circumsizion

[E. Nato Difficile]

I'm still not seeing how removal of the foreskin "hurts" your kid any more than removal of a mole would. Sure, as with any surgical procedure, there is a small chance of infection and death. The risk is minimal. Not enough to raise a fuss over.

Bottom line: if you don't agree with it, don't do it. You don't get to control what other people do. I don't get circumcision either nor would I do it to children if I had them, but I respect the freedoms of others to engage in a benign practice to preserve their cultural traditions.

The basis for "raising a fuss" is that healthy babies are mutilated and die undergoing a procedure for which there's no clear medical rationale. Religious tradition has been the default position for so long that we've forgotten whether we ever were supposed to have qualms about such a practice.

If that's not barbarism, folks, what is?

-Nato

 

[Quintessence]

To call circumcision "barbaric" greatly diminishes the meaning of the word, IMHO. Barbaric implies savage cruelty. You know, like vivisecting prisoners of war in the name of science and human progress.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If that's not barbarism, folks, what is?

Engaging in excessive hyperbole.

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

To call circumcision "barbaric" greatly diminishes the meaning of the word, IMHO. Barbaric implies savage cruelty. You know, like vivisecting prisoners of war in the name of science and human progress.

What would you call it if i cut my kids arm skin off but he wont die?

 

[Quintessence]

How is removal of skin from the arm relevant, exactly? I've never heard of a mutation that causes humans to grow penises from their arms.

Regardless, it's a skin/dermis removal procedure. It could also be classified as a medical (surgical) procedure, perhaps of the cosmetic variety. I'm not going to stick labels on it that involve subjective-land value judgements, particularly not when the subjective label is grossly exaggerated. If I'm going to start calling circumcision barbaric, I'd have to start calling body piercings barbaric too. And that's just silly.

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

How is removal of skin from the arm relevant, exactly? I've never heard of a mutation that causes humans to grow penises from their arms.

Regardless, it's a skin/dermis removal procedure. It could also be classified as a medical (surgical) procedure, perhaps of the cosmetic variety. I'm not going to stick labels on it that involve subjective-land value judgements, particularly not when the subjective label is grossly exaggerated. If I'm going to start calling circumcision barbaric, I'd have to start calling body piercings barbaric too. And that's just silly.

It makes no sense to cut of a part of the penis, neither does it make sense to cut of part of the arm skin. It is both skin? als i never said its about the penis? i am. Also circumsisions on a 1 year old baby are without the babies consent and body piercings are voluntary. Its barbaric to mutilate someone without their consent. And it isnt medical because they do it from a religious perspective, calling it medical is just a horrible argument to make it look right. Its barbaric but cant be made illegal for practical reasons.

 

[Quintessence]

It seems you are unaware of the fact that some parents are getting their kids bodies pierced at a young age. Some also perform cosmetic surgery on their kids at a young age.

We're going to agree to disagree. I disagree with putting the label "barbaric" on something so benign. I also disagree with using the word "mutilation" to describe such benign levels of body modification. I don't mind the occasional artful hyperbole, but in some contexts it becomes more than a little bit ridiculous.

I think I'll just echo this and be done here:

I envy your life if you think this is a problem.

 

[ChristineES]

Do you think I ought to go to prison for circumcising my two sons when they were babies for non-religious reasons?
(just kidding, ha ha ha).

 

[Alex_G]

I must say, circumcision of children beyond reasons pertaining to medical need is not something i agree with. My views summed up below.


There are two parts to this. One being the debate as to the legitimacy and moral defensibility of the practice in question, and the second being the debate as to whether making it illegal is the best course of action.

I think the first question has a clear answer and that is it is not morally defensible in this day and age for the following reasons.

1. The children that are being circumcised are too young to full appreciate complex ideas that surround religious belief, just as they are too young to appreciate political ideas. A child cannot be a religious child, any more that it can be a conservative or socialist child. Its parents projecting their belief system onto a child.

2. Children are innocent and vulnerable, both mentally and physically. They need the protection of their parents. It is parental duty to act in their best interest. Circumcision is completely unnecessary. I think that to push a child to go through with it is a coercion of the worst kind, and the moral failings of it are glaringly obvious. What might be said of a hypothetical situation, whereby a home for mentally retarded people with learning difficulties decided on a policy of genital alteration? My point stands that its an unacceptable presumption regarding the mind of the subject, and an unacceptable coercion on an individual that’s incapable of giving valid informed consent. Circumcision does not exemplify acting in the best interests of the child.

3. It represents a malignant aspect of religion that makes good people do bad things, and it protects these actions that should be reprehensible, and really would be in any other scenario.

4. An argument that it lowers rates of transmission of STD’s is no justification, and is a coincidence that’s shamefully being used retrospectively for an act that’s driven entirely by religious belief. In a normal, healthy individuals, there is no meaningful medical advantage that warrants its routine practice.

5. Arguing that no circumcision would result in cultural difficulties for the child within the traditions of the parents’ religion clearly shows a problem with religion and the culture, not that the problem is a child keeping its foreskin.


