Circumcision...

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Quote by: Praxius *sigh* and now we loop all the way back to where this whole argument began, yet again.

The reason why the argument has gone back to the start is quite simple - you still haven't taken on board the basic objection - that you don't have the right - even as a parent - to submit a child to a procedure that is not only unnecessary, but is irreversible - and all without the child's consent.

Not a single argument you have presented in all these posts has carried any weight whatever in the face of this basic objection - all you have shown is that you have a distorted view, IMO, of what constitutes consent and especially of an infant's basic human right not to be surgically messed around with by his parents or anyone else.

If your sons choose to be circumcised of their own volition when they are old enough to decide for themselves - then that's fine - they know the risks. You can't ethically take that risk on their behalf whilst they are defenceless babies - it is arrogant and plain wrong.

My children are my children, and you have no right, let alone say in how I raise my children.

That's not true. As a member of a society governed by law there are many things you are prevented from doing to your children. Hit or abuse them and you will have to answer for it - deprive them of an education and you will be breaking the law, etc, etc.

Circumcision is a sheer anomaly in this respect, and after it has finally been made illegal (as it will be sometime this Century) - people will look back in horror to think that such a barbaric practice was condoned for so long - that I promise you.

[Morality Games]

The reason why the argument has gone back to the start is quite simple - you still haven't taken on board the basic objection - that you don't have the right - even as a parent - to submit a child to a procedure that is not only unnecessary, but is irreversible - and all without the child's consent. Not a single argument you have presented in all these posts has carried any weight whatever in the face of this basic objection - all you have shown is that you have a distorted view, IMO, of what constitutes consent and especially of an infant's basic human right not to be surgically messed around with by his parents or anyone else. If your sons choose to be circumcised of their own volition when they are old enough to decide for themselves - then that's fine - they know the risks. You can't ethically take that risk on their behalf whilst they are defenceless babies - it is arrogant and plain wrong.

I don't think circumcision reduces attractiveness, although that is subject to opinion, and it certainly doesn't reduce sexual or urinal discharge performance, so the extent to which it is wrong must be very small, reason being that it causes and carries little chance of harm. The risks are also not enormous and universal, negative side effects are few and temporal. So this entire post comes across as melodramatic, and parents don't have to parent based on melodrama.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Morality Games So this entire post comes across as melodramatic, and parents don't have to parent based on melodrama.

I quite agree - parenting calls for responsibility above all else - and a responsible patent doesn't subject their offspring to the risk of needless surgery... and there is no such thing as surgery that carries no risk.

[Praxius]

Quote by: GeminiBrian The reason why the argument has gone back to the start is quite simple - you still haven't taken on board the basic objection - that you don't have the right - even as a parent - to submit a child to a procedure that is not only unnecessary, but is irreversible - and all without the child's consent.

Once again:

The law says it is, and so do a few billion or so people on this planet... sorry, but yer wrong.

I understood your objection three pages ago and my position, nor the facts have changed.

If you don't like it, don't do it.... it's very simple.

Not a single argument you have presented in all these posts has carried any weight whatever in the face of this basic objection - all you have shown is that you have a distorted view, IMO, of what constitutes consent and especially of an infant's basic human right not to be surgically messed around with by his parents or anyone else.

And you have to understand that the parents make all kinds of decisions on the child's life without the child's consent all the time, so there's no valid argument.

If your sons choose to be circumcised of their own volition when they are old enough to decide for themselves - then that's fine - they know the risks. You can't ethically take that risk on their behalf whilst they are defenceless babies - it is arrogant and plain wrong.

Wrong?

That's the whole purpose of parents in the first place. It is because the child is so defenceless that the decisions go to the parents.... not you.... not the child.

Because the child is a minor, it is not capable of making a legal decision due to maturity and knowlege. This is why the parents decide these things.

It's the law, look it up..... this is also why we have a different legal system for minors as well, because of their age, they are not legally able to be tried for adult penalties.

The parents make the decisions, even if you don't like it.

If the kid doesn't like it, they can get emancipated if they so wish, but until then, while they are under their parent's roof, they call the shots.

And the younger you are, the better your tissues heal.... and the older you are, the worse it is to get done and then you probably end up with the scarring as you put it. One more logical reason to do it then.

That's not true. As a member of a society governed by law there are many things you are prevented from doing to your children. Hit or abuse them and you will have to answer for it - deprive them of an education and you will be breaking the law, etc, etc.

Indeed, so?

Circumcision is a sheer anomaly in this respect, and after it has finally been made illegal (as it will be sometime this Century) - people will look back in horror to think that such a barbaric practice was condoned for so long - that I promise you.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll see the day..... check this out.... I'm holding my breath.

