Let's talk about circumcision

[anthrogirl]

Circumcision seems to be widely practiced almost exclusively in the United States.

Just curious about your thoughts regarding the neccessity of it, and why...

ag

[DunnySaze]

Let's talk about circumcision

Now theres an interesting opening to a conversation. :lol:


Circumcision seems to be widely practiced almost exclusively in the United States.

Just curious about your thoughts regarding the neccessity of it, and why...

ag

I don't think it's a necessity. Barring religious necessity anyway. There are some health issues to consider, but on balance I'd say it's not something that's a must to do.

[Sacrificial Ram]

Now theres an interesting opening to a conversation. :lol:



I don't think it's a necessity. Barring religious necessity anyway. There are some health issues to consider, but on balance I'd say it's not something that's a must to do.
In the modern society, where we have good sanitary conditions, the religious aspects seem to be the only good 'reason' for it.


Of point,.. one of the 'holy relics' of the Catholic church is Jesus's foreskin.

Of course, at one point, there were so many of them that they could have covered a football field. Talk about a miracle!

[Gideon Brown]

Circumcision seems to be widely practiced almost exclusively in the United States.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I never even heard of it 'till I was like 13.

[bar Jonah]

None of the above.

It is arguably good for medical reasons (arguably), but is not required for salvific purposes.

Just because it isn't "necessary" in some religious sense doesn't mean you have to respond with "No, better not to do it at all."

[bar Jonah]

You uhh.... "noticed" that? :rihrm:

[anthrogirl]

So, what are you saying, RI? Do you think there is an imperative (in any sense) for it?

[bar Jonah]

You have set up a false dichotomy.

One can prefer it without it being imperitive.

[anthrogirl]

You uhh.... "noticed" that? :rihrm:
I think Tuck lives elsewhere (ie, not in the U.S.)

therefore, he noticed that circumcision is a practice that is mostly limited (although not exclusively) to the U.S.

[Gideon Brown]

:yeahthat:

[anthrogirl]

You have set up a false dichotomy.

One can prefer it without it being imperitive.
:sigh: You're reading too much into this...

and preferance can be a sort of imparative....

[themuzicman]

Can I say "Imperative, no, but preferable, yes?"

[anthrogirl]

Can I say "Imperative, no, but preferable, yes?"
Of course you can!!!

What has brought you to this conclusion (please be polite)?

[bar Jonah]

No. :shifty:




Anthrochica, an imperitive is a requirement or obligation, a command or a control. Preference does not fit into that mold. If it is imperitive that I circumcize my son (as was the case with Moses, his life actually being on the line), then there is no preference in the equation.

[themuzicman]

Religous reasons, initially. IMHO, when God does stuff, it's for a good reason.

When we actually had children, our doctor advised us that it was healthier for the child over his lifetime.

Michael

[anthrogirl]

No. :shifty:
Anthrochica, an imperitive is a requirement or obligation, a command or a control. Preference does not fit into that mold. If it is imperitive that I circumcize my son (as was the case with Moses, his life actually being on the line), then there is no preference in the equation.
With all due respect, I think that for some worldviews, Preference can (and does) define the imparative.

But I respect your personal definition--as it reflects your worldview.

However, this thread is open to all perspectives--and so I feel it is neccessary to be inclusive.

does that make sense?

anthrogorilla

[themuzicman]

(the poll isn't open to all perspectives)

[Em7add11]

Apparently my grandpa didn't get snipped until he was in his 30's (for health reasons according to my grandma).

My dad says he didn't find out until years later why grandpa was in such a terrible mood all of the sudden for a week or so. :hehe:

[Faramir]

I checked, "Just 'cause" because there was not a "medically preferreable" option. Being the father of a son who was circumsized but not fully (apparantly if you do not take enough off it grows back. :bugeyes: ) It can get infected quite easily (little boys are quite nasty creatures).

[anthrogirl]

Religous reasons, initially. IMHO, when God does stuff, it's for a good reason.
please understand--I don't mean to sound impertinent--but if God intended for men to be circumsized, why did he give them foreskin?

I know that in Jewish culture (and others, too) that circumcision was intended to mark the individual as part of the Jewish bloodline.




