Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

[Poisonshady313]

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?

I know a guy who was born with a 6th finger on each hand. The extra fingers were immediately removed. Nobody asked his permission.

What's the verdict... was he abused and mutilated?

 

[Caladan]

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.

Not necessarily. You may not see the reasoning or benefits behind it, but many other people do see it. Leaving aside the information of whether circumcision has health benefits or not, many people consider circumcision to be far more aesthetic and the foreskin to be nothing like cutting off a functional organ.

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

To be honest in light of the context of such practices I would not wish to ban them. The idea that entire indigenous people should be robbed of their rights of passage, their bodily aesthetics, or perceptions of hygiene is taken straight from colonial textbooks. Also there are different practices and I much rather treat them all by their own merit. For example I can't compare FGM to piercing baby girls in India.

 

[Poisonshady313]

The face of an abused child. Behold.

 

[Aquitaine]

Not necessarily. You may not see the reasoning or benefits behind it, but many other people do see it. Leaving aside the information of whether circumcision has health benefits or not, many people consider circumcision to be far more aesthetic and the foreskin to be nothing like cutting off a functional organ.

Taking to one side the very disputable medical benfits of circumcision, all we're left with then is basically is "it looks better". The question shouldn't be "why not?" - it should just be "why?".

Pffft, not your body, not your choice. Also it can't be compared to other things like parents making other decisions on behalf of the child, like which school to attend etc.

 

[Caladan]

Taking to one side the very disputable medical benfits of circumcision, all we're left with then is basically is "it looks better". The question shouldn't be "why not?" - it should just be "why?".

Pffft, not your body, not your choice. Also it can't be compared to other things like parents making other decisions on behalf of the child, like which school to attend etc.

You Say Potatoe, I Say Potato.

 

[Aquitaine]

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.

Yes but never anything that extreme, and for such trivial reasons. All these guys you talk about that say they're glad they're cut simply don't know what it's like to be uncut for comparison. Granted, I don't know what it's like to be cut, but atleast I (unlike them) have the choice to find out if I wish to do so as an adult.
You wouldn't like someone chopping off part of your bits as a kid purely because "it looks cool" and "it made you easier to clean as a baby".

 

[Aquitaine]

The face of an abused child. Behold.

Why stop there?

Give her multiple piercings running up her earlobe. Get a nose piercing and whilst we're at it - tongue piercing!

After all, if she decides she wants to have a head full of metal as an adult, she'll already have the piercing holes required. Also (as the only reason parents do stuff like this) - it looks cool!

 

[mycorrhiza]

I know a guy who was born with a 6th finger on each hand. The extra fingers were immediately removed. Nobody asked his permission.

What's the verdict... was he abused and mutilated?

Foreskin is supposed to be there, a sixth finger is not and would likely have been a hindrance since extra body parts rarely work. So if you're going to compare it to chopping off another part of the body, please do so with a part that's supposed to be there, like the pinky toe or the earlobe.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Not necessarily. You may not see the reasoning or benefits behind it, but many other people do see it. Leaving aside the information of whether circumcision has health benefits or not, many people consider circumcision to be far more aesthetic and the foreskin to be nothing like cutting off a functional organ.

Parents aren't allowed to give their babies face tattoos or cheek piercings just because they find aesthetic value in it. The right to your own body should be ranked higher than the right to do unnecessary and permanent procedures on children who can't consent to them.

To be honest in light of the context of such practices I would not wish to ban them. The idea that entire indigenous people should be robbed of their rights of passage, their bodily aesthetics, or perceptions of hygiene is taken straight from colonial textbooks. Also there are different practices and I much rather treat them all by their own merit. For example I can't compare FGM to piercing baby girls in India.

It's not about robbing people of their rites of passage, but rather about protecting the rights of children. Many circumcised men (about 20% iirc) wish that they weren't circumcised, and that is reason alone to ban it. Once a person is 18, they can get circumcised, get a full body tattoo, stretch their earlobes or stick needles through their cheeks, that's their right to their own body.

