Posted by
Ed
14 yrs ago
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.html
Please support our advertisers:
Please support our advertisers:
I'm with cookie09. I find the practice pointless and more than a little barbaric.
Yes, it may decrease HIV transmission rates but in developed countries one would hope that people use condoms instead of trusting in the circumcision.
Please support our advertisers:
I will add that it seems an odd thing for a city to legislate.
I think many women are for it because there is a perception that it is more hygienic (it is not).
Please support our advertisers:
What do women think of think of circumcised vs uncircumcised from a sexual or aesthetic point of view?
Please support our advertisers:
@madtown
You abort fetuses, not babies. And if you think abortion is wrong, how does that justify circumcision?
Please support our advertisers:
@Abhaya, I don't think it is possible to generalize. Some women like one or the other, others are indifferent.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
14 yrs ago
Interesting comparison to female genitalia mutilation as practiced in Africa...
Please support our advertisers:
I don't care what it is. . . Government shout not regulate morality.
I don't care what the issue, government should not be permitted to regulate such issues.
Please support our advertisers:
I agree that the government should not regulate morality. However circumcision is not a moral issue. It is a religious, cultural and medical one.
Please support our advertisers:
And what about respecting ones religion is not morality?
Please support our advertisers:
@axptguy38
sorry to be precise: circumcision is a pure medical issue. it's an unnecessary medical intervention that carries substantial risk and involves pain with no medically proven benefit. to me it's on the same level of doing a botox to a kid.
i personally think that existing laws cover such mutilation pretty well if people were willing to apply the law strictly. unfortunately all kind of excuses are made up against applying the law
Please support our advertisers:
Of course the goverment should regulate morality. Otherwise what are laws against murder, theft, rape and so on for?
Please support our advertisers:
AiZhongWen: Whenever the government regulates morality, it crosses the line.
Many of us, including my "American, gun loving, God hating" self, can agree that murder, theft, and rape, are acceptable regulations.
It seems to me that the argument centers around the age-old issue of "the individual freedom" vs "the societal benefit".
Banning them prevents a sect of religious freedoms, but to what benefit? I see it as nothing more than a "liberal" agenda to circumvent peoples religious beliefs. San Francisco and Berkeley are abound with the "liberal" agenda and forcing it on others. . . This is an issue I take.
Man should be free to protect his family and decide what is best for their family. This includes government encroachment by the majority.
As a gun-right proponent in America, I can tell you that the idea that "banning in a locality, something that is protected by the American Bill of Rights", is a fight that we will fight to the death. It is the same "logic" that they use to ban gun-ranges and other reasonable access to arms for the use of "commoner self-defense".
Please support our advertisers:
"Of course the goverment should regulate morality. Otherwise what are laws against murder, theft, rape and so on for?2
It can be argued that those are not about morality. For example murder and rape are crimes against the sanctity of another person's body and life, while theft is a crime involving property. You don't really need to involve morality.
Please support our advertisers:
>> It can be argued that those are not about morality. For example murder and rape are crimes against the sanctity of another person's body and life, while theft is a crime involving property.
So that basically puts them in exactly the same category as circumcision then.
Please support our advertisers:
Yes, you could argue that. My point was that morality was not a necessary component, unless you want to argue that sanctity of the body and life are moral imperatives. Which I suppose they are.
This could rapidly degenerate into philosophy. ;)
Please support our advertisers:
@axptguy38 if the guy in your name means your a guy, unless you have two penises (one clipped the other not) than how would you know? I am just curious to see if women had any views on it other than a religious or medical one. From a male point of view I don't think I'd find female circumcision (as it is practiced in Indonesia/ Malaysia where they just nip the tip of the clit or remove the clitoral hood) attractive but having never seen one, who knows I just might. FGM on the other hand is horrible, cannot be compared to removing the foreskin. It is also common a Latino practice for girls to get their ears pierced while still infants, which would be a more egregious form of body alteration as it is done on the face, so I reckon they’ll target that next. I was circumcised as an infant and if I could reverse the procedure I wouldn’t since it would it feel like I was wearing someone else’s. If I had a son I probably wouldn’t circumcise him, but I do think this is truly a case of a government being far too invasive into a parents rights to make minor decisions for their children. Like countries that outlaw spanking your kid, there are a whole lot more insidious ways to screw your kids up mentally and destroy their self esteem, without the occasional whack on the bottom from the business end of a feather duster. I was spanked a few times (painfully), but looking back I’ll have to say I probably deserved it. I guess on one benefit of have an intact foreskin is being able to tie a string around the (like a frankfurter) end of it, and you have a built in condom.
