Circumcision?

[Richard Nixon]

Doesn't hurt anyone? It makes masturbation considerably more difficult and less enjoyable.

How much really? Also parents may want it for social reasons as a non-circumcised kid may be teased in say high school gyms.

Babies & children and to a lesser extent teens form a group in society which are either unable to articulate their rights or struggle for them, or are so repressed that they take the dominant ideology of their parents; this isn’t atypical – the best way to thoroughly repress a social group is to make them agree with or justify their own social position. Circumcision, whether for male or female, is a completely paternalistic procedure – someone here even referred to it as a ‘parental right.’ It fundamentally treats a child’s body as a piece of property which the parents can abuse to suit their religious or secular ideals. That’s disgusting, and something I won’t support. I wouldn’t support it if it was done to an non-consenting 40 year old. I wouldn’t support it if it was done to someone who is mentally unable to consent or not to it. So why 'leftists' think that it is less serious when done to a child only indicates that they see children as lesser beings and hence a lesser abuse of rights. Not all forms of female circumcision are genital mutilation. You can have quite minor procedures which do not interfere with sexual pleasure, on the one hand, and you can have infibulation which may essentially remove all capacity to have sexual pleasure.

If a baby needs a surgery that may threaten his life do we need the parent's consent or his consent. Obviously as babies and to some extent small children aren't capable of independent judgement parents should be allowed to do anything with their kids as long as it isn't illegal, abusive, or neglectful. Also I find this post amusing, ironic, and hypocritical if you (since you aren't restricted I assume you're) are for abortion as that treats fetuses as a piece of parental property and thus can be killed with impunity but it's wrong to nick off a piece of skin on a baby.

[Lyev]

I'm circumcised, as part of my Jewish heritage, my dad wanted it done apparently on me and my two brothers (he's on the Jewish side of the family). I think it was just a way of keeping the family's heritage alive. Personally I have no problem with it- I've never known what having a foreskin is like so why bother getting worked up about it? I will add that no one in my immediate family, including my dad, have ever been devoutly Jewish.

To add, as some people have already said, is this actually an issue that needs to be addressing? Who cares whether someone has a foreskin or not? It's not like the baby is clever enough to know what's going on; the nerve endings haven't even developed 8 days into the child's life (8 days is when the child is circumcised in Judaism). Or if you're circumcised for medical reasons it'll obviously be under anesthetic.

Also, here is some interesting info about the health benefits of circumcision:
• Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin.

• Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis.

• Reduced urinary tract infections.

• Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.

• Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in men and their partner(s).

• Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.

• Decrease in urological problems generally.

Here's the original link: http://www.circinfo.net/health-benef...d-reviews.html

[Durruti's Ghost]

How much really? Also parents may want it for social reasons as a non-circumcised kid may be teased in say high school gyms.

Circumcision is the exception, not the norm. The WHO has reported that only 30% of males are circumcised.

If a baby needs a surgery that may threaten his life do we need the parent's consent or his consent. Obviously as babies and to some extent small children aren't capable of independent judgement parents should be allowed to do anything with their kids as long as it isn't illegal, abusive, or neglectful. Also I find this post amusing, ironic, and hypocritical if you (since you aren't restricted I assume you're) are for abortion as that treats fetuses as a piece of parental property and thus can be killed with impunity but it's wrong to nick off a piece of skin on a baby.

A fetus exists as a portion of the mother's body at the expense of the rest of the mother's body. An infant doesn't. The analogy fails.

Also, yes, a parent can give consent for necessary surgeries in the place of the baby, since the baby is obviously incapable of giving consent. However, I would argue that the procedure of circumcision is, in fact, abusive. Psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich observed that children could spend up to two weeks recovering from the trauma of circumcision. Obviously, no circumcised male--myself included--remembers this as a traumatic experience, primarily because no one remembers anything before the age of three or four. This doesn't mean that it can't have an effect on the child's psyche, and it certainly doesn't mean that it isn't painful. Without any proof otherwise, it seems prudent to assume that it is every bit as painful to a child as it would be to an adult--which is why, if people are going to be circumcised, it should be done as adults, when they can give consent for it, rather than as children, when they cannot.

