Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[Curious George]

The mutilation of others, for whatever reasons are posited, blinds people to self-mutilation.

Likewise self-mutilation blinds one to the mutilation of others.

Circumcision, tattoos, vanity cosmetic surgery, and all other forms of medically unnecessary bodily modification are an utter evil. They glorify the meat and suppress the spirit.

Does that include "medically unnecessary" abortion?

 

[Penumbra]

The mutilation of others, for whatever reasons are posited, blinds people to self-mutilation.

Likewise self-mutilation blinds one to the mutilation of others.

Circumcision, tattoos, vanity cosmetic surgery, and all other forms of medically unnecessary bodily modification are an utter evil. They glorify the meat and suppress the spirit.

I think tattoos and certain other body modifications can be a good way, for people that want them, to express themselves.

They express the "spirit" by displaying a body to the world as they feel it reflects their self, rather than it just being something they were born with that they had little input on.

 

[vtunie]

Does that include "medically unnecessary" abortion?

That's for you to decide.

I do not know when the spirit animates the flesh. Perhaps the woman in whose body the flesh is growing has some idea. I suggest leaving the decision to her, since it is her spirit that may or may not find abortion medically necessary.

 

[Curious George]

That's for you to decide.

I do not know when the spirit animates the flesh. Perhaps the woman in whose body the flesh is growing has some idea. I suggest leaving the decision to her.

No I am not talking about spirit. I am talking about her body which she is choosing to modify. No child, not spirit.

 

[dawny0826]

And you think that a parent of a newborn baby is in a position to know what the sexual practices of that baby will be when it grows to be an adult?

What I have stated repeatedly is that an educated parent of a newborn baby is in a position to make the decision that they feel is best for their child. You label this child abuse. I have a serious problem with this.

I'm approaching the issue from the mindset that, all else being equal, having a wound is worse than no wound. How much personal experience would I need before I'd decide that this wasn't the case?

All else being equal? Matter of opinion.

... and has increased the incidence of UTI right after the procedure. Like I said, in terms of health outcomes, the positives are balanced by negatives. There is no net benefit.

The procedure actually lowers the chance of UTI and other urinary tract issues, particularly during childhood and during older age.

 

[vtunie]

No I am not talking about spirit. I am talking about her body which she is choosing to modify. No child, not spirit.

You certainly know a lot. Very lucky of you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I have stated repeatedly is that an educated parent of a newborn baby is in a position to make the decision that they feel is best for their child. You label this child abuse. I have a serious problem with this.

I don't care whether you have a problem with it.

You know who's even better to make the decision? The child himself when he's old enough to make it.

The procedure actually lowers the chance of UTI and other urinary tract issues, particularly during childhood and during older age.

An epidemiological study of UTI during the first year of life involving 169 children born in Israel found that 48% (27/56) of the male infants presented with UTI within 12 days after ritual circumcision [51]. The incidence of UTI among male infants was significantly higher just after circumcision (from 9 to 20 days of life) than during the rest of the first month of life and significantly higher in the first month of life than during the rest of the year.

Neonatal circumcision revisited | Position statements and practice points | Canadian Paediatric Society

And there can be other approaches to reduce UTI that don't have the risks of complications that circumcision does:

In natural settings, infants are often subject to colonization at birth with the aerobic and anaerobic flora of their mothers; they also receive specific immunoglobulin across the placenta before delivery and, later, through ingestion of breast milk. In contrast, babies born and cared for in hospital tend to be colonized by E. coli acquired from the environment [43][44]. The virulence of E. coli strains isolated in cases of UTI is correlated with the ability of the strain to adhere to uroepithelial cells [45]. This ability has been shown to be associated with the presence on the bacteria of proteinaceous, filamentous organelles called fimbria, which appear to recognize and bind to specific receptors on the epithelial cells [45]. Kallenius and associates [46] reported that 94% of the cases of infantile pyelonephritis they reviewed were due specifically to P-fimbriated E. coli.

On the basis of these observations, Winberg and collaborators [47] suggested two alternative preventive strategies: deliberate colonization with nonpathogenic bacterial flora during the newborn period or the promotion of rooming-in to facilitate close contact between newborns and their mothers. The first strategy is analogous to the active colonization of the umbilicus and nasal mucosa undertaken in the past to arrest epidemics of infection with Staphylococcus aureus [48].

These two strategies need to be evaluated further. One would expect both to have a low risk of complications. The second is in keeping with recent trends in maternal and infant care and could also have a low cost. If either strategy is successful, it may prove to be a more cost-effective way to prevent UTI among male infants than circumcision. Such an approach could also be applied to the prevention of UTI in female infants, since adherence of bacteria to epithelial cells also plays a role in the development of UTI in girls [45].

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So what? Not everyone has been on board since 2005. Moreover, if a benign subject gathers interest and responses guess what that means. Yeah, it deserves its place on the forum.

Perhaps pre-21010 when I came aboard, but since then, not at all.

From what I've seen, they tend to be a train wreck.

And just why isn't it an innocent topic to discuss? My suspicion is that more than anything else it embarrasses you . But I'm willing to listen. Whatcha got?

'Tis a very emotionally sensitive subject. What some see as a religious mandate, others view are barbarism.