Please support our advertisers:
"if the guy in your name means your a guy, unless you have two penises (one clipped the other not) than how would you know?"
You mean what women like? I have asked and read. Among other things there was a circumcision discussion a while ago on this board.
I don't understand the "built-in condom" thing. What exactly do you mean?
Ear piercing is hardly the same. If you take the earrings out of a child, the holes will close up. It also doesn't affect the person as much as circumcision. If you take the earrings out of an adult, all you have is two barely noticeable holes.
As for spanking, I am in principle against the government legislating such things but these laws protect children whose parents go well beyond a smack on the bottom. It's not about otherwise good parents who spank very occasionally. It is about parents who regularly and brutally abuse their kids. In any case spanking your child does no good whatsoever in the long run.
Please support our advertisers:
I read with slight amusement. Wondering how many commenting their ideals here have been placed in the situation where they have had to make this decision. The decision of "circumcision"? I have and it is a 'big call" as a parent I feel and one that should not be taken lightly.
Please support our advertisers:
@Abhaya "FGM on the other hand is horrible, cannot be compared to removing the foreskin."
This is a ludicrous statement. In both cases upwards of 75% of the genital nerve endings are removed. Any mutilation (and circumcision is indeed mutilation) of the genital area should be abhorred, unless the individual being mutilated makes that decision for themselves independent of societal norms or religion. In which case you can't circumcise a child because they cannot make the decision for themselves.
As stated in a previous thread on this topic, the only reason for a child to be circumcised at birth is if it is a medical necessity. In this day and age, what with sanitation and ubiquitous uptake of personal hygiene practices, circumcision should be seen for what it is: barbaric.
As far as the religious aspect of it goes, well, some peeps should definitely check out the "God and Logic" thread over in Think!. If it's causing harm, and it is a pretty harmful practice (seriously, 75% of nerve endings!!!!), then it should go - no ifs, buts, or ands.
Well played SF, well played indeed.
Please support our advertisers:
So, by the argument that it is personal decision, isn't choosing a religion a personal decision?
Can the government then pass a law banning parents from taking their children to church? And, for that matter, should a pregnant teenager inform their parents and get their permission to get an abortion? After all, it is a personal decision that should not involve the parents.
I think that killing cows to make beef is barbaric, but I also don't think the government should be allowed to ban the practice on that fact. There comes a point when people need to stop forcing their views onto other people!
Please support our advertisers:
I'd be all for the government banning parents from taking their children to church, indoctrination and brainwashing is indoctrination and brainwashing, anyway you look at it; frequent Think! readers will know my position on that issue exceedingly well.
If a pregnant teenager wants an abortion, she probably knows her ability to take care of any offspring - if that's what she wants, i'm all for it. You're absolutely right, it's a personal choice that she will have made (just like having sex in the first place). Then again, if "16 and pregnant" has taught us anything it's that pregnant teenagers probably aren't going to be the best mothers in the first place.
That's why circumcision should be taken off the table until a male can make that independent choice. Any of the men reading this ever caught their nuts in their zipper? "Ouch" doesn't even begin to describe the pain, and any boy who's had his fully formed penis for a few years will know this.
I guarantee you that, for non-medically necessary circumcisions, if you waited until the child was 16, and then asked him if he wanted to snip some of his junk off the unanimous answer would be (in youthful parlance); "you what? GTFO dude... homeboy be tripping."
