Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[ESCAPIST DELETE THIS ACCOUNT]

If you wanna get it done then i guess its your choice but you should be allowed the choice your parents shouldnt be allowed to make it for you.

I still voted Candy

 

[Veritasiness]

I never said it was my right. That's why I'm saying it should be banned, because the government should stop it. Not me. You shouldn't have the right to mutilate your kids just because of your beliefs.

I don't believe it's the government's right to legislate morality except to prevent people causing severe harm to others. I don't believe it's the government's right to prevent an ultimately harmless procedure which doesn't cause long-term trauma of any type, and I certainly don't believe it's the government's right to dictate how I practice my religion.

You should be willing to fold a little on your faith for the sake of your kids. ALso, what kind of response do you expect me to have in response to your religious arguments? Prove that judaism doesn't have that tenant?

As with many who are religious, I want my children to learn about my faith and morals, and I will teach it to them. I don't see this as harming my kids in any way.

ALso, what kind of response do you expect me to have in response to your religious arguments? Prove that judaism doesn't have that tenant?

I don't know what kind of response you would give me, I'm not you. If you can't think of one, maybe there is no valid response.

BTW, here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision] that page again with the study results - sorry, I think you saw my post before I edited it.

Also, Judaism isn't the only one that practices circumcision, Islam does so as well, possibly due to a common root.

Do they? I didn't know that (the circumcision, not the root).

 

[Lieju]

Circumcision is an important part of my religious belief, and I will not give up faith in order to satiate your desire that everything be done according to your worldview.

But it's quite different thing to choose for yourself, and make a choice like that for someone else. If I ever get kids, and they want to have it done when they are adult, fine. If they want to tattoo "muslim" on their arm, fine by me. But I'm not going to do something like that for them. I'm not going to tattoo my beliefs on anyone else, not even my kids.
If it's an important part of your religious belief, and you get it done for your kid, what if he doesn't want that when he grows up? Wouldn't it be better to leave the choice for the person who gets parts of him chopped off?

 

[mike1921]

I never said it was my right. That's why I'm saying it should be banned, because the government should stop it. Not me. You shouldn't have the right to mutilate your kids just because of your beliefs.

I don't believe it's the government's right to legislate morality except to prevent people causing severe harm to others. I don't believe it's the government's right to prevent an ultimately harmless procedure which doesn't cause long-term trauma of any type, and I certainly don't believe it's the government's right to dictate how I practice my religion.

You should be willing to fold a little on your faith for the sake of your kids. ALso, what kind of response do you expect me to have in response to your religious arguments? Prove that judaism doesn't have that tenant?

As with many who are religious, I want my children to learn about my faith and morals, and I will teach it to them. I don't see this as harming my kids in any way.

ALso, what kind of response do you expect me to have in response to your religious arguments? Prove that judaism doesn't have that tenant?

I don't know what kind of response you would give me, I'm not you. If you can't think of one, maybe there is no valid response.

BTW, here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision] that page again with the study results - sorry, I think you saw my post before I edited it.

I believe the government should have the right to protect peoples' freedoms, and that includes a freedom that they would have in the future if their parents didn't take it away. And, the government doesn't have the right to dictate how you practice your religion when you're not breaking any of it's secular laws. Religion doesn't make you immune.

No, teaching your kids about your faith and morals isn't harming them. But that doesn't require surgery.

No, I mean what kind of response would you consider acceptable? Are there any even hypothetical secular ones?
I edited my post with a non wikipedia study results (although wikipedia cites it)

 

[superbatranger]

If you're worried about it, it can be reversed.

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

Wait what? You can reverse a snip?

OT: Personally, I don't care. Circumcisions done for religious reasons should not be banned, and circumcisions for cosmetic reasons should be up to the individual getting the procedure done.

 

[mirasiel]

Though my mother was religious, she decided to let me decide when I was old enough if I wanted to get it done or not, after documenting me about what it would change, why it is done and what risks and benefits there are.

As it should be, you were given the choice which is what almost everyone arguing against circumcision at birth is arguing for.

Now from my point of view that conversation should be at the age of consent, which would be 16 (for sex) in my country not just because it AoC but you are also in a position to understand how your cock works, what it feels like and how to maintain at a standard of cleanliness above 'desert tribesman'.

 

[LornMind]

Cosmetic circumcision should be banned for children simply on the principle that they don't know whats happening to them. It's not that the circumcision is evil or anything, just that children should have the choice to decide whether or not they fell they've been unjustly mutilated and now can't do anything about it.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Where did I say that circumcision was painless? I only said I think branding would be more painful.

