This is interesting, because I wasn’t circumcised for religious reasons, I was circumcised basically because everyone else was.
As far as I know, circumcision isn’t nearly the only purely cosmetic procedure performed on infants, it’s just the most popular. There are all manner of little flaps of skin and bits of junk stuck to babies that get cut right off so they can grow up normally without anyone looking at them like they’re a freak for having webbed fingers or whatever.
Now, while these sorts of operations are done because of an abnormality, no one complains because the child is being altered from the natural born state without their consent. There are women from my generation (20 somethings) who have never even seen an uncircumcised penis, and when they do, their reactions aren’t positive. Many (circed)men find the idea of being unclipped rather distastful. Not saying anything against the guys who have it, I’m just saying that most who don’t really like not having it.
I’m sure there are some kids who were born with webbed fingers and toes that are pissed because someone had them removed. I would be. You’d probably be able to swin like a fish with those things.
The question is, how would you stop altering kids cosmetically without stopping all the cosmetic procedures performed? Any procedure that doesn’t affect the child’s ability to live, and isn’t a potential health issue is totally up to the parents to have performed. You’re sitting there, your kid’s got webbed fingers and the doc sits down with you and asks you what you want to do. It’s altering the childs natural born state for cosmetic reasons, and it’s the choice of the parents. How do you deal with that? How do you define “natural” beyond the birth state? You could call it irregular formation at birth, but how do you define irregular when ten thousand children may be born with a defect?
What about polydactyls and hairlips, and conjoined twins, many of whom are operated on before they have the ability to offer consent? All of these can offer examples in which a parent makes a choice for a procedure simply to help their child fit in. What about cosmetic reconstructive surgery to make a child more aesthetically pleasing? It happens. They’ve got a funny deposit on their skull? We’ll cut the skin away, and grind that bad boy down so they don’t look lumpy.
A lot of people just want their children to look good and fit in with everybody. If you’re a male child, having an aesthetically pleasing cock is important. I’d hate to imagine the oddity that a guy my age has to deal with from young women who have no idea what an uncircumcised penis looks like. I’ve actually shown women my age pictures of one and gotten reactions you wouldn’t believe.
Is it an aesthetic concept we created for ourselves? Maybe, but then what isn’t?
catsix, I’ll (once again) try to appeal to your rationality. Do you see me calling other anti-circ folks in this thread batshit insane? You, clairobscur, and the newly-arrived sevastopol do not seem to wish to depart from whichever arguments you arrived with, you won’t regard the issue in any other way, and you get peeved instead of discussing things. It’s not argument. You haven’t brought up a new point beyond whatever was contained in your first post, as far as I can tell. You act as if the single perspective you have on the issue should be enough for anyone to view it with. You, further, continued after being completely proven wrong to make ignorant assertions about Judaism. You refered to an entire religious group as having a “fucked up obsession” because you wouldn’t consider the topic from any other viewpoint. Then you got hurt because I called you names (no, I’m not sorry) and since then, all you’ve done is sob that no one takes you seriously. Even when Yosemite tried hard to engage you, it took her about four times, specifically addressing you by name, before you’d post a reply instead of more whining.
Do people who disagree with you always do that to you? Do you frequently find yourself being insulted and ignored for nothing more than your opinions? Contrast the way I speak to you, for example, with how I speak to Chotii. Chotii acknowledges what others say, justifies her opinions, examines it from multiple perspectives, and then creates a coherent argument. And I respect that, and it’s helping me understand the issue. The contrast with your one, single opinion (“It’s the baby’s body! No one else’s!”) dressed up as a line of reasoning, and then repeated ad nauseam . . . well, it’s a sharp contrast.
That’s the last time I try to speak to you like I would to a reasonable person. If I say anything else to you, it’ll be pure ridicule. I’ve laughed at you, yes, but I’ve tried more than once to engage you in real discussion. Your new martyr act is, in my opinion, yet another way you avoid using logic or reason.
