Cut, and resentful. Not because I have any new insights into sensitivity, cleanliness, etc., but because any way you look at it, it should have been MY choice, no one else’s. It is completely unethical to force unnecessary bodily surgery on a patient who cannot refuse it. I’m not against circumcision, provided it is done to a consenting adult.
I see your point (so to speak), APB9999, but I’m not sure it’s very well thought out.
As Cecil and others have established, circumcision is far less risky and traumatic when you’re an infant than when you’re older. It would be somewhat cruel to wait till the boy is old enough to decide for himself only to have him find the option of circumcision effectively “cut off”!
While wandering through the archives, I found this reference to the substantially greater dangers of HIV infection for uncircumcised men. The risks of contracting AIDS is from 70% to 820% greater for uncut men than for circumcised men!!
And due to the warm and cozy protection so generously provided by the uncut prepuce, the risk of HIV transmission must be greater still.
This gives whole new meaning to the phrase “little terrorist”!
>>The only way I’d consider getting snipped is the situation that Jess’ dad went through, and even then I’d get a second opinion. I like the little terrorist the way he is and my fiancee doesn’t have any complaints either. Basically I’d say I feel circumcision ought to be kind of a last resort - you and your doctors are pretty certain that whatever condition you’re experiencing can be stopped by this little bit of surgery. I don’t think it needs to be done as a preventative, especially when routine washing will take care of the major potential issues. Religious beliefs and traditions aside.<< --Olentzero
Seeing as you put that “Religious beliefs aside,” in, I agree. I would have a son of mine circumcised by a mohel at a bris ceromony.
I have never understood why gentile babies are routinely circumcised. Makes absolutely no sense to me-- except in extreme situations. Some unlucky women are allergic so seminal fluid. If a man where ever so tragically afflicted…
>>Cut, and resentful. Not because I have any new insights into sensitivity, cleanliness, etc., but because any way you look at it, it should have been MY choice, no one else’s. It is completely unethical to force unnecessary bodily surgery on a patient who cannot refuse it. I’m not against circumcision, provided it is done to a consenting adult.<< --APBP9999
Well, the Torah commands us to do it on the eighth day. Doctors tell us it’s best for the baby then, though we do it because of tradition. Now if a doctor said we would almost certainly kill the baby of something, of course we’d stop. But the Torah is a BIG DEAL. I think an uncircumcised Jewish man is likely to wonder why his parents didn’t fulfill this mitzvah for him.
I see your point (so to speak), APB9999, but I’m not sure it’s very well thought out.
>>As Cecil and others have established, circumcision is far less risky and traumatic when you’re an infant than when you’re older. It would be somewhat cruel to wait till the boy is old enough to decide for himself only to have him find the option of circumcision
effectively “cut off”!<< --Ambushed
Incidently, if anyone is wondering, there is a ceremony for a man who converts to Judaism, called Hatafah Dam Brit, which means a pin-prick of blood for the covenent. This is for men who are already circumcised.
Men who convert, and are uncircumcised, usually have a hospital circumcision by a urologist, with valium and local anesthesia, or if his insurance will pay, total anesthesia. Then he has a Hatafah Dam Brit.
Some Orthodox rabbis feel this is cheating, but if the adult man has ANY kind of medical consideration for being circumcised in a hospital, the rabbis will say “Oh! Then go ahead!” Most doctors can usually find a good reason to have a hospital circumcision. The fact that few mohels have circumcised adults, and can damage nerves is usually good enough for the rabbis.
BTW, when a Jewish boy baby has ANY kind of medical condition that counter-indicates circumcision, the bris is delayed.
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
MY view is not well thought out? Look again! You’ve stated that it is “cruel” to subject someone who has made the PERSONAL CHOICE to be circumcised to have to go to all the trouble of going to the hospital, getting some anesthesia, and having a minor operation. So instead it should be FORCED on infants without their consent, ON THE CHANCE they might decide later they want the operation? Good Lord, man! THAT is the poorly thought-out position.
