Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Antiquehunter]

@Nicole - you stated you were an agnostic in another thread, so clearly you aren't worried about the 'spiritual' connotations of the bris. I'm a little surpirsed you find slicing off a piece of an infants body before the 8th day to be 'beautiful' - I can't think of anything less beautiful.

That you don't know any men who are circumcsized who wish they were not, simply demonstrates the problem with infantile circumcision. How would we KNOW (those of us who were circumcised in infancy) if we've missed out on anything? If someone wishes to mutilate their genitals when they've reached the age when they can choose to do so, then whatever floats your boat. But to do this to a child, knowing what we know now about the very borderline medical 'benefits' - is rather silly. In my opinion, anyways.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

However, in Judaism you must circumcise on the 8th day. To do it as an adult is not fulfilling the mitzvah. I will admit my bias; having grown up in the Jewish culture I believe that a bris is a beautiful ceremony. I do not know a single male who was circumcised who wishes that he still had his foreskin. Additionally, since many on here are citing medical concerns, I am very good friends with an immunologist (not Jewish)- he actually was circumcised later in life, by his own choice. He was the one who told me about studies done showing how male circumcision can lead to a reduction in STDS, particularly HIV (his area of expertise)- which can save the lives of thousands, if not millions of people, especially in Africa. If you want to talk about wrongs, let's talk about female circumcision- that is done to kill sexual pleasure and aside from there being zero medical benefit, can harm or even kill the victim.

As has been said before, condoms do a much better job than circumcision.

And yes, female circumcision is mainly to stop women from having pleasure during sex, and it is just as despicable.

However, it is not a zero sum situation. It isn't a case of "let's focus less on male circumcision, because we haven't got enough attention left for female circumcision". It is in fact possible to pay attention to both at the same time, without loosing focus on either subject.

 

[bikerdruid]

However, in Judaism you must circumcise on the 8th day. To do it as an adult is not fulfilling the mitzvah. I will admit my bias; having grown up in the Jewish culture I believe that a bris is a beautiful ceremony. I do not know a single male who was circumcised who wishes that he still had his foreskin. Additionally, since many on here are citing medical concerns, I am very good friends with an immunologist (not Jewish)- he actually was circumcised later in life, by his own choice. He was the one who told me about studies done showing how male circumcision can lead to a reduction in STDS, particularly HIV (his area of expertise)- which can save the lives of thousands, if not millions of people, especially in Africa. If you want to talk about wrongs, let's talk about female circumcision- that is done to kill sexual pleasure and aside from there being zero medical benefit, can harm or even kill the victim.

excellent post.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

As has been said before, condoms do a much better job than circumcision.

And yes, female circumcision is mainly to stop women from having pleasure during sex, and it is just as despicable.

However, it is not a zero sum situation. It isn't a case of "let's focus less on male circumcision, because we haven't got enough attention left for female circumcision". It is in fact possible to pay attention to both at the same time, without loosing focus on either subject.

If both issues were of equal weight of course you could and you should give time to both. However, no matter how you feel about male circumcision, I cannot fathom an argument that male circumcision is as horrible as female circumcision. Female circumcision, even in it's most benign form carries a risk of infection, bleeding and loss of some if not all sexual feeling. At its worst, the labia is cut off and the vulva is sewn together- meant to be broken during intercourse. This can and has led to death, infection, bleeding and even a condition where the woman appears pregnant due to the build up of menstrual blood which cannot escape. Even if you think that a baby boy should have the right to choose circumcision when he is older, how can you compare the 2 situations?

 

[Antiquehunter]

<snip> Male circumcision, even in it's most benign form carries a risk of infection, bleeding and loss of some if not all sexual feeling. <snip>

ftfy.

 

[Nicole Friedman]

@Nicole - you stated you were an agnostic in another thread, so clearly you aren't worried about the 'spiritual' connotations of the bris. I'm a little surpirsed you find slicing off a piece of an infants body before the 8th day to be 'beautiful' - I can't think of anything less beautiful.

