The standard for plastic surgery is that it's not routinely performed on infants, except to correct specifically identified problems. If that's the standard you want to apply to circumcision, then I think that's just fine.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban
- Thread starter Bismillah
- Start date
Your article describes webbing of the neck as a congenital malformation. A foreskin is not a congenital malformation.
It's not the removal of skin to restore normal appearance.
Here's the difference: there is nothing wrong with the foreskin. It is not a deficiency or deformation by any stretch of the imagination. OTOH, neck webbing is, as your article implies, a malformation. It's reasonable for parents to want to "fix" their child's malformation, even if it's mild.
IMO, it's unreasonable to consider a foreskin a malformation.
If you want to argue that your god has commanded you to circumcise your children, then that's one thing, but you seem to be arguing for something completely different.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Plastic surgery is sometimes called mutilation. It depends on the reason and procedure. Most cosmetic surgeries don't remove a body part and are due to a perceived or real abnormality. It's a broad category compared to the specific instance of newborn circumcision.
I'm not opposed to religious groups practicing it, but I'd like the U.S. to not offer it as a standard procedure. I think a reasonable compromise would be something similar to opting out of vaccines, requiring notarized signature of the parent stating their wishes.
While I don't support a ban-- even though it is inconsistant to allow circumcision, it is such a culturally ingrained practice with pretty small negative effects-- I do not plan on circumcising my son, should I have one.
I would hope that doctors make it more clear that circumcision is a choice and not a medically necessary procedure. It shouldn't just be assumed that that is the only good option for loving parents to make. I would like to see more literature out there for the public, in office waiting rooms etc, basically stating that circumcision is optional and medically unnecessary.
I would hope that doctors make it more clear that circumcision is a choice and not a medically necessary procedure. It shouldn't just be assumed that that is the only good option for loving parents to make. I would like to see more literature out there for the public, in office waiting rooms etc, basically stating that circumcision is optional and medically unnecessary.
I'd go further: IMO, except where a parent actually feels obliged to have circumcision done, I think it's an unloving act.
I have some sympathy for the mindset that says that it's unpleasant but necessary... but take away the "necessary" part of that (as is the case in the majority of circumcisions that take place in the US), then all you're left with is "unpleasant", and without a compelling reason to do it, I don't think it should be inflicted on a child.
Not so,the comparison is that the Baby has no choice in the matter,it is after all an uneccessary painful procedure,more,what if the Baby gets to adulthood and decides the culture or religion that requires circumcision isn't for him,or is the reason its done when the Boy is a Baby he wouldn't choose to do it as an adult.
The only argument I've ever heard in FAVOUR of young infant circumcision is that it hurts less and heals better. So assuming someone is going to have it done, it's better to have it done before they're old enough to choose.
However, other than in specific cases (frenulum breve, phimosis etc), there is no benefit to doing it. There are some studies showing small links in both directions with STD transfer but the health benefits are not significant. The sexual effect is generally detrimental.
I think the way to ask yourself this question is to ignore what body part it is and say "If there were a part of my body that could be removed and would heal, that caused no significant problems and the removal would cause some detriment would you be happy if someone knocked you out and removed it because doing it without consent made it heal better?"
If anybody answers that question "yes" I'd like to know why.
However, other than in specific cases (frenulum breve, phimosis etc), there is no benefit to doing it. There are some studies showing small links in both directions with STD transfer but the health benefits are not significant. The sexual effect is generally detrimental.
I think the way to ask yourself this question is to ignore what body part it is and say "If there were a part of my body that could be removed and would heal, that caused no significant problems and the removal would cause some detriment would you be happy if someone knocked you out and removed it because doing it without consent made it heal better?"
If anybody answers that question "yes" I'd like to know why.
This.
I don't have a problem with circumcision, especially religious, but I don't agree that it should be the norm or default in society. This is just humans encouraging each other to be further dissatisfied with our natural body, which is ridiculous and harmful.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Statistically as an American of any race or religion that was almost a certainty. Your partners probably knew no different either.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
In most of the world it is not the default position.
In Europe it is something you would have to ask for, and more than likely go to hospital for, family Doctors in the UK are not taught how to do it.
I resent the wast of money to the NHS having to do it.
Do you also wish they had had your earlobes removed to give you "beautifully sculpted and streamlined ears"? Except for cases of religious obligation, it's really no different; either one is just a an arbitrary aesthetic preference.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but according to pretty much all health organizations in the world, routine circumcision is not beneficial.
Unless it has concrete benefits, it's just mutilating a child because of the parents' religious beliefs or aesthetic preference.
The point is it is not an attack on Jews or Muslims or any other religious group. It's opposing the mutilation of children without their consent.