Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.[W:301]

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

...I'm actually fairly libertarian, but I don't think a parent should have the right to violate the bodily sovereignty of a newborn with permanent genital modification purely for cosmetic purposes. There is no medical reason for it.

Well, since it is evident neither of us agree about the "no medical evidence" point you continually raise, even though you admit there is but try to dismiss it with "soap and water or a condom," I can only reiterate again.. thank God you are not a lawmaker.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Your argument went to hell when you accused parents of having a penis fetish.

No doubt you will soon suggest a American Jewish medical conspiracy to make infant male circumcision as widespread as possible.

Well so far all you seem to be posting is faux outrage and ad homs... so excuse me while I take what you have to say with a graint of salt.

And yes it is a fetish, a cultural one. If you think your newborn's **** is ugly and needs to have its skin cut off in order to look good, then you've been influenced by some outside force into thinking that way. If you weren't, then you'd have no problem with your baby boy as he was born. That's what a cultural fetish is, by definition. The fact that you read into fetish as being sexual is your own damn problem because I already explained to you what I meant.

But speaking of sex, I think a lot of American's modern views on penile attractiveness has been informed by the porn industry. The choice to circumcise is often desired and proposed by the father, not the mother. Too many men are watching porn with cut cocks and think that's the ideal, so they go get their boys cut when they're born.

It's a cultural delusion. And in this one instance, **** religious freedom. The brit milah is barbaric. Cutting off the foreskin and letting a rabbi put his mouth to the genitals of a newborn to suck the blood out is an abomination. Any other adult committing such an act would be charged with pedophilia if discovered. We give too many exceptions to religion, all because... what? It's thousands of years old? Tradition? I don't care. If it's cosmetic, it should not be permitted.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Well, since it is evident neither of us agree about the "no medical evidence" point you continually raise, even though you admit there is but try to dismiss it with "soap and water or a condom," I can only reiterate again.. thank God you are not a lawmaker.

Can you post medical evidence that justified circumcision as policy? I mean... the UN supports it in sub-saharan Africa, but only because it reduces the risk of HIV by like, 5%, giving men there the false impression that they can avoid HIV if they get cut, when a condom would be far safer either way.

So please, post evidence.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Can you post medical evidence that justified circumcision as policy? I mean... the UN supports it in sub-saharan Africa, but only because it reduces the risk of HIV by like, 5%, given men there the false impression that they can avoid HIV if they get cut, when a condom would be far safer either way.

So please, post evidence.

Geez, you quote a piece of evidence, then try to dismiss it by how it has been "misused," not that it isn't factual. Try looking up logical fallacies and figuring out yourself why that argument doesnt work. As for other evidence, just start at the beginning of the thread and read...I'm sure you'll find it.

Thanks

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

The Antis keep revolving around the same arguments.

#1. There is no medical benefit to infant male circumcision.

answer? Sure there is. Its documents by many Western medical associations.

#2. It causes pain and discomfort to the child.

answer? So do haircuts, clipping nails, brushing teeth, and washing hair.

#3. It unnecessarily removes a part of the human body.

answer? so does pro-active removal of wisdom teeth, which may never cause a medical problem.

#4. The child has no choice in the matter.

answer? Who cares. Big deal. They are just children. They don't have the maturity or intelligence to make such decisions for themselves. If they did, the law would grant children sovereignty over all medical decisions that affect them.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Well so far all you seem to be posting is faux outrage and ad homs... so excuse me while I take what you have to say with a graint of salt.

And yes it is a fetish, a cultural one. If you think your newborn's **** is ugly and needs to have its skin cut off in order to look good, then you've been influenced by some outside force into thinking that way. If you weren't, then you'd have no problem with your baby boy as he was born. That's what a cultural fetish is, by definition. The fact that you read into fetish as being sexual is your own damn problem because I already explained to you what I meant.

But speaking of sex, I think a lot of American's modern views on penile attractiveness has been informed by the porn industry. The choice to circumcise is often desired and proposed by the father, not the mother. Too many men are watching porn with cut cocks and think that's the ideal, so they go get their boys cut when they're born.

It's a cultural delusion. And in this one instance, **** religious freedom. The brit milah is barbaric. Cutting off the foreskin and letting a rabbi put his mouth to the genitals of a newborn to suck the blood out is an abomination. Any other adult committing such an act would be charged with pedophilia if discovered. We give too many exceptions to religion, all because... what? It's thousands of years old? Tradition? I don't care. If it's cosmetic, it should not be permitted.

So now its the fault of men who watch too much porn. I see.

As to Brit Milah, only a very small minority of ultra-Othodox Jews commit this act. Don't even try to make believe that a sizeable minority of Jews do this.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

And the pros keep putting forth the same illogical arguments that are EASILY debunked, every time.