What in the name of Vishnu’s step-grandchild does this mean? You know, I hate to beat a phrase to death, but honey, you are batshit insane.
(Seriously. Sky pixies? Can anyone tell me what the hell she’s talking about?)
Keep saying it - if you repeat it enough times, it’ll become true! Just like when you insisted over and over that Jewish folks had no need to circumcise their children, and before our eyes, the text of Genesis changed! Why, if it weren’t for how remarkably effective this debate tactic has been, I probably would have assumed you were just plain batshit insane!
This bit sums up my feelings pretty well. I can’t claim an understanding of the gut, emotion part of religion, but I can see that it’s there, and I try to respect it.
[batshit insane mode] YOU’RE WRONG AND YOUR VAGINA IS WRONG FOR REJECTING THE ONE TYPE OF PENIS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO US! ANYONE WHO OPPOSES THE ONE TRUE PENIS WILL BE DESTROYED, EVEN IF WE HAVE TO WHINE AT EACH OF THEM PERSONALLY UNTIL THEIR EARS FALL OFF AND THEIR BRAIN DISSOLVES!
[/batshit insane mode]
Yeah, catsix, because that’s exactly what I meant.
Seriously, do you practice sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “LALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”?
No. For after seventeen repetitions, it is still unclear to us, this line of complex reasoning. After all, it’s not as though we could have considered this reasoning, and rejected it, and explained our reasons clearly! For your line of reasoning needs no accompaniment from facts, no examination of others’ perspectives, nor any other reasoning to support it! It has such magnificent rhetorical power!
Yes, because violating the law indicates fucked up obsession! For instance, protecting the Jews from the Nazis - what a “fucked up obsession”! Or, for instance, when Catholics in Ireland taught their beliefs in secret! It wasn’t a simple religious belief - it was a “fucked up obsession”!
To clairobscur:
I’m only going to briefly quote you, because you seem only to want to interpret every sentence I write into some argument that religious groups should have special rights. I have never once stated this and I do not believe it in the slightest. If you really feel that I have said this, it’s because you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. My argument in this thread has nothing to do with this point, and I don’t want to be forced to defend an idea I don’t agree with simply because you find it easy to argue against.
What screwy part of your brain decided I meant religious folks had special rights? My sentence meant that I had taken it as a given that this was the thesis of the people arguing against me and I was acknowledging that I had been wrong in my interpretation. I was discussing the topic of discussion, not anything relating to circumcision itself. If you don’t understand my position by now, I (1) generally disfavor circumcision for various reasons (2) feel parents ought to be able to decide, no matter what their reasoning is. I too think it would be hypocritical to outlaw it and yet allow a religious exemption (as I’ve stated before), and since I don’t believe it should be outlawed for anyone, there’s nothing for you to get your undies in a bunch about.
Why, why, why do you think I would defend a harmful practice because it was religious? Since circumcision is not harmful, in my opinion, it shouldn’t be banned for anyone at all! Truly harmful religious practices ought to be banned no matter what.
I’ve taken another look at what I wrote. I know English is not your first language, but it’s clearly good enough to understand what I meant. You continue to take isolated sentences, and interpret them in ways completely contrary to what I said or meant. I do not think religions deserve special rights, I favor letting any parent choose to circumcise their kid, whatever their reason.
I don’t know why you’re doing this. Is it because arguing against giving religions special rights is easy? No one here has stated such a thing; we haven’t even implied it.
I don’t quite get why you are posting at all. I am here for the interesting arguments I get from the likes of Chotii and Mangetout, since they force me to reassess my position and refine my thoughts. You appear to be here to defend us all from whichever group it is that’s trying to give the Jews special rights.
Quick! Zev! Cathode! She’s perilously close to realizing that I am part of the International Zionist Conspiracy, existing to prevent all criticism of Judaism and to control every media outlet and bank in the world!
