Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[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.

 

[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)