Circumcision

[selfinflikted]

True, but most of the people here complaining about circumcison do so because they don't think religious beliefs are valid.

Regardless of any religious belief being "valid", the belief itself isn't a valid reason for circumcision. There's a subtle difference between what you said, and what we're saying.

 

[Rebekka]

I have noticed, I think, that all but ONE poster in this thread who gives a dissenting opinion on circumcision are males. All the ladies seem to be saying "So what, it's not like they chopped off your whole member or something. Life goes on."

I find this interesting.

I'm against infant circumcision and I'm female.

 

[Aradia]

Wouldn't you, if someone threatened to chop bits of it off without your permission?

You should re-read the posts I've made in this thread before asking me that.

 

[OGM]

Any pleasure a woman may experience is secondary and of no import to the male, who derives his entire identity through his genitals.

If a woman has such a partner she should find another one that shares her viewpoints.

That's why men have vasectomies at half the rate women have tubals in spite of the fact that a tubal is way more invasive.

If a woman does not want to conceive it is her right to have a tubal, abstain or have partners that use condoms or have vasectomies.

It's why men fight tooth and nail to prevent any law that would require sex predators from being castrated.

How many people on convicted rapist and murders have been exonerated in the past 10 years because of mistakes and bad evidence? Now you want to have the same legal systems remove body parts?

It's why men usually have fewer problems with abortion since it doesn't involve their precious organ.

Men don’t become pregnant…I am sure fewer women are concerned about prostate health as well.

In short, no sharp objects should be allowed anywhere near a man's holy and sacred member. Yada, yada, yada.

About 500,000 vasectomies are performed in the United States every year. It is one of the most popular operations there is. Veritas; sharp instruments are used.

 

[Aradia]

Nope. It's because cutting pieces of another's body without their consent is fundamentally wrong.

Why?

 

[selfinflikted]

Ok, I can go with that.

Cool.

Says who? You? Presumably, they do not believe it's barbaric. So how do we know which opinion is "correct"? Have you read any sociological/anthropological studies on these barbaric rites of passage?

No, I'm not well-read on this subject in general. But I just think that circumcision isn't such a pressing issue that it can't wait until consent can be given. Can you give me a reason why the procedure HAS to be done before said consent can be given?

Then it seems to be a pretty arbitrary decision. Seeing as how this is an Ethics forum -- how do we determine whether a "barbaric" act is moral or immoral? How do we determine whether pushing our cultural values on another culture is moral or immoral? =D (Yay philosophy!)

I draw the line when irreversible modifications to ones body are forced upon them without consent.

 

[yasic]

True, but most of the people here complaining about circumcison do so because they don't think religious beliefs are valid.

On what basis do you make that argument? What makes you think we oppose it for the religious reasons and not because it is an un-necessary barbaric ritual that hurts millions of newborns? Isn't that enough of a reason?

Left to their own devices neither a sperm or egg will become a new life. Only when they get together, when fertillization occurs, does new life start. But again, that's a different topic.

Gah, damn you previous post where I promised not to comment further

 

[selfinflikted]

I'm against infant circumcision and I'm female.

Somehow, I knew you would be, Rebekka.

 

[OGM]

I'm against infant circumcision and I'm female.

You are awesome. Most women I know in all the industrial contries I have been too DONT circumcise their children. Circumcision is exceedly rare in these nations.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

On what basis do you make that argument? What makes you think we oppose it for the religious reasons and not because it is an un-necessary barbaric ritual that hurts millions of newborns? Isn't that enough of a reason?

Firstly, the several users who've written something along the lines of "I don't support circumcison for religious reasons, but I support it for medical reasons." (Lots of comments here, forgive me if I don't dig them up).
Secondly others users, including myself, pointing out that circumcisions don't qualify as 'barbaric mutilations'.

Gah, damn you previous post where I promised not to comment further

That's the internet. I planned to stop posting about 10 pages ago.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I'm against circumcision and luckily so is my fiance.

 

[selfinflikted]

Secondly others users, including myself, pointing out that circumcisions don't qualify as 'barbaric mutilations'.

bar·bar·ic

adj \bär-ˈber-ik, -ˈba-rik\
Definition of BARBARIC

1
a : of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians b : possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization

2
a : marked by a lack of restraint : wild b : having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality

AND...


mu·ti·late

verb \ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt\
mu·ti·lat·edmu·ti·lat·ing
Definition of MUTILATE

transitive verb
1
: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>

2
: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple


The terms fit quite nicely, I think.

(Both from Merriam-Webster)

 

[yasic]

Firstly, the several users who've written something along the lines of "I don't support circumcison for religious reasons, but I support it for medical reasons." (Lots of comments here, forgive me if I don't dig them up).

