"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[Falvlun]

A vaccine is not a bodily mutilation..circumcision is.

There is a difference to me in cutting off a piece of a normal healthy child's body that BELONGS there..and vaccines to prevent deadly diseases such and polio and measles...etc....

One that makes me laugh is it "helps prevent the spread of aids"..Well so would cutting out a girls vagina..Maybe we should start slicing boys and girls anuses out..that would really help prevent it...(roll eyes)...I KNOW we can help prevent the spread of mono nucleosis by cutting off every new borns lips..that way they can never get "kissing disease".

All of those suggestions would cause lifelong pain and physical disability. Circumcision doesn't.

If you are going to make wild comparisons, at least keep them relative: How bout comparing it to cutting off a part of an infant's earlobe, or various tattooing or scarification ceremonies. These are bodily modifications that, like circumcision, do not sacrifice function, nor do they cause permanent pain.

 

[Koldo]

The minute you take a child and drive him somewhere, you're putting that child in some risk. Put that child in a social setting, there are even more risks because of the possibility of catching a virus or bacteria. Feed him a sugary snack, you might send him on the way to develop type 2 diabetes.

There are pros and cons to just about anything that we could think of, and circumcision is just one of many. For us, it's a matter of religious observance that, in the vast majority of cases, has no harmful effect, and it can sometimes actually be beneficial.

As I posted before, if one wants their son to have a risk-free life, then let me suggest packing them in cotton, putting them in a padded room, and hope their son isn't allergic to either.

I am aware of that. However, i am not talking about risks strictly, but also about rights.

 

[DallasApple]

All of those suggestions would cause lifelong pain and physical disability. Circumcision doesn't.

How? How would it have caused me "life long disability or pain" that I never had breasts?

 

[DallasApple]

How bout comparing it to cutting off a part of an infant's earlobe, or various tattooing or scarification ceremonies.

Why are you comparing a males foreskin on his penis..to an earlobe?

 

[DallasApple]

Oh and by the way for that matter..WHY not go ahead and chop off ear lobes at birth..its a useless piece of skin...snip off all the useless skin ...Why just pick on foreskin?

Just get rid of it its useless...

 

[Koldo]

By this logic, a parent is violating an infant's right "to its own body" if they agree to life saving surgery which leaves scars. They can't consult the infant in adult form to know if such scarring will infringe upon their self image or cause other problems which the adult would object to.

I know that circumcision and such a surgery aren't comparable in importance . In either scenario, a parent is making what they feel, is an important decision for their child.

We have conflicting rights on our societies.
Typically, the right to life takes precedence over others.

For the umpteenth thousandth time, circumcision numbers are declining in the United States. It is presented as an option, not provided as routine procedure. Parents are encouraged by the American Pediatrics Association AND the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to make educated and informed decisions. There's no push to do anything.

However, both organizations do cite health benefits. In fact, the AAP cites that circumcision yields more benefits vs. risks and that American parents, should in fact, be able to confidently make decisions regarding circumcision, without the type of worry and scrutiny that those of you in opposition insist upon. The decision SHOULD be left up to the parent.

An infant has rights. But, a parent has parental rights to make decisions that they feel are in the best interest of their child.

But what if a given decision is not in the best interest of the child?
It does happen to be the case that some people wish they had not been circumcised.

I would approach this subject differently if the procedure yielded greater risks and statistical complication and if more MEN in the United States, in adulthood, regretted their parents' decision to have the procedure done. When your personal peer group - all circumcised, have no issue - it's hard to understand where those of you who oppose so passionately are coming from - particularly those of you who have no experience with circumcision and circumcision within the direct aupices of the American health care system, from the perspective of a parent.

It is a matter of principles.

 

[DallasApple]

It does happen to be the case that some people wish they had not been circumcised.

They are ignored.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Most of the health benefits connected to circumcision are about a tiny decrease in the risk of contracting sexually transmittable diseases during unprotected sex. There's no reason to talk about such benefits when we're talking about children... Instead, let them choose whether or not they want a part of their body permanently removed when they're old enough to understand it.