Best of luck on that one, it ain't gonna happen.... it hasn't happened after so many centuries? This is going to be the century??

Yes, and Y2K was going to make us all dead.

Hoestly, you can try and see how far you get with this little idea, it will either be shot down very quickly, or it'll end in an impass and things will still remain as they currently are.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Morality Games I don't think circumcision reduces attractiveness, although that is subject to opinion, and it certainly doesn't reduce sexual or urinal discharge performance, so the extent to which it is wrong must be very small, reason being that it causes and carries little chance of harm. The risks are also not enormous and universal, negative side effects are few and temporal. So this entire post comes across as melodramatic, and parents don't have to parent based on melodrama.

Agreed, that is all there is to the argument.... emotion, which is in no offense, based around something one has no experience or direct understanding of.

It's all just a big stink over nothing really, because for the amount of risks involved in a circumcision, there's probably just as many, if not more, with a foreskin...... as previously supplied information dictates.

*shrugs* I'd just don't get it?

[Praxius]

Quote by: GeminiBrian I quite agree - parenting calls for responsibility above all else - and a responsible patent doesn't subject their offspring to the risk of needless surgery... and there is no such thing as surgery that carries no risk.

Once again..... You are dictating what is responsible for a parent, and You are dictating how they should parent their children.... and You are dictating that it is needless.

Yet we've already gone through all the evidence and any risks and any potiential side effects are minor to nill, compared to the potiential risks of not having it done or having it done later on.

And then you fall back to emotional appeal, which simply isn't even going to work, even for me..... sorry but I am not having any childhood memories come back to make me misty-eyed and thinking it was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with it and carries about as much risk as getting a tooth filled at the dentist.

[Clementine]

Quote by: Praxius Yet we've already gone through all the evidence and any risks and any potiential side effects are minor to nill, compared to the potiential risks of not having it done or having it done later on. There is nothing wrong with it and carries about as much risk as getting a tooth filled at the dentist.

Your argument lacks backing. Saying that circumcision is an unnecessary operation is not an opinion, it is true. It is listed as an elective cosmetic surgery.
Your argument about penile cancer is very weak. Penile cancer usually occurs only in the very elderly and can also be prevented with good hygiene.

So you were needlessly circumcised by your parents. Big deal. Get over it. It is our job as parents to make decision for our children, and sometimes we don't make the best one. That's life. Just because it was done to you does not mean you should ignore the facts about it being a barbaric and unnecessary procedure.

In reality, one in 500 circumcised children may suffer a complication, and one in 100 children may derive a benefit. But people will weigh that differently. However, the vast majority of children will gain no medical benefit nor suffer any complication as a result of circumcision."
Again, up to parent decision. There really is no benefit from being circumcised, but it won't kill you.

This little gem made for interesting reading.
Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

[jose]

Circumcision is illegal in Spain and can only be performed for medical reasons

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Praxius Once again..... You are dictating what is responsible for a parent, and You are dictating how they should parent their children.... and You are dictating that it is needless.

Hypothetical conversation:

"Dad - why did you decide to have me circumcised when you knew there was a 1 in 500 chance it would cause complications?"

Father:

"Shut up whining - I know better than you - I make the decisions about your body - whether you like it or not - and it's not my fault you're in pain, is it? - live with son - sh1t happens."

[Clementine]

Interesting story
Botched circumcisions leave 31 dead | World Breaking News | News.com.au

[NoJingoLingo]

Too bad this topic already has 4 pages to it... I guess it won't hurt to debunk the same argument over and over...

Circumcision is a religious practice that has no general medical benefit that can not be had in less invasive procedures... like washing. It has been adopted as the norm here in the USA because of our religious history.

There is no logical argument for general circumcision, only emotional arguments or religious arguments.

Circumcision will not be outlawed in the USA because of religious freedom.
Circumcision in the USA will continue due to ignorance.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Clementine Your argument lacks backing. Saying that circumcision is an unnecessary operation is not an opinion, it is true. It is listed as an elective cosmetic surgery.

Depending on where you live you might be right, but not everybody in the world or every country view it in such a way..... therefore your generalized point of view is wrong.

"Medical Reasons for Circumcision

Medical opinion varies considerably on the issue of when and whether circumcision should be carried out. The American Academy of Pediatrics, in their most recent reaffirmation of their Circumcision Policy Statement 2006, states:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."

Medical circumcisions are also carried out on adults but tend to be done only if conditions such as balanitis or phimosis are not responding to other medical treatments.

