Circumcision

[Nithavela]

I think the problem is some people want to impose their view on what others can and can't do. There is no group trying to enact legislation to force you to circumcise your future sons. But some people are trying to ban others from circumcising their own children, when it has been done without issue for thousands of years.

While waiting until the sons are much older for them or their wives to decide is okay for some, some want or need to circumcise much earlier for religious or health reasons, and I don't see a problem with parents making such a decision, either.

Actually, it was done with a lot of issue until kellogs started using it to cut down on male masturbation.

 

[possibletarian]

I think the problem is some people want to impose their view on what others can and can't do.

There is a big difference on campaigning for the right for people to make their own choices in life than imposing views on others. Having a child circumcised is the ultimate disregard of right to choose.

There is no group trying to enact legislation to force you to circumcise your future sons. But some people are trying to ban others from circumcising their own children, when it has been done without issue for thousands of years.

No, what people are trying to do is stop people taking choice from the individual, and now it is an issue and a growing one, just because for a few thousand years people circumcised their sons (and in many cases daughters) is absolutely no reason to not give choice now.

While waiting until the sons are much older for them or their wives to decide is okay for some, some want or need to circumcise much earlier for religious or health reasons, and I don't see a problem with parents making such a decision, either.

Why not let the individual decide, no one here is claiming there is no right to be circumcised, just that others should not decide for them.

 

[Joshua_5]

Actually, it was done with a lot of issue until kellogs started using it to cut down on male masturbation.

Not sure what these issues are, as they're not mentioned in the bible. And if circumcision reduces masturbation, isn't that another benefit?

 

[Joshua_5]

There is a big difference on campaigning for the right for people to make their own choices in life than imposing views on others. Having a child circumcised is the ultimate disregard of right to choose.

Its a minor procedure, and parents have every right to make this choice. Children cannot make their own decisions for a number of issues which must be decided early in life.

No, what people are trying to do is stop people taking choice from the individual, and now it is an issue and a growing one, just because for a few thousand years people circumcised their sons (and in many cases daughters) is absolutely no reason to not give choice now.

Daughters can't be circumcised as females aren't born with foreskin. To compare removal of an unneeded flap of excess and problemic skin from the tip of the male organ to the barbaric practice of mutilating 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] in females is insulting and misogynistic at best.

Why not let the individual decide, no one here is claiming there is no right to be circumcised, just that others should not decide for them.

In the case of circumcision and due to the age at which it is best performed for health and/or religious reasons, the individual can't make the choice for himself, thus his parents make this choice on his behalf. This is called freedom, whether you like it or not.

 

[Dave-W]

Actually, it was done with a lot of issue until kellogs started using it to cut down on male masturbation.

That would be Dr John Harvey Kellogg. Gizmodo has a list of some of his bizarre medical "inventions." He also invented a flaked corn whole grain cereal for the same purpose - to reduce or eliminate masturbation.

His brother Will started marketing the "Corn Flakes" cereal to the general population, much to the anger of the "good" doctor.

 

[Nithavela]

Not sure what these issues are, as they're not mentioned in the bible.

There is actually history outside of the bible.

And if circumcision reduces masturbation, isn't that another benefit?

I don't even..

 

[Dave-W]

And if circumcision reduces masturbation, isn't that another benefit?

Does it? No.

And why would that be a benefit?

 

[possibletarian]

Its a minor procedure, and parents have every right to make this choice. Children cannot make their own decisions for a number of issues which must be decided early in life.

Why must it be decided early in life, why not wait and give choice, and why do you think parents have that right ? I find that mutilating healthy tissue and harping on about the parents rights and ignoring the rights of those who cannot choose in a completely unnecessary operation abuse at best.

Daughters can't be circumcised as females aren't born with foreskin. To compare removal of an unneeded flap of excess and problemic skin from the tip of the male organ to the barbaric practice of mutilating 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] in females is insulting and misogynistic at best.

Problematic ? it's a natural part of the penis and has benefits, sure it can cause problems just like teeth or the tonsils or appendix all a much greater risk than the doubtful problems of leaving the foreskin where it is but we don't see them routinely taken out unless they cause a problem and rightly so.

