Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[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

 

[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.