There is a special issue of Scientific American on the stands right now, called “Men”. If those of you who just had or are having infant sons want to learn some interesting things about being male in America, it is worth picking up. There is also an article in it on circumcision.
I keep hearing assertions that the child feels no pain, but that is far from clear. Indeed, there is at least some evidence to the contrary, as in the article I just mentioned.
I restate my main point: NO ONE should have their body mutilated or surgically altered IN ANY WAY without their consent. The only exception is for medically NECESSARY reasons, which no one contends applies to routine circumcision of infants (though there may be individual cases where it is necessary). Any other approach is absolutely indefensible on ethical grounds; you have denied that person his right to self-determination.
And don’t tell me the kids don’t mind. I MIND. And even one should be enough.
MY view is not well thought out? Look again! You’ve stated that it is “cruel” to subject someone who has made the PERSONAL CHOICE to be circumcised to have to go to all the trouble of going to the hospital, getting some anesthesia, and having a minor operation. So instead it should be FORCED on infants without their consent, ON THE CHANCE they might decide later they want the operation? Good Lord, man! THAT is the poorly thought-out position.
There is a special issue of Scientific American on the stands right now, called “Men”. If those of you who just had or are having infant sons want to learn some interesting things about being male in America, it is worth picking up. There is also an article in it on circumcision.
I keep hearing assertions that the child feels no pain, but that is far from clear. Indeed, there is at least some evidence to the contrary, as in the article I just mentioned.
I restate my main point: NO ONE should have their body mutilated or surgically altered IN ANY WAY without their consent. The only exception is for medically NECESSARY reasons, which no one contends applies to routine circumcision of infants (though there may be individual cases where it is necessary). Any other approach is absolutely indefensible on ethical grounds; you have denied that person his right to self-determination.
And don’t tell me the kids don’t mind. I MIND. Even one should be enough, and I’m far from alone.
>>MY view is not well thought out? Look again! You’ve stated that it is “cruel” to subject someone who has made the PERSONAL
CHOICE to be circumcised to have to go to all the trouble of going to the hospital, getting some anesthesia, and having a minor
operation. So instead it should be FORCED on infants without their consent, ON THE CHANCE they might decide later they want
the operation? Good Lord, man! THAT is the poorly thought-out position.<< APB
First, I never said your view was not well thought out.
Second, I never said it was “cruel” to make adult men who choose late circumcision to go to a hospital. I said that uncircumcised men who convert to Judaism usually don’t have a circumcision by a mohel. They have a hospital circumcision, and then the hatafah dam brit, which was originally thought of as a substitute ritual for men circumcised in hospitals as babies who later convert to Judaism.
As an afterthought, I added that since rabbis already have a lot of circumcision by-laws regarding the circumstances of infants who shouldn’t be circumcised on the eighth day for medical reasons, and noted that this plays a role in rabbinical thought regarding uncircumcised adults who convert to Judaism.
Some rabbis allow that circumcision by a mohel is not a good idea for an adult because adult and newborn penises aren’t the same thing, and mohels’ techniques are intended for infants.
I will state once more that if I had a son, I would have him circumcised by a mohel on the eighth day, because it is a commandment.
But I cannot for the life of me understand why gentiles have their sons circumcised.
I am not interested in the gentile opinion of whether or not Jews should continue to circumcise.
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny
Shelly liked Hollings’ little turtle neck! ie: Northern Exposure
PS: My dad told my Mom, “We ain’t doin’ it, the kid may need the extra when he grows up”!
Are you interested in non-Islamic and non-African opinions as to whether certain sects or tribes should perform clitorectomies or other forms of female gential mutilation? If so, please defend the difference.
I don’t have to defend my religion to you, PLD, and I’m not going to. I’ve said this many times on the other MB, so quit asking.