The Antis keep revolving around the same arguments.

#1. There is no medical benefit to infant male circumcision.

answer? Sure there is. Its documents by many Western medical associations.

The benefits relate to cleanliness, infection, and sexually transmitted diseases, all which can be countered with proper hygiene and safe sexual practices. If you're too ignorant to know how to clean your baby's foreskin or you find the task gross, then you should be taking parenting classes, not ordering surgery for your newborn.

#2. It causes pain and discomfort to the child.

answer? So do haircuts, clipping nails, brushing teeth, and washing hair.

Are you really this obtuse? All of those grow back!

Not to mention, you already argued that foreskin removal is really painful so it's better to get done early on. You're contradicting yourself.

#3. It unnecessarily removes a part of the human body.

answer? so does pro-active removal of wisdom teeth, which may never cause a medical problem.

Wisdom tooth impaction can lead to abscess and death. A foreskin, if left alone, does nothing.

#4. The child has no choice in the matter.

answer? Who cares. Big deal. They are just children. They don't have the maturity or intelligence to make such decisions for themselves. If they did, the law would grant children sovereignty over all medical decisions that affect them.

I agree that parents have the right to make decisions for their children, but since circumcision is cosmetic, I am against it.

It seems to me that the pro-circumcision people are in deep denial about the fact that they just irrationally prefer cut cocks and are making up the medical justifications after the fact. Circumcision started with religion and it has always been about culture, not medicine. If it were about medicine then places like China, India, Russia, and all the indigenous societies of the world would have observed the medical problem and removed foreskins from day one.

Hell, if it were such a problem, humans would have evolved away from it. Instead, foreskins have remain largely unchanged in our entire history; that, and all male mammals ALSO have foreskin, and they aren't privy to the wonders of our modern medical technology, yet seem to be getting along just fine.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

And the pros keep putting forth the same illogical arguments that are EASILY debunked, every time.

The benefits relate to cleanliness, infection, and sexually transmitted diseases, all which can be countered with proper hygiene and safe sexual practices. If you're too ignorant to know how to clean your baby's foreskin or you find the task gross, then you should be taking parenting classes, not ordering surgery for your newborn.

Are you really this obtuse? All of those grow back!

Not to mention, you already argued that foreskin removal is really painful so it's better to get done early on. You're contradicting yourself.

Wisdom tooth impaction can lead to abscess and death. A foreskin, if left alone, does nothing.

I agree that parents have the right to make decisions for their children, but since circumcision is cosmetic, I am against it.

It seems to me that the pro-circumcision people are in deep denial about the fact that they just irrationally prefer cut cocks and are making up the medical justifications after the fact. Circumcision started with religion and it has always been about culture, not medicine. If it were about medicine then places like China, India, Russia, and all the indigenous societies of the world would have observed the medical problem and removed foreskins from day one.

Hell, if it were such a problem, humans would have evolved away from it. Instead, foreskins have remain largely unchanged in our entire history; that, and all male mammals ALSO have foreskin, and they are privy to the wonders of our modern medical technology, yet seem to be getting along just fine.

Wisdom teeth can be completely benign. I still have one left and have no plans to remove it.

Foreskin may cause no problems but it may cause problems. Just like wisdom teeth. Removing them seems to be a matter of personal preference.

Evolution doesn't just let everything that has no use, rot away and fall off.

We still have many vestigial organs and body parts that serve zero purpose. That doesn't mean they are useful in any way.

You are under the failed impression that the human body is perfect and everything we have, is good and useful.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

I'm just trying to get the pro side to admit that their preference for cut cocks is not based in anything rational. They just like them, and so think that their baby boys should have the benefit of having an attractive one when they get older. That seems to be the culture in America. My son was made fun of in the pool locker room for having an uncut penis, when there is nothing physically wrong with it.

Circumcision is an elective procedure now if parents want it. Doctors no longer urge it to be done in the United States. If it's so medically beneficial, then why aren't doctors still pushing for it like they were in the 70's and 80's?

The pro arguments just don't make a lick of sense.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Wisdom teeth can be completely benign. I still have one left and have no plans to remove it.

Good for you. If people want to have their wisdom teeth preventatively removed, then they are free to do so since those teeth don't even start developing until mid-way through adolescence when a cognitive, autonomous individual can choose to have the procedure done.

Foreskin may cause no problems but it may cause problems. Just like wisdom teeth. Removing them seems to be a matter of personal preference.

It's not a personal preference if you're doing it to someone else though.

Evolution doesn't just let everything that has no use, rot away and fall off.