If I’m catsix, apparently I come up with one opinion and scream it over and over. If I’m you, it seems I accuse my opponents of saying something they didn’t, and arguing against that same thing until my lungs fall out. If I’m me, I look at the thing, and determine exactly how much harm it does. If it doesn’t do any harm, it’s not wrong. If it does a very small amount of harm, but appears to offer some benefit, it’s also not wrong - but also not that great.
In fairness to your constant, unending, repetitious rantin: I have argued it on religious grounds. This is because it’s a helpful example of why it must be proven harmful for it to be banned it. To catsix, it’s sufficient to say it’s not beneficial, and thus should be banned. To me, if a practice is not harmful, it should be permitted - regardless of whether a religious group favors it. I discussed its religious significance only to point out the negative effects of banning it upon our society - as you should have seen, since I’ve said it in every message I’ve posted, I don’t think it’s harmful in the first place. If I really thought it was, I’d favor its banning. I mention religion as an example of the result of the thought process that states that if it’s not actively beneficial, it shouldn’t be permitted. Not because I think religion should be afforded special rights.
So let me sum up: I DO NOT THINK CIRCUMCISION IS HARMFUL. THE EVIDENCE THAT IT IS IS SLIGHT. IF A PRACTICE IS NOT HARMFUL I DO NOT BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. IF IT WAS HARMFUL, I WOULD NOT FAVOR IT BEING PERMITTED, RELIGIOUS CEREMONY OR NOT. SINCE IT’S CLEARLY NOT HARMFUL, I FAVOR IT BEING PERMITTED, RELIGIOUS CEREMONY OR NO.
Yeah, I’ll grant that, Mangetout. I’ve said from the beginning that I think circumcision isn’t great. I don’t favor it. It’s something I’ve thought a lot about, but in the end, I’ve decided that I can’t see it being harmful, which overcomes my natural thought that says, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” It hurts, but it doesn’t strike me as being any more harmful than many choices we permit parents. It wasn’t easy for me to conclude that it should be acceptable. So I agree - It’s very near the grey area for me.
Nice post except this line. No one here is touting circumcision; we have mentioned (possible) medical benefits only to point out the slightness of its risk. In fact, I would never get a kid circumcised. Weirddave didn’t get his kid circumcised. DocCathode is Jewish, and thus would, but recommends against it to his Gentile friends. Aldebaran thinks it’s strange that nonreligious people have it done in the US.
It’s easy to divide up arguments into “pro-” and “anti-” but if this one works that way, you’ve not drawn the dividing line right. No one is evangelizing circumcision, and it’s a mischaracterization to say we are.
[batshit insane mode] IT’S CLEAR THAT YOU ALL HATE ME AND PERSECUTE ME BECAUSE YOU HATE MY BELIEFS! BUT I KNOW THE TRUTH! ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS EVIL, AND WANTS TO MUTILATE CHILDREN. IN FACT, THEY ENJOY IT, THOSE SICK BASTARDS!
[/batshit insane mode]
I know I’ve said things along these lines, and also joked that these people are just wackos. (Well, seriously, I think some of them are.) But really, my problem with it is just the fact that these people are self-selected. Anyone (anyone clipped, that is) who doesn’t have much sensation in sex, for any one of a number of reasons, could easily, and understandably, start to think that it’s the result of the obvious. Not because he’s looking to lay blame, just because it makes sense to him. So it’s never clear how many guys really have problems due to circumcision, and how many have problems and are circumcised, with no relation between them.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of men just don’t report problems. It seems like a bad assumption to me, not because I judge the people complaining to be crazy, but because neither I nor they can really state what the cause for the problem is.
As seen fit? MUA-HA-HA-HA-HA!! I LOVE MUTILATING CHILDREN! CIRCUMCISION IS NOTHING BUT THE MOST POLITICALLY CONVENIENT WAY TO DO IT! SOON IT WILL BE MANDATORY AND WE’LL THINK UP WORSE TORTURES FOR CHILDREN! MUA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Moron.
