Like most Australian males of my generation (I’m 37) I was circumcised. I dont remember the operation nor any pain. And since I’ve never known anything different I dont personally care that it was done to me.
Yet I still wouldnt even consider it having done to any son of mine. It just strikes me as primitive and barbaric, not to mention the arrogance of choosing to cut off bits of your children on a whim. Glad its dying out in this country.
The anti side shouldn’t need reasons. I consider “not removing or altering an infant’s body” to be the proper default position. One should only move to the pro side if there are very good reasons for doing so.
I agree with BlackKnight; performing an unnecessary medical procedure upon a non-consenting patient for arbitrary reasons should never be the default.
I can see the similarity. I think the trichinosis explanation at least carries some weight, but I’m not sure I feel the same way about circumcision. To me, it’s not a very important debate. The gains seem real but minimal, the losses also minimal.
Except that we’re talking about a medical procedure that is not devoid of risk and complication - sure, the actual chance of such may be minuscule, but to the individuals affected it can be devastating.
Of course it can be argued that, on the other hand, there are certain rare, unpleasant medical conditions that circumcision can prevent, but surely this is a case for individual diagnosis and treatment, rather than wide scale prophylaxis.
[QUOTE=hansel]
Basically, there’s some marginal medical benefit to it that’s not really well established, but isn’t entirely ignorable either (AIDS transmission and penis cancer)
[QUOTE]
I’ve heard this a lot but can any show studies or figures that show the European rate of penis cancer is higher than the US.
I’ve heard this a lot but can any show studies or figures that show the European rate of penis cancer is higher than the US.
Yet nor has the foreskin been “selected out”. So any supposed medical benefits for not having one can’t be that significant.
As it is, the supposed medical benefits are nonsense, the much trumpeted risks are minimal and usually only apply if the child is going to be completely regardless to the basic hygene needs of their body. My argument is always that if this is going to be a reason for chopping something off, then why stop there? Cut anything off and you have a cast-iron guarantee never to suffer from cancer or any other disease of it in future. On balance I think most people would prefer to keep the part, look after it and worry about any minimal risks if and when they happen.
I don’t know. I think any argument against cutting an irreplacable part off a person for spurious medical reasons and without their consent to be far more significant than trivial.
I think you may be on to something there, catsix.
In fact, if we cut off our childrens’ index fingers, there should be a marginally less chance of them shooting someone or shooting themselves by accident! If we cut the finger off at birth the child will learn how to write and type without any problems and the child will have no chance of pricking (no pun intended) their index fingers, thereby opening a gateway to countless deseases (sp?). I am also worried that if I have a child it may be teased if he/she will have curly or (god forbid) red hair. I have already contacted a very good laser surgeon who is going to remove any traces of hair from my babies scalp before he/she turns one and every two months after that until we are safe.
Those of you who say it looks better to be circumsised may consider that there is the slightest chance that lies in the eye of the beholder. I’ve never seen a circumsised man but I have female friends who have and many of them were repulsed at the sight.
This is, of course, just IMHO. I would never accuse parents of having sexually abused or maimed their child if they had it circumsised, I’m sure they mean well and have better reasons than “But the Goldsteins did it”.
Oh, I’m an uncut man in case you were wondering. Call me “teabag” if you will, “sleeve” if you must, but I find “trunk” rather flattering somehow. 
As is usually pointed out in these threads: If any poster suggested that infant girls should routinely get surgery to change something entirely normal and natural, but that future male partners might find too unpleasant looking for them… well, you can imagine the pit thread.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on every point, but I think it is only fair to admit that the penis isn’t an objectively aesthetic appendage, foreskin or no.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians warns against routine circumcision (“there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision”) and dismisses the reputed benefits of protection vs penile cancer and whatnot by pointing out that penile cancer for instance has a frequency of about 1 in every 100,000 males whereas 1 to 5 percent of circumcisions result in complications the worst of which are blocked urinary tracts and death. On simple mathematical grounds alone circumcision on health grounds not only doesnt make sense its counterproductive. Its more likely to do harm then good.
http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/summary.htm
Canadian doctors also say its more likely to do harm then good:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/5/532-a
British Medical Association guidelines also recommending against routine circumcision here:
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2003
And more circumcision information then you should ever want here:
From the New England Journal of Medicine “Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners.”