Benefits of Circumcision

Male circumcision has often been carried out for reasons of hygiene. It is known that men who have had a circumcision seem to contract fewer urinary tract infections.

Circumcision does offer some defense against sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

There is also evidence that circumcised men have a lower rate of penile cancer, a very rare form of cancer. Research is unclear about whether circumcision reduces the risk of cervical cancer in female sexual partners."

Male Circumcision-Circumcised Men-Religious Social Medical Reasons Circumcisions

More info here:
Malehealth : Circumcision FAQs

Why some countries view circumcisions as elective is due to a number of reasons, which if you read through this thread, you'd know those reasons and why it is still an option, rather then manditory to have it done.

You don't want it done... good... you go girlfriend, but you have no right to remove the option from others who understand the medical benefits.

I see it as being similar to vaccines. They can be a good thing, but you can not be forced to get vaccines. Even vaccines are not for everyone and some have adverse reactions to them.

Your argument about penile cancer is very weak. Penile cancer usually occurs only in the very elderly and can also be prevented with good hygiene.

Weak indeed... this has already been addressed, good hygiene was also addressed and that it is a well known fact, both through medical records and personal experiences that good hygene isn't always properly taught to people.... esspecially in developing nations where good hygiene isn't an easy thing to obtain all the time.

What is weak is your defense.

And just because cancer occurs in older people, doesn't mean it's still not a problem..... it still can occur in your lifetime and if you don't care if you get it when you're older.... fine, I don't care. But don't go around trying to imply that nobody should have the right to seek circumcision if they so choose to do so.

So you were needlessly circumcised by your parents. Big deal. Get over it. It is our job as parents to make decision for our children, and sometimes we don't make the best one. That's life. Just because it was done to you does not mean you should ignore the facts about it being a barbaric and unnecessary procedure.

Speaking of getting over it.... as already stated, proven and supplied, there are many medical benefits recognized by many medical professionals around the world.... just because you ignorantly dub circumcisions as being unnecessary and you got some fearmongering mentality over them that you are blinded by the "REAL FACTS" isn't my problem.

Get over it.

Parents do the best they can... whoopty do..... cry me a river of excuses. You want to be a parent that closes their minds to possible benefits because of your ignorant views and then try and excuse your actions as being "We make mistakes sometimes" fill your boots.

My parents probably know a hell of a lot more about these sort of medical procedures then your parents or probably even yourself, due to their medical backgrounds.... for you to assume you know that my parents made a mistake is more of an emotional dribbling waste of time based on ignorance.

In reality, one in 500 circumcised children may suffer a complication, and one in 100 children may derive a benefit. But people will weigh that differently. However, the vast majority of children will gain no medical benefit nor suffer any complication as a result of circumcision."

Got a source on those numbers?

Again, up to parent decision. There really is no benefit from being circumcised, but it won't kill you.

Correct, Wrong, Correct.

This little gem made for interesting reading. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

The child has no rights, the parents as you already stated make the decisions.

Gotta love when scientists use the term "Mutilation" in their arguments, yet never use the same term when cutting someone open to transplant an orgran, or inject you with chemicals, breast implants or other cosmetic surgery.

Any medical procedure that involves modification of the human body is in fact a mutilation.... people simply like using the term only when it references something they don't like due to emotional appeal.

This part of your link was just worth the laugh:

"Opponents argue that infant circumcision can cause both physical and psychological harm"

Physical Harm? Duh.... as mentioned before, all medical procedures that are invasive or alter the human body are mutilations and cause physical harm, regardless if you knock the person out or not.

Psychological harm?

Ask anybody who's been circumcised as an infant and see if any of them even remember getting it done or if it cause them to some how screw up their brains.

You won't get one person.... which sorta explains to me where the rest of the article is heading, as the scientist who claims this is pretty damn ignorant.

The excuses and justification to allow a child to choose for themselves at a much older age has also been already explained in this thread in regards to physical complications that occur with adult tissue and recovery.

Moving on....

[Praxius]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Hypothetical conversation: "Dad - why did you decide to have me circumcised when you knew there was a 1 in 500 chance it would cause complications?" Father: "Shut up whining - I know better than you - I make the decisions about your body - whether you like it or not - and it's not my fault you're in pain, is it? - live with son - sh1t happens."

Thanks more more hypothetical ignorance based on some random emotional appeal.

How old is this hypothetical child speaking? By the time any child can begin to speak, the circumcision is usually done long before and no longer is an issue.

Am I still in pain? I don't remember any pain relating to my circumcision.... so no. There is no re-occuring pain, there is nothing I can complain about.

