Your post is from a fanatic anti-circumcision site.
I’m not saying anyone should be forced to circumcise their kid. Of course they shouldn’t. I just think it’s weird that they get so het up if someone else wants to do it.
Well, I wasn’t kidding. I’ve just searched around and since they seem to cite very clearly I assumed all is well. What makes that necessarily anti? What’s the reason to mistrust them? Where do I find a better source?
I’d agree if the child is old enough to make that decision, and makes it themselves. Otherwise I think it’s immoral.
Anyway, can you counter the scientific papers and studies with sources supporting your argument, or is it enough that you perceive it as rabidly anti?
My argument is that I think foreskins are disgusting. My post is my cite. It’s a personal opinion.
And really, “immoral?” Give me a break. I’m a victim of infant circumcision, how come it’s never bothered me?
I’d miss mine.
What negatives are there to waiting some years until the child is capable of making a decision? The STD argument hardly works there, I would hope.
Maybe you aren’t bothered, but is that really a good argument for cutting off pieces of people’s bodies for seemingly dubious advantages? Maybe there is a study out there that refutes the information I have gathered, but until then… I am very skeptic.
ETA: Btw, what’s disgusting about foreskins? I think any penis would be disgusting if you don’t wash.
As to the people who circumcise their infant sons for some concept of STD protection or because they personally find circumcised penises more attractive, I really have to ask, is there some vast number of sexually attractive infants out there that I’m not aware of?
These reasons are not good justification for infant circumcision, since by the time the benefits can be made apparent, the boy will be old enough to consent to the operation.
I have no issue with circumcision in general. What I have issue with is consent. Performing a cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting infant without any medical urgency is simply not acceptable.
If you find a woman passed out drunk and in danger of alcohol poisoning, a doctor can pump her stomach without waiting for her to wake up to get her consent, because there is medical urgency. He can’t pump her stomach without her consent if she’s just passed out and in no immediate danger.
Thus, if you have some imminent medical problem, not the sort of thing that will come around in twenty to sixty years, and circumcision is the best medical option for dealing with it, that’s fine, but otherwise you should really wait until the boy can consent himself.
The argument about hygiene (and UTIs) ignores the simple fact that females are even more susceptible to hygiene issues and UTIs than even uncircumcised males, yet it is ILLEGAL to surgically alter their genitals for the convenience of parents unwilling or unable to teach proper hygiene.
Circumcision doesn’t alter the penis, it just cleans it up a little. Comparing it to female genital mutilation is ridiculous. Cutting off the clitoris is analogous to cutting off the whole male glans, not just some extraneous skin.
Yeah, an analogy with female organs would be just removing the clitoral hood.
Sometimes when I pee and notice the distinct lack of part of my anatomy i wish for the right to order the surgical removal of one of my parents nipples. They’re just extraneous flaps of skin at this point, and increasing their chances of getting cancer. It’s for their own good, and really i don’t want to have to bothered assisting them through some extended illness that this can in some minute way help to prevent.
Of course that is just my opinion.
Well, then, is it acceptable to remove the clitoral hood of an infant girl?
Good point; just imagine how people in the US would react to a father insisting his infant daughter have her clitoral hood removed because he found it more sexually attractive and didn’t want to bother cleaning it.
And they are so disgusting too.
Except, you’re not circumsized, right? So what you’re saying is just make-believe.
Personally, I don’t think there is enough evidence to modify an infant’s genetalia, male or female, without a religious imperative. Removing the clitoral hood, if it was part of the contract with your deity, would be ok with me. Removing it so “she can look like mom” would not be. Just the same, circumcision of Jewish or Catholic males is ok with me. Circumcision so “he can look like dad” is not all right.
On the subject of genital mutilation: Removal of the entire clitoris, as is common in female “circumcision” is beyond the pale. I would never tolerate removing the analogous portion of the male anatomy, for any reason. It’s one thing to remove a flap of skin. It’s like removing earlobes or something. It’s quite another to remove the ear.
No, I was cut up as an infant. Apparently, for no real reason what-so-ever. Doc asked my folks if they wanted him to, and they kinda shrugged and said yes. My dad was cut and he turned out ok, for a violent abusive drunk. So glad the responsibility of that decision was lifted from me.
Just wanted to offer, as it were, a “hands-on” analysis.
<going to check>
Confirmed: Parthenokenis is cut.
And we’re going to bed now.
So what happens when this little boy or girl grows up and decides they don’t want to be a part of their parents’ religion? While it’s true you can’t really “unbaptise” someone baptism doesn’t permentantly mark the subject’s body as being a member of X faith. What if parents felt it was there religious duty to tatoo their child’s skin with religious imagery (for the sake of argument let’s restrict it to an area covered by clothing). What happens when that child grows up and decides that imagery is distastful or offensive?
I do apologize in case I bumped people on the head with a bad source.
But first, can somebody explain why you think the source I took material from is so strongly biased, other than that it (appears to) disagree with your beliefs. Sometimes reality is biased ;).
Does it omit any major research on the subject? Does it misrepresent the sources? Genuine questions. It just appears legitimate to me as somebody who is new to this controversy.
Over here, a majority of doctors refuse to perform this operation as they see no medical motivation, and many counties do not offer it at their hospitals.
I understand that this is a difficulty. It’s never a clear-cut thing. But if little boy A who happens to be born to Jewish parents doesn’t experience the ceremony at 7 days, I don’t know how that affects little boy A’s social and religious development. For this reason, I exempt religious reasons from the “don’t modify your baby” idea. It’s also precedent with other medical practices, IIRC, such as religious exemptions for vaccinations, various procedures, etc.
If I could go back as who I am now to when I had my children modified, I would not modify them. I am far more informed now than I was then. I think that I may have done something unfixable and completely wrong to my boys. I’ve even discussed it with them (they’re teenagers), but I only get the shrug response. I told them both that if they want an apology later in life, they may have one.
A) Among all the myriad other things parents have to put up with for babies (e.g., cleansing them of their fecal excretions), I’m surprised that this in particular would stand out so.
B) Foreskins generally don’t retract until puberty; it’s not something the parent would have to worry about beyond instructing the child to cleanse it on their own at the appropriate age.
I’m a little wounded by you calling my penis disgusting, but alright, whatever; those are your aesthetic preferences, and there’s never going to be a situation where the incompatibility between them and me will be relevant. And I don’t have any major problem with infant circumcision; silly as I think it is, I’m definitely not worked up over it. But, I do wonder: Are there large numbers of people who were not circumcised as an infant and who came to regret this dearly?