That you don't know any men who are circumcsized who wish they were not, simply demonstrates the problem with infantile circumcision. How would we KNOW (those of us who were circumcised in infancy) if we've missed out on anything? If someone wishes to mutilate their genitals when they've reached the age when they can choose to do so, then whatever floats your boat. But to do this to a child, knowing what we know now about the very borderline medical 'benefits' - is rather silly. In my opinion, anyways.

From an objective standpoint I can understand your position. However, I would suggest if you're interested to talk to a mohel and see what he has to say. My cousin recently had his baby boy Jacob circumcised. They buried the foreskin by a tree in their backyard. When Jacob grows up and gets married, they plan to use a branch from the tree in their chuppah for the wedding ceremony. Obviously not everything that is a tradition should continue, simply because it is a tradition. However, unless there is overwhelming medical evidence that circumcision is unsafe, there is no reason to deny people who believe in the importance of such a ceremony the right to conduct it. Also, in Judaism you are not supposed to do anything that will medically or physically harm someone. If there was overwhelming proof that circumcision was harmful, most rabbis would condemn the practice.

 

[Antiquehunter]

From an objective standpoint I can understand your position. However, I would suggest if you're interested to talk to a mohel and see what he has to say. My cousin recently had his baby boy Jacob circumcised. They buried the foreskin by a tree in their backyard. When Jacob grows up and gets married, they plan to use a branch from the tree in their chuppah for the wedding ceremony. Obviously not everything that is a tradition should continue, simply because it is a tradition. However, unless there is overwhelming medical evidence that circumcision is unsafe, there is no reason to deny people who believe in the importance of such a ceremony the right to conduct it. Also, in Judaism you are not supposed to do anything that will medically or physically harm someone. If there was overwhelming proof that circumcision was harmful, most rabbis would condemn the practice.

Well I have to admit, I don't have kids and am not going to have kids, so my opinion doesn't really count for much. Neither am I Jewish. However I'll point out that while the majority of circumcisions (whether performed by a mohel or by a physician) take place without complications, there are a number of complications that can and do arise. Certainly far more complications than if one left the infant's genitals alone.

If a religious faith decided it was a beautiful ceremony to snip off the tip of an infant's baby toe - just the tip - a couple of millimeters is all, mind you - it would never be missed - to celebrate a tradition, and to dispel as being 'harmless' - I'm sure that people would be up in arms.

I personally consider it barbaric to irreparably remove part of someone's body that cannot regrow, at an age where they cannot decide if that is a prudent thing to do. Nor do I consider such a practice to be 'harmless'.

I also find it odd that a self-described agnostic would rather passionately defend such actions under the guise of religious freedom.

 

[jdp]

However, in Judaism you must circumcise on the 8th day. To do it as an adult is not fulfilling the mitzvah.

I would disagree with this. It can be fulfilled at any time and being intact has no meaningful religious impact on a Jewish boy. See No Sacred Cows: A Conversation with Rabbi Asher Lopatin.

I will admit my bias; having grown up in the Jewish culture I believe that a bris is a beautiful ceremony. I do not know a single male who was circumcised who wishes that he still had his foreskin.

A strange sense of beauty. As to the later statement, those men are easy to find if you look; some have posted in this thread. What would you say to him?

Additionally, since many on here are citing medical concerns, I am very good friends with an immunologist (not Jewish)- he actually was circumcised later in life, by his own choice.

That's great, I am glad he had the dignity of choosing that for himself. Other men deserve to make that choice for themselves.

He was the one who told me about studies done showing how male circumcision can lead to a reduction in STDS, particularly HIV (his area of expertise)- which can save the lives of thousands, if not millions of people, especially in Africa.

I certainly wouldn't go that far but it's irrelevant to an infant and men outside very specific areas. If we assume the data is true then feel free to present it to an individual man for his consideration.

If you want to talk about wrongs, let's talk about female circumcision- that is done to kill sexual pleasure and aside from there being zero medical benefit, can harm or even kill the victim.

1. I don't discriminate based on gender. I know some do, and you may feel that's OK, but boys deserve the same dignity and protection that girls enjoy.
2. Female circumcision is done for the same reason as male circumcision, entrenched cultural inertia. Those who practice female circumcision will claim that it's important to their religion and/or culture as well as claim health benefits.
3. Infant males can and have died in western hospitals as a direct result of their circumcision.