There is evidence that wisdom tooth impaction is a result of smaller jaws, caused by the modern diet consumed by pregnant women and children. When you compare the diet of an indigenous person (like with the paleo diet) to a modern person, there are stark differences in jaw sizes. Most people on indigenous diets can accommodate wisdom teeth.

The appendix may have immune functions and research is still ongoing.

Just because we THINK some organs are functionless or useless leftovers, does not make it true. It may just be a product of our own ignorance.

We still have many vestigial organs and body parts that serve zero purpose. That doesn't mean they are useful in any way.

Foreskin is not vestigial though. It lubicates and protects the glans from wear and tear, which in turn increases sensitivity of the glans. Foreskin itself has many nerve endings which contribute to sexual pleasure, and is the main reason it was removed by religion. Foreskin makes masturbation a lot more easy, which until the modern era was deemed sinful by the Abrahamic faiths.

When intercourse happens, the entire shaft of the penis is meant to move in and out of the foreskin while it remains stationery, with the sensitive glans being exposed to the internal environment. In the absence of a foreskin, a keratin layer forms over the glans reducing its sensitivity, and the entire shaft is exposed to constant friction. I realize that it still feels good for circumcised men and they have no reason to feel ashamed, but this is not the natural biological way that intercourse is supposed to happen.

You are under the failed impression that the human body is perfect and everything we have, is good and useful.

You couldn't be more wrong.

As evidenced above, the foreskin is not vestigial or useless. Trust me, I researched this EXTENSIVELY while I was pregnant.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Young kids also often don't want their hair cut, because it hurts.

Parents still get their hair cut.

That is maintenance, which has nothing at all to do with this.

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Young kids also often don't want their hair cut, because it hurts.

Parents still get their hair cut.

A haircut is hardly permanent.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

A haircut is hardly permanent.

Removing wisdom teeth unneccessarily is permanent.

 

[Northern Light]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Removing wisdom teeth unneccessarily is permanent.

Do babies have wisdom teeth?

What are you even talking about right now?

 

[Paschendale]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Removing wisdom teeth unneccessarily is permanent.

And who gets them out unnecessarily? Most of the time it's an emergency, like they're coming in sideways. Again, none of the things you listed are permanent changes that are done without the child's consent. Ear holes close over, kids consent to braces, wisdom teeth are removed in emergencies, haircuts are temporary. Do you really not understand the difference between those things and a permanent change on an infant who cannot comprehend let alone consent to what is happening?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

The Antis keep revolving around the same arguments.

#1. There is no medical benefit to infant male circumcision.

answer? Sure there is. Its documents by many Western medical associations.

#2. It causes pain and discomfort to the child.

answer? So do haircuts, clipping nails, brushing teeth, and washing hair.

#3. It unnecessarily removes a part of the human body.

answer? so does pro-active removal of wisdom teeth, which may never cause a medical problem.

#4. The child has no choice in the matter.

answer? Who cares. Big deal. They are just children. They don't have the maturity or intelligence to make such decisions for themselves. If they did, the law would grant children sovereignty over all medical decisions that affect them.

I'm a big fan of your response to item #4. Kudos!!!

 

[L0neW0lf]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

It should be illegal, how is it different from a parent forcing their adult son to have his penis cut because its "easier to clean" or because of the other minor trouble it might or might not cause? its absolutely ridiculous.

Medical consent being entrusted to the parents does not and should not include elective cosmetic non reversible surgery that might actually end up with severe consequences, personally I like circumcised penises more than natural ones which I think look disgusting, after all it is cosmetic surgery, but that decision should be made by every guy for himself.

Then there's of course the current medical research about loss of sensitivity on which there hasn't been a consensus as of yet as another added reason for making it illegal.

Plus how horrible it is for someone who refuses to have the operation as an adult out of fear would justify forcing it on a defenseless person under their custody?

 

[clownboy]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Revising its policy on circumcision for the first time in 13 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics now says that the preventative health benefits of infant circumcision clearly outweigh the risks.

Source

This is from August 2012.

 

[Fisher]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Wisdom teeth are removed as a preventative measure which does not make it unnecessary. My dentist had to have a Come to Jesus conversation with me about that before I agreed to go see the oral surgeon. The issue is that people will have problems with their wisdom teeth and it is better to have them removed before the roots start growing into the jawbone because once they do, a relatively routine removal becomes much more complicated and the risk of complications, severity of associated pain, and expense go up.

I find it ironic that people that think a woman has an absolute right to have her baby hacked to death prior to birth suddenly think parents have no right to have their baby go through a relatively minor procedure a few days after birth.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Funny question. Parents can legally butcher their unborn children, have them sliced, diced, chopped up and sucked out...but there is a question as to the legality or ethics of removing foreskin?