Whatever the risks involved in the practice of circumcision, be it excessive bleeding, infection, aesthetic problems, functional problems, psychological problems, it wont be as low as the risk of not doing it, as that is 0. Additionally anyone who plays down its severity, saying ‘oh it’s not that bad’, well not that bad compared to what exactly? Clearly its not that bad compared to cutting off an arm, but that just illustrates the ludicrous nature of the defence. It is really bad, if you compare it to not doing it at all.


Now as for how to deal with it I might agree with the ethos behind making it illegal, but i do see the disadvantages of rapidly introducing such a policy, especially in an area that highly practices it.

I would think that a sensible governance in a society would of course promote parental freedom and liberty, as with most aspects of human life, but function as a regulatory body if not primarily to defend those who cannot or need defending. The innocent and the vulnerable.
I cannot see any honest benefit to cutting the foreskin off of a child’s penis, it isnt in the best interest of the child (provided they haven’t got a medical condition that specifically warrants it such as paraphimosis or balanoposthitis), and clearly if driven by religious zeal, its hardly putting the child first.

If some regulations where to be implemented, it would at least aid in deterring the continuation of a tradition of religious bodily mutilation and the mind-set that goes with it. Its place in the contemporary world is, as far as i can see, only persisting due to the stubbornness of religion and a malignant refusal to adopt reasonable change.
I might advocate some measure of a stepwise reduction, and promoting its discontinuation. A bit of a grace period so that the transition is smooth and they dont just get a sudden spike in the number of 'back alley' jobs, which harbour far more risk.

Alex

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam YouOnlyScienceOnce,

In my country not only Jews and Muslims do it, even atheists can choose to do it. And parents don't do it to their children for abusing them or other totally stupid reason (because based on misunderstanding of one's culture, total disrespect and misconception of it) but most of the time this is the boys that asks for it.

I've asked the question to many friends, atheists, jew and muslims, some of them answered about their religion.....MOST of them answered about hygiene.
Because under this particular piece of skin can be many various bacteria and dust and whatever, you have a little weenie you know better than me, and it's hard and stuff to wash.
So cutting this little piece of skin prevent the bacteria dust and stuff to make good home under your little piece of skin, and guess what, it's more hygienic and easy to wash ! weee !

Of course whatever we say you'll just invalidate it because you just don't want to learn anything or at last discuss in a normal manner, you just WANT to be the one right. Just as you seems to think that apparently all jews and muslims are child abusers and they all cut the skin with antique silex an reciting wuluwluwlu by turning around a fire after having tied the children that of course don't want this and is a terrible victim and is being raped and stuff because you hate religion and don't have any interest or curiosity in understanding someone's culture.


Of course there have abuse. Sometimes it's not done with the correct amount of competence and hygiene it should be done, just like your burger is not made with optimal hygiene conditions and sterile environnement and fresh ingredients in your local fastfood :soccer:


And whatever, you just can't prevent people for wanting to do that on themselves for whatever reason they may have. As long as it's performed with correct surgical environnement.

I remember my parent's didn't asked my permission for making a hole in my ear, only for putting jewellry on them ! Do you imagine that ! I was 3 year old ! They didn't asked me permission, I was crying, and it was painful ! How illogical and barbarian is this act ? I should sue them !


Aum Namah Shivaya

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

I must say, circumcision of children beyond reasons pertaining to medical need is not something i agree with. My views summed up below.


There are two parts to this. One being the debate as to the legitimacy and moral defensibility of the practice in question, and the second being the debate as to whether making it illegal is the best course of action.

I think the first question has a clear answer and that is it is not morally defensible in this day and age for the following reasons.

1. The children that are being circumcised are too young to full appreciate complex ideas that surround religious belief, just as they are too young to appreciate political ideas. A child cannot be a religious child, any more that it can be a conservative or socialist child. Its parents projecting their belief system onto a child.

2. Children are innocent and vulnerable, both mentally and physically. They need the protection of their parents. It is parental duty to act in their best interest. Circumcision is completely unnecessary. I think that to push a child to go through with it is a coercion of the worst kind, and the moral failings of it are glaringly obvious. What might be said of a hypothetical situation, whereby a home for mentally retarded people with learning difficulties decided on a policy of genital alteration? My point stands that its an unacceptable presumption regarding the mind of the subject, and an unacceptable coercion on an individual that’s incapable of giving valid informed consent. Circumcision does not exemplify acting in the best interests of the child.

3. It represents a malignant aspect of religion that makes good people do bad things, and it protects these actions that should be reprehensible, and really would be in any other scenario.

4. An argument that it lowers rates of transmission of STD’s is no justification, and is a coincidence that’s shamefully being used retrospectively for an act that’s driven entirely by religious belief. In a normal, healthy individuals, there is no meaningful medical advantage that warrants its routine practice.

5. Arguing that no circumcision would result in cultural difficulties for the child within the traditions of the parents’ religion clearly shows a problem with religion and the culture, not that the problem is a child keeping its foreskin.