 

[DallasApple]

The thing is..what other parts of our infants bodies do we chop off to "lower the chance of infection." We get many many diseases and spread them with our hands.Should we start chopping of our newborns hands to "lower the chances?"

 

[Aquitaine]

I wonder, if it turned out that chopping off a part of the Clitoral Hood in baby females could lead to the same apparent benefits as male circumcision, would parents get their daughters "circumcised"?

We seem to universally agree that messing with female infant's bits for anything but a serious medical reason is wrong, yet some of us seem perfectly fine with doing it on male infants.

 

[DallasApple]

I wonder, if it turned out that chopping off a part of the Clitoral Hood in baby females could lead to the same apparent benefits as male circumcision, would parents get their daughters "circumcised"?

We seem to universally agree that messing with female infant's bits for anything but a serious medical reason is wrong, yet some of us seem perfectly fine with doing it on male infants.

How about the labia? Maybe if we chopped off the outer labia it would lower the chances of yeast and bladder infections?

 

[Aquitaine]

How about the labia? Maybe if we chopped off the outer labia it would lower the chances of yeast and bladder infections?

Possibly. Would be interesting to see if there's any research on it. Probably not though, since I doubt people are daft enough to mutilate their daughters for a potential and debated "benefit" in the first place.

Also, let's not pretend that circumcision was a rational trend which took-off only *after* there was a legitimate medical consensus on the practice, it was born out of cultural ritual and religion. The practice came before the research.

 

[DallasApple]

All I know is I was "daft". At least with my last one I suppose my OB was more "enligthened" and he left a lot more skin on than my other two.He although DID have a complication .The skin (when healing ) adhered to the shaft and head and I couldn't pull it back to clean him .The pediatrician just jerked it back in one swift forceful motion .I imagine the pain was excrutiating.The guilt I feel over just being a stupid sheep blindly following what "everyone else does" is karma.Even though I honestly did "think" it was better for them health wise.It wasn't any sort of 'ritual".I still feel ashamed.

 

[Curious George]

You certainly know a lot. Very lucky of you.

I'm sorry, I wasn't professing to know, I was just narrowing down the discussion to get your thoughts. I didn't want any theory of child and spirit involved to cloud your decision on what's "evil."

 

[DallasApple]

Yeah I wouldn't call it "evil" or "child abuse" .I would however call it utterly ignorant.And if its for religious reasons only completely self centered on top of ignorant.I mean we are talking about mutilating a helpless infants penis.If it had no "purpose" to serve but to strictly get infected then I could see...like our wisdom teeth are pretty useless..they many times don't even fit in your head or come out sideways or not at all and become impacted..they aren't coated with enamel like our other teeth if they do come out.I do not think little boys are born with "useless foreskin" that only serves the purpose of causing infection .

 

[Curious George]

Yeah I wouldn't call it "evil" or "child abuse" .I would however call it utterly ignorant.And if its for religious reasons only completely self centered on top of ignorant.I mean we are talking about mutilating a helpless infants penis.If it had no "purpose" to serve but to strictly get infected then I could see...like our wisdom teeth are pretty useless..they many times don't even fit in your head or come out sideways or not at all and become impacted..they aren't coated with enamel like our other teeth if they do come out.I do not think little boys are born with "useless foreskin" that only serves the purpose of causing infection .

I understand your opinion, but the question it raises should one group be able to tell another group that they are not allowed to circumcise their children when many, if not most, medical professionals do not see it as harm?

 

[DallasApple]

if not most, medical professionals do not see it as harm?

IMHO? Doctors can be motivated for other reasons other than whats in the best interest of their patients.And please explain to me how its not "harm"?You mean its NOT inflicting an injury on an infant to take a knife and slice off the skin of their penis?If its not "harm" why do they bleed after the "non harmful" event that is not necessary?

 

[Curious George]

IMHO? Doctors can be motivated for other reasons other than whats in the best interest of their patients.And please explain to me how its not "harm"?You mean its NOT inflicting an injury on an infant to take a knife and slice off the skin of their penis?If its not "harm" why do they bleed after the "non harmful" event that is not necessary?

Is breast augmentation harm? The removal of wisdom teeth? I think we are talking about different types of harm. I am referring to the Hippocratic oath "harm."

 

[Aquitaine]

I understand your opinion, but the question it raises should one group be able to tell another group that they are not allowed to circumcise their children when many, if not most, medical professionals do not see it as harm?

Why not just wait for the individual to be old enough to decide for himself, whether or not he wants an erogenous zone of his own body chopped off?

If we're going to talk about groups, why should one group be allowed to unnecessarily permanently alter the genitals of another group?

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if it was to be performed on female infants, why leniency when it's done on male infants?

 

[DallasApple]

Is breast augmentation harm? The removal of wisdom teeth? I think we are talking about different types of harm. I am referring to the Hippocratic oath "harm."

Breast augmentation is not performed on minors let alone newborn infants.Wisdom teeth are removed because they are useless and many times they are removed because they are already infected .

And yes its HARM to chop off the foreskin of a male infant for NO OTHER reason than the parents want it not there.Their is no GOOD reason to cut it off.