Please support our advertisers:
"Can the government then pass a law banning parents from taking their children to church? "
In all seriousness, I'd vote for such a law.
"And, for that matter, should a pregnant teenager inform their parents and get their permission to get an abortion? After all, it is a personal decision that should not involve the parents. "
Grey area. Very tricky to decide either way, at least for me.
Please support our advertisers:
If I wanted to see an anteater I'd go to the zoo. Just one girls opinion.
Please support our advertisers:
I don't get it. An anteater would be with or without foreskin?
Please support our advertisers:
With... although once fully erect, with the foreskin rolled back, i don't know how she'd be able to tell the difference.
Please support our advertisers:
A friend of mine got to hold an anteater once at the zoo, and it stuck his tongue up his nostril, eeewww.
Please support our advertisers:
i can see how the ability to stick to stick your tongue up your nose could be appealing to some!
Please support our advertisers:
Although I am anti-religion, I am all for a parents right to raise their children without interference from the government.
When you start on the slippery slope of allowing the government to ban one thing because it is a "personal choice" then what else can they ban? The government, whenever possible, needs to be the protector of individuals rights, not the enforcer of the majority will.
Please support our advertisers:
I agree with you UStoHKExpat. However in this case one could argue the government should be defending the right of the child not to have an unnecessary medical procedure without the ability to consent.
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown, how is removing approximately 75% of the penile nerve endings not harmful?! Even ignoring the risk of serious complications, and long term mutilation of the penis (which does happen: necrosis of the penis, impotence, fistulas, Meatal stenosis, etc are all negative outcomes of circumcision which occur at statistically significant levels), the simple reduction of that many nerve endings cannot be said to be "good."
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
14 yrs ago
Any surgery brings with it risks... you can die having a tooth pulled.. there can be complications from the removal of a hang nail...
Dangers aside... what about the pain involved... is it ethical to inflict pain on an infant?
I've heard that having the recovery from having the skin on the end of your penis sliced off by a razor sharp scalpel is extremely painful...
But of course only mature males would be able to tell you that...
Because infant males can't talk...
Please support our advertisers:
Like i said in one of my previous posts, any adult male who's accidentally caught his genitals in their zipper, or had their nuts twist in an untoward fashion, or who's been hit in the sack will be able to tell you exactly how painful any unsolicited actions towards the nether regions can be.
Why then snip off the foreskin if you know how sore simply getting hit in the sack is? why not snip off your finger tips instead? in terms of pain, you'll be on par with circumcision - the nerves are about equal in your finger tips and foreskin.
@madtown, between 2.5 - 11% of all circumcisions see negative outcomes from the procedure (depending on which study you look at, and what medical conditions the researchers were studying - much like this thread, the medical community is divided). Have a look at Meatal stenosis which is a narrowing of the urethra with a massively high incidence rate among circumcised men over non-circumcised. In fact, a quick google will give you a huge list of studies (Science, Science Daily, other respected peer-reviewed journals) pointing to the incredible long-lasting harm of the practice.
Let males 16 years of age, or older, make their own decision... your answer will most likely be "no."
Please support our advertisers:
They're not flat out banning circumcision, only circumcision for infants where the act is not medically necessary... that's the right move.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
14 yrs ago
Since there would appear to be no definite benefits to hacking off bits of infants penises then perhaps the govt sees it as child abuse?
Let's say I was from Bullagongstan... and I emigrated to California... my lovely wife Mergokaly gives birth to a hairy young girl... where i come from its a tradition to cut off the little toe for the first born and put it in a pickle jar... because we think a woman looks better without a small toe... and also we then worship the cult of the first born's toe (WCFB for short).
see how much better 4 toes look!!! http://slshopaholic.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/4toes.jpg?w=400&h=399
Would the govt of California allow that?
Would a doctor agree to cut the toe off?
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown, now we're getting into semantics.
In both cases the individual in question is losing a body part without their consent. This is wrong.
