Time to end circumcision?

[Megalodon]

As I said, most government in Europe are secular. What explanation can there be in these countries?

Well, in Portugal,it's not forbidden, but it's definetly not encouraged.

It's a procedure that is normally only done in extreme situations. I suppose that if the parents insist on it, it is done, but the vast majority of parents doesn't ask for it.

The fact that we have a good public health system probably explains why the medical doctors didn't exagerate the pros of circumcision. They can't make an extra buck on it.

I suppose that the fact that it's still legal is due to the presence of a jewish community, were the practice is mandatory. But even that may change in the near future. Some african communities started performing FGM in Portugal, and the Assembly was quick in outlawing the procedure... I don't know if the legislation covers the male circumcision, though.

 

[Christian]

Megalodon wrote:
I suppose that the fact that it's still legal is due to the presence of a jewish community, were the practice is mandatory.

This is another interesting theory.

It seems to me, most here will give any other explanation possible except the most obvious one. Ok, let's throw Occam's razor out the window.

 

[Bentspoon]

Dr. Kellogg

It is hard to believe that all these posts have gone down without the mention of the quack who started it all - and the real reason why circumcision is so prevalent in the United States. (I was skimming so maybe I missed it)

During the 1880s, a few influential men like John Harvey Kellogg, physician and founder of a famous American cereal company, started preaching that boys masturbate because the foreskin rubs on the head of the penis. Until that time, most American men were not circumcised. As a leading anti-masturbation fanatic, Dr. Kellogg believed that boys who were circumcised at birth would be less likely to play with themselves. His influence helped circumcision to become a routine operation in America. Swell guy that he was, Dr. Kellogg also recommended that girls who masturbate have their clitorises burned out with acid.

It is also a known fact that Dr Kellogg never made love to his wife because of his sick perspective on sexual pleasure.

So this is it. this is why. Dr. Kellogg had some great ideas on nutrition (yes it is the corn flake guy) he is a certified known quack for his other strangeness. This is just plain sick; and look at the debate going on about its merits!!! People will make up anything to support it.

So this is why we do it - a sick Victorian mind. The only thing my son's ped/obstetrician could come up with was "it is standard general accepted practice" i.e., "gee everyone else is doing it"

It is as digusting as finding homeopathy products at Rite Aid. I mean we are mutilating babies sexually and think absolutely nothing of it. It is appalling.

By the way, I am not and I have had no trouble from it (50+ yrs). I had one girlfriend say it didn't look natural to her.

I had to laugh and never hesitated to point out Greek statues to her.

Bentpeni er................. spoon

 

[Advocate]

I believe legal protection depends on the circumstances of individuals or groups. Females, in many instances, have more protection than males. Just think of children's custody cases.

Blacks in the US have more legal protection than whites. Illegal immigrants have less protection than residents.

Protection of the law is based on circumstances.

And here lies our disagreement. You are describing things as they are. No one is disputing this. The question is do you think things should be the way they are? For instance, should there be specially protected groups like that? And if so, why? IMHO there would have to be good justification for any such cases before I would accept them as being right.

So, are you willing to argue that there has been no progression in jurisprudence as to compare both moments in history?

Exactly the opposite. I am arguing that there has been progression and there must continue to be such. Any moment in history has its flaws, this happens to be one of ours - one I believe is badly in need of correction.

Yes, I understand completely the reasoning. What I'm saying is that this reasoning is not shared by the legal system in regards to parental rights.

So because things are not a certain way, no one should ever try to change them? Come on. No one is THAT conservative.

It is not a matter of believing or not. As it stands today, most States are governed by the rule of law. The only rights we have are those that the State grants. We might not like to hear that, but it is the truth.

Again, we are arguing definitions. Does the fact that you can't enforce a right mean it does not exist? Do you realize how much this sounds like "the state is always right"?

Now, your conclusion is erroneos, the fact that the State grants rights in no way means I believe in the infallibility of the State. To believe that would be naive.

Explain then exactly how your position differs from that.

The key thing to remember is that most governments have come to a progression where natural rights have been incorporated into the fundamental prescription of law.

Then your idea of natural rights must be vastly different from mine. Many governments don't even recognize the rights of the people under their rule at all. And even Western governments disagree on what rights to recognize.

