Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[Ozzie]

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.

Any comparison between infant circumcision and spanking children drawing a long bow. I don't think the anecdote concerning your Grandfather is helpful either.

 

[Huey09]

Any comparison between infant circumcision and spanking children drawing a long bow. I don't think the anecdote concerning your Grandfather is helpful either.

Maybe its a long draw but still its a little rude IMHO to label it child abuse. And the anecdote isn't helpful how?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Curious George makes a strong point. Freedom of religion of the child's parents trumps in this case. The point is that they believe in circumcision. Since they are the parents and they believe they are doing the right thing then we don't have the standing to tell them not to circumcise. If they were abusive parents and child abuse was common among parents who chose male circumcision there would be a better argument against the parents. There isn't, however. Who is going to take care of the children if not their parents, and are they bad parents?

Take DallasApple as an example. Was she an abusive parent? No. Did she opt for circumcision? Yes. Why did she opt for circumcision? "Ignorance" she says now. Back then it was "What I thought was the best thing to do at the time." There you have it. Good parents opt for what they think is best at the time, not for what they think is worst. Later they sometimes change their minds, but that is how parenting is. The kid doesn't come with a manual, so parents must be permitted to write their own. Religious parents feel that religion is good for their children, and the law agrees with them.

 

[Alex_G]

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.

Just think about why its being done in a religious context. Infants are having the foreskin of their penis routinely removed because of religious motivation. Just think about that for a moment.

If i replaced religion as the reason for doing it with something else thats arbitrary, im sure you'd be pretty shocked with the practice.

Circumcision is surgery, and is good when medically warranted. From the sounds of your grandfather he had a medical reason for its practice to help his quality of life. (sounds like phimosis)
That doesnt give religion a free pass to just perform it on everyone they can.

Also because you yourself havent felt any ill consequences doesnt mean everyone is the same. There are real complications that can arise from such a surgery, and they do. Complications that are utterly avoidable if the procedure had not been done, especially considering it had no medical indication to begin with.

Its what frightens me about religion is that it causes good people to do bad things, that they would otherwise never dream of doing.

 

[Huey09]

Curious George makes a strong point. Freedom of religion of the child's parents trumps in this case. The point is that they believe in circumcision. Since they are the parents and they believe they are doing the right thing then we don't have the standing to tell them not to circumcise. If they were abusive parents and child abuse was common among parents who chose male circumcision there would be a better argument against the parents. There isn't, however. Who is going to take care of the children if not their parents, and are they bad parents?

Take DallasApple as an example. Was she an abusive parent? No. Did she opt for circumcision? Yes. Why did she opt for circumcision? "Ignorance" she says now. Back then it was "What I thought was the best thing to do at the time." There you have it. Good parents opt for what they think is best at the time, not for what they think is worst. Later they sometimes change their minds, but that is how parenting is. The kid doesn't come with a manual, so parents must be permitted to write their own. Religious parents feel that religion is good for their children, and the law agrees with them.

this^ should be the end to any arguments of it is right or wrong and the thread as well. Whoever said that this thread would end up a train wreck wasn't far off...**** I may never make another again

 

[Curious George]

Just think about why its being done in a religious context. Infants are having the foreskin of their penis routinely removed because of religious motivation. Just think about that for a moment.

If i replaced religion as the reason for doing it with something else thats arbitrary, im sure you'd be pretty shocked with the practice.

Things as benign as circumcision, like ear piercings, plugs, lip stretching, tattoos ....

Nope not shocked.


Things that are actually harmful? Like female circumcision, sexual abuse, feet binding, starvation, murder. Yeah those are a bit shocking but not comparable.

 

[Alex_G]

Things as benign as circumcision, like ear piercings, plugs, lip stretching, tattoos ....

Nope not shocked.


Things that are actually harmful? Like female circumcision, sexual abuse, feet binding, starvation, murder. Yeah those are a bit shocking but not comparable.

Cutting off the foreskin of the penis of a perfect innocent and beautiful baby because religion tells you to? thats not shocking? Check your moral compass. One of the most insidious things about religion is it normalises practices that would otherwise be unacceptable.

'Ear piercings, plugs, lip stretching, tattoos' as you suggest are all ok if its the individual in question choosing these things for themselves. Exercising their own autonomy and self-expression.

Forcing such things on an innocent and vulnerable infant is not ok.
Religious circumcising, tattooing, piercing an infant, all are examples of abuse through the fact that none of them are actions that are in line with acting in the best interests of the child. While they may not be as extreme as certain other actions, this does nothing to justify them being done at all.

 

[Koldo]

Curious George makes a strong point. Freedom of religion of the child's parents trumps in this case. The point is that they believe in circumcision. Since they are the parents and they believe they are doing the right thing then we don't have the standing to tell them not to circumcise. If they were abusive parents and child abuse was common among parents who chose male circumcision there would be a better argument against the parents. There isn't, however. Who is going to take care of the children if not their parents, and are they bad parents?

