Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

[Revoltingest]

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.

You illustrate the differences which I see. Some of us would grant the child the right to ultimately make the decision about irreversible medically unnecessary minor surgery to himself. Others believe that the parents should decide this for the child to suit their convenience, cultural or religious preferences. And a few still even favor extreme procedures such as FGM. Whatever the reason, it all boils down to how much authority the parents have, how much autonomy the child has, & what standards government will use in protecting/limiting both. There won't be universal agreement, just an unhappy compromise.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

lol, wow, um, I don't even know how to respond to this one.

 

[dawny0826]

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".

You clearly didn't read my posts. My ex-husband was uncircumcised for sixteen years. He knew what it felt like and claimed that masturbation felt better afterwards. He was a very clean person. Smegna is gross to some people, even to men.

My point is that, a baby doesn't have the ability to clean himself, dude. If you were my son...I'm taking care of you. I'm responsible for you. I'm going to be making those decisions that I feel are in your best interest.

As a mother, I feel that skin that isn't necessary for peeing and sex and is a breeding ground for bacteria can be removed, particularly, when it's a very small amount of skin - results in an incredibly short lived procedure for which healing time is usually short.

You will not have penile cancer. Though the risk of having penile cancer is low anyway (I get this), I'm sure you'd still prefer to live rather than die or have painful surgery on your pee-pee later on in life because your idiot parents opted out of a simple circumcision procedure. You will harbor less bacteria on your genitalia, which in turn, may reduce the risk of infecting your sexual partners with bacteria-borne illness and HPV. When you're an elderly man and revert back to child-like needs for care - nurses will not be cleaning cottage cheese gunk away from skin. You will have fewer UTIs and you may be able to avoid a far more painful circumcision in your elderly years that you WILL remember.

Again, it's all a matter of perception and the importance of how we perceive "benefits". You don't have to have your male children circumcised, but, I prefer not to be labeled a chid abuser for doing what I would feel is best for my children.

 

[dawny0826]

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.

Agreed.

 

[Father Heathen]

Here's a question: of the portion of the population that are circumcised, what percentage of them claim to feel violated and traumatized? Wouldn't the views of the "victims" hold far more value than anyone else's?

 

[Caladan]

Again, it's all a matter of perception and the importance of how we perceive "benefits". You don't have to have your male children circumcised, but, I prefer not to be labeled a chid abuser for doing what I would feel is best for my children.

That about sums it for me. After reading this thread (like the threads before it on the subject) all I was left with from the other side of the debate is meaningless polemics about abuse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

lol, wow, um, I don't even know how to respond to this one.

Try.

What makes circumcision better than burning a child with a cigarette?

Is circumcision less painful? Does it have less likelihood of infection?

The main difference I see is that in circumcision, the child's pain isn't the point (although it's a foreseeable consequence), but in most other contexts, intent only matters when deciding how culpable a perpetrator is, not whether the act should be allowed at all.

 

[dawny0826]

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?

Dear lord, dude. It's really not comparable.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Where traditions or religions are concerned, valid arguments of this sort are close to impossible to resolve.
Jews, Moslems and Americans mostly circumcise their boy children. In most of Europe and certainly in the UK circumcision is rare, Most doctors are not trained to even do it.

The various health reasons given are largely apocryphal or insignificant.

... some one mentioned the "Stigma" of not being circumcised, This is not something I had even considered as a possibility. People here do not even care enough about the state of your penis for either to be seen as a stigma. Though we do find the obsession with having it done weird rather than funny Ha Ha.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's a question: of the portion of the population that are circumcised, what percentage of them claim to feel violated and traumatized? Wouldn't the views of the "victims" hold far more value than anyone else's?

If infancy was the one and only chance for circumcision, then this might matter. However, adults can get circumcised too, so anyone who really, truly wants to be circumcised can get it done when they're old enough to freely choose.

Even if 99% of the people who were circumcised as infants liked it as adults, that 1% of people who didn't like it would still be millions of people who had had their bodies modified against their wishes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dear lord, dude. It's really not comparable.

Explain how.

 

[Father Heathen]

Try.

What makes circumcision better than burning a child with a cigarette?

Unlike actual abuse it doesn't cause lasting psychological trauma (and I would know better than you since you would consider me a so-called "victim" of circumcision, would you not?), and it has medical, hygienic, and aesthetic benefits. The data was provided, so don't be willfully ignorant about it.

Is circumcision less painful? Does it have less likelihood of infection?

When done properly in a sterile environment by a medical professional using anesthetics, yes.

The main difference I see is that in circumcision, the child's pain isn't the point (although it's a foreseeable consequence), but in most other contexts, intent only matters when deciding how culpable a perpetrator is, not whether the act should be allowed at all.

Referring back to post 46, would you consider parents who take their kids to the dentist to be "perpetrators"? Using that word lightly downplays the severity of real, actual abuse.

 

[Gharib]

The thing with circumcision is that for the least amount of pain and complications it is best done at infancy. Yes it can be done latter but it is a much bigger problem.