Public notice: I hereby resolve to step up my efforts to ridicule stupid people. The pit is a great place for debate - I can discuss with the rational ones and dismiss the morons and the batshit insane.
Seriously, people. A debate - a discussion - it involves discussing. It means looking at other perspectives rather than ignoring them, it involves not using loaded words like “mutilate” that serve only to stir up blind emotion, it involves listening with the intent to understand rather than with the intent to disagree.
It may appear at first glance hypocritical that I say this, but it’s not. I have tried my damnedest to engage in real discussion with the people who want to discuss. I’m not going to engage idiots like catsix, clairobscur, and sevastopol. I do not ridicule those with differing opinions from mine; I ridicule those who yell emotionally-loaded, intellectually-empty nonsense into the thread. Why? Because if they’re not going to debate or discuss, then I don’t see any reason to politely pretend that they’re doing it. To those of you who have no interest in increasing your understanding of the issue, kindly fuck off. To Chotii, please continue speaking, I’m interested in what you have to say. To Mangetout, please don’t leave. Oh, and by the way, sevastopol, good try. I hate children, frankly, and it’s only my higher self that keeps that in check. You appeal to my base emotions when it comes to babies, and you’ll find that I’m very unsympathetic.
It’s kind of like the whole womb thing and men. Those who don’t have one aren’t qualified to have an opinion because they don’t know what they’re like.
Personally, I’ve never considered either state particularly “aesthetically pleasing”. It’s just not its strong suit, you know? And I don’t think I’ve heard of any parents considering the pros and cons of this. It’s kind of creepy when you think about it. “How’s your new kid, Milly?” “Great! But, man, we’re going to have to do something about that ugly cock of his! Must be the ugliest I’ve ever seen! We don’t want him having an aesthetically unpleasing one and right now it’s just too… normal!”
And if it’s a case of “fitting in” then you cut guys have to be told; you’re the minority. Most human males on the planet are just as nature designed them. Try to keep that in mind and you might begin to see how the ‘fitting in’, ‘everyone else does it’ and ‘just like dad’ (something I’ve never understood; show me a infant boy who looks just like dad and I’ll show you a child with severe accelerated pubescence problems) arguments don’t justify anything.
:dubious: I’m guessing most young woman have no idea how either look like until someone shows them. And in either case I doubt that the first thing that crosses their mind is “mmm, aesthetically pleasing”. The oddity is all in your, or their, mind. That’s the way it is. Any problem is your problem.
Yes, there is ( not considered a strong hadith and I place it under invalid). Yet when one starts discussing hadith… Even the (non-scholared) Muslims are warned against doing that on their own.
We can discuss this and I can give you some explanation, but I don’t find this thread a particular good place to do this.
Yes I can do that and also explain why the Malikite law school tends to disagree on this issue with others (but they also don’t use the word “command”). But like the above, I don’t want to to that in this thread because that is also not something that is written in a few minutes.
The first reason against FGM - and especially the most cruel forms- is of course that there is no mentioning of this in Al Qur’an (the same counts when it comes to male circumcision but on that one is some discussion possible).
Yeah, when i was previewing i thought seriously about taking that whole section out, but i decided to leave it in. I didn’t intend to imply that anyone was evangelizing it. If anything, i’d say that the pro side is defending the legality of the practice, not evangelizing. If you include the rest of hte sentence in the quote, i think it’s clearer that the arguments are primarily defensive:
I only meant to present the major points each side has offered, along with the rebuttals, in a summarized format, much like Mangetout did a few lines back, because it seemed that some posters were more inclined to repeat the same arguments and same rebuttals without seriously thinking about the subject from the other perspective. Hence, i followed the summary with an intellectual “i’ll show you mine if you show me yours,” providing the thought process that led me to my conclusion, starting from the con side of the argument.
Admittedly, there are a lot of generalizations in the summary, so perhaps it would have been better left out. But if it got even one person to think critically, well, maybe it was worth it, which is why i left it in the first time.