EDIT: I'm using the term "adults" very loosely here, to mean children around the stage at which their faculties have developed enough for them to make decisions about their own welfare. I believe developmental psychologists have shown that this can occur as early as age 9.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The vast majority of the time there is utterly no point to it.

[Richard Nixon]

Circumcision is the exception, not the norm. The WHO has reported that only 30% of males are circumcised.

I'm talking about the US where most babies are circumcised.

A fetus exists as a portion of the mother's body at the expense of the rest of the mother's body. An infant doesn't. The analogy fails.

Thus it's perfectly fine to kill a fetus that's six months old yet three months later it's immoral to nick off a piece of skin?

Also, yes, a parent can give consent for necessary surgeries in the place of the baby, since the baby is obviously incapable of giving consent. However, I would argue that the procedure of circumcision is, in fact, abusive. Psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich observed that children could spend up to two weeks recovering from the trauma of circumcision. Obviously, no circumcised male--myself included--remembers this as a traumatic experience, primarily because no one remembers anything before the age of three or four. This doesn't mean that it can't have an effect on the child's psyche, and it certainly doesn't mean that it isn't painful. Without any proof otherwise, it seems prudent to assume that it is every bit as painful to a child as it would be to an adult--which is why, if people are going to be circumcised, it should be done as adults, when they can give consent for it, rather than as children, when they cannot.

EDIT: I'm using the term "adults" very loosely here, to mean children around the stage at which their faculties have developed enough for them to make decisions about their own welfare. I believe developmental psychologists have shown that this can occur as early as age 9.

Perhaps, but I was circumcised and I'm glad I was when I was a baby as it's far more convenient and less painful then as an adult. At least that's what my father and uncles have said.

[Aeval]

I really don't think anyone who was circumcised really looks back in anguish at what happened to them a day or so after they were born. It really isn't a big deal.

Except those who end up with botched jobs you mean, and end up with some of these problems: http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm

I didn't realise circumcision was so prevalent in the US, it's quite unusual in most of europe except for religious reasons, but seems pretty pointless. I guess I see it a bit like ear piercing - my mum got my ears pierced when I was about 18 months old because she was told it would hurt less than when I was older, that may well be true but it still would have hurt, was completely unnecessary and I don't think she really had the right to decide to have a bit of metal shove through me - even though I have since done so myself several times, it's not her body so how dare she choose to alter it when it's not necessary? (Though I don't hold it against her ) If I was a guy and my parents got me circumcised then I would be majorly pissed, obviously it makes it less sensitive if it's cutting away nerves and stuff, so even if your sex life is amazing despite being circumcised it still could've been even better and all for something that is completely unnecessary.

[jake williams]

Genital mutilation without consent is wrong, full stop. Male or female. Yes, a number of procedures carried out on women are worse than those carried out on men, but this isn't at all the full story. In many cases the procedure is actually fairly analogous to that carried out on men - and it's still monstrous. I think the reason that so many people totally lose their shit about FGM while not being at all upset about "MGM" is basically racist. Yeah there's a lot of horror stories, and yes, partly it is because in many cases the actual procedure used on women is more extensive (clitoridectomy), but in many cases the "horror stories" have more to do with unsanitory conditions and poor tools. You could do a form of female circumcision that fits within the conditions of a lot of places where it's done, in a modern hospital by a trained doctor, and it would look a lot like the male sort we're used to. And I'd still be totally opposed to it if it wasn't the product of informed consent.

If you grow up and you still think God cares about your wiener, you can get it taken care of yourself. There's no going back though.

Type I The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce (clitoral hood);

The prepuce in the male is the foreskin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_...categorization

[scarletghoul]

I'm talking about the US where most babies are circumcised.

What? Surely some mistake?

[jake williams]

What? Surely some mistake?