If someone wants to argue that sooner or later legislator will come to their senses on circumcision, that is fine. But, then, they would have to explain why, at this stage the development of justice and its branches, they have not.

To me, that is a dificult sell.

And people could have said the same thing about slavery in 1800. IMHO it is not the legislators that will come to their senses but their constituents who will demand that they do so. It really sounds to me like you are saying that no one ought to believe differently and even if they do, they should not be able to even try to change things. I sincerely hope I am wrong about that, but that is how you come across.

 

[Ben Shniper]

Islam, and some Christian sects consider male circumcision a requirement.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=7073&dgn=3

So many reasons are given for circumcision, it's impossible to split fact from fiction when deciding whether to circumcize children. Thus it is best left as the parents' decision. Making it "against the law", or "ending the practice" will only discriminate against those parents who want to do it, whether for religious tradition, or for other reasons. I don't considder it barbaric, nor do I think it is entirely without medical benefit. I don't know if there are medical problems that balance out the benefit, and can't testify to the difference with being circumcized or not, when one is circumcized from birth. I don't know if it is important, either, as people will still go to the trouble of having sex either way.

Also, who decides to get themselves circumcized? Ouch! Much better when they are just born, and they only cry for an hour or so and are sore for a week after. So the practical decision is either right away after birth, or not at all. You won't be scarred for life, so I don't considder it important to worry about that. Comparing those who were circumcized later in life to those circumcized at birth is not quite valid.

-Ben

 

[a_unique_person]

Islam, and some Christian sects consider male circumcision a requirement.

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=7073&dgn=3

So many reasons are given for circumcision, it's impossible to split fact from fiction when deciding whether to circumcize children. Thus it is best left as the parents' decision.

Best left up to the owner of the penis, when they can make an informed decisison.

Making it "against the law", or "ending the practice" will only discriminate against those parents who want to do it, whether for religious tradition, or for other reasons. I don't considder it barbaric, nor do I think it is entirely without medical benefit. I don't know if there are medical problems that balance out the benefit, and can't testify to the difference with being circumcized or not, when one is circumcized from birth. I don't know if it is important, either, as people will still go to the trouble of having sex either way.

Also, who decides to get themselves circumcized? Ouch! Much better when they are just born, and they only cry for an hour or so and are sore for a week after. So the practical decision is either right away after birth, or not at all. You won't be scarred for life, so I don't considder it important to worry about that. Comparing those who were circumcized later in life to those circumcized at birth is not quite valid.

-Ben

The idea that babies don't feel pain is a strange one.

 

[Advocate]

So many reasons are given for circumcision, it's impossible to split fact from fiction when deciding whether to circumcize children. Thus it is best left as the parents' decision. Making it "against the law", or "ending the practice" will only discriminate against those parents who want to do it, whether for religious tradition, or for other reasons.

The same reasons could be given for the "circumcision" of female children and that has been banned. While the practice normally used on females is more damaging, male circumcision is no less barbaric. Neither are male infants less valuable or less in need of protection than their sisters. It has been well established that religious freedom does not entitle people to abuse their children and IMHO this is exactly what circumcision of infants is - child abuse, even if it is not yet legally recognized as such.

 

[Christian]

Advocate wrote:
And here lies our disagreement. You are describing things as they are. No one is disputing this. The question is do you think things should be the way they are?

Tha would depend on the protection and on the circumstance of course.

For instance, should there be specially protected groups like that? And if so, why?IMHO there would have to be good justification for any such cases before I would accept them as being right.


Women protected as guardians, yes. Affirmative action, yes. Status of illegal immigrants as not protected of some rights, yes. Forgive me if I don't go into to the why's, each of these merit a thread of their own, you understand.

Exactly the opposite. I am arguing that there has been progression and there must continue to be such. Any moment in history has its flaws, this happens to be one of ours - one I believe is badly in need of correction.

That's not what I mean. What I mean is that the progression (and you do accept that there has been one) has gone beyond the point of where you place it.

You are saying that all the judicial systems in the world have overlooked, to this day, a clearly barbaric act done to a male child and disregarded his right in favor of the parent's.

That interpretation seems unacceptable to me. The advancement of justice today makes this *flaw* in *all* of the system highly unlikely.