I think it took me years to decide that a penis can be visually attractive. I had of course discovered their various non-visual merits by then, but the look was not what I liked best. Actually, the look is still not what I like best.
I think Red Dwarf explained it better than I ever could (from the episode ‘DNA’)
Kryten: Hmm. Ah yes, now I wanted to talk to you about something. Something about, um, well, something I know we humans get a little embarassed about. It’s a bit of a taboo subject. Not the sort of thing we like to sit around and chat about in polite conversation.
Lister: Kryten, I’m an enlightened twenty-third century guy. Spit it out man.
Kryten: Well, I wanted to talk to you about my penis. I knew it, you’ve gone streight into smirk mode. Aren’t we both two human adults? Can’t we talk about our reproductive system without adolecent sniggering?
Lister: Yeah, of course we can.
Kryten: Thank you. [hands Lister polaroid] Well?
Lister: `Well’ what?
Kryten: Well what do you think?
Lister: I’m not quite with you here Kryten. What am I supposed to say?
Kryten: I want to know: is that normal?
Lister: What? Taking photographs of it and showing it to your mates? No, it’s not!
Kryten: Wuhw, but is it supposed to look like that?
Lister: Well, yeah.
Kryten: It’s hideous. That’s the best design they could come up with? Are you seriously telling me there were choices, and someone said Ah, there, that's it. That's the shape we're looking for: The last chicken in the shop look'? Shakespeare had one? Einstein? Perry Como sang Memories are Made of This’ with one of those stashed in his slacks?
Lister: Well, yeah.
Kryten: No wonder humans don’t have a zoom mode. Ugh.
That’s ridiculous. The uncircumcised males have no idea what’s it’s like not to have one. Adult males who become circumcised would be the only one’s with both sides of the argument.
I’m saying that barring religious preference it’s an aesthetic choice, whether you agree with the aethetics involved or not. I further said that it wasn’t the only surgically aesthetic choice parents make for their children without the child’s consent. Regardless of whether you feel it’s frivolous or not and regardless of whether you think it’s inhumane to make a surgical decision based on your personal aesthetics or not, without the consent of the child, it still occurs in a great number of situations not involving the penis.
How do you then justify any surgical procedure based on purely aesthetic concepts performed on a baby or infant without their consent? I personally have no stance on the issue and I have no idea what I’d do with my own kids if I had them, but it remains a valid question, and I’m still waiting for an answer.
On a moral level I’m inclined to agree with you, but the two situations aren’t exactly analogous. Webbed fingers do make a kid look pretty odd, and are gonna impact his interactions with other kids. Clipping a penis is partially an aesthetic decision, but you’re altering something perfectly normal rather than something abnormal. Of course, the fact that it’s normal doesn’t mean it’ll look normal to the other kids - but then, the other kids are a little more likely to see your fingers than your wang.
For what it’s worth, most of the guys in my high school gym class appeared to be cut, and no one said anything about mine. You did not discuss other guys’ endowments in the locker room.
Of course, guys laughing at you in the locker room is probably a small issue compared to frightening future sex partners . . .
Well, I’m sorry about that. I couldn’t think of a typical one-off traumatic event in which someone is tied down and cut with a knife, preferably by people who speak a different language (or does not speak at all) so that the person being cut cannot be given reasons or understand the reason for the pain.
Well, of course in some physical assaults this does happen, and in those cases the obvious reason is that the offender is acting from desires to hurt, to control, to…I don’t know, shut up the voices in his or her head, etc.
