Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[Brickjectivity]

I didn't want my nephew to be circumcised but it wasn't my decision. The doctor used an anesthetic, so the experience wasn't that big of a deal for the baby. Like me he will probably never give a dam about it.

 

[Koldo]

A 'Right' means that other people cannot interfere with you in some way. If you outlaw circumcision you effectively outlaw both Judaism and Islam, so you interfere with the right of each religion to exist. Its because in those religions circumcision is not optional.

Not really. What I'm saying is religions have a right to exist, and parents have a right to make choices for their children. If you don't like circumcision, then you can either take the children away from the religious parents or not. You can't decide for them that its wrong.

This is the first time i have heard about religions having rights.

 

[Alex_G]

When you say things like this "Stopping parents from subjecting their babies..." you are talking about laws. You can call it unwarranted, but its only your opinion. No its not achievable. Solve world hunger first, and then maybe you can work on convincing everyone to accept your opinion. If you outlaw circumcision now, today, you outlaw religions, so the courts will therefore overturn your laws. Its not simple like outlawing cocaine. You can actually outlaw cocaine. The USA has wars against illegal cocaine for 80 years unsuccessfully, but the laws against are upheld by the courts. Laws against circumcision will not hold here. Perhaps in some Norwegian or European country they might. We will see.

Firstly the tackling of different world problems both great and small, arnt mutually exclusive or constrained to single file attention. Saying i should solve world hunger first, however flattering that you think i possibly could, is an irrelevancy that does not defend religious infant circumcision, or address the points raised against its practice.

Unwarranted is not just my opinion, its medically backed up. Its surgery that has no specific indication and is not a choice made by the individual but rather chosen for them by virtue of religious ritual. That is as 'unwarranted' a surgery as you can get.

Through proper education and governance i think it is quite possible to discourage its practice. Even if it was banned, (which has problems) thats not the same thing as banning religion, which you seem to think is.

Religion is protected in principle by a freedom to expression, and an right to live your life the way you choose to. This freedom however should be limited if its exercise directly constrains the freedom of another. My issue with religiously fuelled infant circumcision echoes exactly that distinction.

Surely you can be religious without cutting your baby's foreskin off...

 

[DallasApple]

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?

I would not pierce the ears of an infant.But I don't see it the same as completely removing a part of an infants genitalia for the sake of "looks".My pediatrician I went too for regular physicals with my youngest son told me he would have 'more pleasure" sexually because my OB when he circumsized him left more skin on than is typical.That was the first time i had any inkling that circumcision could even have any affect one way or the other on a males capacity to experience sexual pleasure .(as an adult of course).

Just that one 'risk factor' is enough for me to distinguish ear piercing from cutting off the foreskin of a penis.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Unwarranted is not just my opinion, its medically backed up. Its surgery that has no specific indication and is not a choice made by the individual but rather chosen for them by virtue of religious ritual. That is as 'unwarranted' a surgery as you can get.

Medically backed up by you? Medical professionals don't seem to have a problem with it. Unwarranted according to you? You don't value religion, so you are biased against anything religious.

Firstly the tackling of different world problems both great and small, arnt mutually exclusive or constrained to single file attention. Saying i should solve world hunger first, however flattering that you think i possibly could, is an irrelevancy that does not defend religious infant circumcision, or address the points raised against its practice.

The points raised against its practices were addressed by various other members posts, and what I meant here was that your opinion that infant circumcision is wrong is not shared by everyone.

Through proper education and governance i think it is quite possible to discourage its practice. Even if it was banned, (which has problems) thats not the same thing as banning religion, which you seem to think is.

If I let you determine what proper education and governance was you would apparently attempt to form each citizen into a mirror image of yourself, but you would fail. Such an approach to education is neither proper nor good. Such measures are doomed to fail as has been demonstrated before in history, repeatedly. There some things that people cannot trust you with, and choice of religion is one of them including religions that include circumcision of sons.

Religion is protected in principle by a freedom to expression, and an right to live your life the way you choose to. This freedom however should be limited if its exercise directly constrains the freedom of another. My issue with religiously fuelled infant circumcision echoes exactly that distinction.

Freedom of expression is insufficient to secure freedom of religion even in combination with the right to live your life in your own way. That is why freedom of religion is given its own clause in legal documents such as constitutions. It includes freedom to rear your children in the way that you think is right as part of your own religious group.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I don't have a penis so I don't think it's my place to debate someone on this topic. But I am generally uncomfortable with any body modifications that are decided for a person without their consent.

