courts overturn the law. If, for instance, doctors were to almost universally agree that male circumcision was irrevocable horrid cruel mutilation, then the law would have standing to act. The same would go for piercing the ears or bottle-feeding.

So your position is that circumcision may be bad, but the laws we'd need to stop it are even worse?

I don't think I would circumcise my son, unless it were part of my religion. Then I would. I probably wouldn't pierce the ears of my daughter if I had one, but I would let her mom do it. Is circumcision bad? I don't know. I think I wish my parents hadn't circumcised me, but I really think my penis is serviceable. Implementing laws against circumcision would choose my religion for me, so yes they would be bad.

 

[Koldo]

If something bad happens while driving what should be done.

Depends.

Do you mean driving is comparable to circumcision?

 

[Curious George]

I’m saying there is no comparable balance when it comes to religiously fuelled infant circumcision. It doesn’t need to be done at all, I mean completely not needed.
Tell me the benefits, or the moral virtues of doing such a thing because of religion. If you think about mentioning any medically relevant pros, tell me why the parents aren’t having this conversation with their doctor instead.

Forget medical that has been argued in plenty of threads. Aesthetics, and ease of cleaning. There are two values right there. Or how about bonding because it looks the same as dad's. There is yet another concern. Wanting to avoid future pain if a the child may need a circumcision. Bonding through religious ritual. I am not advocating circumcision here, which is what it is starting to feel like, but we are not talking cigarette Burns here.

 

[Curious George]

Depends.

Do you mean driving is comparable to circumcision?

Lots of things are comparable it depends on what aspect you are comparing.

 

[Koldo]

Lots of things are comparable it depends on what aspect you are comparing.

On what aspects are you comparing 'driving' to 'circumcision' ?

 

[Alex_G]

You replied to me (thanks for your reply) when I had been talking about legality. I started by saying the freedom of religion of the parents trumped your moral consideration. I brought it up, but that was what we were discussing. The morality of a parent's choices are often guesses. Circumcision is a parental choice, because its cultural and not unbearable. It marks them about as much or less than the parent's religion itself does. Believe me, religion does mark the child much more. Legal standing is a very important point of discussing, so it was reasonable for me to think your reply to me was about legality. Morally I think its a gray area but legally not.

Thanks for the reply too.

Morality is not always a grey area. Sometimes its as simple as avoiding harm when possible, such as not subjecting a vulnerable baby boy to having their foreskin cut off for no good reason.

Whilst freedom is a hallmark of any decent society and culture, from a legal perspective, such governance is there, surely in large part to defend and protect those who need protecting, safeguarding the vulnerable people of a society.
Infants are such an example. Another consideration of law is its implementation. Now clearly for better or worse, the effect of religious belief of parents on the child if problematic is very hard to tackle/solve.

But stopping or discouraging parents from subjecting their babies to unwarranted surgery because of religious motivation seems achievable, and has a good outcome of protecting an innocent party, namely the infant.

 

[Alex_G]

Forget medical that has been argued in plenty of threads. Aesthetics, and ease of cleaning. There are two values right there. Or how about bonding because it looks the same as dad's. There is yet another concern. Wanting to avoid future pain if a the child may need a circumcision. Bonding through religious ritual. I am not advocating circumcision here, which is what it is starting to feel like, but we are not talking cigarette Burns here.

Whats aesthetically wrong with a perfect baby boy? I mean who the heck are we to decide to cut pieces off such a vulnerable and precious being? Its not on if you think about it.

Ask yourself, why is it not a mainstream, secular routine practice? Because there is no good evidence of benefits outweighing the risks of doing it. Ease of cleaning is not a problem in life worth doing the surgery for.

Cutting off foreskins for bonding and religious identification is a sad sad reality...a reality that should be changed. Hell if its that important to people, then they can have it done as adults. Surprise, surprise not many do! For the same reasons why the baby shoulnd have to be subjected to it.

