Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[stvdv]

That's cuz I gots no Bible learn'n.
A baby isn't a fetus. Huge difference
there. So the other poster's claim is
bogus.

Are you sure about "huge difference"? What about aborting a child 1 day before being born. Still "huge difference"?

Where you draw the line of "huge difference"?

Just some food for thought, not for debate
I agree to disagree on this one

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you sure about "huge difference"? What about aborting a child 1 day before being born. Still "huge difference"?

But that's not the real scenario, is it.

Where you draw the line of "huge difference"?

When it's a fetus....not a baby on the verge of birth.

 

[Glaurung]

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.

The Biblical narrative is that circumcision is a sign of the Mosaic Covenant, not that foreskins offend God. As far as the biblical narrative is concerned no other group is required to take on the practice. IMO, circumcision being ubiquitous in the Afroasoatic world suggests that the Biblical account was constructed to serve as a religious justification for a practice that was already well established among all Semitic peoples anyway. The practice predates the religion.

As for Christians, there is no religious justification for it. Insistence on circumcision seems to me to be a mostly American thing. Here in Australia neither I or any one I grew up with was circumcised. (Not that I made a point in looking).

 

[Father Heathen]

What was the reason they didn't like it?

Tradition, mostly. Completely arbitrary.

 

[stvdv]

But that's not the real scenario, is it.

When it's a fetus....not a baby on the verge of birth.

True, usually unborn child is aborted early, that's fine with me

But plenty are aborted when the "life" as in awareness etc are already there

So in the context of this thread when "baby penis is well visible (as well as other forms), well on the scan of course" then to me it is not a foetus but an unborn child.

At least @Wildswanderer his reply is certainly not bogus, and he made a valid point in this context

 

[Revoltingest]

True, usually unborn child is aborted early, that's fine with me

And that is the real world scenario that's
best dealt with...the one I'm addressing.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Tradition, mostly. Completely arbitrary.

Color me surprised.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Probably mentioned already, but if you are going to wait until the age of consent to have a circumcision, it will probably be quite painful.

It's quite painful to a baby, too, and causes lifelong negative psychological effects:

Circumcision’s Psychological Damage

 

[Shadow Wolf]

True, usually unborn child is aborted early, that's fine with me

But plenty are aborted when the "life" as in awareness etc are already there

So in the context of this thread when "baby penis is well visible (as well as other forms), well on the scan of course" then to me it is not a foetus but an unborn child.

At least @Wildswanderer his reply is certainly not bogus, and he made a valid point in this context

Late term abortions are rare, and very typically and mostly a necessity to preserve the life of the mother. Also, regardless, self awareness doesn't happen until many months after birth.
And, regardless, women will get them done so I'd rather have someone who actually trained to do them performing the procedure than some black market, back alley hack.

 

[KWED]

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.

Circumcised men have to use lube in order to masturbate. Intact men do not.
Is the inside of the foreskin or the palm of the hand more like the inside of a vagina?
Studies have shown that women often find giving circumcised men manual and oral relief more of a hassle than intact.
Also, this male trope of being able to last longer is not borne out by women who usually prefer more time and effort on foreplay rather than more time on penetration.
I understand that men whose genitals have been mutilated as infants want to find some post hoc justification though - both for their own peace of mind and to avoid resentment against parents, but there really isn't any.

 

[KWED]

Probably mentioned already, but if you are going to wait until the age of consent to have a circumcision, it will probably be quite painful.

If men had to wait until 16/18 to have it done, most men would not have it done.

 

[KWED]

You got them all check mate there

"Genital mutilation of infants is ok, cuz abortion" has to be one of the most bonkers religious whataboutery arguments yet.

 

[KWED]

Is circumcision wrong? If yes, then it is wrong, period, just like it is wrong to have sexual intercourse with anyone without consent.

Correct.

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.

That is also wrong.
However, it is a poor analogy as ear piercing is not permanent. Giving your child a tattoo would be better. And that is illegal.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Probably mentioned already, but if you are going to wait until the age of consent to have a circumcision, it will probably be quite painful.

So then why force it on them?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

However, it is a poor analogy as ear piercing is not permanent.

It will scar and leave a sign it was there.

 

[KWED]

Are you sure about "huge difference"? What about aborting a child 1 day before being born. Still "huge difference"?

What about removing the entire penis? Is that still ok?

 

[KWED]

But plenty are aborted when the "life" as in awareness etc are already there

Ill-informed nonsense.
The medical consensus is that there is no "consciousness" before around 25 weeks.
88% of abortions take place under 10 weeks. 94% under 12 weeks. Only 1% are after 20 weeks The majority of those in later stages are clinical terminations on the grounds of foetal abnormality. (UK National Statistics)

 

[KWED]

It will scar and leave a sign it was there.

I can't see any sign on my ears. Still wrong though, just not the same as circumcision.

 

[KWED]

As for Christians, there is no religious justification for it. Insistence on circumcision seems to me to be a mostly American thing. Here in Australia neither I or any one I grew up with was circumcised. (Not that I made a point in looking).

Indeed. Here in the UK, no one gets circumcised beyond observant Jews and Muslims. The NHS will not perform it unless a medical necessity.

 

[KWED]

And that is the real world scenario that's
best dealt with...the one I'm addressing.

"No, but... if we only consider an extreme version of a outlier scenario, it makes my task easier!"