Circumcision

[b&wpac7]

Ha! Tell that to my poor, circumsized penis!

I can say with a great deal of certainty it wasn't a mohel that did it to you

 

[selfinflikted]

I can say with a great deal of certainty it wasn't a mohel that did it to you

And you'd be right

 

[OGM]

If it's medically warranted (e.g., phimosis), then sure, snip away. At least then there's an objective reason to do so. But if the infant has a perfectly healthy and normal penis, why should we even consider cutting bits of it off?

I have no problem with fixing a congenital defect.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have no problem with fixing a congenital defect.

What about a perfectly functional and harmless piece of the body, like the ear lobe?

 

[OGM]

What about a perfectly functional and harmless piece of the body, like the ear lobe?

The ear lobe and the foreskin are not defective by default. Why remove tissue that has not been proven to be defective? We don't routine remove tonsils or spleens do we?

 

[katautumn]

If it's obviously abuse for women, why isn't it obviously abuse for men? I'm not saying you don't think it's abuse for men, but still, why do you think it's not obvious?

I can't speak for Ortho Cat, but I can share my line of reasoning behind why I feel FGM is abuse, but not the male circumcision practiced in Western culture. Female circumcision is almost always done as a means to completely eliminate a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, particularly before marriage. Some cultures not only completely cut off 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] or sew the hood closed, but sew the vaginal opening shut almost completely, only allowing a small opening through which menstrual blood can escape. It is considered an honor for her husband to break through that skin on their wedding night, a most painful and horrific experience for the girl. In other cases a tribal matron may reverse the closing of tissue by making a small incision and seeing if it has been made large enough to permit sexual intercourse and childbirth.

In rare situations, a woman may consent to having part of her vaginal tissue or clitoral hood removed due to excessive growth. Usually female circumcision, however, is associated with mutilating a girl's genitals to prohibit sexual pleasure. I suspect complete loss of sexual sensation is quite rare in male circumcision and, if that were the purpose of male circumcision, then it absolutely would be a horrible practice.

 

[Jade Margery]

Actually Kat, one of the biggest proponents of male circumcision in America (read:One of the men who really got the movement going and made it standard in almost all hospitals) was an absolutely lovely ******* named John Kellogg. Yes, the cereal guy. And the whole point of it (the only point of non-religious circumcision) was to prevent masturbation, which he considered to be the biggest danger to health since the black plague. He believed sexual pleasure was evil and went to all kinds of lengths to destroy it.

From Wikipedia (though I originally read this in a book on the history of sex in culture, but that's not linkable on the internets)

(Kellogg) was an especially zealous campaigner against masturbation; this was an orthodox view during his lifetime, especially the earlier part. Kellogg was able to draw upon many medical sources' claims such as "neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism," credited to one Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg strongly warned against the habit in his own words, claiming of masturbation-related deaths "such a victim literally dies by his own hand," among other condemnations. He felt that masturbation destroyed not only physical and mental health, but the moral health of individuals as well. Kellogg also believed the practice of "solitary-vice" caused cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility; "dimness of vision" was only briefly mentioned.

Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's [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]. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[7] he wrote

“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."

Emphasis added. Until the past decade or so, all circumcisions were done sans anesthetic (and most of them still are today, since they are done to little babies who are just born and pumping a newborn full of pain-nullifying chemicals can be a dangerous prospect). And just because a person can't remember an experience doesn't mean it isn't traumatic or painful. And it definitely doesn't make it okay.

Yeah, female circumcision is worse. But that doesn't make male circumcision any less terrible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I can't speak for Ortho Cat, but I can share my line of reasoning behind why I feel FGM is abuse, but not the male circumcision practiced in Western culture. Female circumcision is almost always done as a means to completely eliminate a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, particularly before marriage. Some cultures not only completely cut off 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] or sew the hood closed, but sew the vaginal opening shut almost completely, only allowing a small opening through which menstrual blood can escape. It is considered an honor for her husband to break through that skin on their wedding night, a most painful and horrific experience for the girl. In other cases a tribal matron may reverse the closing of tissue by making a small incision and seeing if it has been made large enough to permit sexual intercourse and childbirth.

In rare situations, a woman may consent to having part of her vaginal tissue or clitoral hood removed due to excessive growth. Usually female circumcision, however, is associated with mutilating a girl's genitals to prohibit sexual pleasure. I suspect complete loss of sexual sensation is quite rare in male circumcision and, if that were the purpose of male circumcision, then it absolutely would be a horrible practice.

So you're saying female circumcision is bad because of the intent and outcome behind it? That certainly qualifies it as unethical.

What if someone simply removed the labia majora of a woman, with the express intent of not causing her any harm or limiting her sexuality? Perhaps, say, a surgeon did this to save her life during childbirth? Would that be immoral?

Now, what if someone did this against her will? What if someone kidnapped you, drugged you, and did nothing more than surgically remove your labia majora - would the surgery not be immoral?