 

[Alex_G]

Medically backed up by you? Medical professionals don't seem to have a problem with it. Unwarranted according to you? You don't value religion, so you are biased against anything religious.

Routine circumcision was common in the 19th century with medical practitioners believing it to be more hygienic than not performing it. This widespread practice gradually become less common as many people in the medical community recognised and argued that it had no real medical benefit in the vast majority of cases.
Most healthcare professionals today, whilst recognising some benefits of circumcision now agree that the risks associated with routine circumcision, such as bleeding and infection outweigh potential benefits.

In addition to this, concerns are raised that this routine circumcision of infants violates the principle of consent to treatment, and that the circumcision should only be performed when a boy is old enough to make an informed decision.

Thus the only real reason infants are being circucised beyond a specific medical indication is because of religious reasons, which dont exemplify holding the childs best interests first.

So you see its really not about the opinion of one person.... and just for the record, im one of these medical professionals being a doctor.


Quick Reference Circumcision - NHS Choices

The points raised against its practices were addressed by various other members posts, and what I meant here was that your opinion that infant circumcision is wrong is not shared by everyone.

I dont see them to have been adequately addressed. I think religiously driven infant circumcision is morally wrong for many pretty strong reasons, some of which i will list again further down.

Just because a view isnt shared by everyone, doesnt mean that there is no right answer. Through reason I'm advocating that the right answer is that it is indeed a moral failing.

If I let you determine what proper education and governance was you would apparently attempt to form each citizen into a mirror image of yourself, but you would fail. Such an approach to education is neither proper nor good. Such measures are doomed to fail as has been demonstrated before in history, repeatedly. There some things that people cannot trust you with, and choice of religion is one of them including religions that include circumcision of sons.
Freedom of expression is insufficient to secure freedom of religion even in combination with the right to live your life in your own way. That is why freedom of religion is given its own clause in legal documents such as constitutions. It includes freedom to rear your children in the way that you think is right as part of your own religious group.

You seem obsessed with reducing this issue to something personal about me, its got nothing to do with me.
Education and counsel is not a fancy way of saying i want to push some dogma of my own (which would be in principle as unjust as the religious motivation that i take issue with), but would be rooted in scientific fact, statistics and moral reasoning.

With the knowledge that the routine practice beyond the specific medical indications is not advised, because the risks of complications such as bleeding, infection, aesthetic and functional issues outweighing any potential benefits. As a result there is no good reason for an infant to have the surgery as routine, with it only happening today because of religious motivation.

Moving from a scientific perspective to a moral one, the following reasons challenge the moral quality and thus justification of religious circumcision of infants.

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.

6. 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.


Taking all this together i think its quite a compelling case against religious circumcision of infants.

 

[Huey09]

I don't have a penis so I don't think it's my place to debate someone on this topic. But I am generally uncomfortable with any body modifications that are decided for a person without their consent.

Oh don't be shy join this no holds bar debate beatdown
Besides just imagine if you were going to have a baby boy and start from there

 

[Falvlun]

Thus the only real reason infants are being circucised beyond a specific medical indication is because of religious reasons, which dont exemplify holding the childs best interests first.

Just pointing out, while circumcision is religious in origin, it's continued prevalence in the US is more cultural or traditional than anything. Thus, most parents do not get their child circumcised for religious reasons, but because that is the norm in their culture, and so they don't even think about it, or they do it so that their child will be "normal".

 

[Alex_G]

Just pointing out, while circumcision is religious in origin, it's continued prevalence in the US is more cultural or traditional than anything. Thus, most parents do not get their child circumcised for religious reasons, but because that is the norm in their culture, and so they don't even think about it, or they do it so that their child will be "normal".

Yes true but its a culture no doubt rooted in the religion, such that practices have emerged affecting those in said culture who might not explicitly identify as religious.

The fact that in a said culture its the norm and that people might not think about it is problematic, because its something that really should be thought about quite carefully. Its surgery after all, with permenant bodily alterations and risks to weigh againts benefits.

Anytime that such a surgery cannot be shown to be in the best interests of the child it really shouldnt be done. Parental preference alone shoudnt be enough of a justification for it to be done.