Hot iron branding would be more painful than circumcision, certainly, and more dangerous for an infant.

Where did I say it couldn't be made more dangerous? I only said it'd be more dangerous.

Hot iron branding would be more painful than circumcision, certainly, and more dangerous for an infant.

Where did I say a circumcised penis is indistinguishable? I only said that circumcision does not carry social stigma attached to the different appearance.

a brand would create a lasting and visible[...]mark, circumcision does no such thing.

First, you're implying that cutting off nerve endings is significantly less painful than burning someone, significant enough that it makes a difference in whether one should be allowed and the other not, else you wouldn't mention it.

Second, you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say that circumcision couldn't be made more dangerous. I said you were implying that branding could not be made to be as safe as circumcision. I believe this is untrue given how easy it is to safely and cleanly burn skin on an operating table without significant risk. Tattoos are clearly safe enough to allow non-healthcare physicians to perform, imagine if only surgeons could do it.

Third, you're doing one of two things here. You're either arguing that circumcision leaves no lasting marks, or that the lasting mark it does leave is perfectly acceptable within modern society. The first of which is clearly and demonstrably false, the second is a purely cosmetic argument. By that logic, if having been branded held no social stigma, then it would be perfectly acceptable for a parent to have done to their child.

 

[Veritasiness]

But it's quite different thing to choose for yourself, and make a choice like that for someone else. If I ever get kids, and they want to have it done when they are adult, fine. If they want to tattoo "muslim" on their arm, fine by me. But I'm not going to do something like that for them. I'm not going to tattoo my beliefs on anyone else, not even my kids.
If it's an important part of your religious belief, and you get it done for your kid, what if he doesn't want that when he grows up? Wouldn't it be better to leave the choice for the person who gets parts of him chopped off?

I actually covered this in my first post a couple pages back - even if you're circumcised, that doesn't mean you must be Jewish or follow Islam - it just means your parents did and wanted you to as well.

I believe the government should have the right to protect peoples' freedoms, and that includes a freedom that they would have in the future if their parents didn't take it away. And, the government doesn't have the right to dictate how you practice your religion when you're not breaking any of it's secular laws. Religion doesn't make you immune.

Parents have control over the actions and behavior of their children - including what school they go to, what medical treatment they do or don't receive, and nearly every other facet of how they live their lives. My parents chose to give me braces when I was 10 - that takes away my right to elect to have braces or not when I'm older, but they did it because they wanted me to have straight teeth for aesthetic reasons, and because they wanted me to have healthy teeth for medical reasons. Should parents require their children's consent before giving them braces?

No, teaching your kids about your faith and morals isn't harming them. But that doesn't require surgery.

No, but as I said in my original post, circumcision in Judaism is about the parent's commitment, not the child's. If you feel that it's wrong for parents to express their commitment in that way, fine, but I can't argue on that - this is where we get into matters of faith and commandment, which I really can't argue with somebody who doesn't believe as I do.

No, I mean what kind of response would you consider acceptable? Are there any even hypothetical secular ones?
I edited my post with a non wikipedia study results (although wikipedia cites it)

I'd say the acceptable response is "I wouldn't do that to my children, but I won't take away a parents' right to," just as one might say "I'm not gay, but I wouldn't preclude gay people from having relationships."

The wikipedia link I gave, I used because it has a very convenient table of studies, most of which are properly cited so you can take a look at them on their own merits.

Third, you're doing one of two things here. You're either arguing that circumcision leaves no lasting marks, or that the lasting mark it does leave is perfectly acceptable within modern society. The first of which is clearly and demonstrably false, the second is a purely cosmetic argument. By that logic, if having been branded held no social stigma, then it would be perfectly acceptable for a parent to have done to their child.

If branding were acceptable in society and done to everyone, and didn't carry social stigma, then yes. I would consider it acceptable. I'm sorry if you think poorly of me for that. I wouldn't necessarily do it to my own children, but since, as you say, it is in the end harmless and in this hypothetical society doesn't carry stigma, I don't see a problem.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

EDIT: Content removed by poster. Too much venom for a civil discussion.

Re-edit: As of the time of this edit (30 minutes after this post) I'm going to bed. A lack of reply on my part isn't because I concede or don't want to respond. I'm just damn tired and I need sleep. I'll respond again when I regain consciousness.

 

[JTLW]

Quick question. I'm not being facetious. I'm serious. Of all of you who were circumcised as children, how many of you feel traumatized by it?

