Do you consider circumcision child abuse?

[Koldo]

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

Yes, a small percentage.

The health benefit is also very small.

So?

 

[Breathe]

So far I'm seeing, in defense, I've seen:

Claims about hygiene -- even though the hygiene benefits are grossly overrated; have people heard of washing? Do some people think uncut people walk around with a block of knob cheese or something?

Aesthetics -- personal and cultural, not everyone share the same aesthetic views, so how can this apply? I could understand for aesthetic choices for painting walls, or whatever, but a permanent, body modification?

"It's my choice to do it to my children" -- but what about the child's choice?

"I can do it if I want to, you don't have to, but it's my culture or religion or choice" -- the same could be said of scarification and ritualized tattooing, but people would condemn that on a newborn.


So far I've not seen any reason why these need to be done to a child.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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 can see your point here, but I'm honestly interested in knowing the reasoning behind two things in your above argument:

1. Certain cultures mutilate their female infants' genitals and regard it as an important practice; does opposing such practice and supporting making it illegal necessarily mean that one is trying to propagate "a Soviet communist manifesto"?

2. Some cultures have traditions and practice things that could be shown to be harmful via scientific and objective methods; should their traditions and practices still be protected against being made illegal just because they are considered part of said cultures' identities?

Please note that I don't intend to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilation or any other similarly abusive practices. As I said at the beginning of my post, I can see good arguments from both sides and find this to be an issue that's far from being black-and-white.

 

[Caladan]

Odion and Debater, I think you need to read back in the last pages of this thread because from what I can see these issues have already been discussed and debated. I believe I answered these inquiries several times.

 

[Caladan]

Oh and since I seem to have some kind of a force field or a barrier with some people who refuse to see my POV. Let me summarize it to you in song and dance. Preformed about 30 minutes from where I live, I know I'll feel happy in my pants next time I walk on the Tel Aviv beach line.

[youtube]gvjbLYXnQmE[/youtube]
I'm Jewish And You Know It - Official Parody to Sexy and I know it - YouTube

 

[Tarheeler]

A little late to the game, but I'll throw in my two cents: no, I don't see it as abuse.

We chose to circumcise all three of our boys, and it was a decision based on lengthy talks with my wife's ob/gyn, our pediatrician, and other doctors. Simply put, we found that, in our opinion, the benefits outweighed the risk, and in our role as parents it was a decision we needed to make. I'm sure there are many that disagree, but I didn't (and still don't) see it being any different than choosing to vaccinate my children against disease even if the risk of contracting the disease is low and the vaccination itself carries possible side-effects.

As parents, we must take the available information and use it to make the decisions we feel are best for our children. And that is true whether the decisions are medical, cultural, religious, or fall into some other category.

 

[Aquitaine]

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.

So parents who choose not to circumcise are idiots now?
I don't neccessarily think parents who circumcise boys are abusive by the way, but I think the act of unneccessary circumcision is.

Anyways, I was taught to properly clean myself, it ain't hard lol. Practicing good personal hygiene solves the uncleanliness issues. Rather than chopping of a nerve-packed layer of skin that is arguable an erogenous zone, why not just teach boys how to clean there genitals properly?

Would you be willing to have part of your bits chopped off if it made cleaning easier?

 

[averageJOE]

My opinion is this:

I'd be in favor of passing a law that leaves the decision to circumcise to that of the father and the father only.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Odion and Debater, I think you need to read back in the last pages of this thread because from what I can see these issues have already been discussed and debated. I believe I answered these inquiries several times.

I've been following this thread from the get-go, but none of the posts in the thread seem to answer the questions I had/have (hence my posing them for clarification).

To answer the OP, being circumcised hasn't negatively affected me in any way, and I've been checked by many doctors since birth. Most males I know were also circumcised, and none of them seems to have any problems because of it or has expressed a wish not to have had it done to them. So no, I don't lean toward considering it child abuse, but my stance on this issue isn't set in stone either.

I believe it could be argued that inculcating children with any given set of principles, values, and/or concepts is a form of "forcing" something on them, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, at least not in terms of intentions. Parents usually try to do what is best for their children, which includes teaching them specific values, telling them how to act in specific situations, and, in this case, circumcising them.

But there's also the issue that circumcision is permanent and irreversible. A child might be circumcised but later realize that he wouldn't have chosen to have the procedure done to him if he had been able to choose at the time. That's the objection with the most merit that I can see, but circumcision isn't the only thing that a child might regret having been done to them later. The same could probably be said for a child who is brought up in a specific religion or lack thereof and later converts to another, or one who doesn't agree with the values they were inculcated with during childhood.

Like I said, I see merit in both sides' arguments, so I don't think I'd label either of them as "abusive" or any other term with such strong negative connotations.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

My opinion is this:

I'd be in favor of passing a law that leaves the decision to circumcise to that of the father and the father only.

Wow
we have a sexist prize entry.......

 

[averageJOE]

Wow
we have a sexist prize entry.......

Riiiiggght...

