Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[Curious George]

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?

Because removing the clitoris is different from removing a section of foreskin. So is for that matter sewing up a vagina to ensure chastity.

 

[Aquitaine]

Because removing the clitoris is different from removing a section of foreskin. So is for that matter sewing up a vagina to ensure chastity.

I was talking earlier about removing part of the clitoral hood, which to my knowledge is essentially their "foreskin".

If there was some scientific research done which suggested that removing part of the clitoral hood would have the same debatable benefits as male circumcision, do you think parents would get their daughters "circumcised"?

 

[Curious George]

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?

If you are asking me to justify circumcision or at least not waiting to circumcise, I do not want to take on that. However, if you are trying to justify forcing parents to leave little boys intact, then you should have no problem coming up with a rational argument that trumps the parental rights. Unfortunately, "there is no good reason" or "it's a wash" are not valid enough concerns, to trump parental rights. There is no good reason to feed your child McDonald's most of the time, but I am not trying to make such illegal.

 

[Curious George]

I was talking earlier about removing part of the clitoral hood, which to my knowledge is essentially their "foreskin".

If there was some scientific research done which suggested that removing part of the clitoral hood would have the same debatable benefits as male circumcision, do you think parents would get their daughters "circumcised"?

Without causing harm? I don't know. But if it was the same as male circumcision, I don't think we would have the right to force parents to forgo the procedure.

 

[DallasApple]

There is no good reason to feed your child McDonald's most of the time, but I am not trying to make such illegal.

So what you are saying since its not "illegal" to feed your children crap food that justifies it being legal to mutilating their sex organs ?

 

[DallasApple]

Without causing harm? I don't know. But if it was the same as male circumcision, I don't think we would have the right to force parents to forgo the procedure.

So you are saying it should be the parents rights to slice off any body part of any infant as long as it doesn't cause any 'harm" according to the doctors?

 

[DallasApple]

However, if you are trying to justify forcing parents to leave little boys intact,

What do you mean "forced"? Are you "forced" to leave little girls intact?

 

[Aquitaine]

If you are asking me to justify circumcision or at least not waiting to circumcise, I do not want to take on that. However, if you are trying to justify forcing parents to leave little boys intact, then you should have no problem coming up with a rational argument that trumps the parental rights. Unfortunately, "there is no good reason" or "it's a wash" are not valid enough concerns, to trump parental rights. There is no good reason to feed your child McDonald's most of the time, but I am not trying to make such illegal.

Since the debated "benefits" of male circumcision are essentially zero-sum, my stance on it is the same as my stance on the rights of parents to remove part of their daughter's clitoral hood.

 

[DallasApple]

Because removing the clitoris is different from removing a section of foreskin. So is for that matter sewing up a vagina to ensure chastity.

NO just chop off a section of the clitoris not ALL of it..that would be ridiculous to cut it all off! DUH! Just a "piece"

 

[Curious George]

So what you are saying since its not "illegal" to feed your children crap food that justifies it being legal to mutilating their sex organs ?

Well I don't think that I used the same logical finesse that you have so elegant elaborated here, I was more going for an analogy of sorts, but now that you have articulated such a refined logical view, sure what the hell.

Of course you did notice that I am not arguing it is okay to circumcise, good to circumcise, or that people ought to circumcise. I am saying you better have damn good reason for forcibly making decisions for a parent. Every parent must make decisions, and every parent has made at least one decision which we could sit here and debate. That is fine, however, if we are going to insert our opinion in place of that parents choice, we need good, logical reasoning for doing such.

 

[Curious George]

Since the debated "benefits" of male circumcision are essentially zero-sum, my stance on it is the same as my stance on the rights of parents to remove part of their daughter's clitoral hood.

Your zero-sum is not good enough. Zero-sum acknowledges that any problems do not outweigh the benefits.

 

[DallasApple]

Well I don't think that I used the same logical finesse that you have so elegant elaborated here, I was more going for an analogy of sorts, but now that you have articulated such a refined logical view, sure what the hell.

Great resort to picking on my intellect or manner of speech if it makes you feel "smarter".Even though you are the one suggesting its perfectly fine and should be legal to mutilate male infants "cuz that's what the parents want"!

I'm against male infant mutilation..Sorry if I'm not "elegant" enough when I say so.

 

[Ozzie]

Let me put it this way: would you punch a baby?