What most likely has occurred is that, after debate on it, it has been concluded that it is not barbaric and that the parents right to choose is above the child's. This is the most obvious scenario IMHO.

So because things are not a certain way, no one should ever try to change them? Come on. No one is THAT conservative.

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that this issue, I'm sure has been argued ad nassium and the concensus is the same. It cannot be illegal.

Again, we are arguing definitions. Does the fact that you can't enforce a right mean it does not exist?

That's exactly what it means. I know what you are saying, the confusion here is that you are making a phylosophical distinction. On that arena, yes, a right is a right even if the State does not recognizes it. But this distincition, remember, is only conceptual. In real practical terms, the only rights you have are those recognized by the State. This is a strictly legal distinction.

Do you realize how much this sounds like "the state is always right"?

No I don't because it does not. It is not the same to say the State is the only grantor of rights as to say the State is always right. That there is homophony is only coincidental.

I will even be more clear on this. A State can perfectly grant a right that is *totally unfair*, or as you put it, can be wrong to grant a right. Some would say women's right to choose an abortion is unjust, for example.

Explain then exactly how your position differs from that.

I hope I did.

Then your idea of natural rights must be vastly different from mine. Many governments don't even recognize the rights of the people under their rule at all. And even Western governments disagree on what rights to recognize.

I don't know what natural rights you refer to but there is a concensus on the universal rights of human set forth by a UN proclamation (these are based on the phylosophical natural rights as you have mentioned). Most constitutions (specifically of Western States) have incorporated this right as fundamental tenents.

I assure you there is little disagreement in these rights. So, circumcision definately falls under those considerations and no government has taken the position set forth by many posters here.

It seems, and this is only my appreciation, that it is a little presumtious to think that no State in the world has been enlightened as some poster have been here.

 

[Megalodon]

It seems to me, most here will give any other explanation possible except the most obvious one. Ok, let's throw Occam's razor out the window.

I guess you didn't bother to understand my post

The practice of circumsicion is almost inexistent in Portugal, as far as I know. MD's don't recommend it to the parents, because there are no medical advantages, and guess what, they can't charge for it either.
So, it's basically restricted to very small pockets of the population that require it as a tradition. And even the "traditional" circumcision may be outlawed in the near future, leaving only the medical procedure for when it's really necessary (almost never)

And yes, that's my point, let's throw the razor out the window

 

[blackpriester]

All excellent points below, Advocate.
Just something I needed to say .

Do you believe that females are more worthy of legal protection than males?



And at one time there were no laws against slavery anywhere in the world. Did that make it right?



There is a serious difference here. If a child is injured, the choice of treatment cannot be put off until the child is old enough to make his own decision. Same for school and environment. With circumcision this is not the case. The child can and should be allowed to choose for himself when he is an adult.



That depends on whether you believe in natural rights or that all rights are granted by the government. If the latter, then you are right, but then you basically are assuming the government is always right and the concept of a government violating anyone's rights is meaningless.

 

[blackpriester]

I don't know if it is important, either, as people will still go to the trouble of having sex either way.

Also, who decides to get themselves circumcized? Ouch! Much better when they are just born, and they only cry for an hour or so and are sore for a week after. So the practical decision is either right away after birth, or not at all. You won't be scarred for life, so I don't considder it important to worry about that. Comparing those who were circumcized later in life to those circumcized at birth is not quite valid.

-Ben

Ben, according to your logic , girls should be deflowered and sexually abused at birth. I mean, after all, they're gonna lose that pesky hymen anyway and it will be painful later in life - so better to do it when they're babies and can only cry for an hour and then go to sleep, right? Obviously they won't remember anything and will not be scarred for life - and for you, in their baby state, they don't seem to have any rights to their body anyway, ain't it so?

Jesus... this logic is inhumane!

 

[GovtSlave]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've dated both circ'd and uncirc'd men. Though my current SO is circumsized, and I'd never consider it a huge issue, I definitely enjoyed relations more with the uncirc'd man. Absolutely no contest in that department.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

really? interesting. What made the difference for you?

Well, Victor, hard to explain, but it felt more comfortable. Perhaps I would not have noticed a difference had I been being good and using protection. But I wasn't, whatever, older and wiser now... It felt softer, if that's any way to explain it.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

GovtSlave

Well, Victor, hard to explain, but it felt more comfortable. [...] It felt softer, if that's any way to explain it.