Avoiding future pain (which very likely wont occur) by just doing it to everyone is not a sensible practice. Its not logical, because of the rarity of the problem. Your more likely to encouter complications from the surgery than you were to have some future problem that it would fix.

You can lists potential pros but you must know that the truth is people do it because their religion tells them to. Simple as that. Its dogma, and various rational reasons are used to try and cover it up. Its got nothing to do with reason, which is a shame. Its just ritual. Cutting off babies foreskins, its bloody morbid if you really think about it. Another weird sexual fetish and hang up of religion, that leads to no good in this world. Why cant people just leave those innocent babies be, why be so rushed to project such warped religiosity onto them and in such a cutting way.

It really shouldnt be tolerated.

 

[Curious George]

On what aspects are you comparing 'driving' to 'circumcision' ?

That both are activities which have inherent risks, and injury can occur without negligence of the parent who made a decision to expose the child to the risk.

 

[Curious George]

Whats aesthetically wrong with a perfect baby boy? I mean who the heck are we to decide to cut pieces off such a vulnerable and precious being? Its not on if you think about it.

Ask yourself, why is it not a mainstream, secular routine practice? Because there is no good evidence of benefits outweighing the risks of doing it. Ease of cleaning is not a problem in life worth doing the surgery for.

Cutting off foreskins for bonding and religious identification is a sad sad reality...a reality that should be changed. Hell if its that important to people, then they can have it done as adults. Surprise, surprise not many do! For the same reasons why the baby shoulnd have to be subjected to it.

Avoiding future pain (which very likely wont occur) by just doing it to everyone is not a sensible practice. Its not logical, because of the rarity of the problem. Your more likely to encouter complications from the surgery than you were to have some future problem that it would fix.

You can lists potential pros but you must know that the truth is people do it because their religion tells them to. Simple as that. Its dogma, and various rational reasons are used to try and cover it up. Its got nothing to do with reason, which is a shame. Its just ritual. Cutting off babies foreskins, its bloody morbid if you really think about it. Another weird sexual fetish and hang up of religion, that leads to no good in this world. Why cant people just leave those innocent babies be, why be so rushed to project such warped religiosity onto them and in such a cutting way.

It really shouldnt be tolerated.

Except atheists cut as well, I have known many parents who do not fit your mold, so I subsequently find your assessment, narrow

 

[Koldo]

That both are activities which have inherent risks, and injury can occur without negligence of the parent who made a decision to expose the child to the risk.

Driving is a method of transportation. All methods of transport have certain risks, and depending on the situation, driving is the best method.

When circumcision is the best method to accomplish something that would be in the best interest of the child ( excluding cases like phimosis )?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You replied to me (thanks for your reply) when I had been talking about legality. I started by saying the freedom of religion of the parents trumped your moral consideration. I brought it up, but that was what we were discussing. The morality of a parent's choices are often guesses. Circumcision is a parental choice, because its cultural and not unbearable. It marks them about as much or less than the parent's religion itself does. Believe me, religion does mark the child much more. Legal standing is a very important point of discussing, so it was reasonable for me to think your reply to me was about legality. Morally I think its a gray area but legally not.

What sort of religious right should trump the right of an individual to not have body parts snipped, adjusted, or altered, in any way, without consent? This applies to far more than just male circumcision. What about the boys who, albeit rare, suffer a botched circumcision, which in some cases is so badly botched they surgically reassign the boy to female (any parent who would do that, and the "doctors" who convince them, deserves to be slapped).
Basically you saying it is your religious right to modify your child's body, and that it trumps his right's to not have his body altered without consent, is a very selfish and self-centered thing to do. If your son want to make that commitment, let him make it of his own accord, rather than surgically altering his body for a religion he may not even follow as an adult anyways.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But stopping or discouraging parents from subjecting their babies to unwarranted surgery because of religious motivation seems achievable, and has a good outcome of protecting an innocent party, namely the infant.