Here, I'll even entertain your hypothetical ignorance based on some random emotional appeal:

"Dad Why didn't you get me a circumcision when I was born? My Foreskin has now rolled back and stretched behind the head of my penis and cutting off circulation.... due to this, I am not only growing an infection where I can not clean, but will now have to goto the ER and get the foreskin removed at a time where I'm going to remember it and the healing process won't be as effective as compared to infant tissue and regeneration."

"Sorry son, I was merely following what ignorant people wanted me to do so I didn't seem like a bad/abusive parent and allowing strangers to dictate what was right for our family and my children whom they know nothing about in any personal fashion."

Enjoy.

Added:

Here's another few:

"Dad, why do I have a foreskin? All the girls laugh at me and I don't look like the porn stars."

"Dad, why do I still have a foreskin? Why didn't you ever tell me how to properly clean down there? I now have, yet again, another infection due to bacteria buildup."

"Dad, why do I still have a foreskin? Out of all of these studies in the news and online in regards to all the medical benefits and reductions in infections and contracting STD's, my risks are now greater then those who don't have foreskin."

"Dad, why do I have a foreskin? It looks alike an elephant trunk."

"Dad, why do I have a foreskin? My girlfriend/wife keeps complaining about my premature ejaculation issues because of being way too sensitive? Now she thinks I simply don't care about her and her pleasures in bed, and I just want to get off as soon as possible and be done with it.... this was my problem with the last few girlfriends I have had and it's ruining my relationships."

I can play these ignorant hypotheticals too you know?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Clementine Interesting story Botched circumcisions leave 31 dead | World Breaking News | News.com.au

Indeed.... in South Africa's rural Eastern Cape region

illegal schools.

unscrupulous surgeons

using "traditional" surgical tools.

"Last month, a boy was admitted to hospital with a nearly severed rotting penis, after being cut by an untrained traditional surgeon."

Yeah I can see how this report relates to developed nations and properly educated doctors/hospitals

Also it stated that most died from hypothermia, which makes perfect sense, considering the children are tossed out into the wild to fend for themselves..... how is this blamed on these botched circumcisions?

Did these kids freeze to death out in the wild because all the heat was escaping out of their penis heads?

lol, oh my.

[Praxius]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Too bad this topic already has 4 pages to it... I guess it won't hurt to debunk the same argument over and over... Circumcision is a religious practice that has no general medical benefit that can not be had in less invasive procedures, like washing....

Wrong, read the already supplied reports.

It has been adopted as the norm here in the USA because of our religious history.

Explain for the rest of the world then. I thought it was a jewish practice.... if the US was apparently built on "Christian values", why would this be the case?

There is no logical argument for general circumcision, only emotional arguments or religious arguments.

Clearly you either didn't read what has already been stated, or simply ignored it due to your own emotional arguments..... in fact the majority of the claims against circumcisions are based around emotional appeal and very little facts.

Circumcision will not be outlawed in the USA because of religious freedom. Circumcision in the USA will continue due to ignorance.

Ignorance is hardly the word for it...... but I guess if you can't clue into the already provided details and are already stuck in your ways like a religious fanatic whom you seem to use as an example to justify your position, that's not my problem.

As already admitted, there are pros and cons towards getting it done and not getting it done.... it is up to the individual and/or the parents to decide what is best.

If you wish to reduce the amount of people getting circumcisions, do so through logical education and social change. Don't get your children circumcised and lead by example.... with any luck to your side of the argument, they won't choose to get it done, and thus, their children won't get it done..... and theirs.... so on and so forth.

Religious reasons were not behind my circumcision, so you're wrong there.

If I have a son later down the road, he will have it done regardless of what you or others think.... and it won't be done due to religious reasons either.... so your also wrong there.

And if you want to continue to ignore the already supplied facts and reports on the known medical benefits and just keep recycling the religious excuse.... you'd be wrong here with your logic as well.

To each their own.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: Praxius "Dad, why do I have a foreskin? My girlfriend/wife keeps complaining about my premature ejaculation issues because of being way too sensitive? Now she thinks I simply don't care about her and her pleasures in bed, and I just want to get off as soon as possible and be done with it.... this was my problem with the last few girlfriends I have had and it's ruining my relationships."[/I][/B]

So you finally admit that circumcision reduced penile sensitivity - good progress, and that every boy wants to look like an American porn star in the genital department, and that he never washes his apparatus like the rest of us do.

You must have thought long and hard about all this Praxius since I sent that post way back in May. Meantime, my foreskin continues to be entirely trouble-free, as it always has been.

ps. an elephant's trunk also happens to be the most sensitive part of his anatomy - what an excellent argument for amputating it...

[Chaossaber314]

Yawn, another tirade full of hyperbole.