 

[nota bene]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

It should be illegal, how is it different from a parent forcing their adult son to have his penis cut because its "easier to clean" or because of the other minor trouble it might or might not cause? its absolutely ridiculous.

Medical consent being entrusted to the parents does not and should not include elective cosmetic non reversible surgery that might actually end up with severe consequences, personally I like circumcised penises more than natural ones which I think look disgusting, after all it is cosmetic surgery, but that decision should be made by every guy for himself.

Then there's of course the current medical research about loss of sensitivity on which there hasn't been a consensus as of yet as another added reason for making it illegal.

Plus how horrible it is for someone who refuses to have the operation as an adult out of fear would justify forcing it on a defenseless person under their custody?

Just keeping it real here, a minor medical procedure done at three days isn't even remembered by the boy.

As for "sensitivity," given that circumcision has been done routinely in some cultures for housands of years in some cultures while not routinely performed in others, I'd expect there to be extensive literature on this. I don't have a penis myself and have thus not been paying attention the way men might, so if you have reliable long-term stats on this, I'd be grateful for the opportunity to catch myself up to speed.

I laughed when I read "that decision should be made by every guy for himself." Are you crazy? One of my sibs had her tonsils out before she was 2. I was 20, and I still remember every miserable minute.

And I was with my children's father at the urologist's--I was so thrilled to learn that men face a table with stirrups too!--when we discussed his being circumcised. The physician said that the decision was up to him, but that unless he really, really thought this necessary, he didn't recommend it.

I am guessing that you aren't a parent yet yourself. This is because you said, "Medical consent being entrusted to the parents does not and should not include elective cosmetic non reversible surgery that might actually end up with severe consequences." Elective cosmetic and non-reversible surgery includes the cleft palate malformation and even more serious ones.

Whom else but a child's parents should make medical decisions? A committee?

 

[L0neW0lf]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Just keeping it real here, a minor medical procedure done at three days isn't even remembered by the boy.

A procedure many men say they wouldn't subject themselves to, whether or not it is remembered by the boy is of little consequence.

I think there is a major difference in appearance between a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis regardless of how 'minor' the operation is.

As for "sensitivity," given that circumcision has been done routinely in some cultures for housands of years in some cultures while not routinely performed in others, I'd expect there to be extensive literature on this. I don't have a penis myself and have thus not been paying attention the way men might, so if you have reliable long-term stats on this, I'd be grateful for the opportunity to catch myself up to speed.

As I said studies are inconsistent but here's one such study;
[h=1]Does Circumcision Remove The Most Sensitive Parts Of The Penis?[/h]

I laughed when I read "that decision should be made by every guy for himself." Are you crazy? One of my sibs had her tonsils out before she was 2. I was 20, and I still remember every miserable minute.

No, because of its cosmetic effect (and the effect it might or might not have on sensitivity and sexual function) it should be a choice made by every guy for himself,
Tonsilectomy has medical indications and is done to prevent serious complications.

I am guessing that you aren't a parent yet yourself. This is because you said, "Medical consent being entrusted to the parents does not and should not include elective cosmetic non reversible surgery that might actually end up with severe consequences." Elective cosmetic and non-reversible surgery includes the cleft palate malformation and even more serious ones.

Sorry but these two are not comparable, after all you are correcting a congenital or acquired defect that are usually associated with other complications and medical challenges, a foreskin is completely natural.

Whom else but a child's parents should make medical decisions? A committee?

The parents of course, so long as those decisions are based on legitimate medical concerns.

The benefit while it might outweigh the risk of the operation in Africa or whatever does not justify the cosmetic aspect and potential change in sensitivity.
After all the most significant finding cited in support of circumcision is that it decreases transmission of some STDs, but unless you are expecting your one year old to be sexually active that should not be taken into consideration.

As for those of you who brought up abortion, I am pro choice and that is why I am also against circumcision, a person should have the right to choose what happens to their own body.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Just keeping it real here, a minor medical procedure done at three days isn't even remembered by the boy.

Another myth that needs torn asunder :sigh:

The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later. Even with a lack of memory that he can recall does that make it right to inflict pain on him? What exactly is the ethical argument that it is ok to inflict unnecessary pain on a child because it is young?

 

[Carjosse]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Considering the entire medical association here says circumcision is not advised, I have to say no. If you do want it pay for it out of pocket.

 

[Etoner]

Re: Should parent's be allowed to Circumcise their children.

Another myth that needs torn asunder :sigh:

The body is a historical repository and remembers everything. The pain of circumcision causes a rewiring of the baby's brain so that he is more sensitive to pain later. Even with a lack of memory that he can recall does that make it right to inflict pain on him? What exactly is the ethical argument that it is ok to inflict unnecessary pain on a child because it is young?

Spanking causes pain. Should that be illegal too?