 

[DallasApple]

Just pointing out, while circumcision is religious in origin, it's continued prevalence in the US is more cultural or traditional than anything. Thus, most parents do not get their child circumcised for religious reasons, but because that is the norm in their culture, and so they don't even think about it, or they do it so that their child will be "normal".

I agree with this .Including some fathers do not want their sons penis to look different than his.Another interesting tid bit I read that's harder to explain.White males are 25x's more likely and black males are 8x's more likely to be circumsized than Hispanic males.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Oh don't be shy join this no holds bar debate beatdown
Besides just imagine if you were going to have a baby boy and start from there

I don't know much about circumcision, but I probably wouldn't agree to it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The American Academy on Pediatrics (AAP), which is a rather conservative and measured medical association changed their position last year and now recommends circumcision for newborns. They didn't conclude that the factors were severe enough to recommend that circumcision should be compulsory, but that it should ultimately be up to parents. However, after a thorough review of the studies, statistics, and facts, they concluded that the health benefits outweigh the risks enough for them to recommend that parents circumsize newborn boys.

I don't see any reasonable argument to value an uninformed medical opinion about children over that of the AAP's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think I would circumcise my son, unless it were part of my religion. Then I would. I probably wouldn't pierce the ears of my daughter if I had one, but I would let her mom do it. Is circumcision bad? I don't know. I think I wish my parents hadn't circumcised me, but I really think my penis is serviceable.

And I've met a few African immigrants who had tribal marks (small scarification patterns) on their cheeks. They certainly didn't look ugly, and they lived just fine. But compare circumcision to scarification and the circumcision advocates freak right out.

Implementing laws against circumcision would choose my religion for me, so yes they would be bad.

How would it "choose your religion for you" if you were delayed from getting circumcised until you could choose it for yourself? If anything, I see it as the opposite: religious circumcision is an attempt to choose the religion for the man the child will become.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The American Academy on Pediatrics (AAP), which is a rather conservative and measured medical association changed their position last year and now recommends circumcision for newborns. They didn't conclude that the factors were severe enough to recommend that circumcision should be compulsory, but that it should ultimately be up to parents. However, after a thorough review of the studies, statistics, and facts, they concluded that the health benefits outweigh the risks enough for them to recommend that parents circumsize newborn boys.

I don't see any reasonable argument to value an uninformed medical opinion about children over that of the AAP's.

And the Canadian Pediatric Society, after its thorough review of the studies, statistics, and facts concluded that there were no net health benefits from circumcision and recommended against it.

The cultural climate in Canada is generally ambivalent to circumcision. While I have strong feelings about it personally, in my experience most people don't give much thought to it and don't have strong feelings one way or the other. OTOH, the US has a much more pro-circumcision cultural climate, and - lo and behold - they recommended in favour of circumcision.

Doctors are human, and there can be a strong tendency for people to want to defend their prior actions and decisions as correct. When a medical community that does circumcisions on a regular basis has to decide whether circumcision is okay, it's hardly surprising that they wouldn't find fault with their own actions.

Can you give an example of any medical society in any country where circumcision wasn't already common that recommended in favour of the practice?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Can you give an example of any medical society in any country where circumcision wasn't already common that recommended in favour of the practice?

All I can say is that they didn't used to recommend circumcision, despite the cultural prevalence of the practice in the US. However, they changed their recommendation last year despite a growing movement against the practice within this country. Get from that what you will, but if their recommendation were a result of public practice or opinion, then they would have actively recommended it years ago.

Also, anyone can also actually check out the medical basis of their recommendation if they are so inclined.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Routine circumcision was common in the 19th century with medical practitioners believing it to be more hygienic than not performing it. This widespread practice gradually become less common....routine circumcision of infants violates the principle of consent to treatment,....the only real reason infants are being circucised beyond a specific medical indication is because of religious reasons, ... you see its really not about the opinion of one person.... and just for the record, im one of these medical professionals being a doctor. Quick Reference Circumcision - NHS Choices

I can see how you as a doctor might feel concerned, since you are the one who's got to perform procedures.

I dont see them to have been adequately addressed. I think religiously driven infant circumcision is morally wrong for many pretty strong reasons, some of which i will list again further down. Just because a view isnt shared by everyone, doesnt mean that there is no right answer. Through reason I'm advocating that the right answer is that it is indeed a moral failing.

Perhaps its a moral failing, but perhaps it isn't. I have tried to point out that circumcision is central to two major religions. You seem to underplay the impact that religious parents have on their children. The religion itself has a far greater effect than physical circumcision, yet children don't get to decide the religion they are reared in. There are many things children do not get to decide, because it is up to their parents.