I'm against all unnecessary and cutting of private parts whether they be male or female without the persons permission, and for that matter I wasn't comparing them, just pointing out that just because it has been done in the past does not mean it has to be done in more educated times.

In the case of circumcision and due to the age at which it is best performed for health and/or religious reasons, the individual can't make the choice for himself, thus his parents make this choice on his behalf. This is called freedom, whether you like it or not.

Sure it's the best age, but so what? the fact remains it is unnecessary and as you say they cannot make the choice themselves so why not simply wait till they can ?
Why do you think religious choice of the parents should mean that their child gets healthy tissue cut from them.

The right to religious freedom of choice applies to the person who has made that choice, not the child victims. In Europe it is quickly becoming a matter of abuse.

The foreskin is there naturally and has a function.
Functions of the Foreskin

 

[Meowzltov]

Notice baby's pierced ears. Body altered. No consent. Parent's choice.

 

[possibletarian]

Notice baby's pierced ears. Body altered. No consent. Parent's choice.

Yes I agree, I waited till my daughter was old enough to choose if she wanted pierced ears herself, In fact I waited till she came and asked me if she could get her ears pierced.

 

[Meowzltov]

Yes I agree, I waited till my daughter was old enough to choose if she wanted pierced ears herself, In fact I waited till she came and asked me if she could get her ears pierced.

It is part of Mexican culture to routinely pierce a baby girl's ears. Are you willing to say that Mexican culture is immoral?

 

[possibletarian]

It is part of Mexican culture to routinely pierce a baby girl's ears. Are you willing to say that Mexican culture is immoral?

I would say no matter what the culture if you are going to unnecessarily change a person body in any way you should wait till they can consent, it wouldn't matter the culture, religion or country.

I never saw my daughter as my personal property or fashion toy to satisfy my cultural or religious beliefs.

 

[loveofourlord]

Notice baby's pierced ears. Body altered. No consent. Parent's choice.

nice bit of strawman there, talk to me when you advocate cutting off said earlobes, then it would be comparable.

 

[Meowzltov]

nice bit of strawman there, talk to me when you advocate cutting off said earlobes, then it would be comparable.

Earlobes have a purpose. Foreskin does not.

 

[loveofourlord]

Earlobes have a purpose. Foreskin does not.

ignorance is bliss I guess, but keep up making up things to justify harming children.

 

[possibletarian]

Earlobes have a purpose. Foreskin does not.

Really what ignorance, of course the foreskin has a purpose, it's a natural part of the body
Functions of the Foreskin
Circumcision: Functions of the Foreskin | Circumcision.org

 

[blackribbon]

Parents make decisions for their children all of their lives as minors. Fact of life. Children don't get to decide if they get immunizations. Children don't get to decide if they want to go to school. Children don't dictate what their meals consist of. They don't even get to pick their own bedtimes.

Why do it when they are infants instead of letting them decide as adult? Simple...for an infant, it is a minor procedure that can be done quickly and they heal quickly. For an adult, it is a major surgery.

I don't see a hundreds of circumcised men lining up to protest this procedure because they feel like they have been harmed by it. Personally, I believe you should make your own decision and live with it....and find a cause actually worth fighting about. This isn't it.

A lot more babies die from just trying to be being born than from having a circumcision. For an infant, it is a minor procedure. For anyone older, (even months older), it requires surgery which has its own long list of potential dangers.

Circumcise if you want. Don't circumcise if you are against it. Simple solution. No one in America is forcing it on anyone.

As to the one who compared it to fingernails...well, when you cut those off they are dead tissue...but you don't wait until your child is 18 to let him/her decide if they want their nails cut because that would be dangerous and considered neglect. Not really a comparison either way.

And believe it or not, circumcised men can touch and have very satisfying sexual life and have children. No loss of function and no proof that there is a loss of sensation. And unless the man is naked in public, nobody but those intimate enough with him to see him naked will ever know so it really isn't anyone else's business. In Europe, being non-circumcised is the norm. In the US and Middle East, circumcised is the norm. (Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in circumcision). Truthfully, very few people will even know who is circumcised and who isn't.