Why not admit that it's done just because of culture/religion as the health benefits are either insignificant or irrelevant to children?

My opinion is that it shouldn't be legal to do to children. If someone wants to get circumcised as an adult, then that's fine. The same goes for tattoos, piercings, scarification, chopping off the earlobes, etc. Any body modification that is permanent should only be done on consenting adults.

Comparing circumcision to dental care, life saving surgery, vaccinations, etc is dishonest since these are about preventing or curing issues that are relevant and often urgent. If circumcision is medically necessary, then of course it should be ok to perform it. In most cases it's done on completely healthy individuals though, which means that it's body modification, not something that promotes better health.

 

[dawny0826]

We have conflicting rights on our societies.
Typically, the right to life takes precedence over others.



But what if a given decision is not in the best interest of the child?
It does happen to be the case that some people wish they had not been circumcised.



It is a matter of principles.

And I certainly respect the opinions of those who are not supportive of the procedure and can understand why they would choose not to have the procedure done on their child. However, I resent those who label rational, intelligent and loving parents, child abusers (which has been done on RF) for making decisions that they feel to be in the best interest of their child. I also resent the notion of banning the procedure.

I agree with the stance of the AAP and CDC, both reputable organizations. The procedure shouldn't be done routinely and it's not being done routinely in the states. It's opt-in.

I agree that the right to life takes precedence. I think I acknowledged the STARK difference between the two procedures - Iife saving surgery vs. circumcision. There is however, a common thread - an infant cannot make a decision for themselves. Parents decide for their children. As such, parents should invest much time and energy into educating themselves and making the best choices possible for their children.

 

[dawny0826]

Most of the health benefits connected to circumcision are about a tiny decrease in the risk of contracting sexually transmittable diseases during unprotected sex. There's no reason to talk about such benefits when we're talking about children... Instead, let them choose whether or not they want a part of their body permanently removed when they're old enough to understand it.

Why not admit that it's done just because of culture/religion as the health benefits are either insignificant or irrelevant to children?

My opinion is that it shouldn't be legal to do to children. If someone wants to get circumcised as an adult, then that's fine. The same goes for tattoos, piercings, scarification, chopping off the earlobes, etc. Any body modification that is permanent should only be done on consenting adults.

Comparing circumcision to dental care, life saving surgery, vaccinations, etc is dishonest since these are about preventing or curing issues that are relevant and often urgent. If circumcision is medically necessary, then of course it should be ok to perform it. In most cases it's done on completely healthy individuals though, which means that it's body modification, not something that promotes better health.

Tiny decrease, my American ***. We're talking potential to decrease HIV risk in the US by 60%, genital herpes by 30% and HPV by 35%.

The benefit for performing the procedure in infancy is that it is less painful, yields less chance of infection and complication.

Ultimately, a parent has the right to choose and should choose wisely, thoroughly examining benefit vs. risk. Again for those of you who have your forsekin intact, unless you have a horror story to share or miss your foreskin, what gripe do you really have with me if I choose to have this procedure done to my child?

See post #10 for links.

 

[dawny0826]

They are ignored.

They are statistically, very few.

Their voice, I would be interested in hearing. Where are they?

 

[mycorrhiza]

Tiny decrease, my American ***. We're talking potential to decrease HIV risk in the US by 60%, genital herpes by 30% and HPV by 35%.

The benefit for performing the procedure in infancy is that it is less painful, yields less chance of infection and complication.

Ultimately, a parent has the right to choose and should choose wisely, thoroughly examining benefit vs. risk. Again for those of you who have your forsekin intact, unless you have a horror story to share or miss your foreskin, what gripe do you really have with me if I choose to have this procedure done to my child?

See post #10 for links.