 

[Caladan]

But there's also the issue that circumcision is permanent and irreversible. A child might be circumcised but later realize that he wouldn't have chosen to have the procedure done to him if he had been able to choose at the time. That's the objection with the most merit that I can see, but circumcision isn't the only thing that a child might regret having been done to them later. The same could probably be said for a child who is brought up in a specific religion or lack thereof and later converts to another, or one who doesn't agree with the values they were inculcated with during childhood.

Like I said, I see merit in both sides' arguments, so I don't think I'd label either of them as "abusive" or any other term with such strong negative connotations.

Thanks for the clarifications. But would you agree that in Egyptian or Israeli society to leave the choice to the boy for the time that he grows up will only make life harder for him?

 

[Alceste]

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.

That reminds me of my own parents - they were devout Christians when I was born, but they didn't have me baptized. They did not believe it was their right to choose my spiritual path for me at birth and make a load of promises on my behalf I may not wish to keep. They left it completely up to me - hoped I might one day choose to be baptized, but did not feel they had the right to make that decision for me.

IMO, baptism is not a very meaningful religious ritual if the subject has no choice. I feel the same about circumcision.

 

[Alceste]

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.

I'm not dodging rebuttals. I am skeptical of the purported health benefits and choose not to get bogged down there, since it's not relevant anyway. I've been with a lot of uncut guys (my four most serious relationships were with a French Canadian, a Guatemalan, an Irish man and an English man - all cultures where circumcision is very rare). They have not had any trouble keeping their penises clean. Heck, I've washed a few myself. It's not rocket science. Also, we do a million things throughout our lives that marginally increase our risk of some kind of cancer or other. I don't think there is strong evidence for any significant health benefit that couldn't be attained by learning to wash your penis properly.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm not dodging rebuttals. I am skeptical of the purported health benefits and choose not to get bogged down there, since it's not relevant anyway. I've been with a lot of uncut guys (my four most serious relationships were with a French Canadian, a Guatemalan, an Irish man and an English man - all cultures where circumcision is very rare). They have not had any trouble keeping their penises clean. Heck, I've washed a few myself. It's not rocket science. Also, we do a million things throughout our lives that marginally increase our risk of some kind of cancer or other. I don't think there is strong evidence for any significant health benefit that couldn't be attained by learning to wash your penis properly.[/quote]

Some would suppose regular sex is all that is needed to keep it clean...... Aghhh.................

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not dodging rebuttals. I am skeptical of the purported health benefits and choose not to get bogged down there, since it's not relevant anyway. I've been with a lot of uncut guys (my four most serious relationships were with a French Canadian, a Guatemalan, an Irish man and an English man - all cultures where circumcision is very rare). They have not had any trouble keeping their penises clean. Heck, I've washed a few myself. It's not rocket science. Also, we do a million things throughout our lives that marginally increase our risk of some kind of cancer or other. I don't think there is strong evidence for any significant health benefit that couldn't be attained by learning to wash your penis properly.

Likewise, properly brushing teeth makes a visit to the dentist (another purported rarity among the English ) unnecessary, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

- The benefits of circumcision, to the extent that they actually exist, are offset by the risk of harm. Over the course of a man's life, whether a man is circumcised or not makes no statistically significant difference in terms of life expectancy or health outcomes.

- Any discussion of health benefits isn't going to show the whole picture if we only look at the status quo versus circumcision. For an honest discussion, we'd need to consider whether the benefits of circumcision could be obtained some other way. For instance, one report I read talked about reducing the risk of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys by inoculating the foreskin with benign bacteria that prevent harmful bacteria from taking root.

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

So would you be in favour of prohibiting circumcisions by people other than medical professionals (mohels, for instance) and done in non-sterile environments (homes and synagogues, for instance)?

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.

Post 46 is a straw man.

Abuse is a spectrum. Circumcision isn't the worst form of abuse out there, but recognizing it as abuse doesn't downplay severe abuse any more than calling an injury that only needs stitches an injury downplays the injury of a multiple limb amputee.

 

[Alceste]

Likewise, properly brushing teeth makes a visit to the dentist (another purported rarity among the English ) unnecessary, right?

Does that have something to do with circumcision? You know uncircumcised people also go to the doctor if they have a problem, right? Sorry, I can't see the parallel. Maybe you could explain?

 

[Alceste]

Abuse is a spectrum. Circumcision isn't the worst form of abuse out there, but recognizing it as abuse doesn't downplay severe abuse any more than calling an injury that only needs stitches an injury downplays the injury of a multiple limb amputee.

Agreed. While I do consider it abusive, just as I consider spanking, teasing and a number of other common parenting practices abusive, it's nothing I'm going to call the authorities in for, and I don't think it should be banned. It's going out of style already in my country, and I'm happy to allow people to arrive at their own conclusions. Education is probably enough. If parents understand it is a zero sum game (minor benefits which outweigh minor risks), l don't think many will be choosing circumcision for anything other than religious reasons.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think if a minor, health-related procedure is considered abuse by someone, then they should thank their lucky stars that their life is so smooth and easy.