Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Projo]

Hey guys, anyone ever gotten their foreskin caught in a zipper?

No?

Then shut up.

 

[astrav1]

I prefer uncircumcised penises, both visually and sexually.

I think circumcision on infants for no medical reason should be banned, yes.

I thought you said you were a lesbian. On another note, I say there's not a whole lot wrong with it. I was circumcised for no reason and happy with it.

 

[Koroviev]

double post, sorry

 

[messy]

There was a Jewish doctor who was circumcising babies with his teeth (as part of a particular religious doctrine, I'm not saying all Jewish people do this. My reference is the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens so yes biased by this is not just some rumour) and this lead to some of the children catching Herpes, not the strictly true "herpes" which is transmitted through sexual intercourse but the type which normally forms cold sores on lips. Practises like this I say should go.

If one must be circumcised medically as long as its done properly with medical tools I see no problem. The child should be able to make the choice themselves when they are old enough.

 

[Daveman]

Well I had it done for medical reasons. The thing is I wish I'd had it done as a child as the doctors knew it was a problem but said I might grow out of it. I didn't and had to have it done when I was 13. I think it had a bad effect on my teenage years as I felt self-concious about it but it was obviously the right decision in the long run, not to mention the two weeks afterwards when I almost couldn't walk due to the pain. I actually wish I'd had it done when I was much younger. If my kids have the same thing as me I will definitely get it done when they are young as it'll help them so much with confidence if they grow up with it I believe.

Anyway, long and short of it is I'm pro circumcision. It's cleaner, tidier and generally a better kind of knob. lol.

 

[ExileNZ]

The reason I say "their concept" is that until the last couple hundred years, for instance, people believed that the bloodier and messier the apron, the better the surgeon. Joseph Lister's ideas on keeping germs out and wounds clean met a lot of resistance.
So I'm just covering my own backside by saying that it fit in with the medical ideas of the time, however that may have changed (or stayed the same) since then.

There's a certain logic in that assumption, it's amusing because I can see the logic but it's so brutal.

The main reason for infant circumcision in the Jewish community is for hygiene (as I said in another post, a small insular community suffers for every viable male dead or sterile) and that practice is old. Like, really, really old. In today's context it makes no real sense any more but even a couple of centuries ago it made sense and it pre-dates even that.

In the past the religious clergy were the only ones who could really read, write or even pass on knowledge effectively. Frequently the clergy would teach people everything they knew, not just religious things. The Jewish dietary restrictions and circumcision are all good ideas that have been adopted into the Torah as part of the Covenant with God. Each of them is a practical piece of advice for living in a small, frequently mobile community with no real hygiene facilities. But since the same people who taught the masses about hygiene were the same as taught them about God the two have become somewhat blended.

Makes sense - after all, to be a part of that community meant being Jewish. And even though I didn't see that other post, I do agree that every male dead or sterile would've been a problem. It also makes sense for the ban on homosexuality. "Babies don't grow on trees you idiots, get out there and bang some women!"

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I think medical necessity is a good reason for waiving the restriction on cutting off bits.

And who determines that? Who is the most in touch with the child? Could it be the person who gave birth to them?

However, I don't think it should be waived in the event that parents want to remove healthy bits.

Healthy bits. I'd like you to look at that. You are saying that the small piece of skin on the end of your penis is a healthy bit. Perhaps you'd like us not to cut our nails for the same reason?

It seems pretty simple.

And this is where your emotion is blocking your common sense. When in nature has anything about birth been simple? It's a hugely complicated emotional, physical and mental strain on all concerned, and you're sitting back saying "It seems pretty simple to me".

Go down to a maternity ward and say that. I'll ring the morgue.

And child abuse still goes on. So what do you propose?

We fix that before we embark on flights of fantasy.

Should it be legalized because we can't prevent every case? Your logic isn't holding up here.

Ad Hominem

Don't let your emotions rob you of your common sense.

My common sense is that there are two people who know what's best for the child. The two that have cared for it for nine months and will be caring for it for the next eighteen or so years.
One might be absent, but that does not allow a third party to dictate what can and can't be done.

Like I say, repeat that argument to any parents coming up to their ninth month. I'll have the ambulance on standby.

 

[Koroviev]

Well I had it done for medical reasons. The thing is I wish I'd had it done as a child as the doctors knew it was a problem but said I might grow out of it. I didn't and had to have it done when I was 13. I think it had a bad effect on my teenage years as I felt self-concious about it but it was obviously the right decision in the long run, not to mention the two weeks afterwards when I almost couldn't walk due to the pain. I actually wish I'd had it done when I was much younger. If my kids have the same thing as me I will definitely get it done when they are young as it'll help them so much with confidence if they grow up with it I believe.

Anyway, long and short of it is I'm pro circumcision. It's cleaner, tidier and generally a better kind of knob. lol.

It's unfortunate that you had to go through that, and it's logical that you'd want to spare your kids the trouble. However, this situation doesn't apply to most guys. As for the cleaner bit, washing is a pretty good strategy, I've heard.

And the better kind of knob thing is very subjective XD

 

[Koroviev]

I think medical necessity is a good reason for waiving the restriction on cutting off bits.

And who determines that? Who is the most in touch with the child? Could it be the person who gave birth to them?

However, I don't think it should be waived in the event that parents want to remove healthy bits.

Healthy bits. I'd like you to look at that. You are saying that the small piece of skin on the end of your penis is a healthy bit. Perhaps you'd like us not to cut our nails for the same reason?

It seems pretty simple.

And this is where your emotion is blocking your common sense. When in nature has anything about birth been simple? It's a hugely complicated emotional, physical and mental strain on all concerned, and you're sitting back saying "It seems pretty simple to me".