Could you link me directly to a scientific study confirming this? Aren't most men in the US already circumcised? Even if it protects slightly against HIV, do you know what protects against it even better? Condoms. So why not go for sex ed and free and easily accessable condoms instead of permanent body modifications? The children aren't going to have sex anyway, so there's no reason to do it until they reach an age where they're able to understand the situation and choose for themselves.

I doubt that it's less painful, but the children are less aware of the situation and are worse at communicating. Complications aren't exactly big when it's performed on adults. Refrain from sex and masturbation for a few weeks or so and everything's fine.

It doesn't matter if most who gets circumcised are happy about it. That some wish they weren't is enough reason to ban it. The same thing goes for tattoos and scarification. There's no reason to do it to kids.

I want to keep my foreskin, so I'm happy that no one cut it off against my will. I also don't want full sleeve tattoos, so I'm happy that I didn't get any against my will.


If it should be done to kids then there should be medical reasons that are relevant to children.

 

[Aquitaine]

Most of the health benefits connected to circumcision are about a tiny decrease in the risk of contracting sexually transmittable diseases during unprotected sex. There's no reason to talk about such benefits when we're talking about children... Instead, let them choose whether or not they want a part of their body permanently removed when they're old enough to understand it.

Why not admit that it's done just because of culture/religion as the health benefits are either insignificant or irrelevant to children?

My opinion is that it shouldn't be legal to do to children. If someone wants to get circumcised as an adult, then that's fine. The same goes for tattoos, piercings, scarification, chopping off the earlobes, etc. Any body modification that is permanent should only be done on consenting adults.

Comparing circumcision to dental care, life saving surgery, vaccinations, etc is dishonest since these are about preventing or curing issues that are relevant and often urgent. If circumcision is medically necessary, then of course it should be ok to perform it. In most cases it's done on completely healthy individuals though, which means that it's body modification, not something that promotes better health.

Exactly.

Circumcision was born out of religious/cultural tradition. Do people seriously believe the practice originated out of a genuine scientific medical concern?

I too, wish people would stop pretending it's about reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases in infants (lol) along with the rest of the zero-sum "benefits", and just admit that the main reason it still goes on today is because of religious/cultural conformity, or simply for aesthetics.

Which is fine by the way, if you wanna do that to yourself as an adult. I just don't get why it's a massive breach of the parent's rights to make them wait until the individual is old enough to decide himself if he wants a permanent alteration made to his penis.

But hey, it sounds like it's on the decline in the US anyways, so good riddance.

 

[Aquitaine]

And that is a perfectly good argument for persuading people not to choose circumcision. But it is a very poor argument for the establishment of a law barring people from circumcising their sons.

Meh, we'll just have to agree to disagree here, on the basis of principles. Personally, I hardly think it's a breach of parent's rights to make them wait until their child is old enough to decide the fate of his own foreskin, especially when the procedure itself is essentially zero-sum. In this scenario, the rights of the infant and his body over-rides the cultural/religious/aesthetic impulses of the parents, since let's face it - they are the real reasons why it still goes on today.

Sadly, no one answered my two hypothetical questions about removing the Clitoral Hood in female infants, if it turned out the same "benefits" were found to be there (i.e better hygiene, reduced chances of STIs etc).

 

[mycorrhiza]

It's pretty clear that it's cultural as it isn't widely practiced in most of Europe. Europe in general doesn't exactly have sub-standard and expensive health care, so that can't be the reason why circumcision isn't common. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone getting circumcised here in Sweden who wasn't jewish or muslim.

The prevalence of HIV in the US is much higher than in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway where circumcision is rare, but good sex ed and free condoms are common. Not saying that correlation implies causation, though.

 

[Aquitaine]

It's pretty clear that it's cultural as it isn't widely practiced in most of Europe. Europe in general doesn't exactly have sub-standard and expensive health care, so that can't be the reason why circumcision isn't common. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone getting circumcised here in Sweden who wasn't jewish or muslim.

The prevalence of HIV in the US is much higher than in Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Norway where circumcision is rare, but good sex ed and free condoms are common. Not saying that correlation implies causation, though.