 

[Umaro]

For those who support circumcision, at what age does it become immoral? I often hear the argument that parents have the right to chose medical procedures for their children, but if the 15 year old child of the parent does not want a circumcision, do they have the right to strap him down and do it anyways? If not, why would it be any different for a baby?

 

[selfinflikted]

And just because a person can't remember an experience doesn't mean it isn't traumatic or painful.

It just occurred to me, that maybe in some cases, a person can't remember a traumatic event because it was traumatic. Food for thought.

 

[katautumn]

Actually Kat, one of the biggest proponents of male circumcision in America (read:One of the men who really got the movement going and made it standard in almost all hospitals) was an absolutely lovely ******* named John Kellogg. Yes, the cereal guy. And the whole point of it (the only point of non-religious circumcision) was to prevent masturbation, which he considered to be the biggest danger to health since the black plague. He believed sexual pleasure was evil and went to all kinds of lengths to destroy it.

Just because one person with sexual hang-ups believed circumcision could curb masturbation doesn't mean that's the purpose of male circumcision.

Until the past decade or so, all circumcisions were done sans anesthetic (and most of them still are today, since they are done to little babies who are just born and pumping a newborn full of pain-nullifying chemicals can be a dangerous prospect). And just because a person can't remember an experience doesn't mean it isn't traumatic or painful. And it definitely doesn't make it okay.

Yeah, female circumcision is worse. But that doesn't make male circumcision any less terrible.

Despite what it may appear to be, I'm not a huge supporter of circumcision. I find it to be rather pointless, to be frank. With that said, I am not one of these rabid anti-circumcision folk who try and claim it's just as bad as FGM either.

So you're saying female circumcision is bad because of the intent and outcome behind it? That certainly qualifies it as unethical.

Absolutely.

What if someone simply removed the labia majora of a woman, with the express intent of not causing her any harm or limiting her sexuality? Perhaps, say, a surgeon did this to save her life during childbirth? Would that be immoral?

This is a difficult question, because on the one hand let's say the woman is under anesthesia or otherwise unconscious and has no relative who is present to consent for her and the doctor must make a split-second decision. Would it be ethical to alter her genitals in order to save her life? Of course, it's difficult to compare these scenarios for two reasons - one, circumcision is mostly done either for religious or aesthetic reasons, and not to save the infant's life and two, it is the parents consenting on behalf of the child, something they are legally compelled, and permitted, to do until the child reaches the age of consent.

If not, why would it be any different for a baby?

For the same reason most people support abortion up until the second trimester - because, for whatever reason, if it cannot be remembered or comprehended it must not be unethical. It would be highly unethical to circumcise a fifteen year old boy for no reason other than aesthetic ones against his consent, because he would be able to process all of the feelings (physically, emotionally, mentally) associated with the procedure.

 

[Jade Margery]

Just because one person with sexual hang-ups believed circumcision could curb masturbation doesn't mean that's the purpose of male circumcision.

This was not just 'one man'. That's like saying the president's attitude about war doesn't matter because he's just one man. This was a person in a position of power and authority who was one of the driving forces behind turning circumcision from a cultural minority's curious custom into a regular medical procedure.

Despite what it may appear to be, I'm not a huge supporter of circumcision. I find it to be rather pointless, to be frank. With that said, I am not one of these rabid anti-circumcision folk who try and claim it's just as bad as FGM either.

It's not AS bad, but it is comparable, in that in both cases a person's body is violated without their consent. Being dismembered is worse than being shot, but that doesn't mean being shot is not a big deal. Please excuse the hyperbole, but the point is that in either case, irreparable harm is done.

This is a difficult question, because on the one hand let's say the woman is under anesthesia or otherwise unconscious and has no relative who is present to consent for her and the doctor must make a split-second decision. Would it be ethical to alter her genitals in order to save her life? Of course, it's difficult to compare these scenarios for two reasons - one, circumcision is mostly done either for religious or aesthetic reasons, and not to save the infant's life and two, it is the parents consenting on behalf of the child, something they are legally compelled, and permitted, to do until the child reaches the age of consent.

If there were ever a case where genital operation was necessary to save someone's life, you may have a point, but it's still a slim one. The example offered was clearly one of a conscious human being taken and operated on without their consent. And to reiterate a point I made earlier, just because parents have the power to make decisions for their child until the child is old enough to make the decisions themselves, this doesn't give the parents the right to alter or harm the child. Parents can't consent for their underage children to have sex, or be beaten, or be starved.

For the same reason most people support abortion up until the second trimester - because, for whatever reason, if it cannot be remembered or comprehended it must not be unethical. It would be highly unethical to circumcise a fifteen year old boy for no reason other than aesthetic ones against his consent, because he would be able to process all of the feelings (physically, emotionally, mentally) associated with the procedure.

[/quote]

Unless you yourself support abortion up to the second trimester for that reason, I would avoid assuming what other people's reasons are for the things they support. As one of those 'most people' I must say that personally, it has nothing to do with what can be remembered or comprehended.