Whatever the risks involved in the practice of circumcision, be it excessive bleeding, infection, aesthetic problems, functional problems, psychological problems, it wont be as low as the risk of not doing it, as that is 0. Additionally anyone who plays down its severity, saying ‘oh it’s not that bad’, well not that bad compared to what exactly? Clearly its not that bad compared to cutting off an arm, but that just illustrates the ludicrous nature of the defence. It is really bad, if you compare it to not doing it at all.


Now as for how to deal with it I might agree with the ethos behind making it illegal, but i do see the disadvantages of rapidly introducing such a policy, especially in an area that highly practices it.

I would think that a sensible governance in a society would of course promote parental freedom and liberty, as with most aspects of human life, but function as a regulatory body if not primarily to defend those who cannot or need defending. The innocent and the vulnerable.
I cannot see any honest benefit to cutting the foreskin off of a child’s penis, it isnt in the best interest of the child (provided they haven’t got a medical condition that specifically warrants it such as paraphimosis or balanoposthitis), and clearly if driven by religious zeal, its hardly putting the child first.

If some regulations where to be implemented, it would at least aid in deterring the continuation of a tradition of religious bodily mutilation and the mind-set that goes with it. Its place in the contemporary world is, as far as i can see, only persisting due to the stubbornness of religion and a malignant refusal to adopt reasonable change.
I might advocate some measure of a stepwise reduction, and promoting its discontinuation. A bit of a grace period so that the transition is smooth and they dont just get a sudden spike in the number of 'back alley' jobs, which harbour far more risk.

Alex

I love you and i can tell you saw Richard Dawkins - faith school menace. RIght?

The only trouble with making circumcision illegal is that it will harm the kids more because the religious fundamentalist will keep on going with circumcising but in very unhygienic and unsafe ways. In my opinion it would be better if circumcision for non religion reasons would be banished.

 

[Rakhel]

I love you and i can tell you saw Richard Dawkins - faith school menace. RIght?

The only trouble with making circumcision illegal is that it will harm the kids more because the religious fundamentalist will keep on going with circumcising but in very unhygienic and unsafe ways. In my opinion it would be better if circumcision for non religion reasons would be banished.

You have never watched a religious circumcision before, have you?

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

You have never watched a religious circumcision before, have you?

elaborate on that statement please

 

[Rakhel]

There is no need to elaborate.
You have never seen a religious circumcision.

 

[YouOnlyScienceOnce]

There is no need to elaborate.
You have never seen a religious circumcision.

Yes i have. what i was trying to say that now it is legal it can be done by doctors with sterile equipment. If you make it illegal it wil lbe done by non experts with more often then not not sterile equipment dont you agree?

 

[Rakhel]

Mohels do have sterile equipment.
I am trying to understand why you would think it would be any different.

 

[Alex_G]

I love you and i can tell you saw Richard Dawkins - faith school menace. RIght?

The only trouble with making circumcision illegal is that it will harm the kids more because the religious fundamentalist will keep on going with circumcising but in very unhygienic and unsafe ways. In my opinion it would be better if circumcision for non religion reasons would be banished.

Actually i dont think I've seen that one to be honest. But yes some phrases in there are very Dawkins esc i'll admit. 'You cant have a conservative child...etc'.

I agree that there is some concern in the potential for a ban to increase the rate of those 'back alley' jobs, which will likely be much more risky for the child. That was why i was leaning towards some kind of policy that used a stepwise reduction, rather than rapid change.

 

[Shermana]

Also the child abuse part is subjective, i think it is child abuse to remove the foreskin without a good medical reason.

And I think it's child abuse to allow the Foreskin to remain. The chances of infection and STD's are far higher.

Dangers of not being circumcised - KCBD NewsChannel 11 Lubbock

It could very well be that that the non-circs are the ones spreading the most STDs, I will try to see more on that.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/STDs/24217

There could arguably be 50% less HPV going around if women would stick to circumcised men.

 

[RJ50]

What sort of deity would create a foreskin just so it could be ripped off at eight days old, a deity who enjoys suffering. Even if a baby doesn't remember having it taken off in cold blood, it still hurts the child at the time the procedure in undertaken for ritulistic reasons. I wonder how many babies have died as a result of this mutilation? A substantial number I suspect.

If a man wants its foreskin hacked off, fine, but no child should subjected to it as it can't consent.

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,

What sort of deity would create a foreskin just so it could be ripped off at eight days old, a deity who enjoys suffering. Even if a baby doesn't remember having it taken off in cold blood, it still hurts the child at the time the procedure in undertaken for ritulistic reasons. I wonder how many babies have died as a result of this mutilation? A substantial number I suspect.

If a man wants its foreskin hacked off, fine, but no child should subjected to it as it can't consent.

Then yeah, I should sue my parents and tell everyone I have been abused because they took in cold blood the skin of my ear for the cultural and ritualistic reason to put jewellery on it without asking my consent, as I was a baby.

Many others like me must have been terribly abused ! How much childs had ear infection because it wasn't done with correct hygiene ? God allows people to have their ears mutilated ! We should ban piercings !