From what I've seen, it's rare in the UK too, except for the very religious minority. But hey, at least they admit it's only being done to conform with religious/cultural/aesthetic tradition, and not try to make out it's done for "genuine" medical reasons.

Now when I say this, I'm talking about those who do it to healthy boys. Of course there are special circumstances where it is required out of genuine medical necessity, but the reasons mentioned in Post #10 are not such.

 

[dawny0826]

Could you link me directly to a scientific study confirming this? Aren't most men in the US already circumcised? Even if it protects slightly against HIV, do you know what protects against it even better? Condoms. So why not go for sex ed and free and easily accessable condoms instead of permanent body modifications? The children aren't going to have sex anyway, so there's no reason to do it until they reach an age where they're able to understand the situation and choose for themselves.

I doubt that it's less painful, but the children are less aware of the situation and are worse at communicating. Complications aren't exactly big when it's performed on adults. Refrain from sex and masturbation for a few weeks or so and everything's fine.

It doesn't matter if most who gets circumcised are happy about it. That some wish they weren't is enough reason to ban it. The same thing goes for tattoos and scarification. There's no reason to do it to kids.

I want to keep my foreskin, so I'm happy that no one cut it off against my will. I also don't want full sleeve tattoos, so I'm happy that I didn't get any against my will.


If it should be done to kids then there should be medical reasons that are relevant to children.

Check out the AAP's website if you're genuinely interested. The AAP has a plethora of information on studies in advocacy for and against the procedure, which it why the AAP is a more reputable resource. I've already provided links, in post #10. I'm not going to research for you, as I've already done my own reading, as a parent and I've already presented enough statistical data to support my views on this thread. You want more, you need to educate yourself. The AAP is a good place to start.

No one is saying that IT SHOULD BE performed. Get it straight.

People are contesting that parents should reserve the right to make informed and educated decisions for their own children. Period.

Regardless as to your objection, circumicision does NOT yield the traumatic statistics that you and others project. The procedure isn't going to be banned in the United States for good reason, as parents, in a free society should have the right to make decisions for their infants, be it for medical or cultural/religious reasons.

Unless you have a horror story to tell regarding your own circumcision or can produce credible statistics discrediting what reputable organizations report regarding the procedure, you really don't have an argument. You have an opinion based on emotional knee-jerk reaction to something that you can't relate to.

I assure you, you don't care about my children as much as I do. You're not in a position to tell parents, particularly American parents, what's best for their children.

 

[Curious George]

Meh, we'll just have to agree to disagree here, on the basis of principles. Personally, I hardly think it's a breach of parent's rights to make them wait until their child is old enough to decide the fate of his own foreskin, especially when the procedure itself is essentially zero-sum. In this scenario, the rights of the infant and his body over-rides the cultural/religious/aesthetic impulses of the parents, since let's face it - they are the real reasons why it still goes on today.

Sadly, no one answered my two hypothetical questions about removing the Clitoral Hood in female infants, if it turned out the same "benefits" were found to be there (i.e better hygiene, reduced chances of STIs etc).

I am sorry, I believe I answered that one in another thread. My answer is yes, if we found actual health benefits and the risks invovled only balanced such an action or only slightly outweighed such an action then said action should be legal for a parent to choose. But it is not. I do not think of this as a gender issue. That does not mean there is not a gender issue involved. It is completely possible that many people are more reluctant to interfere with female genitalia.

Your legal argument is then that a parent is not free to make a choice that is risk neutral if such a choice can be delayed or avoided. The consequences of this are not very inhibiting to parents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Tiny decrease, my American ***. We're talking potential to decrease HIV risk in the US by 60%, genital herpes by 30% and HPV by 35%.

Source, please.

 

[Me Myself]

This isn't completely true. Sugars are actually a generic term for a class of chemicals. We all need sugars to survive as surely as we need salts and proteins.

I am too lazy to say refined sugar evrytime

You know of which I am talking about from now on, hopefully