Go down to a maternity ward and say that. I'll ring the morgue.

And child abuse still goes on. So what do you propose?

We fix that before we embark on flights of fantasy.

Should it be legalized because we can't prevent every case? Your logic isn't holding up here.

Ad Hominem

Don't let your emotions rob you of your common sense.

My common sense is that there are two people who know what's best for the child. The two that have cared for it for nine months and will be caring for it for the next eighteen or so years.
One might be absent, but that does not allow a third party to dictate what can and can't be done.

Like I say, repeat that argument to any parents coming up to their ninth month. I'll have the ambulance on standby.

I don't respond to the content within splinter posts. Standard policy during an online discussion.

 

[Naheal]

I prefer uncircumcised penises, both visually and sexually.

I think circumcision on infants for no medical reason should be banned, yes.

I thought you said you were a lesbian. On another note, I say there's not a whole lot wrong with it. I was circumcised for no reason and happy with it.

Not really sure what I am.

Don't care too much, to be honest. I just go with what I like at the time.

You're just you. Who cares what the label is.

OT: I don't care. I got circumcised before I knew that I had a fucking hand and it's not like it's been inconvenient or anything.

 

[someotherguy]

Medical neccisity at a young age: Yes.
Cosmetic at a young age/religious : No.

Past 18 do whatever the hell you want,
Probably be able to make your own informed choice about religion come that time as well, don't see an issue.

Though, I am, and generally agree with the OP On not being able to imagine any other way.

But you could go with the argument of "Your parents feed you when you're young, and teach you,and keep you safe they should have that choice"

If the parents are shown to have belonged to a religious community for 3+ years before the child, then yes, they should be able to circumcise for religious reason. Never for cosmetic.

 

[Boba Frag]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

 

[Korolev]

I don't think a child has the capacity to understand what a circumcision is. I know the parents have the best of intentions, and I also know that it rarely results in any real harm, but a principle's a principle - The only one who can morally modify a body is the person in that body AND NO ONE ELSE.

Exemptions should be given if a child is in danger of dying and needs surgery, but I've never heard of a case in which a person's life was saved by a circumcision.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

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

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

I'm guessing they don't keep your specific junk on ice in case you want it back later. Meaning...

*commence heebie-jeebies*

 

[Koroviev]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

 

[Koroviev]

I don't think a child has the capacity to understand what a circumcision is. I know the parents have the best of intentions, and I also know that it rarely results in any real harm, but a principle's a principle - The only one who can morally modify a body is the person in that body AND NO ONE ELSE.

Exemptions should be given if a child is in danger of dying and needs surgery, but I've never heard of a case in which a person's life was saved by a circumcision.

As much as I agree with you, our viewpoint is still not fact. Stating it as though it were will only serve to fan the flames of an argument.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Female circumcision is illegal in the UK but male is not. I am not sure that I understand why. I have a real problem with people making that choice for their children without their consent and believe it should be banned. Other than for medical reasons, it should be an issue of choice for the individual.

Male circumcision is just the removal of the foreskin, but the female variety is the removal of the entire clitoris (sometimes even more).

I might be completely wrong about this, but by my recollection, religious (male) circumcisions were more about practicality rather than actual religion. Long ago when Jews and Moslims still lived in dry and sandy places, it made more sense to remove the foreskin because you would need a lot less water to wash your penis. They were desert dwellers after all.

From what I gather though, female circumcision was all about removing a woman's "sinfull" sexuality by cutting up her sexual organs completely. I don't know if Christians or Jews used to do this, but Moslims certainly did a lot of strict Moslims still do it.

 

[cobra_ky]

There was a Jewish doctor who was circumcising babies with his teeth (as part of a particular religious doctrine, I'm not saying all Jewish people do this. My reference is the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens so yes biased by this is not just some rumour) and this lead to some of the children catching Herpes, not the strictly true "herpes" which is transmitted through sexual intercourse but the type which normally forms cold sores on lips. Practises like this I say should go.

you've been misinformed. There is a practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction, in which the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. Traditionally this was done as an attempt to avoid complications, but as you say this has been linked to the transmission of herpes. Only the most Orthodox Jews practiced this to begin with, and the ones that still do are advised to use a sterile glass tube.

the bottom line is that rabbis aren't going around biting the foreskins off of infants.

 

[Koroviev]

Female circumcision is illegal in the UK but male is not. I am not sure that I understand why. I have a real problem with people making that choice for their children without their consent and believe it should be banned. Other than for medical reasons, it should be an issue of choice for the individual.

Male circumcision is just the removal of the foreskin, but the female variety is the removal of the entire clitoris (sometimes even more).

I might be completely wrong about this, but by my recollection, religious (male) circumcisions were more about practicality rather than actual religion. Long ago when Jews and Moslims still lived in dry and sandy places, it made more sense to remove the foreskin because you would need a lot less water to wash your penis. They were desert dwellers after all.

From what I gather though, female circumcision was all about removing a woman's "sinfull" sexuality by cutting up her sexual organs completely. I don't know if Christians or Jews used to do this, but Moslims certainly did a lot of strict Moslims still do it.

Yes, most instances of female circumcision are a lot more damaging than those concerning males. That being said, I still disagree with the belief that parents have the right to alter their children for non-medical reasons. I don't think circumcision should be banned outright, of course. Adults should be allowed to do as they please with their own bodies, and circumcision does have valid medical applications.

 

[Prof.Wood]

Speaking as a man that had this surgery forced upon me for medical reasons, If people want this done to them its there choice.