Although it is difficult to determine historical circumcision rates, one estimate of infant circumcision rates in the United States holds that 32% of newborn American boys were being circumcised in 1933.[23] Laumann et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was approximately 70%, 80%, 85%, and 77% for those born in 1945, 1955, 1965, and 1971 respectively.[23] Xu et al. reported that the prevalence of circumcision among US-born males was 91% for males born in the 1970s and 84% for those born in the 1980s.[24] Between 1981 and 1999, National Hospital Discharge Survey data from the National Center for Health Statistics demonstrated that the infant circumcision rate remained relatively stable within the 60% range, with a minimum of 60.7% in 1988 and a maximum of 67.8% in 1995.[25] A 1987 study found that the most prominent reasons US parents choose circumcision were "concerns about the attitudes of peers and their sons' self concept in the future," rather than medical concerns.[26] However, a later study speculated that an increased recognition of the potential benefits of neonatal circumcision may have been responsible for the observed increase in the US rate between 1988 and 2000.[27] A report by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality placed the 2005 national circumcision rate at 56%.[28]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circums...speaking_world

[SubcomandanteJames]

Babies & children... form a group in society which are either unable to articulate their rights or struggle for them... the best way to thoroughly repress a social group is to make them agree with or justify their own social position.

At this point I would like to provide this link to the animal rights thread in case of any revelations that have come from Invariance's BRILLIANT post.

[Manzil]

I was circumcised for medical reasons when I was 16. It is not painless. At all. But as far as I can tell there were no adverse side-effects either whatsoever. I think the reason this debate is often so intense has a lot more to do with personal squeamishness or (for those of us who are cut) defensiveness, than the practice itself. Generally speaking, unless there is an obvious reason why it cannot wait, meaning an immediate medical need or the likelihood that as a result of one's environment the possibility of future health problems will be considerably more without it, I am against routine circumcision. Especially for social or religious reasons. People can wait until their children are able to decide for themselves.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

At this point I would like to provide this link to the animal rights thread in case of any revelations that have come from Invariance's BRILLIANT post.

Animals and human babies aren't morally equivalent, genius.

[Manzil]

No, human babies can't fetch.

[SubcomandanteJames]

Animals and human babies aren't morally equivalent, genius.

Being an animal or a human baby isn't moral or immoral, thus they can't be morally equivalent or inequivalent.

And whereas I used a quote and bolded the part that qualifies my argument by using someone else's beliefs, yours of "inherent sanctity" bears no qualifications.

[revolution inaction]

It doesn't hurt anyone and it's more or less a rite of passage for babies (at least in the US) so I can't see how it's wrong. Otherwise it would violate parental rights.

It fucking does hurt, I had it done when i was about 5 and it hurt for days afterwards.
Fuck parental rights, i dont' see why parents should have the right to do anything they like with children.

[Bud Struggle]

It's wierd shit.

Nothing really wrong with it, you can take it or leave it (I took it, not that I had any choice in the matter, but,)--it's just wierd shit.

[danyboy27]

It fucking does hurt, I had it done when i was about 5 and it hurt for days afterwards.
Fuck parental rights, i dont' see why parents should have the right to do anything they like with children.

yea fuck them! after all there million of kids in the us that arnt supervised by their parentl beccause they work 40+ hour a week and i dont see nothing sinister happening to them, MTV will take care of them!

i mean, why having parental right that allow you to educate your children when society can do it for you and transform your kid into fat compulsive consumer!

[brigadista]

this thread should be renamed male circumcision.....

[Rosa Provokateur]

Well, I guess it depends on your preference: cut or un-cut. Between the two I'd have to go with uncut ;P

[Manzil]

yea fuck them! after all there million of kids in the us that arnt supervised by their parentl beccause they work 40+ hour a week and i dont see nothing sinister happening to them, MTV will take care of them!

i mean, why having parental right that allow you to educate your children when society can do it for you and transform your kid into fat compulsive consumer!

So in your mind the choice is between a parent's absolute right to do whatever they want to their child, and complete parental abandonment? Please.