I’m not asking you to defend your religion. I simply am quite certain you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, and you almost certainly are opposed to it, which is blatant hypocrisy.
Rowan wrote
First of all, Rowan, I was replying to ambushed, not you, who wrote
Second, you miss my point as well. It hardly matters who performs the operation or how. My objection is that the CONSENT OF THE PATIENT is not given. This is wrong, period. WHEN the patient reaches adulthood (or some reasonable approximation thereof, say 17) then they can decide for themselves what to do with their bodies. If a girl decides to embrace her Sudanese heritage and WANTS to have aclitorectomy, then I don’t see that it’s anybody’s business to tell her no. If your sons reach 17 and decide they want to be circumcised as a sign of God’s covenant with the Jews, fine. But it is not a decision anyone should make for them, including their parents.
I hold that everyone owns himself and his own body. Parents are caretakers: they do not own their children, and do not have the right to mutilate them for any reason. If a Jewish boy reaches 17 and decides that Jesus is groovy or The Eightfold Path is the path for him or that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, then that is HIS CHOICE. You can raise your children to believe in your religion, naturally, but you cannot ethically *force[i/] it on them.
This extends to African clitorectomies, it extends to Christian Scientists denying medical care to their children, and I would even consider the tattooing of children questionable at the very least, and for the same reasons.
Since you’re not interested in my opinion, I offer it to the others. I feel society owes children a chance to reach adulthood as physically intact as is at all possible.
There’s a whole world of difference between circumcision and clitorectomy and the reasons they’re practiced.
First, there is at least one medical argument for circumcision, namely, penile cleanliness and health. Removal of a clitoris confers no health benefits whatsoever.
Second, what’s being removed? In a circumcision, it’s a flap of skin that doesn’t seriously affect sensitivity or the ability of a man to enjoy sex. The clitoris, on the other hand, is a major part of a woman’s vagina and can almost completely eliminate a woman’s ability to experience sexual pleasure.
Third, clitorectomies are performed on teenage or adult women, entirely against their will. The West African woman seeking asylum in the United States in order to escape her forthcoming clitorectomy is a case in point.
In my view there is a much clearer argument that clitorectomies are drastic mutilation than circumcisions are. It’s denying a woman a part of her that makes her a fully sexual being - something conservative Islam really tries to cover up. Clitorectomies are thus a form of women’s oppression and should be roundly condemned. Were Judaism to advocate the complete removal of the glans penis as part of the Covenant I’d condemn that too.
“Yes,” pldennison might say, “but those male Jewish babies don’t have a say in it either.”
True, they don’t. But infants generally don’t have a lot to say in the way they’re raised, at least until they develop and master the power of speech. (Then “NO” becomes a big part of the vocabulary.) Parents are obligated to make decisions on what they feel is best for their child and circumcision is one of those decisions. IMO, the foreskin is about the same in status as the vermiform appendix - you’re born with it but that doesn’t necessarily mean you keep it all your life. It can cause problems later on and then you’ll have to lose it, and life pretty much continues the way it did before.
If Rowan wants to circumcise her sons as part of a religious observance, then she should be allowed to, in view of the fact that there are no real drastic consequences of the decision. (The general sentiment of circumcised males on this thread speaks to the point.) The consequences of clitorectomies and labidectomies, on the other hand, convince me that it’s a practice that should be opposed, fought against, and abolished. That’s not hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is claiming you’re on a humanitarian mission and then sticking the refugees you’re claiming in camps without adequate shelter or food, and later on refusing to help rebuild the area you bombed the living shit out of in the name of peace.
Cave Diem! Carpe Canem!
Wow, this big long thread, and no one even mentioned the report of the that Dr. in Atlanta that was performing circumcisions for free!
He didn’t charge any money. He just kept the tips!
Har Har Har! I kill me!
Enright3
That’s right, and it is highly probable that many men who are circumcised would decide otherwise if given the chance. This is precisely why it is so wrong to do it to infants.
