Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Alandoril]

I always find it funny when people bring out the "it's easier to keep clean" line. Not if you, you know, wash...

 

[Koroviev]

If your culture (religious or otherwise) has reasons for performing them, I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to do it.
But since circumcisions have absolutely no medical benefits, doing it for no reason shouldn't be allowed.

This is actually an appeal to tradition, and it's illogical, mmkay? No, we should not allow something to continue just because our scientifically retarded ancestors thought it was a good idea to appease the gods or something. Think of all the shit there would be if we just let appeals to tradition slide. We'd still be lynching common folk, drawing and quartering the aristocrats, and having righteous duels for a woman's honor XD

We could always do with fewer aristocrats...

You got the horses?
...I got the rope <__<

 

[Trivun]

Forced genital mutilation of any kind should be completely banned. That includes circumcision. If it's for medical reasons, then it should be allowed, but only then. If you're a kid then again, only allowed for medical reasons. If you're a consenting adult then I reckon by choice you should be able to do whatever the hell you like to your body, it's your physical being that you're mutilating after all, and who are we to stop you? And for the record, I almost had my bits circumcised when I was a kid, because of some suspected infection, but then I was found to be okay, so it didn't happen. So I agree with medical reasons for it, but that's all.

That's basically sums up my thoughts on the whole idea. Regarding religion and tradition, what possible reason is there for circumcision anyway? It's not as if getting your foreskin chopped off is going to make you more holy, right?

 

[Koroviev]

I always find it funny when people bring out the "it's easier to keep clean" line. Not if you, you know, wash...

That would be hard and men can't keep clean, the filthy animals! D:

 

[Koroviev]

Forced genital mutilation of any kind should be completely banned. That includes circumcision. If it's for medical reasons, then it should be allowed, but only then. If you're a kid then again, only allowed for medical reasons. If you're a consenting adult then I reckon by choice you should be able to do whatever the hell you like to your body, it's your physical being that you're mutilating after all, and who are we to stop you? And for the record, I almost had my bits circumcised when I was a kid, because of some suspected infection, but then I was found to be okay, so it didn't happen. So I agree with medical reasons for it, but that's all.

That's basically sums up my thoughts on the whole idea. Regarding religion and tradition, what possible reason is there for circumcision anyway? It's not as if getting your foreskin chopped off is going to make you more holy, right?

It's just a traditional thing, and people who defend it on those basis are appealing to tradition, which is bad logic.

 

[vanthebaron]

Male circumcision makes cleaning a lot easier. by not having the foreskin in the way the penis is easier to clean and doesn't hold bacteria and viruses like a non-circumcised penis (according to DR. Drew on Loveline, but hes a doctor and I haven't been given any reason to doubt this information)

 

[ExileNZ]

Personally I'm not a big fan of any forced circumcision, religious or otherwise. Let them hit 18 and see if they want it.

But more than that, people (religious or not) need to take a good step back and ask themselves why they're doing it. Okay so if you're Jewish you get it cut early, but what purpose does that serve? I'm sure there was some perfectly valid reason 2000 years ago, perhaps to do with their concept of hygiene or even chastity (nip the tip and they'll be less tempted to touch it, maybe), but is it still even relevant? Is there some passage in the Jewish Bible stating "Thou shalt slit thy johnson because God demands it"? Because if there isn't (and even then) I think it needs a serious re-examination as a tradition.

I don't think it's so much to do with 'their concept' as it is to do with good old regular hygiene. A surprising amount of the Jewish religious restrictions make perfectly good sense when viewed in the context of where and when they lived.

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.

 

[Stasisesque]

Can people make their own decision? I mean, is there a medical reason that if it is going to happen it should happen early in life. Also, you might not be able to imagine it any different... but would you not like the choice to have it natural?

I honestly don't know if there is any medial reason for it. Wait I tell a lie I recall a vague story about a French King from High School whose foreskin could not be retracted, he go err go number 1, but not any of his "Kingly Duties" to his wife, it was only after some nasty and horrible primitive version of it was he able to provide an hair.

But as I said that's only a vague memory, so I could be totally wrong. It's past 1am here and I'm so not going on a wiki hunt that will keep me up until dawn.

However I'm not talking about banning it if there is a real medical reason, I honestly don't think that's is what is being proposed by the legislators, but for what basically boils down to cosmetic reasons.

Speaking for myself, while I can't imagine myself with a foreskin, I doubt I'd have chosen to have it done to myself. I also can't imagine myself with blue eyes or smaller feet, it's just something I so use to.

There are medical reasons for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanitis as two.

I don't believe it should be banned at all. I agree with not performing it on children provided there is no medical reason or religious tradition - but the same goes for any and all cosmetic surgery. You can do what you please with your own body, provided you can be certified as being in a healthy state of mind by a medical professional.