Obviously, circumcision is NOT LIKE THAT. Doctors and mohels are not acting from a desire to hurt. HOWEVER I wonder if some (Doctors especially) perhaps have become inured to the pain they are causing, so that they don’t really care that what they do is extremely painful (I mean, I’ve had pelvic exams by doctors who hurt me so badly I cried - as an adult - and I didn’t get so much as a mumbled apology) because, after all, it’s “necessary”.(*) It’s their job, they have to do it, so they just go ahead and do it, and yes, it hurts the kid but so what? He’ll get over it. (“Of physicians performing circumcision, 45% use anesthesia, most commonly dorsal penile block with lidocaine (71% of pediatricians, 56% of family practitioners, and 25% of obstetricians). Those physicians who reported not using anesthesia cited concern about adverse effects and a belief that circumcision does not warrant anesthesia.” (Stang HJ, Snellman LW. Circumcision practice patterns in the United States. Pediatrics. 1998;101(6):e5. ))
*During my last pregnancy, I was hospitalised for 2 months. I endured a great many exams to assess my likelihood to deliver prematurely. These exams HURT. Finally, I told the one OB that if she had a choice, I wanted her to do the exam this way and not that way. She started into a bland justification for how she knew it was ‘uncomfortable’ for me, and I interrupted her and said “No, don’t excuse yourself that way. We’re not talking discomfort. We’re talking excrutiating agony.” She looked startled and said “Well of course, if that’s what it’s like, we’ll do it the other way.” And they did. And she told her colleagues. But it took that kind of blunt verbal smack upside the head to make her understand the pain she was causing me, and then she respected it and stopped.
I don’t mean to ramble. I’m only trying to explain something I’ve thought about a lot, but can never seem to get into words even to myself:
Pain always seems worse to me when it must be endured without comprehension. Infants cannot comprehend pain when it is inflicted, of course, and they’re powerless to protect themselves. That’s why you never spank a baby, even if you might spank an older child. They can’t understand it.
Pretty much everything you do to a baby is going to be done without his/her knowledge or consent - but that doesn’t mean that you leave the little dears to grow up all on their own! Fact is, they are utterly dependant on people doing things for, and to, them. Most seem to survive this indignity quite well.
In any event, the reason it is absurd to spank babies is not because they can’t protect themselves, but because presumably the pain is being inflicted to deliver a lesson - which babies cannot heed, rendering the whole thing pointless. The pain of circumcision (which anesthetics ought to compensate for in any event) is not intended as a “punishment” to deliver a “lesson”, but is a purely unwanted side-effect of the surgery.
Doctors being inconsiderate to adults is an entirely different issue. I don’t see the relevance at all.
May I just say that I honestly don’t understand all the hoopla about the aesthetics of circumscised vs. uncircumcised penises? Even as the product of 2 cultures (American and Jewish) that have circumcised boys routinely until very recently, I just don’t see what the big deal is, appearance-wise. I saw an uncircumcised penis for the first time at age 27, an didn’t find the experience traumatic in the least. It’s kind of like having an “innie” bellybutton and deciding that everyone with an “outie” is some kind of freak.
Really? I’ve always felt mine was one the most aesthetically pleasing parts of me and been upset that I can’t show it off more often.
Chotii It isn’t preferable that the mohel speak a different language. Most Jews prefer a ceremony which has parts in Hebrew, and parts in whatever the local language is. In Israel, the ceremony may be entirely in Hebrew, because that is* the language used everyday. Orthodox Jews may have the ceremony entirely in Hebrew as well, but many Orthodox Jews are fluent in Hebrew.
Futile Gesture
I can’t think of a time or place in which the average girl wouldn’t have had an idea what the averag penis looked like. If they had younger brothers, or babysat, chances were they’d seen a penis and deduced that an adult penis looked like that except bigger. In the days of the internet, I’d imagine that any girl with computer access has seen a plethora of penises.
Not particularly. There have been a handful here, out of the many people I’ve debated, and I can’t really think of any real life examples.
You’ve never heard the term sky pixie used on this board or anywhere else on the Internet to refer to the beliefs of someone who is a theist? I’ve seen that one and things about magic pink unicorns lots of times.
Why would you bother to bring it up? It’s not like anybody here is going to be arguing that the Davidians were doing the right thing by getting their kids involved in that firefight.