Not hard enough to cause lasting damage (probably), but hard enough to hurt. He won't remember how much it hurt - or even the punch itself - when he grows up.

Does this sound like a good idea?

What if your family or community has a long, celebrated tradition of giving each newborn baby one good, hard punch? Would that make it okay?

Your response is a bit harsh. Being circumcised (at birth)is accidental, a bit like being colour-blind: the former is a result of cultural intervention, the latter a result of genetic intervention.

 

[Huey09]

I'm against male infant mutilation..Sorry if I'm not "elegant" enough when I say so.

Not to interrupt this conversation or get off topic but I want to know something. As you know a lot of parents who have female children get their ears pierced when they are infants often to mark them as female...do you consider this a 'mutilation' as well?

 

[Curious George]

Great resort to picking on my intellect or manner of speech if it makes you feel "smarter".Even though you are the one suggesting its perfectly fine and should be legal to mutilate male infants "cuz that's what the parents want"!

I'm against male infant mutilation..Sorry if I'm not "elegant" enough when I say so.

Dallas, I am not trying to pick on your intelligence, I was attacking your attack on my analogy: of course I was not trying to say because parents can buy fast food they should be able to mutilate their children's genitals. I am sorry if my reply was too abrasive. My intent was to reject the argument, and reading I realize that the sarcastic manner in which I tried doing this was mean and not necessary. I'm sorry.

 

[Alex_G]

Circumcision... I am a professed circumcised person (TMI maybe but none the less true!) How does everyone else feel about it? Is it a primitive mutilation technique or a simple procedure for personal hygiene? I personally don't have children but have thought and ask you as well.
Is/Are your son(s) circumcised?
Would you have the procedure at birth or let them decide later?
do you think not being circumcised is an oddity or only in parts of the world?
In my own experience I have heard in my own city In the southern state Georgia that women prefer a man was 'trimmed'. So let me go before I say something silly lol :foot:

Infant male circumcision is ok if it is medically warranted, such as in conditions like phimosis where the foreskin cannot be retracted. It still must be treated with the same sobriety, care and conservativeness that all surgery warrants.

When its an adult making the decision then its ok in so far as they're exercising their right to make decisions and take responsibility for their own body. Whether its a practically sound move I’m not so sure, and also if its because of religious pressure, then its hardly a free and healthy choice.

In addition to that, with respects to some nationalised health service, I am in principle against any religiously affiliated circumcision being endorsed and performed on the taxpayers money, but at the same time i see that the subject must be dealt with carefully to minimise the number of 'back alley' style procedures done, and thus the increase risks that accompany.

Religious infant male circumcision is child abuse and in my opinion not morally defensible in this day and age for the following reasons.

1. The children that are being circumcised are too young to full appreciate complex ideas that surround religious belief, just as they are too young to appreciate political ideas. A child cannot be a religious child, any more that it can be a conservative or socialist child. Its parents projecting their belief system onto a child.

2. Children are innocent and vulnerable, both mentally and physically. They need the protection of their parents. It is parental duty to act in their best interest. Circumcision is completely unnecessary. I think that to push a child to go through with it is a coercion of the worst kind, and the moral failings of it are glaringly obvious. What might be said of a hypothetical situation, whereby a home for mentally retarded people with learning difficulties decided on a policy of genital alteration? My point stands that its an unacceptable presumption regarding the mind of the subject, and an unacceptable coercion on an individual that’s incapable of giving valid informed consent. Circumcision does not exemplify acting in the best interests of the child.

3. It represents a malignant aspect of religion that makes good people do bad things, and it protects these actions that should be reprehensible, and really would be in any other scenario.

4. An argument that it lowers rates of transmission of STD’s is no justification, and is a coincidence that’s shamefully being used retrospectively for an act that’s driven entirely by religious belief. In a normal, healthy individual, there is no meaningful medical advantage that warrants its routine practice.

5. Arguing that no circumcision would result in cultural difficulties for the child within the traditions of the parents’ religion clearly shows a problem with religion and the culture, not that the problem is a child keeping its foreskin.

Whatever the risks involved in the practice of circumcision, be it excessive bleeding, infection, aesthetic problems, functional problems, psychological problems, it wont be as low as the risk of not doing it, as that is 0.