Ah, that's what I was expecting; i just wanted to check.

Intercourse with uncircumcized men is supposed to be gentler for the women (due to the mechanics of foreskin), which is why womem who tried both tend to prefer uncircumcized partners sexually.

 

[Christian]

I guess you didn't bother to understand my post

I don't know what I missed, but it is possible that I'm missing what your point is.

The practice of circumsicion is almost inexistent in Portugal, as far as I know. MD's don't recommend it to the parents, because there are no medical advantages, and guess what, they can't charge for it either.

I understand circumcision is not practiced on Portugal and it is not covered by medical insurance. (I believe this is also true in the US)

So, it's basically restricted to very small pockets of the population that require it as a tradition. And even the "traditional" circumcision may be outlawed in the near future, leaving only the medical procedure for when it's really necessary (almost never)

And I understand you are saying circumcision is legal in Portugal to accomodate those that require it for tradition.

And you add that it may become illegal in the near future, so even those few will have to abandon it.

And yes, that's my point, let's throw the razor out the window

And this is an excellent pun.

So, my comment again is that, even though a marginal part of the population adheres to the practice, it is a legal practice in Portugal. I ask why, you answer to respect those few.

Now, listen to your reasoning, it is legal, to respect those few who do practice this barbaric act, that one else adheres to.

I'm sorry, it is difficult for me to accept that explanation. It seems highly unlikely.

But, again, I might be missunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[Ben Shniper]

Ben, according to your logic , girls should be deflowered and sexually abused at birth. I mean, after all, they're gonna lose that pesky hymen anyway and it will be painful later in life - so better to do it when they're babies and can only cry for an hour and then go to sleep, right? Obviously they won't remember anything and will not be scarred for life - and for you, in their baby state, they don't seem to have any rights to their body anyway, ain't it so?

Jesus... this logic is inhumane!

You are the one comparing circumcision to rape. I find your lack of logic to be inhumane. Having gone through the process myself, and my son as well, I have no regrets, and neither did hundreds of generations of my family.

Regardless, the question of whether the practice should be "ended" seems splendidly anti-Jewish (and anti-Islamic) to me. What other "barbaric" practices should we end? Passover Communion? (PETA recently called for the ending of using lamb shanks in Passover/Communion)? Baptisms? Bar Mitzvahs?

Strange argument that a common medically accepted and widely practiced procedure is somehow so very "old" and "barbaric" it has lost legitimacy. How about we end appendectomies? Many people get this "unnecessary" procedure to prevent future illness, if they have a family history of needing it.

I'm sure people who oppose circumcision will deny doing so because they dislike the religions that keeps it a modern world practice. But sure seems like many of those same people want Israel destroyed, want to ban the Ten Commandments from any puplic place, and feel strongly that Jewish influence was the main culpret behind America's recent wars. Strange coincidence, hey AUP?

Anyway, as for children having "rights" to "their bodies" when babies, how do you know they want to have that umbilical cord cut? Or that baby baptism? Or that choice of religion or culture or even parents they get forced into? The argument makes as much sense to me as wet toast, because if you don't have circumcision performed as a child when a baby, you can't have it done properly afterwards without scarring. If you don't like it, don't do it to your child.

-Ben

 

[Christian]

Ben:

Your angle on it is quite interesting too. I have three girls, all had their ears pierced at birth. This is part of Latin American culture 99.9999% of baby girls get it done, all women here in El Salvador wear earings regularly.

I would have been appalled at the notion that someone from another culture (etnocentrism) would tell me our cultural practices are objectionable.

It is part of our identity, of who we are.

Great post Ben.

 

[Kodiak]

Bzzzzzzzzz! Wrong answer.

I watched my newborn son's circumcision. He was anesthetized.

While the doctor was performing the task, we chatted. She told me she has had to perform circumcisions on adult males because they kept getting repeated urethral infections.

This is the only reason I'm in favor of them. Ease of cleaning and a less inviting area for bacteria seems like a sufficient selling point for me...

(I was "cut" as an infant, BTW, even though I was raised by two devout Catholics...go figure)

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Kodiak

This is the only reason I'm in favor of them. Ease of cleaning and a less inviting area for bacteria seems like a sufficient selling point for me...

