Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Veritasiness]

We don't let parents brand their children with a hot iron, there's no reason why cutting off a piece of their genitalia should some how be more acceptable. I don't even think people of faith should be allowed to do this to a child.

Adults can make any decision they want, but cutting on a child to make it look nicer or to brand them as a member of your faith is just flatly wrong.

Why? It doesn't cause lasting damage or trauma and isn't exactly visible unless someone drops their pants. In Christianity, babies are baptized by holding them in water. Parents regularly make their children undergo dental treatment such as braces for aesthetic reasons, how is this different?

And, in regard to the above post, yeah - parents have the right to determine what medical operations their children should receive regardless of reason, so long as it isn't abusive - and considering my points above regarding pain and lasting changes, I don't think it is abusive.

 

[Unesh52]

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.)

 

[Ratchet1351]

Why is this being disputed in the first place? 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. I mean why is even brought up?!! 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.

 

[Veritasiness]

It's being disputed because supposedly it's "mutilation." There's no argument, I can see, for it causing grievous bodily harm - it doesn't. But apparently a harmless surgical procedure which is attached to deep roots in faith and belief is inappropriate in today's society.

(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.)

Come on, man - don't you know how to find porn online?! You call yourself an Internet user!

 

[mike1921]

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.

 

[Veritasiness]

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.

Definitely? Do you have proof of that? Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#cite_note-masood2005-0] has a table of studies, and the vast majority found no change, or better.

I'm sorry you feel that way - but it's not your right to determine what parents can and cannot do for their children, aesthetically, religiously, or medically - especially when that action carries little or no lasting harm to anyone, including the child. 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.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

It's being disputed because supposedly it's "mutilation." There's no argument, I can see, for it causing grievous bodily harm - it doesn't. But apparently a harmless surgical procedure which is attached to deep roots in faith and belief is inappropriate in today's society.

If circumcision is harmless, then so is hot iron branding. Funny how no one argues in favor of letting parents do that to their children. Must be because parents aren't already doing it and are offended that they're being told to stop.

 

[Veritasiness]

If circumcision is harmless, then so is hot iron branding. Funny how no one argues in favor of letting parents do that to their children. Must be because parents aren't already doing it and are offended that they're being told to stop.

Hot iron branding would be more painful than circumcision, certainly, and more dangerous for an infant. In addition, a brand would create a lasting and visible, socially stigmatic mark, even though it probably wouldn't hurt after a while - circumcision does no such thing. Yes, it creates a change in appearance for the penis, but that appearance is generally accepted in society and does not carry stigma.

 

[Lieju]

It's horrible, when done to defenseless children for no appropriate medical reason.
Adults can do whatever they want with it and get circumcised if they want, as far as I'm concerned, but cutting off pieces from babies is disgusting.

Here in Finland, it's not done, and I only recently found out it's quite common in USA. A horrible thing, whether done on females or males. As I understand it, it kinda depends on the place you are in, how much they actually cut out of the penis, but no matter what. it's something the baby can't get back. But if they want to, they can get the operation done when they are adults, so why not let them decide the fate of their genitalia themselves?

"Yes, it creates a change in appearance for the penis, but that appearance is generally accepted in society and does not carry stigma.

Depends on what country you are. Where I live, it would be considered weird, and having the most sensitive piece of your penis missing is not generally thought of as a good thing.

 

[BrownGaijin]

Yeah. Stop cutting your dicks up, America.

But then how else are we supposed to know who is a terrorist and who isn't?

/cheeky monkey

 

[Veritasiness]

But then how else are we supposed to know who is a terrorist and who isn't?

/cheeky monkey

The terrorists will be the ones who aren't accusing anyone else of being terrorists.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

If circumcision is harmless, then so is hot iron branding. Funny how no one argues in favor of letting parents do that to their children. Must be because parents aren't already doing it and are offended that they're being told to stop.

Hot iron branding would be more painful than circumcision, certainly, and more dangerous for an infant. In addition, a brand would create a lasting and visible, socially stigmatic mark, even though it probably wouldn't hurt after a while - circumcision does no such thing.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that cutting off a load of nerve endings is largely painless, that hot iron branding couldn't be just as safe if done in a clinical setting, and that a circumcised penis is indistinguishable from an uncircumcised penis... I don't think there's a single line of that which is true.

 

[Baldry]

I fail to see you point. My main point was that while it may be somewhat painful, and it may very well be, you won't remember it. It's kind of like getting gassed at the dentist. Honestly, how many here, at the Escapist that is, honestly miss the part of the penis they had for a short time after they were born?