The "medical" reason was invented in the late 1800's-early 1900's by puritan douchebags, like Kellogg(as in Kellogg's cereal) and Graham(Gram? as in Graham crackers), who wanted guys to wank less and go to church more. Yes it was an obsession of Kellogg to stop masturbation because he blamed it for all the woes of the world. He LITERALLY believed cereal would basically ruin the human sex drive and thusly we would only have sex to procreate and never masturbate again.

They gloss over that fact in histories controlled by the PR department.

But Wiki is ever our friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg
And another for luck: http://www.nndb.com/people/018/000133616/

Uhm. While those are interesting facts, that an awful lot of people are aware of due to them being fun facts that relate to sex (everyone's favourite topic), they have little to no bearing on the actual medical reasons for circumcision.

If you read the articles, or any related case studies, there are various treatments for both conditions, circumcision merely being one of them. Some parents choose this for their children, some men choose it for themselves. It's risky, of course, any surgical procedure is, but it's an accepted treatment and has absolutely nothing to do with maize.

 

[Hateren47]

I don't think circumcision is good for anyone, really. WHO found that circumcision is about 40% effective in preventing STD transmission. And it's not like it protects women from contracting the disease. It's just an incentive for trying to get by with a calloused phallus in lieu of a using a condom. I don't think we should encourage that.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I'm encouraging circumcision for anything other than medical reasons, like too narrow foreskin causing pain during erection.

 

[Koroviev]

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

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

Or, parents could just not be permitted to do it in the first place /:

I think there's probably better things to legislate against parents doing first.

Like child abuse, emotional abuse, beatings, divorcing or many of the other things that we're still powerless to avoid.

But, if you want to legislate against all the things parents could do wrong, you'd have to include smoking, drinking, taking time off, working, hanging babies out of windows, smacking, shouting, sleeping...

Perhaps, and this is just a thought, its up to the parents to bring up their own child? Given that they brought them into the world? Rather than a group of "concerned" citizens who just want the child protected in anyway.

Coz that really doesn't seem to have worked.

Last time I checked, child abuse is illegal /:

Um, no. Letting parents do whatever they want because they spawned something is a terrible idea. You have to impose some very basic restrictions to ensure that they don't utterly fuck up Johnny's life. A good start is preventing them from cutting him up without his consent.

 

[Koroviev]

I don't think circumcision is good for anyone, really. WHO found that circumcision is about 40% effective in preventing STD transmission. And it's not like it protects women from contracting the disease. It's just an incentive for trying to get by with a calloused phallus in lieu of a using a condom. I don't think we should encourage that.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I'm encouraging circumcision for anything other than medical reasons, like too narrow foreskin causing pain during erection.

No, no, I was just agreeing with you. You can't just say "I agree" or "this," er...certain folks don't like that sort of thing <__<

 

[tkioz]

meh? as far as i can tell, not alot of guys go around saying "damn, i wish i had foreskin".

To be perfectly honest most of us that had it done, had it done as babies, you grow up thinking it is "normal" until you start high school and sharing showers after PE. I think I was about 11 or 12 before I saw a dude who had foreskin and I thought he had a deformity. Boy that was an embarrassing conversation with my teacher. If I actually knew the difference between sensitivity during sexual encounters I might be pretty damn pissed off with my parents, but I don't, so I'm rather indifferent when it comes to my own bait and tackle , but when considering it's future as a practice I don't see why it should continue really.

Parents decide on the method of raising the child

Using that logic we shouldn't ban female circumcision either, after all they can still reproduce, what does it matter if they enjoy it or not... Like it or not we have a great many laws that limit the amount of choices parents can make regarding their children, we have compulsory education, standards of care that must be met or they child is taken away, etc.

 

[manythings]

Uhm. While those are interesting facts, that an awful lot of people are aware of due to them being fun facts that relate to sex (everyone's favourite topic), they have little to no bearing on the actual medical reasons for circumcision.

If you read the articles, or any related case studies, there are various treatments for both conditions, circumcision merely being one of them. Some parents choose this for their children, some men choose it for themselves. It's risky, of course, any surgical procedure is, but it's an accepted treatment and has absolutely nothing to do with maize.

Last time I checked medical procedures were performed by doctors. So they have medical reasons for performing them, now stick with me here, if the medical reasons are in fact fraudulent then it should be something to worry about. Wouldn't you be pissed off if someone cut off your finger "for your own good" and you found out the reason was nonsense?

 

[Teh_Dave]

Set an age of consent at 18 for what is basically a cosmetic surgery procedure. Just because its a tradition doesn't make it right.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Last time I checked, child abuse is illegal /:

Last time I checked, it still goes on.

Um, no. Letting parents do whatever they want because they spawned something is a terrible idea. You have to impose some very basic restrictions to ensure that they don't utterly fuck up Johnny's life. A good start is preventing them from cutting him up without his consent.

Yes. That makes perfect sense. What we need to do is get consent from a child before we start medical procedures on him.

How exactly are you going to get little Johnny to sign a waiver to be put on a rebreather, remove cancerous tissue or cut the umbilical cord?