Cleaning an uncircumcized penis is ridiculously easy -- extra 2 seconds in the shower. Furthermore, Luke's point is utterly bollocks -- the doctors who told him that she performs circumcisions for reasons of repeated UTIs, performs them on those who get repeated UTIs! That's like a psychiatrist proclaiming that gays tend to mental illness because the gays who seek psychiatric help tend to mental illness. This sort of "reasoning" is nothing but an excuse, as it certainly holds no weight under scrutiny.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ben Shniper

Regardless, the question of whether the practice should be "ended" seems splendidly anti-Jewish (and anti-Islamic) to me.

So I, a jew, am anti-jewish. Great.

IMNSHO, circumcision is a practice of a sort similar to chinese foot-binding or sudanese (i think it's sudanese) neck-ring stacking; or FGM.

What other "barbaric" practices should we end?

Well, the ones I listed above would be a good start...

How about we go the other way around: Let's allow FGMs if the parents' culture demands it! How about that, Ben? Willing to do it? let's permit foot-binding, too; it's a cultural practice, it would be ethnocentric to forbid it, right?

Strange argument that a common medically accepted and widely practiced procedure

it's both of those things only in USA, outside of countries where it's done for religious reasons. Islam BTW does not demand that circumcision be done in infancy -- circumcision is sometimes undertaken at a much older age, even adulthood.

Remember, it's only involuntary infant circumcision that is a problem, not circumcision per se.

is somehow so very "old" and "barbaric" it has lost legitimacy. How about we end appendectomies? Many people get this "unnecessary" procedure to prevent future illness, if they have a family history of needing it.

First of all, this is the first time I hear about appendectomies being routinely done based on family medical history alone; references? Secondly, if true, there is a compelling medical reason here -- high hereditary risk of infection. Again, in thefew cases where infant circumcision is medically indicated, it's not a problem -- the problem arises when it's done routinely based on nothing more than the parents' whim.

I'm sure people who oppose circumcision will deny doing so because they dislike the religions that keeps it a modern world practice.

I certainly will deny having enmity of judaism. As you should well know by now, I am jewish abd very much pro-israel and anti-anti-semitism.

But sure seems like many of those same people want Israel destroyed, want to ban the Ten Commandments from any puplic place, and feel strongly that Jewish influence was the main culpret behind America's recent wars. Strange coincidence, hey AUP?

There are plenty of people who don't feel enmity to israel or jews, who still think it's a barbaric and inhumane practice.

Anyway, as for children having "rights" to "their bodies" when babies, how do you know they want to have that umbilical cord cut?

it's a medical necessity; and it doesn't inflict any permanent damage upon the child, unlike circumcision.

Or that baby baptism?

No damage.

Or that choice of religion or culture or even parents they get forced into?

the child can choose a different religion; he cannot choose to get un-circumcized.

The argument makes as much sense to me as wet toast, because if you don't have circumcision performed as a child when a baby, you can't have it done properly afterwards without scarring.

Feet bound in childhood function much better than feet compressed in adulthood; so let's bind the girls' feet! And a severed or de-hooded clitoris will heal much better in infancy, so let's allow FGM too!

If you don't like it, don't do it to your child.

i didn't -- but neither will I simply stand back and keep silent, just as I wouldn't about Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of life-saving blood transfusion for a child, or FGM. Sure, circumcision isn't as bad -- but that fact is balanced by its widespread use.

 

[Christian]

Victor wrote:
...of a sort similar to chinese foot-binding or sudanese (i think it's sudanese) neck-ring stacking; or FGM...Feet bound in childhood function much better than feet compressed in adulthood; so let's bind the girls' feet! And a severed or de-hooded clitoris will heal much better in infancy, so let's allow FGM too!

In those cases cited you have judicial precedent to back you up. Not only do you have it, but it is almost universal.

Why is it that as barbaric as you say it is, no judicial system in the world equates circumcision to the practices you have cited?

didn't -- but neither will I simply stand back and keep silent, just as I wouldn't about Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal of life-saving blood transfusion for a child, or FGM. Sure, circumcision isn't as bad -- but that fact is balanced by its widespread use.

Wait a second Victor, circumcision is barbaric but it isn't that bad?

Victor, please, acknowledge at least I have a point here. Just once please