Take DallasApple as an example. Was she an abusive parent? No. Did she opt for circumcision? Yes. Why did she opt for circumcision? "Ignorance" she says now. Back then it was "What I thought was the best thing to do at the time." There you have it. Good parents opt for what they think is best at the time, not for what they think is worst. Later they sometimes change their minds, but that is how parenting is. The kid doesn't come with a manual, so parents must be permitted to write their own. Religious parents feel that religion is good for their children, and the law agrees with them.

Why should the parents' freedom of religion take precedence?

 

[Koldo]

Things as benign as circumcision, like ear piercings, plugs, lip stretching, tattoos ....

Nope not shocked.

Yeah, right...

 

[Alex_G]

Curious George makes a strong point. Freedom of religion of the child's parents trumps in this case. The point is that they believe in circumcision. Since they are the parents and they believe they are doing the right thing then we don't have the standing to tell them not to circumcise. If they were abusive parents and child abuse was common among parents who chose male circumcision there would be a better argument against the parents. There isn't, however. Who is going to take care of the children if not their parents, and are they bad parents?

Take DallasApple as an example. Was she an abusive parent? No. Did she opt for circumcision? Yes. Why did she opt for circumcision? "Ignorance" she says now. Back then it was "What I thought was the best thing to do at the time." There you have it. Good parents opt for what they think is best at the time, not for what they think is worst. Later they sometimes change their minds, but that is how parenting is. The kid doesn't come with a manual, so parents must be permitted to write their own. Religious parents feel that religion is good for their children, and the law agrees with them.

'Freedom of religion of the child's parents' should trump nothing if its the health and wellbeing of the child that is at stake. This is so paramount.

I remember a while ago it was in the news that parents accidentally killed their child because they imposed their own strict vegan diet on their child. Now im sure they didnt intend to kill their child, they weren’t evil people, im sure they were devastated with what happened but it was still child abuse, even through ignorance.

Of course i understand parents dont always get things right, and that parenting is a learning curve, i truly get that, but that isnt actually a specific defence for the routine practice of religious circumcision of male infants.

Such a practice is an avoidable risk and an unnecessary procedure especially with no medical indication. Given such facts i would hope that responsible parents would not choose to put their babies through the ordeal.

Through good education and counselling i would hope that parents would be properly informed about the subject and given all the facts. They would then be in a position to make an informed, responsible and good decision. This is a medical consideration after all, religion shouldn’t be telling people what to do.

The first steps towards such a world must be to challenge the moral defensibility of such routine religious practice, and put it through the scrutiny that we apply to the rest of our modern world. Hopefully its influence will diminish, and less and less parents will feel inclined to have their babies circumcised for religious motivation.

 

[Curious George]

'Freedom of religion of the child's parents' should trump nothing if its the health and wellbeing of the child that is at stake. This is so paramount.

I remember a while ago it was in the news that parents accidentally killed their child because they imposed their own strict vegan diet on their child. Now im sure they didnt intend to kill their child, they weren’t evil people, im sure they were devastated with what happened but it was still child abuse, even through ignorance.

Of course i understand parents dont always get things right, and that parenting is a learning curve, i truly get that, but that isnt actually a specific defence for the routine practice of religious circumcision of male infants.

Such a practice is an avoidable risk and an unnecessary procedure especially with no medical indication. Given such facts i would hope that responsible parents would not choose to put their babies through the ordeal.

Avoidable risks, driving, swimming in the ocean, Disneyland, fast food, bpa plastics... we could micromanage parenting all together.

 

[Alex_G]

Avoidable risks, driving, swimming in the ocean, Disneyland, fast food, bpa plastics... we could micromanage parenting all together.

Driving - Not really avoidable if you need to travel
Swimming in the sea - well if appropriate you’re balancing the happy, fun experience against risks. And clearly you don’t go out in stormy weather etc, without lifeguards, in extreme temperatures, for too long a period etc
Disneyland - Again balancing risks against what is gained in family bonding, fun and enjoyment
Fast Food - small amount as a treat, giving children only fast food is pretty abusive

Cutting my infants foreskin off, because..? Because of religion.

Hope it’s clear why I'm not a fan.....

You must see how simply listing other aspects of life that involve risk does nothing to actually specifically defend infant circumcision through religious motivation. You must see that.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why should the parents' freedom of religion take precedence?

the explanation was in the paragraph...

...Since they are the parents and they believe they are doing the right thing then we don't have the standing to tell them not to circumcise. If they were abusive parents and child abuse was common among parents who chose male circumcision there would be a better argument against the parents. There isn't, however. Who is going to take care of the children if not their parents, and are they bad parents?

 

[Koldo]

the explanation was in the paragraph...