I believe the comments were "I support circumcision in the few cases where it is medically necessary" as in for the times when a baby is born with a deformed foreskin and faces serious medical issues if he does not get a circumcision.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall anyone in this thready stating that they have done a circumcision for medical, and not religious reasons, or supporting such a practice.

Secondly others users, including myself, pointing out that circumcisions don't qualify as 'barbaric mutilations'.

It is not uncommon for users on here to be wrong.

That's the internet. I planned to stop posting about 10 pages ago.

At least we have some points in common

 

[OGM]

This is absurd and you know it. How many more bizzare ideas can you come up with?

So if removing breast tissue to prevent disease is "absurd"...Why isn't removing genital tissue to prevent disease also "absurb?"

 

[OGM]

I'm against circumcision and luckily so is my fiance.

Your future son will thank you

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Selfinflikted: As I pointed out to Wiccan_Child, there are fairly few advantages / disadvantaged to being circumcised or uncircumcised that it hardly affects their lives. If it's so ineffectual it's rather over-dramatic to call it 'barbaric mutilation'.

I believe the comments were "I support circumcision in the few cases where it is medically necessary" as in for the times when a baby is born with a deformed foreskin and faces serious medical issues if he does not get a circumcision.

I think everyone would agree with that. However there were a few posts (yes, I dug them up) saying they oppose it if it's done for only religious reasons:

Oh, as for my opinion, I hold religious circumcision to be completely pointless, and also wrong. It serves no purpose but to remove choice from the penis-owner.

Forcing your religious beliefs your child by cutting off parts of his genitalia is wrong and if I could I would ban it.

In these particular cases it was an atheistic (or at least secular) belief. If forcing our opinions on others is wrong then their opinions are 'wrong' too.

It is not uncommon for users on here to be wrong.

True but I could say the same for the anti-circumcision users. Who is wrong is what this 28+ thread has been about.

 

[Aradia]

No, I'm not well-read on this subject in general. But I just think that circumcision isn't such a pressing issue that it can't wait until consent can be given. Can you give me a reason why the procedure HAS to be done before said consent can be given?

Ask a jew. I'm defending a cultural tradition, but I unfortunately am not well-versed enough to say why/whether circumcision must be done at (or soon after) birth. And I have to leave work soon to take my kitties to the vet, so I don't have time to properly do the research right now, or I would. =(

I draw the line when irreversible modifications to ones body are forced upon them without consent.

Why? (C'mon, you must've known I'd ask that... *grin*)

 

[Rebekka]

You are awesome. Most women I know in all the industrial contries I have been too DONT circumcise their children. Circumcision is exceedly rare in these nations.

I'm in the Netherlands, and babies are not circumcised over here - except the babies of muslims and jews. Most men have intact penises over here.

 

[Umaro]

Sex isn't pleasurable for you?

There's a loss of sensation so presumably it's not as pleasurable as it could be. Here's a question, if your parents came into your house right now, strapped you down, and gave you a shot that made you permanently 20% less sensitive down there, would you be upset with them?

Why? Do you think they were being spiteful?
Is this a physiology thing, or a male insecurity thing?
It's difficult to touch? Really?
But is the scar itself negative, or is it simply a reminder?
Do you really care what other people think?

Do any of those questions really matter if they're things that upset me? You asked if there were any negative effects, and I'm very upset about all those things I listed every time I think about it. I'd say it's definitely effecting me in a negative way.

Two points:
1, which I think I brought up before, is that I *think* that there are men who would rather have been circumcised at birth due to the pain factor and/or trauma -- real or imagined -- of having it done as an adult. If it's any indication, lots of guys squirm when they find out I've had a vasectomy -- let alone some of the piercings I've had.

I wanted a vasectomy, and spent 8 months searching for someone who would do it for me. As a willing adult I could not find a doctor willing to give me a permanent procedure, but as a baby no one really cared what I thought? So if by some accident I do have a child before getting the snip, can I give him a vasectomy as an infant? My beliefs are that vasectomies are highly beneficial in that you don't have to risk having kids, and as a parent wouldn't I have say over what happens to his body according to your view? There's so much more benefit, and no real downside, so I can make that choice for him, right?

 

[yasic]

Selfinflikted: As I pointed out to Wiccan_Child, there are fairly few advantages / disadvantaged to be circumcised or uncircumcised that it hardly affects their lives. If it's so ineffectual it's rather over-dramatic to call it 'barbaric mutilation'.

There are few advantages or disadvantages to when a sadist cuts deep scares on the back of a victim. medically speaking the back tissue is not a major organ and as long as it remains intact should not affect the physical health of the person.

Similar to circumcision, it does cause great amounts of unnecessary pain and leaves the victim permanently scarred.

Would you say both cases do not qualify for barbaric mutilation?