Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[Falvlun]

Some may even do it because they don't want their child to be obviously different than the majority and get picked on .

That's the most compelling reason that I'd consider having my son circumcised.

 

[DallasApple]

That's the most compelling reason that I'd consider having my son circumcised.

I sympathize with that.Its kind of like you feel like "the lesser of two evils" so to speak.Its one of the things I factored in .

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

I don't wish to outlaw Judaism or Islam. I do however it should be enforceable by law that all circumcision, unless medically necessary, should be banned until someone is 18 and legally old enough to decide for themselves. Of course parents can make decisions, just let's not make those decisions ones that involve mutilation, not seeking medical help, and other child abuse practices that religion is prone to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the most compelling reason that I'd consider having my son circumcised.

That's also the reason that left-handed children used to be forced to write with their right hand.

Edit: based on the circumcision rates today, the proportion of kids who are left-handed is probably lower than the proportion of kids who are uncircumcised.

 

[DallasApple]

I don't wish to outlaw Judaism or Islam. I do however it should be enforceable by law that all circumcision, unless medically necessary, should be banned until someone is 18 and legally old enough to decide for themselves. Of course parents can make decisions, just let's not make those decisions ones that involve mutilation, not seeking medical help, and other child abuse practices that religion is prone to.

To be fair I think you can have breast augmentation younger than that .(I think) and such as a nose job.(with parental consent) so I think it should be at the same age you can have those done.

 

[DallasApple]

That's also the reason that left-handed children used to be forced to write with their right hand.

Edit: based on the circumcision rates today, the proportion of kids who are left-handed is probably lower than the proportion of kids who are uncircumcised.

I think 30% of people are left handed.

 

[DallasApple]

That's also the reason that left-handed children used to be forced to write with their right hand.

Edit: based on the circumcision rates today, the proportion of kids who are left-handed is probably lower than the proportion of kids who are uncircumcised.

As a side note my husband is left handed.

 

[Huey09]

As a side note my husband is left handed.

I am also left handed. Hooray for southpaws!

 

[DallasApple]

I am also left handed. Hooray for southpaws!

: hamster :

 

[Curious George]

I don't wish to outlaw Judaism or Islam. I do however it should be enforceable by law that all circumcision, unless medically necessary, should be banned until someone is 18 and legally old enough to decide for themselves. Of course parents can make decisions, just let's not make those decisions ones that involve mutilation, not seeking medical help, and other child abuse practices that religion is prone to.

I keep hearing this word mutilation. When you see a circumcised penis, do you think of it as mutilated?

 

[Curious George]

I suppose I meant that question for all people who might refer to circumcision as mutilation.

 

[Falvlun]

That's also the reason that left-handed children used to be forced to write with their right hand.

I haven't really heard many people complaining about having been circumcised. While it is a questionable practice, it is not really a damaging one. However, the misguided and damaging attempts to make left-handed children right handers are well documented.

 

[Falvlun]

As was mentioned, circumcision is more akin to scarification or tattooing practices. Yes, they permanently alter the person's appearance. But no, they are unlikely to cause any lasting issues. If tattooing or scaring were common cultural practices, and social repercussions occurred to people who did not have them, then I probably wouldn't see much issue with that either. Would it be better if they didn't occur? Sure. But is it a big deal that they do? Not really.

 

[DallasApple]

I haven't really heard many people complaining about having been circumcised. While it is a questionable practice, it is not really a damaging one. However, the misguided and damaging attempts to make left-handed children right handers are well documented.

Many it seems don't talk a lot about their penises unless its how big they are.:angel2: Having said that how would you know the difference if all you have had to live with is a circumsized penis? What is your comparison if you have never known (felt) the difference?

 

[vtunie]

I keep hearing this word mutilation. When you see a circumcised penis, do you think of it as mutilated?

It IS mutilated. An integral part of it has been cut off to soothe the parents' or physicians' hangups.

 

[DallasApple]

I suppose I meant that question for all people who might refer to circumcision as mutilation.

Yes I see a circumsized penis as mutilated.Not in its "natural" state.The fact that its the norm ? Makes an uncircumsized penis foreign to me though.Which I think that is sad.I have actually never seen (in real life) and uncircumsized penis.I mean besides my one day old infant sons that is.

 

[DallasApple]

How about this ..IS there a PURPOSE for foreskin?Does it serve any good purpose?

 

[Curious George]

It IS mutilated. An integral part of it has been cut off to soothe the parents' or physicians' hangups.

So, if a child with phimosis needed the surgical procedure you would refer to his body as mutilated?

 

[vtunie]

I've already posted my opinion about medically necessary procedures a few pages back. Take the time to read it before you ask hard-hitting questions that hit air.

But to answer your question: yes, it is still a mutilation.

An amputation of a gangrenous leg is a mutilation as well. A hideous if unavoidable one.

 

[Falvlun]

Many it seems don't talk a lot about their penises unless its how big they are.:angel2: Having said that how would you know the difference if all you have had to live with is a circumsized penis? What is your comparison if you have never known (felt) the difference?

I think that might be a good benchmark for considering whether something warrants the accusation of child abuse or mutilation.

Does it cause the person pain? Does it effect the normal functioning of the body part? Does the person feel as if something is wrong with their body?

Things like female genital mutilation, foot binding, lip plates, and neck rings cause permanent damage to the body which directly effects its ability to function normally. These people are permanently crippled or lead a life in pain or are unable to do normal physical activity due to these bodily alterations.

Circumcision just doesn't compare. Circumcised men go about their business without issue. A case can even be made that there are benefits to the alteration.

In a perfect world would we not do any of these things? Perhaps. But I don't think that circumcision is that great of an evil in the bigger picture.