Should Medically Unnecessary Circumcision of Male Infants or Children Be Banned?

[Debater Slayer]

1) Should circumcision of male infants or children be banned in cases where it is not deemed by doctors to be medically necessary?

2) If you think it should be banned, should religious exemptions be granted to people whose religions mandate circumcision of their children?

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm ambivalent on male circumcision, so my position could go either way depending on multiple factors (e.g., the practical considerations of such a ban). Generally, I believe medical decisions should be left for medical professionals and the family of the child to decide, and since circumcision of males can be necessary in a minority of cases, one argument (among a few) that I can see against a ban is that a minority of children could be denied access to a medically necessary procedure because a doctor feared prosecution after deeming it medically necessary.

On the other hand, the vast majority of children don't need circumcision, and it is a permanent body modification. While the risk of adverse effects during or after the procedure is quite low, there's also the question of who would bear responsibility for adverse effects from a medically unnecessary circumcision.

This is one of those issues where I can see strong arguments on both sides, so I'm interested to know what others think so that I can consider other perspectives on the subject.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I see no problem with it where it is culturally acceptable and the parents endorse it.

And FTR, I'm circumcised.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I see no problem with it where it is culturally acceptable and the parents endorse it.

Should a decision about its legality be primarily based on cultural acceptance or medical considerations?

And FTR, I'm circumcised.

I'm from a culture where it is the norm, so same. I have also never regretted it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Should a decision about its legality be primarily based on cultural acceptance or medical considerations?

I don't think there should be any decision about its legality. As I see it, it's another case of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't think there should be any decision about its legality. As I see it, it's another case of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

I'm inclined to agree that it should be left to doctors and parents to decide, although I could see myself being more open to the idea of a ban for a riskier and unhealthy procedure. For this one, I think a ban would probably be much more problematic than helpful.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm inclined to agree that it should be left to doctors and parents to decide, although I could see myself being more open to the idea of a ban for a riskier and unhealthy procedure. For this one, I think a ban would probably be much more problematic than helpful.

The problem I see with banning is that it won't stop the practice. I will simply push it underground where it may be done in more unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Banning it could be potentially dangerous to the infants it's intended to protect.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The problem I see with banning is that it won't stop the practice. I will simply push it underground where it may be done in more unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Banning it could be potentially dangerous to the infants it's intended to protect.

Agreed. That's another strong point against a ban.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I chose other since I doubt we can legislate for such - in the current climate - but I would prefer to see it not encouraged. I see such as abusing the rights of a child than much else (parental rights), and I couldn't care less if people chose to have it done as adults.

 

[wellwisher]

1) Should circumcision of male infants or children be banned in cases where it is not deemed by doctors to be medically necessary?

2) If you think it should be banned, should religious exemptions be granted to people whose religions mandate circumcision of their children?

We used to live in a country of freedom and not one of Big Government over reach. This is a free market decision, like any elected surgery. The cosmetic surgery business would need to be next. The transgender business, would also have to be on the chopping block.

Why only target a single classic religion custom and not all the corporate and political fashion religions? If it was a good idea people would get it. Once you involve Big government over reach, it usually a bad idea that needs censorship to create a forced illusion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

We used to live in a country of freedom and not one of Big Government over reach. This is a free market decision, like any elected surgery. The cosmetic surgery business would need to be next. The transgender business, would also have to be on the chopping block.

Are you also against banning the "transgender business" for children because that should be a "free market decision," then? Because, as far as I can see, the reasoning you used could apply equally to circumcision and something like sex reassignment surgery or hormone therapy.

The reasons I see as a strong argument against banning male circumcision have nothing to do with any appeal to the "free market," but since that's the angle you approached the issue from, I'm interested to know your answer to the above question.

Why only target a single classic religion custom and not all the corporate and political fashion religions?

I don't support banning male circumcision for children, as I clearly said in my previous posts. You'll have to ask someone who supports banning it.

 

[bobhikes]

Only if you also Ban plastic surgery, holes for jewelry, tatoo's and anything else that unnecessarily modifies the body. To be honest most of these are far more dangerous.

 

[ChristineM]

The thing i have against circumcision is that it is usually done before the baby/child has a say in what happens to their own body. If it were postponed until (say) mid to late teens then fine with disclosure and the agreement of whomever was to undergo the procedure.

If required on medical grounds then yes.

 

[Koldo]

1) Should circumcision of male infants or children be banned in cases where it is not deemed by doctors to be medically necessary?

2) If you think it should be banned, should religious exemptions be granted to people whose religions mandate circumcision of their children?

1) Yes.
2) No.

The only reason someone might think there is nothing wrong with circumcizing children is becase they have grown up in a place where it is commonplace to do it. That should speak volumes about the practice.

 

[Secret Chief]

Only if you also Ban plastic surgery, holes for jewelry, tatoo's and anything else that unnecessarily modifies the body. To be honest most of these are far more dangerous.

These are chosen for oneself as an adult though.

 

[Secret Chief]

Is it a different proposition than FGM?

 

[fantome profane]

These are chosen for oneself as an adult though.

It is not uncommon for people to get their child's ears pierced when they are infants.

Not that I see much harm in that, just sayin.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Is it a different proposition than FGM?

I definitely see it as different due to the markedly different effects of each. I linked to these CDC statistics in the OP:

Results

Records were available for 1,400,920 circumcised males, 93.3% as newborns. Of the 41 possible male circumcision adverse events, 16 (39%) were probable. Incidence of total male circumcision adverse event was slightly less than half percent. Rates of potentially serious male circumcision adverse events ranged from 0.76 per million male circumcision (95% CI: 0.10 – 5.43) for stricture of male genital organs to 703.23 per million male circumcision (95% CI: 659.22 – 750.18) for repair of incomplete circumcision. Compared to males circumcised at ≤1 year of age, the incidence was approximately 20- and 10-fold greater for males circumcised between 1 – 9 years and those ≥10 years of age, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

male circumcision had a relatively low incidence of adverse events overall, especially if the procedure was performed during the first year of life, but rose 10–20 fold when performed after infancy.

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/34567

This is not comparable to FGM at all, the latter being a life-changing mutilation with no medical benefits in any cases whatsoever.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Not circumcised.

I think it should be a decision that the individual getting it should be a part of.

 

[Debater Slayer]

1) Yes.
2) No.

The only reason someone might think there is nothing wrong with circumcizing children is becase they have grown up in a place where it is commonplace to do it. That should speak volumes about the practice.

What do you think of the CDC statistics I linked to in the OP and cited in my previous post?

I don't think what you outlined is the only reason someone could be okay with circumcision of children, but I would agree it is a reason many people don't question the practice.

Personally, if I had children, I wouldn't have them circumcised unless it were medically necessary. I would strongly prefer to leave that choice for them when they became adults.