When you say things like this "Stopping parents from subjecting their babies..." you are talking about laws. You can call it unwarranted, but its only your opinion. No its not achievable. Solve world hunger first, and then maybe you can work on convincing everyone to accept your opinion. If you outlaw circumcision now, today, you outlaw religions, so the courts will therefore overturn your laws. Its not simple like outlawing cocaine. You can actually outlaw cocaine. The USA has wars against illegal cocaine for 80 years unsuccessfully, but the laws against are upheld by the courts. Laws against circumcision will not hold here. Perhaps in some Norwegian or European country they might. We will see.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What sort of religious right should trump the right of an individual to not have body parts snipped, adjusted, or altered, in any way, without consent?

A 'Right' means that other people cannot interfere with you in some way. If you outlaw circumcision you effectively outlaw both Judaism and Islam, so you interfere with the right of each religion to exist. Its because in those religions circumcision is not optional.

Basically you saying it is your religious right to modify your child's body, and that it trumps his right's to not have his body altered without consent, is a very selfish and self-centered thing to do. If your son want to make that commitment, let him make it of his own accord, rather than surgically altering his body for a religion he may not even follow as an adult anyways.

Not really. What I'm saying is religions have a right to exist, and parents have a right to make choices for their children. If you don't like circumcision, then you can either take the children away from the religious parents or not. You can't decide for them that its wrong.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Something else that the law has established over the last few centuries is that children are persons with full rights under the law. Parents aren't the owners of their children; they're their stewards, and their status as stewards is predicated on them acting in the child's best interest.


So your position is that circumcision may be bad, but the laws we'd need to stop it are even worse?

If so, your position may be pretty close to mine. I don't think we should outlaw it, just not encourage it, not pay for it with insurance (either public or private), and support the right of doctors not to perform it if they don't want to.

There's a very strong correlation between whether routine circumcision is free in a society and the frequency of circumcision. I think that if parents had to pay the full cost of the procedure (as is normal for other cosmetic procedures) and if it might be an inconvenience trying to find a doctor willing to do it, that would take care of most of the problem without having to pass intrusive laws.

I have no problem with this suggestion. I agreed to have the son I gave birth to circumcised. It was traumatic, I was alone after it was done, and I wound up regretting it. It was a simple decision on the part of his biological father, and like Dallas, when I was on the fence my opinion was regarded as very odd. Circumcision was considered a no-brainer for my son. I felt it was more for cosmetic reasons, but I agreed to have it done not only to keep the peace, but because I was okay either way.

After the procedure was done, I was overwhelmed with regret. The doctor that performed it let me know that my reaction isn't uncommon. He let me cry while I held my son. I saw my newborn sons face and his anguish and sheer terror. And that was when I lost it, looked up at the doctor and said, "I just butchered my son." That was when the doctor put his arm around me and let me cry.

When my husband arrived at the hospital, he was met with a very distraught wife. I think he was in a very conflicted position, because neither of us were prepared for how I responded, and I knew that he didn't want me to be that upset, and he also knew that he was the one who insisted on the procedure as a no-brainer. It was a difficult time caring for our son while he healed. I never blamed him since I knew he never wanted this out of malice. And he never blamed me for my reaction. But even though this respect existed in our marriage, it still was traumatic for everybody.

So, my position is that I don't support it. It's a major decision of body modification and ought to be treated as such as an optional cosmetic procedure. I think parents should pay for it not through medical insurance, but out-of-pocket, like any other cosmetic procedure.

 

[Alex_G]

Except atheists cut as well, I have known many parents who do not fit your mold, so I subsequently find your assessment, narrow

The influence of religious ritual can extend further than those who strictly identify as religious. Think about Christmas. Except the problem is, circumcision is no Christmas.

So it seems to me that your happy to discredit my position regarding its moral quality based on the fact that i attribute its origin and sustained motivation to religion, which you have decided is too narrow, because religious culture and practice couldn’t possibly influence non-religious people too.

I think you'll find your assessment the narrow one....