Exactly wrong. Circumcision is NOT an “obligatory” decision. It is one that COULD be left up to the child, and therefore should be - when he is of an age when it is appropriate.
Also, to argue that clitorectomies are inherently wrong while circumcision is not, is to argue that clitorectomies are disgusting for the wrong reasons: They are wrong because the women involved have no choice. If they WERE given a choice, it would be presumptuous of you to forbid them if they still wanted it. Prohibiting it is as morally offensive as Forcing it on someone, as long as they are mentally competent adults. It’s a decision that only the person subject to the operation can ethically make, unless there is an overwhelming medical reason to forego such permission. How many times have I said this? No one has offered a real counterargument to THIS point.
Olentzero, maybe you missed the part where Rowan specifically said she can’t think of any reason why non-Jews would circumsize their children? That strongly indicates that she can’t think of any reason besides a religious one, which is self-justifying.
Huh. How do you feel about Christian Science?
Maybe men should be allowed to make that decision themselves. If it doesn’t cause any problems, there’s no reason to remove it.
Olentzero, maybe you missed the part where Rowan specifically said she can’t think of any reason why non-Jews would circumsize their children? That strongly indicates that she can’t think of any reason besides a religious one, which is self-justifying.
Huh. How do you feel about Christian Science?
Maybe men should be allowed to make that decision themselves. If it doesn’t cause any problems, there’s no reason to remove it.
Rowan States;
“But I cannot for the life of me understand why gentiles have their sons circumcised.”
But then she goes on to say;
“I am not interested in the gentile opinion of whether or not Jews should continue to circumcise.”
Thereby establishing that her opinions are the only ones that deserve to be heard.
Please tell me, Rowan, that I’m reading something into this that isn’t really there.
When I first asked this question, I was interested in the physical effects of circumcision.
I felt that morally it wasn’t any big deal, one way or the other.
Reading these posts has changed that. There is no compelling medical reason that I can see to take away a childs right to decide for himself.
Peace,
mangeorge
Leaving aside the ethical issues of circumcising an infant before he can make his wishes known, I have another question.
My husband and I are in the middle of making this decision. I am leaving it finally up to him, because it’s a guy thing, but we are sharing our opinions on the subject. One thing he brought up the other night really caught me by surprise. He said that, although an uncircumcised boy isn’t going to be alone among his peers these days, he believes that there are class issues involved. He said that upper middle class whites are probably still going to opt for circumcision, because not doing it is still perceived as “foreign” and “dirty”, in spite of medical evidence to the contrary. I’m not so sure about this myself. What do you all think?
Mangeorge asks whether I think that my opinion is the only one that deserves to be heard.
Well, no.
Jewish males are required to be circumcised on the eighth day. This is a commandment. I know of no such commandment for gentiles. Within Judaism, this is a Jewish concern. We’re not interested in the gentile opinion of whether or not we should eat cheeseburgers, either.
If there is a compelling reason to circumcise non-Jews, I don’t know what it is.
Mangeorge, you don’t know it, but I have done this dance before. There were a couple of people on the old SDMB who believed thay had all the answers to the universe, and therefore had the right to dictate how Jews should practice our religion.
Actually, I was kind of surprised that they seemed so invested in trying to convince all the Jews on the old board to change our religious lives-- these were people we’d never even met, keep in mind.
When I said I couldn’t think of a reason for gentiles to circumcise their sons, I didn’t mean I didn’t think they should-- I meant exactly what I said-- I couldn’t think of a reason.
I know why Jews do. And to the rest of you-- and BTW, to whomever said we should wait 'til boys grow up, then let them choose, No. The commandment says on the eighth day-- Jewish practice is not going to change to make it more palatable for you. If you don’t like it, tough. We don’t expect you to be like us.
–Rowan
Shopping is still cheaper than therapy. --my Aunt Franny