If both issues were of equal weight of course you could and you should give time to both. However, no matter how you feel about male circumcision, I cannot fathom an argument that male circumcision is as horrible as female circumcision. Female circumcision, even in it's most benign form carries a risk of infection, bleeding and loss of some if not all sexual feeling. At its worst, the labia is cut off and the vulva is sewn together- meant to be broken during intercourse. This can and has led to death, infection, bleeding and even a condition where the woman appears pregnant due to the build up of menstrual blood which cannot escape. Even if you think that a baby boy should have the right to choose circumcision when he is older, how can you compare the 2 situations?

Nobody said that female circumcision is always like male circumcision. Most people seem to forget that female circumcision is an umbrella term that refers to a range of procedures. Some much worse than male circumcision, others much less damaging. This is something most people forget when they talk about the two. How do they compare? Easy. Non-therapeutic genital cutting of an non-consenting minor for the subjective benefit of another person.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Some of you morons need to understand when you read a joke without a smiley for a hint.

Darth Out

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Some of you morons need to understand when you read a joke without a smiley for a hint.

Darth Out

Damn you Darth!

 

[Nicole Friedman]

I would disagree with this. It can be fulfilled at any time and being intact has no meaningful religious impact on a Jewish boy. See No Sacred Cows: A Conversation with Rabbi Asher Lopatin.



A strange sense of beauty. As to the later statement, those men are easy to find if you look; some have posted in this thread. What would you say to him?



That's great, I am glad he had the dignity of choosing that for himself. Other men deserve to make that choice for themselves.



I certainly wouldn't go that far but it's irrelevant to an infant and men outside very specific areas. If we assume the data is true then feel free to present it to an individual man for his consideration.

1. I don't discriminate based on gender. I know some do, and you may feel that's OK, but boys deserve the same dignity and protection that girls enjoy.
2. Female circumcision is done for the same reason as male circumcision, entrenched cultural inertia. Those who practice female circumcision will claim that it's important to their religion and/or culture as well as claim health benefits.
3. Infant males can and have died in western hospitals as a direct result of their circumcision.

Nobody said that female circumcision is always like male circumcision. Most people seem to forget that female circumcision is an umbrella term that refers to a range of procedures. Some much worse than male circumcision, others much less damaging. This is something most people forget when they talk about the two. How do they compare? Easy. Non-therapeutic genital cutting of an non-consenting minor for the subjective benefit of another person.

Circumcised babies do not recall the pain. Circumcised adults do. Unless you show me clear medical evidence that circumcision is medically dangerous, I will defend a parent's right to choose it for their child. And to compare any form of female genital mutilation to male circumcision, even the "mildest" form of it simply is illogical. The "mildest form" of FGM is to snip off part of the clitoris. You cannot compare part of the clitoris to a male's foreskin, period. Finally, I do not see how my agnosticism has anything to do with this. I abhor any practice under the guise of religion that harms other people, particularly children. I do not care what religion you are talking about. However, in this case of male circumcision, I simply do not see the harm. If you disagree, you have the right to not circumcise your child. I however also have the right to choose to do so.

 

[jdp]

Circumcised babies do not recall the pain. Circumcised adults do.

Irrelevant. Circumcision is non-therapeutic genital cutting of an non-consenting minor for the subjective benefit of another person. The adult who chooses it for themselves does so with the knowledge that it won't be too comfortable and accepts that is part of the decision he makes.

Unless you show me clear medical evidence that circumcision is medically dangerous, I will defend a parent's right to choose it for their child.

It's non-therapeutic and there is risk of more damage than expected, even death. That sounds like medically dangerous to me.

And to compare any form of female genital mutilation to male circumcision, even the "mildest" form of it simply is illogical. The "mildest form" of FGM is to snip off part of the clitoris. You cannot compare part of the clitoris to a male's foreskin, period. Finally, I do not see how my agnosticism has anything to do with this.

B.S. There are forms that only remove part of the clitoral hood for instance. Like what is described in this recent article. With regard to female circumcision, with respect, I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about.

I abhor any practice under the guise of religion that harms other people, particularly children. I do not care what religion you are talking about. However, in this case of male circumcision, I simply do not see the harm. If you disagree, you have the right to not circumcise your child. I however also have the right to choose to do so.