You are just saying parents' freedom of religion take precendence because they are the parents on that paragraph.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Of course i understand parents dont always get things right, and that parenting is a learning curve, i truly get that,

Legality is what we are talking about. Your confidence in parental choice seems a little bit shaky. Perhaps you would outlaw parenthood if you could, perhaps make the state the official parent of children? That is the direction you have been pulling in. Are parents competent or aren't they? Technically they aren't, but legally they are.

Through good education and counselling i would hope that parents would be properly informed about the subject and given all the facts. They would then be in a position to make an informed, responsible and good decision. This is a medical consideration after all, religion shouldn’t be telling people what to do.

It is not merely a medical consideration from a legal standpoint. The choice of circumcision is a moral choice for religious parents, even if you don't value religion or religious parents. It is good to hope, however, that parents are informed as much as possible.

The first steps towards such a world must be to challenge the moral defensibility of such routine religious practice, and put it through the scrutiny that we apply to the rest of our modern world. Hopefully its influence will diminish, and less and less parents will feel inclined to have their babies circumcised for religious motivation.

The USSR tried to outlaw religion. If you believe circumcision is horribly morally wrong, then you must convince the parents that it is. Take the long route.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You are just saying parents' freedom of religion take precendence because they are the parents on that paragraph.

Legally, yes. They are the parents, and the State is not the parent. This has to do with freedom and also separation of church and state and the interpretations that have been based upon those things and the way that laws & precedents have grown up for the last two centuries or so.

Morally, too, I must insist that parents who bring lives into the world have the right to make decisions like this. It is because they are responsible for the child's life. Laws are both good and bad. They help people but they're also intrusive and take away from the quality of life. I see nothing wrong with trying to convince parents that circumcision is a bad choice, but I see a problem meddling with their authority as parents.

The law is like a big dog that keeps out thieves but takes big craps in the living room.

 

[metis]

I tend to think some people make a mountain out of a mole-hill. If my son's circumcision is supposedly the worst thing that ever happened in his life, he probably would be the happiest person on the planet. I was circumcised as an infant, but for some reason I can't seem to remember anything about it, and I doubt that anyone else here can remember that event either.

 

[Alex_G]

Legality is what we are talking about. Your confidence in parental choice seems a little bit shaky. Perhaps you would outlaw parenthood if you could, perhaps make the state the official parent of children? That is the direction you have been pulling in. Are parents competent or aren't they? Technically they aren't, but legally they are.

No, thats what you're saying im doing, because its easier to argue against. You're using a straw man. Im not attacking all parents and parenthood in general. Im just stating why i dont think religiously fuelled infant circumcision is morally defensible. You arnt addressing whats on the table.

It is not merely a medical consideration from a legal standpoint. The choice of circumcision is a moral choice for religious parents, even if you don't value religion or religious parents. It is good to hope, however, that parents are informed as much as possible.

It is or rather should be a medical consideration first and foremost. It’s the confusion that religion deserves un challenged authority on the issue is what’s problematic. If we're speaking in straight moral terms, i don’t see the practice of religiously fuelled infant circumcision as anything but morally reprehensible. I’ve given plenty of reasons if you look back to my 1st post.

The USSR tried to outlaw religion. If you believe circumcision is horribly morally wrong, then you must convince the parents that it is. Take the long route.

I am trying to convince the 'parents', the people that its morally wrong. What the do think im doing when i say its morally wrong and list my rational reasons for such a conclusion? :s And what has this got to do with outlawing religion? You need to get back on track, stop digressing and suggesting im making arguments that im not.

 

[Curious George]

Driving - Not really avoidable if you need to travel
Swimming in the sea - well if appropriate you’re balancing the happy, fun experience against risks. And clearly you don’t go out in stormy weather etc, without lifeguards, in extreme temperatures, for too long a period etc
Disneyland - Again balancing risks against what is gained in family bonding, fun and enjoyment
Fast Food - small amount as a treat, giving children only fast food is pretty abusive

Cutting my infants foreskin off, because..? Because of religion.

Hope it’s clear why I'm not a fan.....

You must see how simply listing other aspects of life that involve risk does nothing to actually specifically defend infant circumcision through religious motivation. You must see that.

And if a parent offered similar balancing for circumcision then I guess that's their decision.

 

[Koldo]

Legally, yes. They are the parents, and the State is not the parent. This has to do with freedom and also separation of church and state and the interpretations that have been based upon those things and the way that laws & precedents have grown up for the last two centuries or so.

However, the state can take away the parental rights of an individual.

Morally, too, I must insist that parents who bring lives into the world have the right to make decisions like this. It is because they are responsible for the child's life. Laws are both good and bad. They help people but they're also intrusive and take away from the quality of life. I see nothing wrong with trying to convince parents that circumcision is a bad choice, but I see a problem meddling with their authority as parents.

The law is like a big dog that keeps out thieves but takes big craps in the living room.

That they are responsible for the child's life does not make them owners of this child.

If something bad happens as a result of the procedure, what should be done with the parents?