When we actually had children, our doctor advised us that it was healthier for the child over his lifetime.

Michael
i'd like to know why he said this...

any ideas?

ag

[anthrogirl]

(the poll isn't open to all perspectives)
what would you suggest?

[themuzicman]

please understand--I don't mean to sound impertinent--but if God intended for men to be circumsized, why did he give them foreskin?

I know that in Jewish culture (and others, too) that circumcision was intended to mark the individual as part of the Jewish bloodline.

Well, since disease is a result of the fall, it wasn't really a consideration when making a good man in a good creation.

If you read the OT, you find a LOT of things in the OT law that were just good practice, especially then, and some even now, that the people of that time didn't do, but the Israelites were commanded to do.


i'd like to know why he said this...

any ideas?

ag

That was 17+ years ago, now. The pediatrician died more than 5 years ago, so, it would be hard to ask him.

Michael

[Benster]

Not is it (male circumcision) any different, qualitatively, from female circumcision, about which there is much wringing of hands and tut-tutting in the west. The religious/symbolic justification is the best/only rationale there is in favor of it. It's long been known, according to some, to impede male sexual enjoyment by overly tightening the skin at the end of the you-know-what. It's mainly a symbolic ritual whereby the elder men of the village demonstrate who 'holds the knives' in the society. A way to keep the young symbolically under control. To be sure, it only has that effect when done around the age of 12.

So much for the political verbiage.

In 2001, the AMA removed circumcision from the list of medical procedures recommended for infants. I think in 100 years, no one will be circumcised.

[elysian]

I chose not to have my son circumcised for three reasons:

His pediatrician considered it an elective and disfiguring procedure that is not necessary in light of today's hygiene practices and standards- and advised against it if there were no religious reasons for doing it. (and for Christians there is no religious mandate for circumcision)

My insurance company considered it an elective procedure as well, and if I wanted it done, the $600 to do it would have had to come out of my pocket- and given my financial situation at the time I certainly didn't have the $$$ to spare.

When my son was born (1991) circumcision of newborns was still being done without anesthetics. In the childbirth class I attended they showed a video of a newborn being circumcised. He was strapped to a board with Velcro straps and the skin was removed, without anesthetics of any type. IMO, he wasn't screaming bloody murder, clenching his little fists and turning blue because he was having fun. Even in the video they said sometimes they scream for up to an hour. Wonder why? Think about it guys! I couldn't bring myself to inflict this sort of torture.

My sisters had both of their sons done but by the time they had their kids they could request a local anesthetic for them which they both did- so my nephews at least had benefit of a local.

My son is 13 and he's not had any problems other than a mild infection he got when he was 6 or 7. Some topical cream and a discussion with the Dr. re: proper hygiene of that area, and he's not had difficulty since.

[Benster]

"Just because it isn't "necessary" in some religious sense doesn't mean you have to respond with "No, better not to do it at all."

Well, the removal of body parts should otherwise (I would say always) have some sort of medical justification. And circumcision of healthy infants has none.

[Benster]

"I checked, "Just 'cause" because there was not a "medically preferreable" option. Being the father of a son who was circumsized but not fully (apparantly if you do not take enough off it grows back. :bugeyes: ) It can get infected quite easily (little boys are quite nasty creatures).

You may not have checked in all the right places. There is no statistical justification for genitally mutilating your healthy children. Your lip can be infected also. Does that mean you should cut it off? Keep the body clean, and you will avoid infection. If you get infected, we have antibiotics.

[spl_cadet]

As long as you make sure to wash it there's no real health benefit to it, and considering that they don't use anasthetic on infants, it's cruel imho. Besides, if guys think with their members (as so many women claim), why would you want to make your kids stupider? :smile:

[anthrogirl]

http://www.nocirc.org/essays/essay1/menahem.html

interesting article on the ethics of circumcision

[themuzicman]

Quote from that article:


Children do not consent to be circumcised. Instead, their parents consent on their behalf, using what can be called “substitute”consent. Can substitute consent be valid in light of the fact that circumcision is a medically unnecessary (and arguably harmful) procedure? If it is not, doctors are performing the procedure without consent, and are therefore acting unethically.