 

[possibletarian]

Circumcise if you want. Don't circumcise if you are against it. Simple solution. No one in America is forcing it on anyone.

Of course they are, that's what the debates are about isn't that exactly what is happening ?

(Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in circumcision). Truthfully, very few people will even know who is circumcised and who isn't.

See this is what I really don't get I understand for Jews and Muslims it is a requirement at least from a religious aspect, but for gentile Christians (most of the U.S. Christians) circumcision is not only discouraged, but people who encourage it are are called 'dogs' and 'evil workers' .

Philippians 3 KJV

Galatians 5 BSB

I don't really get the health reasons either they are minimal at best, and given that circumcision is mainly encouraged only in countries with high religiosity, that seems to be the main reason.
In countries that don't have strong religious ties it is not encouraged for medical reasons.

 

[blackribbon]

Of course they are, that's what the debates are about isn't that exactly what is happening ?



See this is what I really don't get I understand for Jews and Muslims it is a requirement at least from a religious aspect, but for gentile Christians (most of the U.S. Christians) circumcision is not only discouraged, but people who encourage it are are called 'dogs' and 'evil workers' .

Philippians 3 KJV

Galatians 5 BSB

I don't really get the health reasons either they are minimal at best, and given that circumcision is mainly encouraged only in countries with high religiosity, that seems to be the main reason.
In countries that don't have strong religious ties it is not encouraged for medical reasons.

It actually isn't a requirement for the Muslim religion either...just a preference like for many Christians. Europe is primarily Christian but they don't opt for the circumcision as a society. American Christians do. Atheist make the same choices...so it isn't really a religious issue except for the Jews who don't circumcise in the hospitals anyway...so really aren't in the argument about newborn hospital circumcisions. The American pediatric society tends to lean toward it being a good health option but just don't have enough evidence to recommend it (or say it is bad). Most Americans don't circumcise for religious reasons.

The debate is about others wanting to control the options of others without real evidence to back their stance. If everyone would just quit "debating", it would become a non-issue because we already have the right to choose to circumcise or not. The only change that is possible is to dictate that the other side has to do what you want.

 

[possibletarian]

It actually isn't a requirement for the Muslim religion either...just a preference like for many Christians. Europe is primarily Christian but they don't opt for the circumcision as a society. American Christians do. Atheist make the same choices...so it isn't really a religious issue except for the Jews who don't circumcise in the hospitals anyway..

But that's just the point, if they were not Christians do you think that circumcision would have reached the levels it has in the U.S.? It is no where nearly the the same levels in less religious countries, not even for health reasons.

so really aren't in the argument about newborn hospital circumcisions. The American pediatric society tends to lean toward it being a good health option but just don't have enough evidence to recommend it (or say it is bad). Most Americans don't circumcise for religious reasons.

Suer they use 'health reasons' as an excuse, but the disparity between the U.S. and other less religious countries show that it is a bit of a red herring. My guess is that people who are religious have just got used to routinely circumcising their children and feel a bit as though they haven't done something they should if they don't. Even though clearly it is not recommended for gentile Christians in the bible.

The debate is about others wanting to control the options of others without real evidence to back their stance.

What evidence do you need to give people the choice themselves, rarely really is the debate about the suspect harm or health reasons, expect for the pro camp who present dubious recommendations that don't seem to be followed by less religious countries. But rather the debate is about about giving choice, not taking it away.

If everyone would just quit "debating", it would become a non-issue

Of course things that are not challenged are non-issues. But that does not mean one shouldn't challenge them.

because we already have the right to choose to circumcise or not. The only change that is possible is to dictate that the other side has to do what you want.

No one is dictating anything, just asking for choice to be given we are asking for the right to be transferred to the individual, for them to be able to make a decision for themselves and not have it dictated to them by parents who impose their own religions needs on them.

I never considered my daughter mine to satisfy my religious or cultural beliefs, for things that involved a permanent unnecessary change to her body.