I believe there are indeed measureable, albeit small, statistical health benefits for the male in circumcision. The benefits for women partners of these males seems to be greater.
How so? :dubious:
runs to the local circumsition clinic
Magetout, the phrase “objectively aesthetic appendage” confuses and enrages this simple, foreign soul. Could I persuade you explain to me like I was a five-year-old?
Well, the risk in cervical cancer seems to diminish among partners of circumcised males. I could be wrong, but I think cervical cancer is more common than penile cancer, so a reduction in what is a bigger risk would be a greater benefit.
Also, and I know of no data on this, but empirically it would seem that circumcised men would have somewhat less sensitive glans than their unshorn brethren, making them last a bit longer during sex.
I’m with you.
So much agonizing and antagonizing over such a minor matter. Why do people care so much?
Because you’re putting a defenseless and unconsenting baby through unnecessary and painful surgery! Why don’t you care?
So what if the baby won’t remember the pain. It still has to feel the discomfort at the time and I for one wouldn’t put my child through avoidable pain like that without a VERY good reason.
So far the nos have it IMO. No one has put forward a good enough reason to do it so as was said before, my default position is leave the child as it is. Millions of men all over the world are uncircumsised. Cultural/aesthetic reasons are not good enough to inflict surgery on an unconsenting child unless they will SERIOUSLY affect their life (like hair lips/ major deformity). An uncircumcised penis is not deformed. Plenty of others here have pointed out how unlikely it is for an uncircumcised boy to be seriously psychologically affected and I’m not going to repeat what they’ve said.
Just leave well enough alone.
(BTW did anyone see the documentary about a guy who was a twin and originally called Bruce, then after circumcision his penis was burnt/cut off (botched surgery) so the parents turned him into a ‘girl’ called Brenda on the advice of their doctors much to his resentment in later life. Now he’s called David. The documentary was more about the nature vs. nurture debate but it still brought the worst risks of circumcison home to me anyway…)
I don’t care because it is such a minor issue. I have both had it done to me, and seen it done to others. It was no big deal, and it seems that those adamantly opposed to it are making mountains out of mole-hills.
There are plenty of other painful and unnecessary things done to kids that are far worse, and thus more deserving of activism - assuming of course that it is quite unnessary, on which I have no particular opinion. Much worse, IMHO, was orthodontia. Done, I might add, to millions of kids without their consent, and often completely unnecessary. I remember the pain of orthodontic surgery quite well, all to correct an unsightly tooth I would much rather have lived with at the time. I am of the same opinion today.
If people don’t want to do it to their kids, that is fine - but why argue about it? It sounds like you are quite willing to ban others from doing it, even if they are, say, Jewish (“Cultural/aesthetic reasons are not good enough to inflict surgery on an unconsenting child unless they will SERIOUSLY affect their life”). Are you willing to ban pediatric orthodontics as well, or are penises somehow a different issue from teeth?
Now, I am quite willing to ban cultural folkways if they are genuinely harmful. This simply doesn’t, if you will excuse the expression, “make the cut”. 
I’m glad I never had it done to me. Nobody ever teased me about being uncircumcised, and I find that a lot of sexual partners specifically enjoy my being uncircumcised (particularly Americans, interestingly).
What if we had decided, long ago, to cut off babies’ small toes? They would be guaranteed never to get toejam there, they would walk perfectly normally, and they would probably never remember it. Maybe some people would even come to prefer the appearance of a four-toed foot. It’s still a stupid idea. (Especially if, in the analogous case, complications sometimes arose involving the infant losing their entire foot.)
Can we change the tact here? What would qualify as “abuse” versus a personal cultural choice?
Let us assume that there is no convincing medical reason to circ, that the medical risks of significant complications are also small, and that adequate analgesia is used so that pain is minimal. Is it abuse?
What would need to be true to cross the line and for a society to remove the parents as decision makers for their children? Especiallyf or something that forsome has serious religious significance.