What I’ve seen is that you rejected it. I have not seen clear reasons that differentiate this type of harm from other types of harm that are illegal.
Are you attempting to say that banning circumcision without the express consent of the circumcisee is Nazism?
I get where everyone’s coming from on this concept, but my question isn’t moralistic in nature, it’s realistic in nature. If we’re talking about convincing people that circumcision is bad and they shouldn’t do it to their kids that’s one thing. If we’re talking about legally preventing the act, that’s another. You’d have to show that there was a compelling interest on the part of the state to prevent it from occuring, in so doing you would also have to define what exactly made it in the interest of the state to overrule the parents decision, and how that would affect other children who are being aesthetically altered surgically.
You’ll have to define defects and cosmetic deficits in appearance and aesthetic norm and preference in order to provide for a decision making process on the part of the state.
Personally, as the victim of this heinous act of barbarity, I don’t really care one way or the other, but if you’re going to argue the point, it’s got to be a little more thought out than, “I think it’s wrong because…”
That depends heavily on the law. There is a vast difference between sending Jews to concentration camps and making it illegal to circumcise other people for your own beliefs.
I do seem to be taking a great many deep breaths lately. Would somebody please help me here? Am I miscommunicating so badly? Where have I ever suggested that children be left to grow up on their own?
Of course, circumcision is done without the baby’s consent. I do have a moral objection to this, and consider that cosmetic alterations to a person’s body should be made by that person, if and when he wishes it done and can choose to accept the consequences. I am very consistent about this. I believe babies should also not have their ears pierced. Not my body, not my choice (to paraphrase a popular slogan.)
My point, which I have been attempting to make repeatedly, is that pain matters. Pain also means something: it means stop, something’s wrong, something is in danger of being injured or has been injured. It matters. It is not irrelevent.
A controllable, avoidable side effect. Yet only 25% of OBs bother to use pain relief when performing this procedure. Why? Why can’t they be bothered? It’s not like they can fail to see the babies screaming until they choke (which is not uncommon).
Well, then I must disagree with you with the utmost vehemence. Children are people. Their pain matters. The fact that they cannot verbalize and say “This is excrutiatingly agonising” doesn’t mean they should have to endure it anyway, when alternatives exist.
Look. Pain exists. We try to protect ourselves and our children from it, but when this is not possible there are only a few ways a person can deal with it - they can endure it without comprehension, they can endure it with comprehension, they can accept it, or they can dissociate or shut down. Or I suppose they can treat it with medications. The only choices a baby has is to endure without comprehension, or to dissociate. Or if they’re lucky, an adult will medicate them. Children, unlike adults, have no other choices.
Any adult who treats a child’s pain as though it is irrelevant - and inflicts it - really deserves to be given the old eye-for-an-eye treatment. I believe that. Maybe they’d change their tunes a little.
So, having been in the thick of this thread from the beginning, I’ve decided on what my personal recommendations regarding circumcision would be, if anybody cared to ask me:
[list=a]
[li]Whenever possible, leave the child alone. The surgery can always be done for diagnosed medical problems later.[/li][li]If the surgery must be done, consider the services of a Mohel first, a pediatrician second, a family practitioner third, and an OB dead last, as it is in this order that these professions appear to address the procedure in a humane manner.[/li][li]If the surgery must be done, absolutely demand adequate pain medication.[/li][li]If the surgery must be done, do the cut as loose as possible, to leave some skin mobility on the shaft and to help accommodate penile growth at puberty, which cannot be accurately estimated in infancy.[/li][li]The parents making the decision for the child should educate themselves regarding restoration techniques, in case the child later expresses displeasure with the alteration made to his body.[/li][/list]
My son was 8 years old when he met Weirddave. Dave was nowhere around when the boy was born, and therefore had nothing to do with the state of his foreskin. I didn’t have it done, because my doctor told me it was not necessary. And I don’t have a penis, so what do I know?
If this baby (Due 11/06/04) is a boy, we will in all likelihood have it circumcised.