You seem obsessed with reducing this issue to something personal about me, its got nothing to do with me.Education and counsel is not a fancy way of saying i want to push some dogma of my own (which would be in principle as unjust as the religious motivation that i take issue with), but would be rooted in scientific fact, statistics and moral reasoning.

Sorry if I gave that impression. I don't see you as an enemy at all.

With the knowledge that the routine practice beyond the specific medical indications is not advised, because the risks of complications such as bleeding, infection, aesthetic and functional issues outweighing any potential benefits. As a result there is no good reason for an infant to have the surgery as routine, with it only happening today because of religious motivation.

We should not discount that data, of course. Of course the surgery is performed originally for religious reasons, and I recognize that. I'm saying that you don't have the ability to weigh all the potential benefits for someone else's children. You can weigh the medical benefits, but its not up to you to dismiss the religious benefits and determine whether the child should be religious or not or how religious they ought to be. If the parent believes there is a benefit for religious reasons, then they should take it into consideration.

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.

You are underplaying the huge role that parents play in the upbringing of children and the impact of a religion. Unfortunately there is no substitute for parents. What you show is that you simply don't believe children should be taught a religion at all. Compared to the impact of a religious parent, circumcision is nothing. Its like 10,000 circumcisions; but you can't replace that religious parent. The child is stuck with them, is relying upon them and has to please them.

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.

So the only morally responsible parents are those who are willing to give up everything they believe? Their religion is a part of who they are. It would be immoral if they didn't pass it on.

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.

It represents religion, period. Religion hurts, and parents are not angels or naturally capable protectors of children, yet they give birth.

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.

Arguing that culture and tradition have so little value is the only way you can make male circumcision out to be a terribly immoral choice. You may as well say that parents should be shamed off the map for wanting to have children at all in this awful world full of pain.

Taking all this together i think its quite a compelling case against religious circumcision of infants.

I think I understand what you are saying. My argument is that parents value their faith and that the parents cannot be replaced, therefore their religion cannot be exchanged for something that the doctors would consider to be healthier for the children.

 

[Curious George]

The influence of religious ritual can extend further than those who strictly identify as religious. Think about Christmas. Except the problem is, circumcision is no Christmas.

So it seems to me that your happy to discredit my position regarding its moral quality based on the fact that i attribute its origin and sustained motivation to religion, which you have decided is too narrow, because religious culture and practice couldn’t possibly influence non-religious people too.

I think you'll find your assessment the narrow one....

The problem with your analysis is that you keep suggesting that they are doing it for religious reasons. From my understanding, circumcision did not become popular in the u.s. for religious reasons. Therefore, if a parent circumcises their child so their child's penis looks similar to the child's father, this is not a religious reason.

I have even known single mother who had her son circumcised because of unpleasant experience with intact men. I hardly see this as a religious reason. Simply because you feel circumcision traces back to religion does not mean all people circumcise their children for religious reasons.

But hey, nice attempt.

 

[DallasApple]

I think I understand what you are saying. My argument is that parents value their faith and that the parents cannot be replaced,

Yes they can.

therefore their religion cannot be exchanged for something that the doctors would consider to be healthier for the children.

Yes it can.Or lets put it this way .One couple was charged with I believe negligent homicide for not seeking treatment for their child's diabetes. It was against their religion they relied on prayer and the child died.I have heard of others being "forced" to allow life saving medical treatment's .Our children our not our property to inflict anything we want on because of our beliefs.

 

[DallasApple]

The problem with your analysis is that you keep suggesting that they are doing it for religious reasons. From my understanding, circumcision did not become popular in the u.s. for religious reasons. Therefore, if a parent circumcises their child so their child's penis looks similar to the child's father, this is not a religious reason.

I have even known single mother who had her son circumcised because of unpleasant experience with intact men. I hardly see this as a religious reason. Simply because you feel circumcision traces back to religion does not mean all people circumcise their children for religious reasons.

But hey, nice attempt.

I do agree with this.I had 3 sons.I circumsized all 3.Religion never factored in it.Even if it got "started' that way I don't think that's why "most' do it today.It sounds terrrible but i think 2/3 a male infants in the U.S are circumsized. Some may even do it because they don't want their child to be obviously different than the majority and get picked on .