FGM is, of course, much worse than an ear piercing or male circumcision, but neither of these processes should be allowed to be done on children who can't consent to them.

 

[mycorrhiza]

The face of an abused child. Behold.

I don't think piercings should be allowed on small children, but a simple ear piercing isn't permanent as the hole will close if the piercing is removed.

 

[Caladan]

Parents aren't allowed to give their babies face tattoos or cheek piercings just because they find aesthetic value in it. The right to your own body should be ranked higher than the right to do unnecessary and permanent procedures on children who can't consent to them.

I beg to differ. Perhaps not in your culture, but in many other cultures and regions people engage in various types of body modifications. In these regions it may very well be the norm. Likewise, there are cultures which have been circumcising their boys for thousands of years, to them removing the foreskin is trivial and necessary. Just like you may find the removal of the foreskin shocking, in these cultures having a foreskin is outlandish, and while I do not expect you to agree with their sense of aesthetics or traditions, you are going to have to try to appreciate the fact that what you consider shocking and what they consider shocking is simply reversed in this case.

It's not about robbing people of their rites of passage, but rather about protecting the rights of children.

Again, I beg to differ. It is a classic case of moral superiority over appreciating the fact that we live in a world with different people and cultures who are sometimes radically different from each other. There is no possible way that for example we can go to a Pacific island and tell the people that from now own they cannot apply body art because by the values of our culture it is considered barbaric.

Many circumcised men (about 20% iirc) wish that they weren't circumcised, and that is reason alone to ban it.

I'd like to see the study in order to learn more about it. Which country (countries) held the study? which cultures were surveyed? were the circumcised men part of a certain culture? why was circumcision preformed on them? etc.

Once a person is 18, they can get circumcised, get a full body tattoo, stretch their earlobes or stick needles through their cheeks, that's their right to their own body.

This is social relativism and ignores the cultural contexts of these practices. If a person would get a choice at 18 to preform such practices not only will these practices lose their effect, but by that time it will be abuse of a child who grew up differently than his native culture, and denied being part of it. Against his will to boot.

FGM is, of course, much worse than an ear piercing or male circumcision, but neither of these processes should be allowed to be done on children who can't consent to them.

We will agree to disagree. I would not presume to expect you to circumcise any future baby boy you may bring to this world but to work from your personal and social norms, likewise I'd like to think that my sensibilities and those of my culture are not going to be excluded either.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I beg to differ. Perhaps not in your culture, but in many other cultures and regions people engage in various types of body modifications. In these regions it may very well be the norm. Likewise, there are cultures which have been circumcising their boys for thousands of years, to them removing the foreskin is trivial and necessary. Just like you may find the removal of the foreskin shocking, in these cultures having a foreskin is outlandish, and while I do not expect you to agree with their sense of aesthetics or traditions, you are going to have to try to appreciate the fact that what you consider shocking and what they consider shocking is simply reversed in this case.

Again, I beg to differ. It is a classic case of moral superiority over appreciating the fact that we live in a world with different people and cultures who are sometimes radically different from each other. There is no possible way that for example we can go to a Pacific island and tell the people that from now own they cannot apply body art because by the values of our culture it is considered barbaric.

Your right to practice your culture or religion should end with yourself. In some cultures, women having sex before marriage is shocking, but that doesn't matter because women should have the right to their own bodies. Rights should always be more important than culture or religion.

I don't just apply these standards to other cultures, but the one I was raised in as well. I don't like one bit that meat eating is such a big part of that culture, and I think that animal rights should be more important than the right to eat ham on yule evening.

I'd like to see the study in order to learn more about it. Which country (countries) held the study? which cultures were surveyed? were the circumcised men part of a certain culture? why was circumcision preformed on them? etc.

I can see if I can find it. Pretty sure it was North American men, mostly Christians and non-religious.

 

[Aquitaine]

Rights should always be more important than culture or religion.

Absolultely agree. :yes:

Just as we can criticize cultures who practice FGM for "cultural" and "religious" reasons. I don't see anyone here jumping to defend that stuff.