And the point remains... if you wouldn't do it to a fifteen year old, why should you be allowed to do it to a newborn? Babies feel pain and emotional trauma too, many studies have shown that, and obviously the bad mental associations can last long into adulthood, as evidenced by the males in the thread who wish it hadn't been done to them.

 

[Rebekka]

Despite what it may appear to be, I'm not a huge supporter of circumcision. I find it to be rather pointless, to be frank. With that said, I am not one of these rabid anti-circumcision folk who try and claim it's just as bad as FGM either.

No one in this thread claims that male circumcision is as bad as female genital mutilation. But the fact that something else is even worse doesn't make circumcision good.

 

[Upisoft]

No one in this thread claims that male circumcision is as bad as female genital mutilation. But the fact that something else is even worse doesn't make circumcision good.

The God's law is there to be obeyed. If you are theist it doesn't make sense to thing about it as "bad" law. I really wonder why Christians stopped to obey the Lord.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is a difficult question, because on the one hand let's say the woman is under anesthesia or otherwise unconscious and has no relative who is present to consent for her and the doctor must make a split-second decision. Would it be ethical to alter her genitals in order to save her life? Of course, it's difficult to compare these scenarios for two reasons - one, circumcision is mostly done either for religious or aesthetic reasons, and not to save the infant's life and two, it is the parents consenting on behalf of the child, something they are legally compelled, and permitted, to do until the child reaches the age of consent.

So consent and medical urgency are important, yes? So in the case of a newborn boy, who has neither given consent nor medically requires it, you'd oppose his circumcision? Why or why not?

If some parents decided, with all the best intentions, to circumcise their newborn girl, would you object to that? What degree of genital mutilation would be 'crossing the line'? Drawing a drop of blood? Removing the labia majora? The labia minora? A 'full' circumcision, leaving only a small hole for fluids?

You also didn't respond to my scenario "Now, what if someone did this against her will? What if someone kidnapped you, drugged you, and did nothing more than surgically remove your labia majora - would the surgery not be immoral?"

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No one in this thread claims that male circumcision is as bad as female genital mutilation. But the fact that something else is even worse doesn't make circumcision good.

The kind of FGM that occurs in Africa, sure. But what about the surgical removal of a newborn's labia majora? Isn't that on par with male circumcision?

 

[Rebekka]

The kind of FGM that occurs in Africa, sure. But what about the surgical removal of a newborn's labia majora? Isn't that on par with male circumcision?

I don't know. I don't know how much not having labia maiora affects one's sex life, I don't know if it is worse than circumcision. I am against medically unnecessary surgery without the patient's consent, does that answer your question enough?

 

[united4Peace]

Skipping over majority of posts. Just to answer the OP's question, I have no say whether circumsizing a baby for religious reasons is right or wrong, I think that is up to the parents. That said, our boys were circ'd and I was right there. I saw the board that they were strapped down to, neither were given pain medications. One had a bell and the other had nothing, both physcians performed wonderful circ's.
I believe it is up to the parents to read as much information as possible before coming to a decision either way, one shouldn't have their son circ'd or not circ'd because of someone else's opinion.
Putting all that aside though, I have seen quite a few elderly men who have had to be circ'd and gosh does it hurt! Also maybe its just me but it seems like it takes longer to heal.
I don't regret having our boys done, and would definetly do it all over again! However I know those who have not circ'd and then had to when the child was a few years old, and they still stand by their original decision as they would not circ.
I also took in one child and had their frenulum clipped as they were tongue tied, again I know many who have never had their frenulum clipped, so it was based on my own personal research and therefore it was my decision to have my underaged child go through the surgery (which he was awake for and again never cried, was more exicted than anything as he could move his tongue more so), later I noticed my own husband has a tongue tie, yet he has never had the surgery done LOL.
If that makes me a bad mom for making decisions on behalf of my own child then so be it .

 

[united4Peace]

For those who support circumcision, at what age does it become immoral? I often hear the argument that parents have the right to chose medical procedures for their children, but if the 15 year old child of the parent does not want a circumcision, do they have the right to strap him down and do it anyways? If not, why would it be any different for a baby?

The only way a 15 year old is going to have a medical circ is if they have an infection and then yes the parents are still in control of medical decisions. The 15 year old is not strapped down, they are given anethesia and it is treated as a day surgery. Again at that age it is only done if needed!!

 

[united4Peace]

It just occurred to me, that maybe in some cases, a person can't remember a traumatic event because it was traumatic. Food for thought.

Humans are not able to remember past 3-4 years of age.
When one burns themselves on a hotburner at the age of 4 or 5, that stays with them and they know not to touch the burner again. The same would apply with a Circ, since it involves the nerve endings, a Circ on a older child or adult is definetly something they remember! Any guy I know that has had a circ remembers the pain, just as a guy remembers a vasectomy, as soon as the pain med wears off, they are crying in pain! I know of plenty that have had vasectomys and trust me the pain stays for a few days and the memory for a lifetime