I could just as well argue that not circumcising ones child at infancy is child abuse if that child latter decides to do it and faces much more problems than they would have as an infant.

It's all over in just a few days when you're a child.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

It's probably a good idea to read a thread before posting in it, to ensure what you add has weight and value. Unless you're deliberately dodging rebuttals, and if that's the case it's probably best to reconsider participation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The thing with circumcision is that for the least amount of pain and complications it is best done at infancy. Yes it can be done latter but it is a much bigger problem.

I could just as well argue that not circumcising ones child at infancy is child abuse if that child latter decides to do it and faces much more problems than they would have as an infant.

It's all over in just a few days when you're a child.

Actually, doing it right after birth - i.e. the usual time when it's done for cultural reasons - significantly increases the risk of complications. Circumcision has much more risk associated with it if you don't wait until at least 30 days after birth, once the foreskin and glans have had a chance to separate on their own instead of being forced apart.

 

[Gharib]

Actually, doing it right after birth - i.e. the usual time when it's done for cultural reasons - significantly increases the risk of complications. Circumcision has much more risk associated with it if you don't wait until at least 30 days after birth, once the foreskin and glans have had a chance to separate on their own instead of being forced apart.

Well I didn't say that it should be done on the same day as their day of birth. By infancy I meant before they come to learn how to speak, ie before the age of 2. And if before 30 days there is a possibility of a complication then it should be done after that period.

 

[Koldo]

My point is that, a baby doesn't have the ability to clean himself, dude. If you were my son...I'm taking care of you. I'm responsible for you. I'm going to be making those decisions that I feel are in your best interest.

As a mother, I feel that skin that isn't necessary for peeing and sex and is a breeding ground for bacteria can be removed, particularly, when it's a very small amount of skin - results in an incredibly short lived procedure for which healing time is usually short.

You will not have penile cancer. Though the risk of having penile cancer is low anyway (I get this), I'm sure you'd still prefer to live rather than die or have painful surgery on your pee-pee later on in life because your idiot parents opted out of a simple circumcision procedure. You will harbor less bacteria on your genitalia, which in turn, may reduce the risk of infecting your sexual partners with bacteria-borne illness and HPV. When you're an elderly man and revert back to child-like needs for care - nurses will not be cleaning cottage cheese gunk away from skin. You will have fewer UTIs and you may be able to avoid a far more painful circumcision in your elderly years that you WILL remember.

Again, it's all a matter of perception and the importance of how we perceive "benefits". You don't have to have your male children circumcised, but, I prefer not to be labeled a chid abuser for doing what I would feel is best for my children.

Are you certain you want to continue this argument in favour of circumcision using health benefits?

Because even a quick read on wiki will lead you to this:

"Neonatal circumcision is generally safe when done by an experienced practitioner.[54] The most common acute complications are bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin.[5][17] These complications occur in less than 1% of procedures, and constitute the vast majority of all circumcision complications in the United States.[17] A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.[5] Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age.[16] Significant acute complications happen rarely,[5][16] occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.[5] Severe to catastrophic complications are sufficiently rare that they are reported only as individual case reports.[5] The mortality risk is estimated at 1 in every 500,000 neonatal procedures conducted within the United States.[17]
Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[18] The Royal Dutch Medical Association's 2010 Viewpoint mentions that "complications in the area of sexuality" have been reported.[55]"

There are small health benefits as there are disavantages to perform circumcision on an infant. It is a zero-sum.

 

[Gharib]

Are you certain you want to continue this argument in favour of circumcision using health benefits?

Because even a quick read on wiki will lead you to this:

"Neonatal circumcision is generally safe when done by an experienced practitioner.[54] The most common acute complications are bleeding, infection and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin.[5][17] These complications occur in less than 1% of procedures, and constitute the vast majority of all circumcision complications in the United States.[17] A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.[5] Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age.[16] Significant acute complications happen rarely,[5][16] occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.[5] Severe to catastrophic complications are sufficiently rare that they are reported only as individual case reports.[5] The mortality risk is estimated at 1 in every 500,000 neonatal procedures conducted within the United States.[17]
Circumcision does not appear to decrease the sensitivity of the penis, harm sexual function or reduce sexual satisfaction.[18] The Royal Dutch Medical Association's 2010 Viewpoint mentions that "complications in the area of sexuality" have been reported.[55]"

There are small health benefits as there are disavantages to perform circumcision on an infant. It is a zero-sum.

It says complications can get worse when the child is at an older age. Hence, it should be done early.

And why does everyone assume that a parent would have their kid circumcised by an inexperienced amateur?
Does it happen? It probably does but why be against those who do it right?

 

[Koldo]

It says complications can get worse when the child is at an older age. Hence, it should be done early.

Hence it should NOT be done at all.

And why does everyone assume that a parent would have their kid circumcised by an inexperienced amateur?
Does it happen? It probably does but why be against those who do it right?

It still happens with professionals.

 

[Gharib]

Hence it should NOT be done at all.

It still happens with professionals.

Um, it says small percentage. Your article, you posted it. Read the very first sentence.