What about my right to have not been surgically altered for no rational reason? Why should I as a male enjoy less protection than you?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Circumcised babies do recall the pain, for a while at least. They have stronger reactions to pain than uncircumcised babies show.

 

[Ryokan]

If you want to talk about wrongs, let's talk about female circumcision- that is done to kill sexual pleasure and aside from there being zero medical benefit, can harm or even kill the victim.

Why can't we talk about both? Just because there are worse things in the world, doesn't mean we can't address this. It's like saying we shouldn't discuss poverty in America, because children are starving to death in Africa.

 

[Ryokan]

However, no matter how you feel about male circumcision, I cannot fathom an argument that male circumcision is as horrible as female circumcision.

Good thing no one has made that argument, then.. But just because female circumcision tends to be worse, especially as done in some backwards countries in Africa, it doesn't really give male circumcision any bonus points. It's a red herring at best.

 

[Ryokan]

Circumcised babies do recall the pain, for a while at least. They have stronger reactions to pain than uncircumcised babies show.

And even if they didn't, what sort of argument is it? It's okay to cause pain to babies, because they don't remember it? Would that argument work in any other area than circumcision?

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Irrelevant. Circumcision is non-therapeutic genital cutting of an non-consenting minor for the subjective benefit of another person. The adult who chooses it for themselves does so with the knowledge that it won't be too comfortable and accepts that is part of the decision he makes.



It's non-therapeutic and there is risk of more damage than expected, even death. That sounds like medically dangerous to me.



B.S. There are forms that only remove part of the clitoral hood for instance. Like what is described in this recent article. With regard to female circumcision, with respect, I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about.



What about my right to have not been surgically altered for no rational reason? Why should I as a male enjoy less protection than you?

Wow. " In regards to female circumcision I don't think you have a clue to what you're talking about." I actually have an MA in anthropology from Columbia, have done extensive research on the subject and have talked to FGM survivors. You cannot compare the clitoral hood to a man's foreskin, PERIOD. Ask ANY doctor.
As to your last statement, get over it! Parents have a right to choose what is best for their child, as long as it does not harm them. You say that it harms children- ok, as soon as the medical world agrees with you, it can and should be banned. But that simply is not the case today, so why should you force your opinion on other people? You want to sue your parents for cutting off your foreskin? No one is stopping you:} For the record, as I am trying to have children myself, I talked to my doctor about this- actually quite recently- you know what he said? It's perfectly safe.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And even if they didn't, what sort of argument is it? It's okay to cause pain to babies, because they don't remember it? Would that argument work in any other area than circumcision?

If a person can't remember being raped, does it matter that they were?

 

[Antiquehunter]

@Nicole - your 'defence' of circumcision that it should be the right of an adult to circumcise a child for religious reasons is actually a major issue.

If a religion decided that it was religiously defensible to abuse a child, then there would be a societal debate about the matter. Consider blood transfusions. Some religions have taboos against them. However in many jurisdictions it has been decided that for children, the state or government can override the religious taboo and force the transfusion where deemed medically necessary.

So society has begun to decide that protection of children overrides religious peccadilloes. Personally, I believe that circumcision should be treated in a similar manner.

Some would say that it is abusive to children to indoctrinate them from birth - that there should be no such thing as a 'Jewish' child or a 'Muslim' baby. Dawkins makes an interesting argument on this matter.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

For the record, as I am trying to have children myself, I talked to my doctor about this- actually quite recently- you know what he said? It's perfectly safe.

Nice argument from authority. My father, his twin brother, me and my brother are all circumcised - not due to religious and cultural reasons, but severe phimosis. Actually, I was even circumcised twice.

I can't say I've been greatly harmed by it, though I do remember the pain. But of course, I would rather have my foreskin. The surgery reduces sexual pleasure slightly, as well. If I had a choice, I would love to have kept my foreskin and I would have resented my parents for cutting it off was it not a medical necessity.

At any rate, you are either lying or your physician is lying to you. There is NO SUCH THING as a "perfectly safe" surgical procedure. There's always a non-trivial risk of complications - mainly infections. Ask any of the numerous physicians on this board.