Additionally anyone who plays down its severity, saying ‘oh it’s not that bad’, well not that bad compared to what exactly? Clearly its not that bad compared to cutting off an arm, but that just illustrates the ludicrous nature of the defence. It is really bad, if you compare it to not doing it at all.

 

[Alex_G]

Your response is a bit harsh. Being circumcised (at birth)is accidental, a bit like being colour-blind: the former is a result of cultural intervention, the latter a result of genetic intervention.

Just to interject, religious infant circumcision is completely not accidental if that term is to mean anything at all.
Its purposeful, planned and decided upon by people who should know better.

Comparing it to colour-blindness isn’t helpful, as 1. There is no culpable agency responsible for a person’s colour-blindness as there is in religiously fuelled circumcision.
And 2, you suggest some fatalistic and passive outlook on life in general that things aren’t worth fighting for simply because they are. Such that if there was some form of treatment to prevent colour-blindness in pregnancy, that it wouldn’t be worth having the conversation.

Whilst such a thing isn’t available at the moment, we can indeed have the conversation about religious infant circumcision, and my position is that it should be well and truly dropped.

 

[Ozzie]

Just to interject, religious infant circumcision is completely not accidental if that term is to mean anything at all.
Its purposeful, planned and decided upon by people who should know better.

Comparing it to colour-blindness isn’t helpful, as 1. There is no culpable agency responsible for a person’s colour-blindness as there is in religiously fuelled circumcision.
And 2, you suggest some fatalistic and passive outlook on life in general that things aren’t worth fighting for simply because they are. Such that if there was some form of treatment to prevent colour-blindness in pregnancy, that it wouldn’t be worth having the conversation.

Whilst such a thing isn’t available at the moment, we can indeed have the conversation about religious infant circumcision, and my position is that it should be well and truly dropped.

For the "victim", male circumcision in the case of religiously mandated circumcision, is as experientially blind as colour blindness due to genetic sorting. The result in both cases is blissful ignorance in the experience of the "victim".

I'm not adopting a moral stance on the virtues or otherwise of male circumcision in this conversation. I am claiming an equivalence of ignorance in the lived experience of the "victim", whether they be circumcised through cultural intervention, or colour blind through genetic intervention.

 

[Huey09]

For the "victim", male circumcision in the case of religiously mandated circumcision, is as experientially blind as colour blindness due to genetic sorting. The result in both cases is blissful ignorance in the experience of the "victim".

I'm not adopting a moral stance on the virtues or otherwise of male circumcision in this conversation. I am claiming an equivalence of ignorance in the lived experience of the "victim", whether they be circumcised through cultural intervention, or colour blind through genetic intervention.

I think I see where you're going with this. As I stated I am circumcised from and I don't feel any different(or like a 'victim'). And I'm kinda offended that people are calling it child abuse (does that mean my parents are child abusers? I don't think so. Its like someone calling you a child abuser if you spank your child if they did something wrong:sarcastic. Also my grandfather was circumcised later in life and he told me he wish he did it at birth because the pain was unbearable due to erections and daily task became horrible struggles.

 

[Alex_G]

For the "victim", religious intervention is as blind in the case of male circumcision, as is colour blindness due to genetic sorting. The result in both cases is blissful ignorance in the experience of the "victim".

I'm not adopting a moral stance on the virtues or otherwise of male circumcision in this conversation. I am claiming an equivalence of ignorance in the lived experience of the "victim", whether they be circumcised through cultural intervention, or colour blind through genetic intervention.

Accidental occurrence is different from the awareness of that occurrence. The first is concerned with causality, predictability and avoidable-ness. The latter is just to comment on an experience.

And even if i was to take your new stance that the victim has 'blissful ignorance' as you put it, i can assure you that they likely don’t. I mean the procedure is quite assaultive if you think about it, and could hardly be described as blissful in its experience, even for infants who won’t retain specific memories. In addition to this, a certain number of people will have had complications like bleeding, infection, aesthetic and functional problems as a direct result that would have been totally avoidable if the procedure hadn’t been done in the first place (for which there was no actual medical indication to begin with). This is not 'blissful ignorance', not for everyone.

What would be the benefit/point of considering it 'blissful ignorance' anyway? Would that just help you turn the other cheek to the ongoing practice and help you avoid having to look at the difficult reality and hard truths?
Makes it easier to give the practice of religious infant circumcision a free pass if you indeed believe what you say.