Some believe that parents should be given full control over their children’s bodies. This view-point sees children as property of their parents, and would give parents full authority to decide whether or not to submit their children to circumcision. In reality, however, some limits are placed on parental autonomy to avoid child abuse. One rule of thumb would require that, for “substitute” consent to be valid, a procedure must be in the child’s best interest.

Which reveals this author's agenda.

He wants the state to have a say in a child's medical decision making, taking this power away from parents, saying that circumcision is child abuse.

I didn't read beyond this point, because he lost all credibility with me at this point.

Michael

[spl_cadet]

I'd consider an extremely painful amputation done without anesthetic for no real medical purpose to be child abuse.

[anthrogirl]

MM-



well--it is an essay with an agenda. you're free to stop reading the opinions of others if you wish.

But he does mention something that i've encountered many times before with this topic--that circumcision was used as a way to prevent masturbation in early American history...

There are also cases in which it could be medically necessary--but this is simply not the case the vast majority of the time

ag

[Benster]

"i'd like to know why he said this..."

Doctors used to recommend circumcision mainly because they figured that any loose flap of skin down there could harbor disease. And, indeed, it can. And when you compare the health of circumcised, clean, wealthy white men with that of uncircumcised, poor, immigrants who live (and love!) in squalor, it's no mystery who comes out on top. But the important factor isn't the circumcision, it's the other variables. As soon as they did controlled studies, the effect of circumcision disappeared.

But the other factor was social. Nowadays, if you wash, you won't get infections, and maybe with a foreskin, boys will be a bit less promiscuous, and a little bit more careful about what parts of their body they put into contact with other people's!

[elysian]

My Dad thought I was touched in the head for NOT having my son circumcised, but he became a bit more sympathetic when I described to him how the procedure was done and that no anesthetic was used (at that time.)
Even with the use of anesthetics I question the procedure, and personally believe it is disfiguring and unnecessary in most instances.

I do believe parents have rights as far as medical procedures that are done to their children. I believe that parents have the right to make that decision but it should be an informed decision- what the risks are, what the effects are later in life, etc. Many parents will decide against circumcision if they have all the facts. The ones who still insist on having it done can at least make sure proper pain relief measures are implemented.

[reasonabledoubt]

What about JW's who refuse to let their child have a life-saving blood transfusion? That's where it gets sticky!!

[Sacrificial Ram]

Not is it (male circumcision) any different, qualitatively, from female circumcision, about which there is much wringing of hands and tut-tutting in the west. The religious/symbolic justification is the best/only rationale there is in favor of it. It's long been known, according to some, to impede male sexual enjoyment by overly tightening the skin at the end of the you-know-what. It's mainly a symbolic ritual whereby the elder men of the village demonstrate who 'holds the knives' in the society. A way to keep the young symbolically under control. To be sure, it only has that effect when done around the age of 12.

So much for the political verbiage.

In 2001, the AMA removed circumcision from the list of medical procedures recommended for infants. I think in 100 years, no one will be circumcised.
Except, for people for which it has a religious signifigence.

[elysian]

What about JW's who refuse to let their child have a life-saving blood transfusion? That's where it gets sticky!!

I agree if a child's life is in jeopardy, then by all means it is ethically necessary for the appropriate authorities to intervene. So it would imperative to override parental consent on a life-saving blood transfusion.

But circumcision is seldom if ever medically necessary, so a parent should be able to make that decision much as a parent can decide to pierce an infant girl's ears. An informed decision on the subject however would include the knowledge that circumcision decreases sexual sensitivity, that it is not medically necessary, and that if it is done anyway for religious or aesthetic reasons it should be done with appropriate pain control.

"Female circumcision" is quite a different procedure, as it renders a woman incapable of orgasm (male circumcision, while it does decrease sensitivity, does not render a man incapable of orgasm.) Though it is practiced in some Muslim countries it is not a practice specifically mandated in the Koran nor it is a religious requirement. Typically it is practiced to "keep women faithful," the rationale being that if she doesn't enjoy sex she won't stray.

IMO both procedures are mutilation, but female "circumcision" is far more damaging.