I'm strongly opposed to the circumcision of minors. It's nothing short of mutilation. Unless there is a relevant health problem, there is no reason to force it on children.
Results 1 to 20 of 83
Circumcision?
What is your opinion of circumcision?
2+2=4
I'm strongly opposed to the circumcision of minors. It's nothing short of mutilation. Unless there is a relevant health problem, there is no reason to force it on children.
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.
2+2=4
It's the sometimes unnecessary mutilation of a penis. frequently for
Religious reasons, sometimes for health or sanitary reasons.
However, I feel that a big deal ought not be made politically over a small piece of flesh, except in the case of women, for whom clitoral circumcision is as cruel as it is unnecesary.
It's pointless and stupid.
Doesn't hurt anyone? It makes masturbation considerably more difficult and less enjoyable.
I'm circumcised and masturbating is pretty easy for me and really really fuckin' enjoyable. Though it is obviously cutting out nerve endings, so that makes sense. Ah well.
Even if it didn't do those things, it's still cutting off part of someones body for no reason which is inherently stupid. I'm not upset that I'm circumcised but I'm for sure not doing it to my child when/if I have one.
It is an unnecessary, painful, and permanent alteration of an individual's body that is almost always performed without that individual's consent.
"Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that's no matter--tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms further.... And one fine morning----
So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -8.82
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.88
Snip it.
I disagree. At least about the 'hurt'.
The mother of my children witnessed the circumcision of our second newborn child and told me that it was obviously painful to him because he screamed and cried very much as it was being performed.
Painful it must be!
I am circumcised. As far as I know, it was considered "proper parenting" when I was born. My Dad was quite surprised when I told him that if I had a child, I wouldn't have the procedure done.
The medical evidence seems to suggest there is little point. If there was a medical benefit, I might consider it. Supposedly, it's "less painful" as a child because you're unaware of what's happening. I find that hard to believe in some ways. We never remember pain as babies, generally. Who are we to say it isn't even more traumatizing to be operated on with no awareness of what's happening.
Given that doctors generally advise against it now, I think it's pretty stupid if someone chooses to do it anyway. Why have a doctor if you aren't going to take his advice? They went to school for 8 or more years. I hate to use an argument from authority, but maybe they know what they're doing?
Doctors advise against it now? If this is true, I was not aware. Can you provide a source for this assertion?
On your second point, I think there is generally a very good case to be made against circumcision, but this is a poor argument. Many, many doctors are fucking morons, regardless of how many years they attend school. I have had much experience with doctors in my life and, to my surprise, I've found the vast majority of them to be unqualified schmucks with pathetically uninsightful and misinformed opinions.
I feel totally satisfied in saying 'who gives a fuck?' A decent amount of people don't even circumcise their children due to religious beliefs anymore. They do it for physical reasons. I'm circumcised and frankly, I'm glad I was. 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.
The basic ideas of Marxism, upon which alone a revolutionary party can be constructed, are continuous in their application and have been for a hundred years. The ideas of Marxism, which create revolutionary parties, are stronger than the parties they create, and never fail to survive their downfall. They never fail to find representatives in the old organizations to lead the work of reconstruction. These are the continuators of the tradition, the defenders of the orthodox doctrine. The task of the uncorrupted revolutionists, obliged by circumstances to start the work of organizational reconstruction, has never been to proclaim a new revelation – there has been no lack of such Messiahs, and they have all been lost in the shuffle – but to reinstate the old program and bring it up to date.
- James P. Cannon, 'The Degeneration of the Communist Party'
You're probably right. The average doctor may very well recommend the procedure. However, the policies are supposedly as follows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumc...l_associations
Basically, the United States remains neutral (behind the times, as usual).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
Here you can see Europe ahead of the game as usual, with Canada and the United States straggling behind the curve. On a positive note, I've heard the legalization of prescriptions medications is too stringent in the UK, and many mental health patients can't get access to cutting edge medications. At least the North Americas have that on them.
Meh, the US is only so lax on prescription laws because of the profit to be made for the pharmaceutical industry (which has an enormous influence on government policy, medical school curricula, and it generally finances the trials of its own drugs, resulting in seriously skewed results). I don't see this as a good thing, but it has more to do with the way doctors are trained and bribed then with the status of a particular pharmaceutical as legal or illegal, though both factors are obviously pertinent. Anyway, I'll stop before I further derail the thread.
i dont agree with fgm
It's a valid enough question.
I do think circumcision is entirely pointless especially when it is carried out as a result of religious beliefs. As Richard Williams said in it is carried out without an individuals consent. This goes for forcing one's own religion on children. Shouldn't they have the right to choose which religion they follow when they are educated enough on the matter?
Undoubtedly it is pointless, but then, so too is getting a child's ears pierced. Does that make it bad or wrong? It is a non-invasive cosmetic procedure which is really of no consequence one way or the other. It is not as though we are talking about female circumcision - a brutally painful procedure in which the female's clitoris is cut out, ultimately for the purpose of rendering females incapable of enjoying sex or experiencing any sexual pleasure. We are talking about removing a baby's foreskin - a quick exterior snip, nothing more.
And I am a bit worried about the argument which has been repeated several times here that circumcision is bad because "it is carried out without an individual's consent". This logic seems awfully close to the so-called "pro-life" line of reasoning for opposing abortion.
If there aren't any negative consequences to male circumcision then, as far as I'm concerned, its up to the individual parents and it ought to remain up to the individual parents.
And, on an irrelevant anecdotal level, I quite prefer the appearance of circumcision to no circumcision...but, you know... its not a deal-breaker
Snip away, mohels!
I think it's lame, but should be allowed. It's an important part of keeping with God and stuff.
Formerly zenga zenga !
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.
COMMUNISM !