Yo. I was circumcised when I was about 7, I think. I can remember that I was still at the stage of baring my arse when I went for a slash. And no, not traumatised in the least. I think I got bullied a little bit, but that stopped as soon as I buried someone's head into the concrete in a fight.

Spoiler: Spoiler'd for TMI. Only click for details about my wang and some arguments.

Anyhooty, I was circumcised because I had a medical condition someone linked, and I can't remember the name of. Basically my foreskin was extremely tight, and was difficult to wash, causing pain when peeing, causing pain if I ever got an erection, and tearing and bleeding a little if I did start to get the aforementioned erection. Without the circumcision, I would have had a very hard time having any kind of sex.

While I am at it, I'll clear up a couple of other things too. Foreskins being too tight are a more common problem than some people realise. Quite a few kids I knew who saw my dinkle (We were the kind of kids that urinated together off the embankment. Don't judge me, monkey.) asked why it looked funny, and I explained what happened and why. At least two of them then told me that they had the same discomforts I had, and were later circumcised after a medical checkup. Fun!

Another thing, my penis is pretty fucking sensitive. I say this without embarrassment, because the "less pleasure from sex" line has been annoying me. If I were any more sensitive, I'd struggle to last as long as I do. I don't know about you guys, but when I'm holding back the flood to ensure that I can go for that just a bit longer, it's a fairly uncomfortable sensation. Sex is goddamn pleasurable, and I certainly don't suffer from any lack of sensitivity. If I were more sensitive, quickies would become instants. Hey-ooooo!

On scarring: Yes, there is a visible scar line around my penis. There is also a tiny little bit that looks like the stitch make the skin pucker up a tiny bit. There's no callous or overly thick skin. It's not a hideous monster that's going to attack women. It's just a flaccid penis that looks like a smaller version of an erect penis. Whoop-de-doo. My girlfriend likes it, and that's all I care about.

Also, there was someone that said that circumcision makes the penis smaller. Bull. I have a fairly smal-average sized penis when flaccid, and am comfortably above average when erect. The smaller size of my penis when flaccid is a result of about 7 years with a restrictive foreskin.

That's all I have to say on the matter from my perspective.

Mildly off-topic:

Spoiler: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/11/12/

I do that a lot.

 

[mike1921]

Parents have control over the actions and behavior of their children - including what school they go to, what medical treatment they do or don't receive, and nearly every other facet of how they live their lives. My parents chose to give me braces when I was 10 - that takes away my right to elect to have braces or not when I'm older, but they did it because they wanted me to have straight teeth for aesthetic reasons, and because they wanted me to have healthy teeth for medical reasons. Should parents require their children's consent before giving them braces?

There is a limit to what they can do as far as medical treatment (since not taking a kid to a hospital for religious reasons has been filed as neglect multiple times) and in most states what counts as a school. You can't just keep your kids out of school and if you want to homeschool there are regulations.

Braces for real medical reasons: Nope ofcourse not
Aesthetic reasons: Yes

No, teaching your kids about your faith and morals isn't harming them. But that doesn't require surgery.

No, but as I said in my original post, circumcision in Judaism is about the parent's commitment, not the child's. If you feel that it's wrong for parents to express their commitment in that way, fine, but I can't argue on that - this is where we get into matters of faith and commandment, which I really can't argue with somebody who doesn't believe as I do.[/quote]
So you're hurting your children for your own selfish reasons?

No, I mean what kind of response would you consider acceptable? Are there any even hypothetical secular ones?
I edited my post with a non wikipedia study results (although wikipedia cites it)

I'd say the acceptable response is "I wouldn't do that to my children, but I won't take away a parents' right to," just as one might say "I'm not gay, but I wouldn't preclude gay people from having relationships."

Quite frankly I don't think you should have the right to. Surgery should be reserved for adults and children who have a significant medical need for it.


Also, to make it frank. I believe the correct interpretation of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," is that the law should never allow or dissallow something on religious basis. In other words, I believe the state should see circumcision the same way whether you're doing it just for tradition or if it's for religious purposes.

 

[Madara XIII]

Quick question. I'm not being facetious. I'm serious. Of all of you who were circumcised as children, how many of you feel traumatized by it?

The amount of vehemence in this thread is weird.

If someone has to have it done, or chooses to have it done, or is a child and their parent decides from them I don't see a problem. I'd much prefer my parents decided to get it done to me when I was a kid instead of me having to bring it up at 15. Not everyone knows they're going to need it done for medical reasons until they're teenagers, like me, and they may be too embarassed to bring it up. It took me a good while to finally broach the topic.

