Circumcision

[Rebekka]

Those examples are different though. A child with 6 fingers is outside the norm, a child with a foreskin IS the norm.

But no, I don't think a parent should be able to remove ANY part of the body that isn't medically necessary to remove without consent from the individual undergoing the operation. What other part can a parent amputate for non medical reasons on a healthy baby? I don't think there are any. Why is this one different?

The folllowing is not amputation, and it's not just done on babies, also on older kids, but ears that are sticking out are often "fixed" so that the child looks normal. (If it's an older child, it can even be done with his or her consent.) The result will be a normal-looking child (lots of people find ears that stick out cute, thank goodness not all parents have their children's ears fixed), but his or her hearing will be reduced, because when ears stick out they catch more sound. So the "defect" is actually beneficial.
I don't know if this is reversible.

 

[Rebekka]

Hah, arguably, so does the foreskin .

I know!

We can live without labia, foreskins, hair, and external ears, but that doesn't give parents the right to chop off bits of their children. Unless there is an obvious medical emergency, we should defer to the person's body.

It boggles me how some people just don't understand that a person has the right to which parts of their body are removed - and no one else.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So, I ask my question again: if someone forcibly cut off your labia majora without your consent, would you be OK with that, medical emergencies notwithstanding?

No, but again (I know, I know ...) you can't compare the two. This would be like a boy having his scrotum removed. Now if we were to really equate the two, losing a foreskin is like losing a clitoral hood. And no, I wouldn't care.

I keep saying "It's not the same" simply because, well, it's not. Losing your hand would be a major problem and would impede your functioning, losing your foreskin does not. Removing an ear would impede your hearing (since the outside ear acts like a satellite), removing your foreskin does not affect your sexual development. Female genetalia is anatomically different from male, therefore different surgeries have different effects.

The obvious thing we have missed is that Judaism chose the removal of the foreskin (insted of any other body part) because doing so has little effect. So why do they do it in the first place? Like most old Jewish laws they were probably related to hygiene.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

No, but again (I know, I know ...) you can't compare the two. This would be like a boy having his scrotum removed. Now if we were to really equate the two, losing a foreskin is like losing a clitoral hood. And no, I wouldn't care.

I keep saying "It's not the same" simply because, well, it's not. Losing your hand would be a major problem and would impede your functioning, losing your foreskin does not. Removing an ear would impede your hearing (since the outside ear acts like a satellite), removing your foreskin does not affect your sexual development. Female genetalia is anatomically different from male, therefore different surgeries have different effects.

The obvious thing we have missed is that Judaism chose the removal of the foreskin (insted of any other body part) because doing so has little effect. So why do they do it in the first place? Like most old Jewish laws they were probably related to hygiene.

The scrotum suspends the testis from the rest of the body to keep them at optimal temperature in order to preserve reproduction in our species. They also protect the testis. You can't compare that to the labia.

 

[yasic]

Ok, how about this as a female comparison to circumcision:

What if your parents decided to remove your hymen, on the basis that doing so offers some medical protection. Would you be ok with this?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

What if your parents decided to remove your hymen, on the basis that doing so offers some medical protection. Would you be ok with this?

Yes. Although in reality the opposite is usually true - they try to keep it intact so they can offer potential suitors photographic proof of virginity.

 

[OGM]

This would be like a boy having his scrotum removed. Now if we were to really equate the two, losing a foreskin is like losing a clitoral hood. And no, I wouldn't care.

You would not care if removal of the clitoral hood was routinely performed after birth? The clitoral hood does serve a purpose. So why remove it if it is not defective?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Ok, how about this as a female comparison to circumcision:

What if your parents decided to remove your hymen, on the basis that doing so offers some medical protection. Would you be ok with this?

Maybe..crap hurts to get popped.

 

[Jade Margery]

I would like to point out to the ladies saying that circumcision would be like removing the clitoral hood... you would not want that at all. The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is incredibly sensitive -because- it's protected and kept in a lubricated hood. Minus that, not only would we soon lose sensitivity and feeling in that lovely little body part (the only bit on either gender that serves no other purpose than to provide pleasure) but there's a good chance that sex would be rather painful. Figure the difference between exercising on a padded mat and a hardwood floor (no pun intended). We definitely wouldn't be able to touch without added lubrication.

Dunno about you, but I would be pretty ticked off if my parents had my clitoral hood removed as a child.

I really don't understand the girls who keep repeating that a circumcision is not a big deal. Maybe the people who get to decide whether it's a big deal or not are the folks who get the circumcisions?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I don't want anything removed, just to make that clear.

 

[OGM]

I would like to point out to the ladies saying that circumcision would be like removing the clitoral hood... you would not want that at all. The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is incredibly sensitive -because- it's protected and kept in a lubricated hood. Minus that, not only would we soon lose sensitivity and feeling in that lovely little body part (the only bit on either gender that serves no other purpose than to provide pleasure) but there's a good chance that sex would be rather painful.

If you were to look at a male invitro; during the first part of gestation we would look identical to a female. Then hormones would kick in and we would develop in males. So male and female parts analogous in many ways. The glans is incredibly sensitive and the foreskin protects in and keeps in lubricated. Minus the foreskin the glans…well you get the picture.

I really don't understand the girls who keep repeating that a circumcision is not a big deal. Maybe the people who get to decide whether it's a big deal or not are the folks who get the circumcisions?

