Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

[dawny0826]

Personally, I don't think it should be done. There's no conclusive benefits to having the procedure done. The arguement in-support of male circumcision for babies (other than for Religious reasons) seems to just be "meh, why not?".


Tough **** - it's not your body. I'm uncircumcised and I would hate the idea of having less foreskin, I just don't see the benefits of such a procedure. However, if you're 18 and you wanna get a nerve-filled section of your foreskin removed for no benefit what-so-ever, then be my guest.


But for goodness sake don't mutilate the body of an individual who is too young to consent, just to satisfy your own personal ideas on what would be "cool". :no:

It's a matter of cleanliness. Different women have differing opinions on this, but when you're breastfeeding especially and changing diapers, extra skin to pull down is quite troublesome to some, when you're trying to keep bacteria away from the urethra.

Granted, UTIs are not typically serious, and they aren't as common in little boys, but when it happens to little ones it sucks. It's painful and itchy and they can't at 6 months old tell you what's wrong. The best way to prevent it from happening, is to keep the dude clean and the easiest way to do this is to have less area for bacteria to breed.

I'm not saying that women of uncircumcised babies are incapable of keeping their sons clean, but, their sons do have a higher UTI instance than those who are circumcised.

The thing is...it's far less severe of a procedure at infanthood than it is at adulthood and when people age, particularly in to their elderly years, those who are uncircumcised are more prone to bacterial infections and again, UTIs. My sister, a registered nurse who has worked in many areas of the hospital including critical care, ER and ICU, will tell you that elderly patients who are incapable of cleaning themselves and are uncircumcised, tend to be quite gross. The smegna build up looks like cottage cheese and is a breeding ground for bacteria.

There have also been studies to suggest that bacteria that are found trapped in the foreskin may attribute to cervical cancer in women. Google it, read the various opinions and make a decision for yourself.

How important these things are to one person to the next is personal. The reality is that I've never known a man who regretted having the procedure done. Crazy enough, I married a man who resented that it wasn't done when he was a baby, because of the pain from recovery in his teenage years.

 

[dawny0826]

As is the tangibility of consent......

Did your parents ever make decisions for you as a tot? Seriously.

It's preferred that the procedure be done days from birth, because this yields the least pain and complications.

Though the statistics are very low, a dude might actually put his foot in his mouth if his parents didn't have him circumcised and he was one of the 300+ out of 1200 or so who do actualy succumb to penile cancer. Most if not all of these folks are uncircumcised. Small percentage, but these are stil people and it exemplifies how a decision made at birth can significantly impact someone later on down the road.

http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/penile-cancer/statistics
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

Just food for thought.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm with Alceste. Out of ignorance we had our first son circumcised. Some old fashioned doctor told us it waas routine. Poor kid cried so long and hard that we didn't put the second one through the ordeal.

 

[Alceste]

I'm with Alceste. Out of ignorance we had our first son circumcised. Some old fashioned doctor told us it waas routine. Poor kid cried so long and hard that we didn't put the second one through the ordeal.

Exactly. The fact that the baby won't remember the suffering doesn't mean the baby doesn't suffer unnecessarily, and I consider it abusive to inflict unnecessary pain on other people.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's a matter of cleanliness. Different women have differing opinions on this, but when you're breastfeeding especially and changing diapers, extra skin to pull down is quite troublesome to some, when you're trying to keep bacteria away from the urethra.

Granted, UTIs are not typically serious, and they aren't as common in little boys, but when it happens little ones it sucks. It's painful and itchy and they can't at 6 months old tell you what's wrong. The best way to prevent it from happening, is to keep the dude clean and the easiest way to do this is to have less area for bacteria to breed.

I'm not saying that women of uncircumcised babies are incapable of keeping their sons clean, but, their sons do have a higher UTI instance than those who are circumcised.

The thing is...it's far less severe of a procedure at infanthood than it is at adulthood and when people age, particularly in to their elderly years, those who are uncircumcised are more prone to bacterial infections and again, UTIs. My sister, a registered nurse who has worked in many areas of the hospital including critical care, ER and ICU, will tell you that elderly patients who are incapable of cleaning themselves and are uncircumcised, tend to be quite gross. The smegna build up looks like cottage cheese and is a breeding ground for bacteria.

There have also been studies to suggest that bacteria that are found trapped in the foreskin may attribute to cervical cancer in women. Google it, read the various opinions and make a decision for yourself.

How important these things are to one person to the next is personal. The reality is that I've never known a man who regretted having the procedure done. Crazy enough, I married a man who resented that it wasn't done when he was a baby, because of the pain from recovery in his teenage years.

Did your parents ever make decisions for you as a tot? Seriously.

It's preferred that the procedure be done days from birth, because this yields the least pain and complications.

Though the statistics are very low, a dude might actually put his foot in his mouth if his parents didn't have him circumcised and he was one of the 300+ out of 1200 or so who do actualy succumb to penile cancer. Most if not all of these folks are uncircumcised. Small percentage, but these are stil people and it exemplifies how a decision made at birth can significantly impact someone later on down the road.

Penile Cancer | Cancer.Net
What are the risk factors for penile cancer?

Just food for thought.

Good points. It's good to be informed before forming opinions.

 

[Father Heathen]

Exactly. The fact that the baby won't remember the suffering doesn't mean the baby doesn't suffer unnecessarily, and I consider it abusive to inflict unnecessary pain on other people.