Don't people debating this topic realize that more often than not the people against circumcision are uncircumcised and the people in favor of it are? It's all about trying to justify the way your own genitals look by calling the converse abnormal.

Love your own penis. Quit trying to demonize how others look.

That is all.

[Clementine]

I don't have a penis so I don't think what I have, has anything to do with my opinion. I
I do have a son, and there was/is no way I was going to have him mutilated.

[Chaossaber314]

As is your right, but just so you know, hyperbole doesn't make your decision any more valid than anyone else's.

[Orangutan]

Well reading through this has been entertaining, of sorts..

Interesting that Praxius gives a medical society's view, where they fudge around and talk of "potential" benefits but ultimately have to state there is no basis for making such mutilation routine.

In fact you will not find any acredited medical association anywhere, in any country, that recommended this procedure, on either sex.

Praxius, you dislike the word mutilation but that is exactly what it is.

Cutting someone open to get to their kidneys leaves a side effect of a medical scar, yet the entire operation of a mutilation is to amputate healthy tissue. By definition that is a mutilation, not a medical procedure.

On the sensitivity side, it is proven beyond doubt and besides which, it is common sense.

MOST of the sensory nerves in the penis are in the foreskin. It is designed to glide across the ridged bands behind the glans, stimulating pleasure and orgasm.

This is not "biased" data, it is physical reality. On the off chance that somehow sensitivity returned or adapted, tests and studies have been done, using direct touch with light instruments and measuring detection. The mutilated penis has less senstivity in the areas remaining and of course the most sensitive areas are simply not there any more, so the question is a no brainer.

I think what is responsible for much of the confusion is the reversed role of the glans.

On a woman the clitoris is highly sensitive and covered with a hood of less sensitive skin. It's the opposite in men.

In men a less sensitive glans is covered with highly sensitive skin, with virtually ALL the actual sexual nerve endings in that skin.

With erection, the foreskin is stretched out, making it even more sensitive, and rolled backwards and forwards, acting as a mechanical lubricant and pleasure center. That's the whole point of it.

I see a lot of "useless" and similar descriptions but the foreskin certainly DOES have a purpose, in fact a number of them.

As for cleanliness, the best expression that sums it up, "an eyeball without an eyelid is not a cleaner eyeball".

The foreskin acts like an 'eyelid' for direct protection of the glans, especially the penile opening, It also produces smegma, which far from being 'dirty' is nature's antibiotic. Ironically, excessive scrubbing and attempts to remove all traces of smegma are MORE likely to result in infection, which easily accounts for the few cases that occur (and circumcised peni get infected too).

It's the same as with your skin, it is not supposed to be too oily or greasy - but stripping away too much with harsh detergents or scrubbing can expose you to infection more than a normal light soaping.

The various studies on HIV typically come from Africa, they deliberately mix results from different populations, where some are routinely mutilated and some aren't, where some have high family values and low extra-marital sex and some boff anything that moves. Some populations have very high levels of prostitution etc etc etc. By carefully picking selective samples, you can 'show' that circumcised men are more likely to get HIV. With the same dishonest sampling you could prove the opposite too. Such "studies" are meaningless and pushed for religious and economic reasons.

The economic reasons include the procurement of healthy human skin tissue, worth hundreds of dollars an ounce and difficult to (legally) obtain by any other means.

One single foreskin can be harvested and 'cultured' in such a way it can be worth, in theory, up to $10,000. They're not, as there's such a plentiful supply, so much is wasted.

Actual reasons behind it are primarily religious. The faux medical "benefits" are hype and justification tagged on later. The actual PURPOSE of such mutilation is to reduce sexual pleasure, thus reducing masturbation and shagging around, because sexual pleasure was considered a "sin".

Human nature being what it is, the idea doesn't work. Circumcised men and women still masturbate and shag around, they just don't get to feel as much pleasure as they would have done had they been intact.

Imagine burning the tips of your fingers as a baby. Sure, you'd heal and still be able to use your hands, you could still type and pick things up and detect differences in texture - but it would be nothing like the sensitivity of normal fingertips.

As a libertarian I don't wish to inflict laws upon other people (though increasingly across Europe it is becoming illegal). What will make a difference, and already is, is education.

As more and more parents come to realise there are no medical benefits to amputating parts of their babies, and that this actually removes a healthy and useful thing, directly responsible for the majority of sexual pleasure, it will die out.

That's already happening, even in America.

Oh, and the "too young to feel the pain" thing? Various studies have found circumcised men have a lower pain threshold, for life. You subject a baby's growing nervous system to that kind of extreme agony and you DO have a long-term effect.



O.