I personally don't, because I don't remember even having it. So why ban the damn thing?

That has to be by far the very worst argument that has every been put forward in favour of anything whatsoever.

You know, raping an infant is something that it won't remember either, so you think that should be legal?

BASICALLY! Yes. This is a old tradition that we've got to respect, it may not be the most humane thing but it's a old tradition.

...and there we have the second worst argument ever.

How on earth can you defend an extremely painful procedure on an infant by saying it's an old tradition?

It take it you think executing rape victims is fine as well, because that's an old tradition as well.

Woohoo it's only the second worst argument!
Anyway when it happens as a baby I doubt that they'll even remember it happen and if you get it done at a older age they numb the area.

And random deity no, there is never a just reason to take another persons life.

 

[Veritasiness]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that cutting of a load of nerve endings is largely painless, that hot iron branding couldn't be just as safe if done in a clinical setting, and that a circumcised penis is indistinguishable from an uncircumcised penis... I don't think there's a single line of that which is true.

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

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

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

So no, you didn't understand me correctly.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

If circumcision is harmless, then so is hot iron branding. Funny how no one argues in favor of letting parents do that to their children. Must be because parents aren't already doing it and are offended that they're being told to stop.

Hot iron branding would be more painful than circumcision, certainly, and more dangerous for an infant. In addition, a brand would create a lasting and visible, socially stigmatic mark, even though it probably wouldn't hurt after a while - circumcision does no such thing.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're claiming that cutting of a load of nerve endings is largely painless, that hot iron branding couldn't be just as safe if done in a clinical setting, and that a circumcised penis is indistinguishable from an uncircumcised penis... I don't think there's a single line of that which is true.

You're absolutely right. Scar tissue developed from circumcision = third degree burns from branding iron. You should go into medicine.

 

[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.

It's a repeated lie that became truth because some assholes decided they knew what was best for everyone even though it is unnecessary and potentially damaging. Hell there are guys rendered impotent because they fucked up their circumcisions and it didn't matter till they went through puberty.

What's a lie? I'm sorry but I really can't follow what you're saying.

Circumcision is an effective, justified treatment for various medical issues. Yes, there are risks - as said, anything surgical carries risks with it. There are alternate treatments, of course, but circumcision would not be touted as one if it was a "lie".

For most medical concerns there are treatment choices, you are given the pros and the cons of each by a medical professional and are then, with their help, able to choose which is best for you. All of the risks are calculated, no two cases are the same. In many cases, issues present in infancy, so it is up to the parent or guardian to decide what is best for their son - surgery (circumcision/other) or non surgical methods. It's not a choice any parent/guardian worth their salt is going to take lightly, and certainly no doctors are going to outright lie to them about the best course of action.

Yes, there need to be ongoing studies into the effectiveness of treatment, surgical or no - but this is the case for every medical issue.

Whether it's worth anything - I have met a number of circumcised men, none of whom have complained of any ill effects. While there is every chance something may go wrong, there is every chance nothing will; and no, for purely cosmetic reasons it is completely unnecessary - yet the same goes for every cosmetic surgery. For religious reasons - there is religion, and whether you agree with it or not, religious belief is strong and traditions within it are stronger. For medical reasons - it is accepted, justified and perfectly legal.

 

[mike1921]

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.

Definitely? Do you have proof of that?

I'm sorry you feel that way - but it's not your right to determine what parents can and cannot do for their children, aesthetically, religiously, or medically - especially when that action carries little or no lasting harm to anyone, including the child. 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.

Umm, well I guess I can't prove it's more enjoyable for everyone since enjoyability is subjective and I guess there's always the chance your kid is asexual or something. But here's proof it does improve sensation
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/abstract

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

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. Just like you shouldn't be allowed to chop off the kid's arm.
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?

 

[Sworm]

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.

I got it done, and besides the localized anesthesia, it was absolutely painless and completely clean, even after the operation I noticed I didn't even need painkillers (and no my junk wasn't numb, I still had the feeling of touch down there and all)

From my point of view, I prefer my wiener as it is now then how it used to be. That foreskin was more annoying then anything when I needed to pee and the little loss of sensation (pleasure) is negligible (from my own experience anyway) and It's a lot easier to keep it clean.

Calling it a "mutilation" is just stupid as hell imo, and I understand why parents get it done to their kids at such a young age. But it's always best to leave up to the kid when they grow up.

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

 

[BlackWaltz3]

It should be banned for kids, but grownups should be able to mutilate themselves in whatever fashion they see fit.