 

[Caladan]

Your right to practice your culture or religion should end with yourself. In some cultures, women having sex before marriage is shocking, but that doesn't matter because women should have the right to their own bodies. Rights should always be more important than culture or religion.

Sorry but that's a nice way to propogate a Soviet communist manifesto. In other words erasing all cultural identity and expression. It sounds nice on paper, never IRL.

I don't just apply these standards to other cultures, but the one I was raised in as well.

But your culture may be different in several ways to begin with, so that's not really something to celebrate.

I don't like one bit that meat eating is such a big part of that culture, and I think that animal rights should be more important than the right to eat ham on yule evening.

We are mixing too many things in this thread to have any meaningful discussion on the topic at hand. But to address your post I would say that while I would support moderate meat consumption and at least basic animal rights I would not support my child to practice vegetarianism, much in the sense that in case my child is a boy I will already make the decision for him to be circumcised.

I can see if I can find it. Pretty sure it was North American men, mostly Christians and non-religious.

That's pretty much reaffirms my suspicion.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Sorry but that's a nice way to propogate a Soviet communist manifesto. In other words erasing all cultural identity and expression. It sounds nice on paper, never IRL.

It wouldn't erase cultural identity and expression, just prohibit people from forcing it on others. I'm a folk musician, so I'm part of upholding an old cultural expression but I wouldn't dream of forcing other people to. People should be able to practice any cultures or religions they want, wherever they want and whenever they want as long as it doesn't hinder the rights of other people. If my future children express the desire to regularly go to a church/temple/mosque/etc, I will let them, because I don't wish to force them into my religion.

We are mixing too many things in this thread to have any meaningful discussion on the topic at hand. But to address your post I would say that while I would support moderate meat consumption and at least basic animal rights I would not support my child to practice vegetarianism, much in the sense that in case my child is a boy I will already make the decision for him to be circumcised.

Vegetarianism isn't necessarily permanent. As long as my future children cannot make their own decision I will give them vegetarian food, but if they say that they want to eat meat in preschool/school or when we go out to eat I will let them. I can choose not to cook meat, but that doesn't mean I would force my children to adhere to vegetarianism or force them not to cook meat once they're old enough to handle cooking for themselves.

 

[Caladan]

Vegetarianism isn't necessarily permanent. As long as my future children cannot make their own decision I will give them vegetarian food, but if they say that they want to eat meat in preschool/school or when we go out to eat I will let them. I can choose not to cook meat, but that doesn't mean I would force my children to adhere to vegetarianism or force them not to cook meat once they're old enough to handle cooking for themselves.

That you said the above and claimed that people should be prohibited from deciding to circumcise their baby boys in the same breath, is simply amazing. I learned yet another valuable lesson in double standards today.

 

[Aquitaine]

That you said the above and claimed that people should be prohibited from deciding to circumcise their baby boys in the same breath, is simply amazing. I learned yet another valuable lesson in double standards today.

Forgive my intrusion, but I'm compelled to point out that the difference is the Vegetarian kid can decide to eat Meat if he wants to, whereas the circumcised boy cannot decide to have his foreskin back.

 

[mycorrhiza]

That you said the above and claimed that people should be prohibited from deciding to circumcise their baby boys in the same breath, is simply amazing. I learned yet another valuable lesson in double standards today.

So you think permanently removing a body part and cooking a certain kind of food is equal? I said that if my child expressed that they wanted to eat meat, I would allow them.

 

[Caladan]

So you think permanently removing a body part and cooking a certain kind of food is equal? I said that if my child expressed that they wanted to eat meat, I would allow them.

But you already enforced your norms and values on them, so what difference does it make? Also you were one of the members that compared all kinds of practices to circumcision to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have a circumcised penis, and have experienced no negative consequences, and feel that's its preferable due to hygienics and aesthetics.

My experience invalidates your "observation".

Someone who got a cigarette burn as an infant could probably say the same thing. Does this mean that putting a cigarette out on a baby isn't abusive?