Is the circumcision of babies a human rights violation?

[grandpa]

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.
If an adult had sex with a child that would
be a violation of their rights, even if years later
as an adult they said they didn't care, and were
in favour of the practice.

Intent should come into play. If circumcision isn't done out of malice, that at least means something.

Grandpa h.

[Grogybear]

Intent should come into play. If circumcision isn't done out of malice, that at least means something.

Grandpa h.

It shouldn't mean anything whatsoever from a legal standpoint. How many people circumcise their children because they hate them?

[NoJingoLingo]

Are you an idiot? Do you think it is reasonable to try to talk with a newborn child? To gain his consent?

Rick, you're smarter than this. How many examples of things that could be done to a newborn would you like me to list before you admit that this is a religious practice that has been turned into a social practice through lies and propaganda.

You consider this a rational argument? Ignore my first question. You've answered it for me already.

You're smarter than that too. Just because you can't adequately defend your position is no reason to be acrimonious.

And no, a foreskin in not essential.

I'm afraid you are poorly informed. Here's some info

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/adult...tml#post641807

Was I disfigured? Pretty idiotic question as well. My wife doesn't think so and I value her opinion more than I do yours.

Again, your or your wifes opinion do not outweigh fact. The fact being that mutilation occurred.

Do want the truth?

I have it and am trying to give it to you.

Circumcised men and boys tend to have slightly lower rates of urinary tract infection. HIV transmission to women is lower by men who are circumcised. Circumcision also reduces infection with human papillomavirus. Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer in men circumcised at birth compared to never circumcised men.

But I am wasting my time, I doubt it you would recognize the truth if it bit you on your uncircumcised penis.

I am circumcised and I circumcised my son before I was educated in the truth of circumcision.

http://www.volconvo.com/forums/adult...tml#post641807

All the facts, figures and rebuttals to make you an informed citizen are in that thread, enjoy and I hope to see the more reasonable and logic minded Rick on the other side.

[Silent Munkey]

I do object to some punk telling me that I am a mutilated victim of a "human rights violation." Talk about arrogant and stupid.

You don't see anything wrong with a doctor removing a part of your body without your consent as a violation? That seems very odd to me.

You do seem to be a little bent out of shape about it though.... You did use the words 'arrogant' and 'stupid'. You seem to be taking my question a little personal. That makes me think a little...

Regardless of what you have said, I will ask you again. Do you feel that it is a violation of a baby's rights when a piece of his body is removed without his consent?

[Grogybear]

Regardless of what you have said, I will ask you again. Do you feel that it is a violation of a baby's rights when a piece of his body is removed unnecessarily without his consent?

...Edited for accuracy...

I'd expect them to remove a tumor or something. The key is as to whether its done for medical or cultural reasons.

[RickSp]

Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. If an adult had sex with a child that would be a violation of their rights, even if years later as an adult they said they didn't care, and were in favour of the practice.

OK, so you are now comparing a medical procedure, one mandated by the several religions, to pedophilia!!! Well, that adds a note of completely irrational hysteria to the discussion.

Obviously thats taking the argument to a ridiculous conclusion but its the same issue - one of consent. You can't give consent to unnecessary surgery any more than to having sex.

Yes, you have moved the discussion into the realm of the absurd. Consent is not the issue because by definition babies cannot give consent. By your argument, no medical procedure of any sort on a child is justified because they cannot give informed consent.

If you provided some actual evidence that circumcision is on balance, good for a child's health then I wouldn't think it'd be any more a violation of rights than giving a child their mmr.

I'll always be skeptical of something like circumcision that started off as cultural nonsense and that they're now trying to find excuses for using. It sounds like too much of a coincidence. I don't think that circumcision was believed to reduce HIV rates 2000 years ago. If it does work then fine , there is such a thing as coincidence but as of now i'm very skeptical.

Actually I did provide evidence of health benefits of circumcision. If you choose to ignore them or make hysterical comparisons to pedophilia, that is entirely up to you.

[RickSp]

You don't see anything wrong with a doctor removing a part of your body without your consent as a violation? That seems very odd to me.

You do seem to be a little bent out of shape about it though.... You did use the words 'arrogant' and 'stupid'. You seem to be taking my question a little personal. That makes me think a little...

Regardless of what you have said, I will ask you again. Do you feel that it is a violation of a baby's rights when a piece of his body is removed without his consent?

Jaysus. This obsession with a flap of skin is so bizarre. And your question is frankly idiotic.

"Do you feel that it is a violation of a baby's rights when a piece of his body is removed without his consent?"

Are you really suggesting that babies have the ability to make informed decisions? On which planet? Are you claiming that no medical procedures can be performed on a child because he or she is too young to give consent? The power of consent resides with a baby's parents. Duh. It ii their choice to make, and no I do not consider a fairly common procedure to be either mutilation or a human rights violation.

It is funny that you that you think that I am bent out of shape here when others have screaming about "human rights violations" and "mutilation." Circumcision has been compared to pedophilia! What part of this isn't stupid?

The assertion that circumcision is unnecessary does not qualify as an argument. And claiming, as some have, that circumcision causes "injury" and "irreparable damage" is over-the-top lunacy. If you want to ignore the medical benefits of circumcision that is your choice, but spare me the proclamations about what circumcision is. No one has claimed that it necessary, but it can be a reasonable choice.

This Manichean posturing is simply silly. Rational arguments can be made for and against circumcision. Nevertheless, when anyone starts using overheated words and phrases like "human rights violation" and mutilation," I am reminded of the anti-abortion zealots whose entire argument is to shout "abortion is murder" till they are blue in the face.