And all the outcries of it being a religious monstrosity is just insane.

This is essentially how I feel on the matter. If you want your kid to be circumcised, fine. If not, fine.

Exactly!! People need to quit having such Knee jerk reactions towards circumcision as if it will traumatize everyone forever!! Thank you for showing some sanity sir!! Thank you!
Then again the human race will alway find something to ***** and whine about.

 

[mike1921]

As for an actual ban, unless you also plan to ban tats and piercings of anyone under 18, then I think that like those body modidifcatons the decision should be left up to the parent.

I am unless both parent and child consent

 

[Uncreation]

Why is this being disputed in the first place?

Why wouldn't it be?

Seriously people it has been a tradition for circumcision to be a medical practice and it has been proven time after time of the medical benefits.

This is highly disputed. The part about the benefits i mean.

I had this surgery at birth and it is a necessity.... but leave it to be disputed due to how asinine this topic is already, as everyone I know has had the surgery.

You had the surgery at birth. Good for you. I don't see why it's a necessity though. The fact that everyone you know has had it means nothing. Everyone i know has not had it. (Well with the exception of two jewish guys i know, who probably had it.) So? That does not prove anything.

 

[Madara XIII]

I clicked no, because I think uncircumcised penises are gross looking, and because I'm circumcised, so I didn't think it was so bad. After reading a bunch of the comments though, I realized that if most people weren't circumcised, I probably wouldn't find it gross, and that my penis is irrelevant, really. I was also thinking that most people would want to get circumcised, and therefore it's best to do it so young that you won't remember, and won't have to deal with the trauma of someone coming at your junk with a scalpel. But I guess it's not so necessary to get it done. I change my opinion: it should be the individual's decision.

(Incidentally, I didn't know I was circumcised until my girlfriend was trying to figure out if I was or not. I told her I wasn't, and we didn't get the issue resolved until we called our friend in so I could describe my dick to her. It was probably the most... unique conversation I've ever had.)

Well it's nice to know you and me can agree on this good sir!! You don't see alot of traumatized people here crying themselves to sleep at night worrying about an event most of them don't even remember. So why the hell not?! I mean if you wait till you're older to decide it's gonna hurt like living hell! Get it over with. You definitely wont remember the pain at such a young age.

 

[Madara XIII]

I would say if it weren't so commonplace it would seem a lot like a scar

Well, then, if it is commonplace and isn't viewed as a scar, does the "scar" matter? The only detriment to scars is that people don't like how they look, but I've yet to meet someone who absolutely hates the appearance of a circumcised penis because it's circumcised.

My nerve ending argument wasn't really about the pain. I don't know about you but I'd rather have more nerve endings on there if I'm having sex and would rather not lose those nerves without having any choice in the matter.

I don't think that the foreskin, being mostly just skin, has that many nerves in it - or nerves that do that sort of thing. Also, doesn't it pull back during sex?

You still haven't addressed any of my points about why it's done religiously, and just because it could possibly mean slightly less enjoyable sex is not a good reason to ban it.

I don't care about your religious reasons. You shouldn't be allowed to have surgery done on an infant just because of your religion.

It definitely means less enjoyable sex and any surgery that isn't medically necessary should be banned for children.

And you're an expert in this medical field I presume?....

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Um, I'm Jewish.. so, uh...
I don't have a strong opinion on cosmetic (i.e. non-religious) circumcision. As long as there is not an outright ban that would prevent religious circumcision.

The religious circumcision uses a harmful procedure without the benefit of any sound medical reason as to why. If someone wants to mutilate their organs because of religious reasons, I'm not one to stand in the way. But when you choose to mutilate organs that are not your own for religious reasons, then I'm probably going to think less of you as a person.

Basically, if someone of consenting age (lets say 18) wants a circumcision (male or female), I see no reason to not let them. But to let some third party make that decision for non medical reasons? No, I do not think I like that idea.

 

[JTLW]

All I remember about my circumcision from the age of 7 is waking up in the hospital, eating some toast and biscuits, limping to the car, getting a Batmobile, and having black stitches in my winky until they floated away in the bath. Oh, and being excited that I got to move to wearng baggy boxer shorts instead of Y-fronts. I dunno why I was excited but dammit I was young, on morphine, had a Batmobile and a new penis that was getting treated to a new, baggy home. Hell yeah.