Where exactly are these basic restrictions going to stop? Are you going to force breastfeeding? Or force not to breastfeed? Or push the mother into caring for the baby despite post-natal depression? And then sue her if she's unable?

What exactly gives you, or anyone else, the right to decide what's best for little Johnny, when you don't have ANY training or experience in that area?

That's the damn problem these days, far too many people who are doing things "for the right reasons", but simply end up meddling and giving away basic human rights, like the right to bring up a child how they wish.

If simple things like sex education, abortion and prophylactics are unable to be sorted, even though their is legislation on their uses, why in hells name would you unashamedly block parents for doing what they believe is right for their child?

Maybe they are wrong. That still doesn't make it right for you to say that.

Yes. This does make me angry. As it should do all parents, and those yet to be.

And as you brought WHO into it, they have done a number of insane studies in the past, including 5 pieces of fruit a day (no evidence), 8 glasses of water a day (no evidence) and a number of other bogus medical "surveys".

 

[Koroviev]

There are medical reasons someone may need to have a circumcision, and at the end of the day there are health benefits to it as well. There are plenty of medical studies stating that the likelihood of STD's drop dramatically among circumcised men. Obviously that's dependent on lifestyle choice, but also majorly because it's easier to keep clean.

Also sounds like the anti semetic brigade to me. I kinda want to get rid of Jews, just so we can get rid of anti semites (jk)

I'm sure I disagree with virtually everyone about something. A religious creed is no different. I can disagree with an aspect of something and not despise it. If I were to say I wanted to ban the Jewish faith, then I'd really be throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

And the medical benefits really aren't that significant. If we really want to slow the spread of AIDS, we need to promote condoms, which protect both genders, not calloused penises that haphazardly protect men up until they very likely don't.

 

[Stasisesque]

Uhm. While those are interesting facts, that an awful lot of people are aware of due to them being fun facts that relate to sex (everyone's favourite topic), they have little to no bearing on the actual medical reasons for circumcision.

If you read the articles, or any related case studies, there are various treatments for both conditions, circumcision merely being one of them. Some parents choose this for their children, some men choose it for themselves. It's risky, of course, any surgical procedure is, but it's an accepted treatment and has absolutely nothing to do with maize.

Last time I checked medical procedures were performed by doctors. So they have medical reasons for performing them, now stick with me here, if the medical reasons are in fact fraudulent then it should be something to worry about.

...yes, you're right. If medical professionals are lying to you/your child/the world health organisation about effective treatments for conditions such as phimosis, there is an awful lot to be concerned about. Mostly because we've got a bunch of doctors taking some sick pleasure in removing a man's foreskin (I assume for voodoo purposes?).

But let's assume these medical professionals are actually sticking to the Hippocratic Oath.

 

[Woodsey]

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

I'll let that little snippet sink in.

...

How can you have it reattached exactly?

OT: Well apparently it's cleaner, but there's less feeling in the pleasure-dome, so it's not a major issue either way (although I'd rather have it).

It's quite odd though, especially the religious reason for it.

 

[Koroviev]

Last time I checked, child abuse is illegal /:

Last time I checked, it still goes on.

Um, no. Letting parents do whatever they want because they spawned something is a terrible idea. You have to impose some very basic restrictions to ensure that they don't utterly fuck up Johnny's life. A good start is preventing them from cutting him up without his consent.

Yes. That makes perfect sense. What we need to do is get consent from a child before we start medical procedures on him.

How exactly are you going to get little Johnny to sign a waiver to be put on a rebreather, remove cancerous tissue or cut the umbilical cord?

Where exactly are these basic restrictions going to stop? Are you going to force breastfeeding? Or force not to breastfeed? Or push the mother into caring for the baby despite post-natal depression? And then sue her if she's unable?

What exactly gives you, or anyone else, the right to decide what's best for little Johnny, when you don't have ANY training or experience in that area?

That's the damn problem these days, far too many people who are doing things "for the right reasons", but simply end up meddling and giving away basic human rights, like the right to bring up a child how they wish.

If simple things like sex education, abortion and prophylactics are unable to be sorted, even though their is legislation on their uses, why in hells name would you unashamedly block parents for doing what they believe is right for their child?

Maybe they are wrong. That still doesn't make it right for you to say that.

Yes. This does make me angry. As it should do all parents, and those yet to be.

I think medical necessity is a good reason for waiving the restriction on cutting off bits. However, I don't think it should be waived in the event that parents want to remove healthy bits. It seems pretty simple.

And child abuse still goes on. So what do you propose? Should it be legalized because we can't prevent every case? Your logic isn't holding up here. Don't let your emotions rob you of your common sense.

Edit: What about the right to bodily integrity? I think that's a pretty basic human right.

 

[Hateren47]

No, no, I was just agreeing with you. You can't just say "I agree" or "this," er...certain folks don't like that sort of thing <__<

All right then, we agree that we agree. And some random filler to avoid the wrath of "certain people".

Edit.
A little cartoon depicting the reasons for religious circumcision.

Spoiler: If you are allergic to Danish cartoons, don't bother opening