And you're actually wrong about the toe - the small toe (pinkie toe) is actually no longer necessary for humans, it's an evolutionary throwback. we would function perfectly well without a small toe, as long as we had the big toe intact to correct our balance. Individuals missing a pinkie toe would suffer no loss of function or discomfort, aside from the fact that they're missing a body part - just like circumcised men. It's a fair analogy if you know anything about human physiology.
Where are you getting "a lot are even grateful for it." from? Do we have peer researched studies on circumcision gratefulness? can you link to those?
A lot of women who had their feet bound in China were grateful for it, as it presented a sign of high class and offered them the opportunity to move up the social ladder. And they didn't even lose a body part! doesn't mean that it was right...
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
14 yrs ago
madtown... how about if a villain captured you and was holding you for ransom... he wants to send a body part to your mama to prove he's serious... but he's a reasonable villain and he gives you the choice:
a) cut off your foreskin or b) cut off your little toe...
Not much of a choice is it. But at least the villain gives you a choice.
My position on this topic is that we should not be inflicting needless pain on infants. It should be their decision when they turn 16 to have their foreskin removed.
I believe the ban makes sense on an ethical basis and on a human rights basis.
Please support our advertisers:
"One is allowing government to ban a practice that has been going on for 1000s of years and has a religious basis to some people."
Cannabis?
There are laws concerning the welfare of children already on the books. Should the government not have some kind of influence over how fit a crack head parent is, or whether something is going to be of risk to the child? The precedent is already set for that type of interference. Now we're just arguing over the specifics.
They may not have complained about it, but have you asked, or read a study/survey asking a large group of men about their penile satisfaction re circumcision? It's an assumption, the norm for which is based off puritanical religious ideals from the 1700's.
And you do realize that recovery from the surgery, no matter what the medical technique or 21st century anesthesia in use may be, is going to be extremely painful, right?
Please support our advertisers:
i dont' think that just because something has been done for 1000's of years that it necessarily means that it can't be changed. as society learns and develops it begins to question previously accepted wisdom/old wives' tales.
as for the religious argument, why does your god put the foreskin there and then expect it to be removed shortly after birth? an omiscient, omnipotent god would surely not have created the foreskin in the first place.
medically there may be justification for any surgical procedure at any time, but as science and understanding develops the justification may reduce or even disappear.
i think it's sad that governments even need to intervene as it shows that we as humans tend to just follow the pack and do something because it's always been done, without rationally questioning the need.
Please support our advertisers:
madtown, i agree about the lack of medical evidence being relevant; but from the reverse point of view. cutting off something that you were born with should only be considered if medical evidence says it is necessary. we shouldn't carry on with any form of genital mutilation simply because medical evidence has not been unearthed yet to say it is wrong.
doctors should be busy repairing damage to harmed bodies and not cutting off pieces of skin for religious or traditional reasons.
Please support our advertisers:
madtown, i agree about the lack of medical evidence being relevant; but from the reverse point of view. cutting off something that you were born with should only be considered if medical evidence says it is necessary. we shouldn't carry on with any form of genital mutilation simply because medical evidence has not been unearthed yet to say it is wrong.
doctors should be busy repairing damage to harmed bodies and not cutting off pieces of skin for religious or traditional reasons.
Please support our advertisers:
Liposuction and cosmetic surgeries are different because the patient is an adult and can give consent.
Please support our advertisers:
Fair enough madtown. I agree doctors should not be told what to do as you say.
We'll have to disagree on the harm. I think circumcision should be considered harmful.
Please support our advertisers:
Prior to having my son I was shown around a private hospital on the Peak. I saw a 'baby' shaped board on the counter and asked what it was for. I was told is was for circumcisions. All the males in my immediate family have been circumcised but one look at that board and the thought of my precious newborn baby boy being strapped to it whilst a doctor came at him with a scalpel completely put me off. I am a single mum and have taught my son good bodily hygiene and he is a happy, healthy intact boy.