I am presuming here that this silly set of rants posing as a thread is not backhanded Muslim bashing or anti-Semitism. The next logical step based on the absurd assertions made thus far would be to start screaming, "Jews mutilate babies!" I hope at least that we can avoid that foolishness.

[Grogybear]

OK, so you are now comparing a medical procedure, one mandated by the several religions, to pedophilia!!! Well, that adds a note of completely irrational hysteria to the discussion.

Yes, you have moved the discussion into the realm of the absurd. Consent is not the issue because by definition babies cannot give consent. By your argument, no medical procedure of any sort on a child is justified because they cannot give informed consent.

I very clearly stated that it was a ridiculous comparison but one that follows the same logical conclusion.
The issue is of consent. If you can't give consent then you need a damn good reason before you do such a procedure. If there are health benefits then fine but if its for cultural or cosmetic reasons, its not.
How about a more straightforward analogy. Do you think that babies should have piercings? Tribal ink? Those rings they put around women's necks to make them look like giraffes? Do you think that a parent should have the right to alter their child, whether its to make them look "nice" or whether its for some religious or cultural reason?

Actually I did provide evidence of health benefits of circumcision. If you choose to ignore them or make hysterical comparisons to pedophilia, that is entirely up to you.

You did not supply evidence. You typed some words. Some or all of them may be true but there was nothing in the way of actual evidence. No mention of clinical trials or peer reviewed scientific papers.

Anyway, the kinds of diseases you mentioned aren't really relevant to children so performing the surgery when they are young isn't necessary. By holding off you give a man the choice.

The assertion that circumcision is unnecessary does not qualify as an argument.

Are you serious? I'm completely astounded by the stupidity of that statement.
You're actually saying thats its ok to subject a baby to pointless surgery?

It ii their choice to make, and no I do not consider a fairly common procedure to be either mutilation or a human rights violation.

How does the frequency with which it is performed have any bearing on the morality of it?

[Silent Munkey]

I'd expect them to remove a tumor or something. The key is as to whether its done for medical or cultural reasons.

Yeah I had a hernia when I was born. It was removed. It was something that wasn't supposed to be there. A foreign growth. Not a piece of my body that was supposed to be there.

[Silent Munkey]

Jaysus. This obsession with a flap of skin is so bizarre. And your question is frankly idiotic.

"Do you feel that it is a violation of a baby's rights when a piece of his body is removed without his consent?"

Are you really suggesting that babies have the ability to make informed decisions? On which planet? Are you claiming that no medical procedures can be performed on a child because he or she is too young to give consent? The power of consent resides with a baby's parents. Duh. It ii their choice to make, and no I do not consider a fairly common procedure to be either mutilation or a human rights violation.

So if a parent wanted to tattoo the mother and father's names across the back of the baby you would be okay with that? It is their kid isn't it? They can do what ever they want to to it. Maybe they want their child to be like the Simpson's and they have removed their pinkies to have 3 fingers and they want the same for their child. That is okay with you?

It is funny that you that you think that I am bent out of shape here when others have screaming about "human rights violations" and "mutilation." Circumcision has been compared to pedophilia! What part of this isn't stupid?

The assertion that circumcision is unnecessary does not qualify as an argument. And claiming, as some have, that circumcision causes "injury" and "irreparable damage" is over-the-top lunacy. If you want to ignore the medical benefits of circumcision that is your choice, but spare me the proclamations about what circumcision is. No one has claimed that it necessary, but it can be a reasonable choice.

This Manichean posturing is simply silly. Rational arguments can be made for and against circumcision. Nevertheless, when anyone starts using overheated words and phrases like "human rights violation" and mutilation," I am reminded of the anti-abortion zealots whose entire argument is to shout "abortion is murder" till they are blue in the face.

I am presuming here that this silly set of rants posing as a thread is not backhanded Muslim bashing or anti-Semitism. The next logical step based on the absurd assertions made thus far would be to start screaming, "Jews mutilate babies!" I hope at least that we can avoid that foolishness.

What is your rational argument for circumcision?

I had to look up Manichean... I don't think it really fits here...

[RickSp]

I very clearly stated that it was a ridiculous comparison but one that follows the same logical conclusion.
The issue is of consent. If you can't give consent then you need a damn good reason before you do such a procedure. If there are health benefits then fine but if its for cultural or cosmetic reasons, its not.

Yet you make the comparison, as ridiculous and completely irresponsible as that comparison was, you made it.

And there are medical benefits to circumcision, even if you keep ignoring them.

You did not supply evidence. You typed some words. Some or all of them may be true but there was nothing in the way of actual evidence. No mention of clinical trials or peer reviewed scientific papers.

And what evidence have you provided? None. Other than comparing circumcision to pedophilia, you have offered very little.

OK as you seem to be unwilling to educate yourself, I will provide links to the benefits of circumcision. I don't necessarily expect you to read them.

Circumcision Information Site - A Lifetime of Medicial Benefits

Circumcision - Benefits Outweigh the Risks

Medical Benefits from Circumcision

Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons

[RickSp]

So if a parent wanted to tattoo the mother and father's names across the back of the baby you would be okay with that? It is their kid isn't it? They can do what ever they want to to it. Maybe they want their child to be like the Simpson's and they have removed their pinkies to have 3 fingers and they want the same for their child. That is okay with you?

Are you that fond of stupid questions? How long long has a small flap of skin been an obsession with you?

What is your rational argument for circumcision?

I take it my previous post was too subtle for you. Short and simple - the medical benefits outweigh the risks. So far I have seen no rational argument on your part.

I had to look up Manichean... I don't think it really fits here...

You probably wouldn''t. I'll use smaller words in the future.

By the way do you believe that Jews are mutilating their baby boys?