Yeah, I say when someone turns 18 they can decide if they want to or not. Interesting enough…very few men decide to get one if given a choice in the matter.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, but again (I know, I know ...) you can't compare the two. This would be like a boy having his scrotum removed. Now if we were to really equate the two, losing a foreskin is like losing a clitoral hood. And no, I wouldn't care.

Whoa. You wouldn't care if you were forcibly held down and had parts of your body removed, however inconsequential those parts may be?

If I came to your house right now, strapped you to a surgical bed, and sliced pieces of your skin off (for the sake of argument, assume these pieces are as inconsequential as the foreskin), you would be completely and perfectly fine with this?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Whoa. You wouldn't care if you were forcibly held down and had parts of your body removed, however inconsequential those parts may be?

If I came to your house right now, strapped you to a surgical bed, and sliced pieces of your skin off (for the sake of argument, assume these pieces are as inconsequential as the foreskin), you would be completely and perfectly fine with this?

I wouldn't be happy if I crapped my pants in public, or had to be bathed by my mother, or was strapped into a chair and spoon-fed with mush. But of course none of that matters when you're a baby. If circumcision involved some kind of street-gang snatching infants from their parents I'd be against it, but it isn't. It's done professionally and before we can feel embarressment.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wouldn't be happy if I crapped my pants in public, or had to be bathed by my mother, or was strapped into a chair and spoon-fed with mush. But of course none of that matters when you're a baby. If circumcision involved some kind of street-gang snatching infants from their parents I'd be against it, but it isn't. It's done professionally and before we can feel embarressment.

If embarrassment is the issue, then I simply have to point out those men who are embarrassed by their circumcised penises.

But tell me, what's the difference between a street gang snatching babies from parents, and doctors snatching babies from parents? Would you be opposed to doctors forcibly circumcising babies against the parent's wishes?

It ultimately boils down to consent. Do the parents have the right to choose which parts of a child's body are to be cut off? I say no - the body is the child's body, not the parents. The child, and only the child, should be the one to make decisions as to how its body will be permanently altered.

There is no medical benefit to circumcision that a) warrants enforced circumcision, nor b) cannot wait till the child is old enough to consent. Why, then, do you believe that parents have the right to decide to have parts of their newborn babies to be cut off?

Calling it inconsequential or purely aesthetic is missing the point entirely: it's not the parent's place to decide whether or not to keep the foreskin. It should be the individual's choice.

 

[Exial]

Calling it inconsequential or purely aesthetic is missing the point entirely: it's not the parent's place to decide whether or not to keep the foreskin. It should be the individual's choice.

This has been repeatably explained to her, she doesn't seem to recognize the argument because she places no value on foreskin. But she wouldn't agree to having her or her children's ear lobes cut off.

 

[Rebekka]

I wouldn't be happy if I crapped my pants in public, or had to be bathed by my mother, or was strapped into a chair and spoon-fed with mush. But of course none of that matters when you're a baby. If circumcision involved some kind of street-gang snatching infants from their parents I'd be against it, but it isn't. It's done professionally and before we can feel embarressment.

What does embarrassmentment have to do with it?

Circumcision is painful and takes quite some time to heal. Even if a baby can't remember the pain later on, he does have it. Peeing after a circumcision is painful, it's super-sensitive for a long time, and I can imagine it's worse when you're not potty-trained yet, because urine stings on wounds.

 

[selfinflikted]

What does embarrassmentment have to do with it?

Circumcision is painful and takes quite some time to heal. Even if a baby can't remember the pain later on, he does have it. Peeing after a circumcision is painful, it's super-sensitive for a long time, and I can imagine it's worse when you're not potty-trained yet, because urine stings on wounds.

Yea, really.

I'd just like to point out, once again, that consent should be the underlying principle in this thread. Anyone who suggests otherwise is just plainly wrong.

 

[Aradia]

I fail to see how that would help, nothing would change. I'd still be in the same position, except now I would have paid someone to tell me to just ignore it.

Ummm... I'm not a big fan of clinical psychology in general, but even I give them more credit than that. The point is for them to help you understand *why* you feel the way you do, and to help work past it.

I don't understand why I should even be placed in this situation. You like being circumcised, I don't. If we both had the choice in adulthood, you could have it and I wouldn't. It's win-win. Doing it as an infant, it's win-lose for no particular reason at all.

Frankly, I'm happy it was done when I was an infant.

So can I give an infant plastic surgery? Maybe a nose and boob job, just because I think they'll be better off? Sure, they might lose feeling in their nipples or the ability to breastfeed, but think of the aesthetics! Men like bigger boobs after all.

I already alluded to this earlier in the thread, but... small boobs rock. Thank you. That is all.

 

[Aradia]

The scrotum suspends the testis from the rest of the body to keep them at optimal temperature in order to preserve reproduction in our species. They also protect the testis. You can't compare that to the labia.

Ummm... excuse me? Aren't you studying to be a nurse or something? Do you honestly know that little about genital development? Who cares whether you can compare the scrotum to the labia -- they're the *same tissue*. They're homologues!

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Ummm... excuse me? Aren't you studying to be a nurse or something? Do you honestly know that little about genital development? Who cares whether you can compare the scrotum to the labia -- they're the *same tissue*. They're homologues!

Its not comparable. The labia vs. the scrotum is not comparable. The point was if you can't compare the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to the foreskin then you also can't compare the scrotum to the labia..their functions are apples and oranges.