Please support our advertisers:
You say that no circumcized men are complaining, but the real reason is that noone wants to admit that their tackle is damaged goods. However, it's clear that circumcized men have an inferiority complex, otherwise why is it basically the countries with majority circumcized populations are involved in most of the wars in the world?
Please support our advertisers:
I am not pro circumcision unless it is on medical grounds, but to say that circumcised men are damaged, insecure, warmongers shows the contributor has a complex.
Please support our advertisers:
Madtown, the medical community has been fairly vocal about the issue: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/27/us-dutch-circumcision-idUSTRE64Q52H20100527
If it was not harmful in the slightest why would the Royal Dutch Medical Association become the first organization of its kind to officially declare that the procedure is not only medically unnecessary but also an abuse of the rights of the child? The group stopped short of advocating a legal ban for fear that it would drive circumcision underground, but the hope is that a concerted effort by doctors to discourage parents from circumcising their babies could wipe out the practice entirely.
Medical professionals...
And if so many circumcised men are happy with the practice why do you have massive communities like this one (http://www.restoringforeskin.org/) actively seeking to restore that which they lost? And this ties into the fact that circumcision is on the decline around the world, nowhere more so than in the USA:
In 2008, about 56 percent of newborns in the U.S. were circumcised, compared to approximately 85 percent in 1965. However, some of this may be related to changing demographics -- 42 percent of Mexican Americans are circumcised compared to 88 percent of non-Hispanic white men... If the practice were all that awesome, wouldn't we see the numbers rising?
Its a barbarous practice which should not be forced on anyone.
Please support our advertisers:
mayo
14 yrs ago
So madtown what if I think my newborn baby's face is little less than perfect should I be able to get plastic surgery done on the infant. We could smear some anesthetic cream on and reshape eyelids, it would hurt but baby won't remember the pain and probably won't complain as adult either, may even prefer the surgically reshaped eyelids. As for harm I am sure eyelid surgery doesn't carry anymore risk than circumcision. Those risks being bleeding, pain from the procedure, infection, deformity due to poor surgical procedures.
Please support our advertisers:
I am a Filipino and a Roman Catholic. Filipino boys usually gets circumcised before they reach 13 yo,usually 10 - 12..Even though boys know its painful, they are still willing to undergo the procedure,maybe out of peer pressure or some other reason.It's actually their choice and nobody forces them to do so. In my case, I did it(10 y.o.) because in our culture,it's so embarassing for a guy to be uncircumcised. So, u can have urself intact but u have to bear the ridicule,insults and jokes thrown at you. I dont really see it as a religious practice or whatever. There was an incident when we were with Thai friends and they were laughing at us coz we are all circumcised. They think its funny or maybe weird,coz thats thats not the way it is in their culture. But people nowadays are more open minded about it. Whether a guy is circumcised or not, people really dont care so much about it depending on their practice or their beliefs.But I strongly disgree to the practice of circumcision in babies..Let them decide for themselves when they grow up.
Please support our advertisers:
madtown, sorry for the late reply. i was recovering from aizhongwen's revelation that all wars are caused/fought by uncircumcised men. i now know his identity; he won the gold medal at the beijing olympics in the 'jumping to ridiculous conclusions event'!
the harm comes in amputating a perfectly normal piece of the human anatomy for no medical reason ( i managed to avoid the use of genital mutilation as i agree it was a tad dramatic). the hippocratic oath goes along the lines of 'first do no harm', i think that's reasonably accurate but open to correction.
agree with cara that it should be up to the doctor and patient (the child) and saddened that peer pressure on the philippines forces children to agree to it.
Please support our advertisers:
mrcynic, firstly it wasn't a serious comment, and secondly, you clearly didn't understand it anyway. For those who did understand, you can't deny that there's a correlation.
Please support our advertisers:
Ed
14 yrs ago
Judge strikes circumcision ban from San Francisco ballot: Proponents argued widespread practice is not a medical procedure
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43930656/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/
Please support our advertisers:
< Back to main category
You must be logged in to be able to reply.
Login now
Copy Link
Facebook
Gmail
Mail