So by that logic taking a kid to a dentist where they'll likely experience fear and pain is abusive, because if you make sure that their teeth are brushed properly then a trip to the dentist is unnecessary.

 

[Riverwolf]

So by that logic taking a kid to a dentist where they'll likely experience fear and pain is abusive, because if you make sure that their teeth are brushed properly then a trip to the dentist is unnecessary.

Except that it's long documented (i.e., hundreds of years at least) that poor dental health causes major problems. It's not so with male circumcision.

The question becomes if it's necessary suffering. Even the cancer example above can be compared to the risks of even driving a baby, since automobile accidents are a leading cause of death.

 

[Sleeppy]

Abortion, if you will.. But when we say so. And when "we" decide the child is "ours," you will do as "we" say you should. "Our" schools. "Our" work. "Our" rules. "Our" land. "Our" air. Then, if "we" decide to kill your child or you, "we" will.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where I stand, cutting anything off of your child, especially before the child can vocalize a yes or no, even moreso considering it has no real purpose (unless of course you have to worry about sand getting caught up in there), be the child female or male, is mutilation and equally abusive (save for the rare few cases when male circumcision is necessary).

 

[Brickjectivity]

The important thing is that the parent loves the child and wants to rear the child. Its important to entrust decision making to parents. The decision must be theirs.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm with Alceste. Out of ignorance we had our first son circumcised. Some old fashioned doctor told us it waas routine. Poor kid cried so long and hard that we didn't put the second one through the ordeal.

The doctor did it wrong.

 

[Me Myself]

I am cut, but I do think it should be viewed as child abuse.

The child gets horrible pain for nothing.

Why not cut a part of his finger? You know, like a little tip he wont miss? Wait... Cutting the penis is way more painful.

By this I dont think those who made their children be cut are abusers. I wouldnt look at them differently. I love my parents, I am sure they did what they thoug was best for me.

But they were wrong. There is no need.

If it were ilegal, to do so to babies then there would probably be way less of a stigma to uncuts. (Which is one of the reasons people cut it too. My parents arent and werent overly religious)

 

[Me Myself]

The doctor did it wrong.

? You say you can chop. Apart of a penis off without e baby crying o.o

You Rambo's dad?

 

[Alceste]

I am cut, but I do think it should be viewed as child abuse.

The child gets horrible pain for nothing.

Why not cut a part of his finger? You know, like a little tip he wont miss? Wait... Cutting the penis is way more painful.

By this I dont think those who made their children be cut are abusers. I wouldnt look at them differently. I love my parents, I am sure they did what they thoug was best for me.

But they were wrong. There is no need.

If it were ilegal, to do so to babies then there would probably be way less of a stigma to uncuts. (Which is one of the reasons people cut it too. My parents arent and werent overly religious)

The act is abusive, but the perpetrators aren't necessarily abusive people. Social pressure and tradition is a mighty compelling force. I have no doubt those who choose circumcision (both male and female) love their kids and sincerely believe they are acting in their best interest. I simply disagree that this is the case. Also, I could never hurt a child unnecessarily.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't know.

I do dislike it and don't think it's fair to do it to infants and newborns. Later on, though, I don't have a problem with it (or ritual tattooing or scarification, or whatever) if it's left up to the child as he grows up.

The problem with circumcising newborns is that they can't consent.
But abuse? I don't know. I can see arguments for both.

Oh I agree with the middle paragraph a lot. I they want to do it by all means!

But it is arbitrary to let this pass because of religion when something similar but not judeochristian would not be let pass, because we could see it outside of our traditions for what it is: unnecessary pain on an unwilling innocent subject.

 

[Caladan]

The babies don't cry? There's no pain?

During the last circumcision procedure I was present at the baby did not cry.

 

[Caladan]

Also I have to say something about the weak logic behind the baby not having consent. If all of you who mentioned that hadn't had decisions made for you from the time you were infants until you became young adults you simply experienced bad parenting. Parents make decisions for their babies and children on regular basis according to their judgment and to benefit their children.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Also I have to say something about the weak logic behind the baby not having consent. If all of you who mentioned that hadn't had decisions made for you from the time you were infants until you became young adults you simply experienced bad parenting. Parents make decisions for their babies and children on regular basis according to their judgment and to benefit their children.

There's a difference between cutting off a part of the body and deciding stuff like what they wear, what they eat, where they go to school, etc.

Wouldn't the very same argument apply to tattoos or earlobe stretching? Should we allow those being done to small children?

 

[Breathe]

But it part of life not to have a say in some things. I mean if you believe in God and then think about the fact that we have no say in dying, does that make God evil and does that make the whole dying thing evil too?

I wouldn't compare humans and God; that's shirk, though I know what you're trying to say, I disagree. Humans should not have authority over other humans, in my view.

The child gets no say in many things and the reason for circumcision being done at a young age is because he won't remember it nor be affected in any way such as be traumatized from the experience.

If a child, adolescent, youth, or adult could be affected in any way, especially such as being traumatized, then that gives me more reason not to support it.

One could say that birth is painful too since the newborn always cries. But because no one has any memory of it, no one can say that it is painful it's like it has never happened.

But one has to be born; one doesn't have to be circumcised.

 

[Poisonshady313]

? You say you can chop. Apart of a penis off without e baby crying o.o

You Rambo's dad?

Caladan just told of us a circumcision procedure where the baby did not cry.

The circumcisions I have been present for, the crying lasted only a couple of seconds.

If the crying was "so long and so hard"... The doctor did it wrong.