Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?

[Alidar Jarok]

Considering my son SLEPT thru his, I see no point to this entire thread.

The point would still be that it's a permanent disfiguring procedure with next to no medical benefit that is performed on infants too young to give consent.

It also happens to be mostly safe and has no real medical harm associated with it either, so it shouldn't be a big deal either way, but the point of the thread is not exclusively about whether or not it's painful to infants.

 

[Switch]

No-one has given me a reason why, except for religious ground, non-therapeutic circumcisions cannot be postponed until males are older and able to give consent.

'Postponing' the procedure would do little to affect its prevalence. Circumcision is near-universal in South Korea despite most only being performed in late childhood. The seemingly instinctive aversion to having sharp objects anywhere near one's penis is as nothing before the weight of peer pressure. Under such circumstances, fretting over precisely when the procedure is performed seems academic.

Incidentally, circumcision in South Korea is a relatively recent phenomenon: it was virtually unheard of prior to American trusteeship post-WW2.

 

[Miss Chicken]

My main objection to circumcision is when it done on small children. If it is done in late childhood i.e. when the child is old enough to be capable of understanding the procedure and can give consent, than I have no objections to it being done.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Then you should already be aware that comparing female genital mutilation and male circumcision is not an appropriate comparison as they are not physically equivalent.

It doesn't need to be physically equivalent. It's cutting off a piece of a baby's body.

No, they're very different. Female Genital Mutilation is designed to pretty much destroy the female's genitals as much as possible as it includes removing the labial folds and the clitoris. It's designed to make sex as experience-less as possible for the female.

Male Circumcision removes a singular piece of skin as either a religious rite or because it's felt that it offers health benefits (and also, to a degree, as a means of gratification control.)

They're very different things with very different purposes behind them. Removing a single flap of skin cannot be compared to the complete and total removal of pretty much every piece of the genitals as possible. After male circumcision the child is left with his equipment still functional and he's still able to experience the pleasures of sex.

Female Genital Mutilation is designed to remove any sexual pleasure whatsoever for the female leaving her genitals as nothing more than a moist slot.

The closest thing for females to male circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood which pretty much has the same effects as male circumcision but it presents some health drawbacks (it makes it easier to get infections) but some have it done electively as if the hood is too large it can make sex uncomfortable.

Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is like comparing getting a finger nail trimmed to cutting off the entire finger.

They aren't the same thing in the slightest and comparing the two to one another is just pure hyperbole.

It doesn't need to be physically equivalent. It's cutting off a piece of a baby's body.

No, calling the surgical removal of a naturally occurring body part injury and disfigurement is the correct usage of the English language.

The term "disfigurement" implicitly means harm, even if the harm is only cosmetic. There are no social consequences in western society for male circumcision, so therefore it is no more "disfigurement" then getting ears pierced, a nose job, etc. So therefore, no, it is most definitely not the correct usage of the word by any valid definition I am aware of.

Amputation does not disfigure? What do you think the word means?

Oddly enough, when it comes to surgery, I'm one of those people who thinks there should be documentation of medical necessity, not just lack of documentation of negative outcomes.

No, that's not what's going on here. You're advocating the banning of a religious practice and so you need a heck of a better reason then cosmetics. If this or any other religious practice does not do any harm then you have no business infringing on the right of people to practice their own religion. You might as well be trying to ban baptisms.

If you could prove harm, it would be a different story, but no study has ever conclusively shown any real, long term harm from male circumcision. And until you can do that...

Baptism does not involve amputation. Any surgical procedure performed on a child should be medically necessary. Any tradition, religious or otherwise, is insufficient.

 

[Miss Chicken]

The term "disfigurement" implicitly means harm, even if the harm is only cosmetic. There are no social consequences in western society for male circumcision, so therefore it is no more "disfigurement" then getting ears pierced, a nose job, etc. So therefore, no, it is most definitely not the correct usage of the word by any valid definition I am aware of.

Little babies shouldn't be subjected to having their ears pierced, or getting a nose job (unless is done for medical reasons). A child should be at least old enough to ask to get her ears before it is done.

 

[Arrqh]

Amputation does not disfigure? What do you think the word means?

Here's a definition for disfigure: deface, disfigure, blemish (mar or spoil the appearance of)

As I already pointed out, surgical procedures that affect the body are not automatically considered to be disfigurement. In case you missed it, I used the examples of ear piercings and nose jobs and of course there are many other sorts of commonplace body modifications which are not considered disfigurement. To be valid under the english word "disfigure" then appearance has to be spoiled, or affected in a negative way.

So, once again: can you demonstrate to me that circumcised men are treated with scorn or any of the other typical consequences of being "disfigured"? Because otherwise, well...

Baptism does not involve amputation. Any surgical procedure performed on a child should be medically necessary. Any tradition, religious or otherwise, is insufficient.

This doesn't change the fact that you have been consistently unable to demonstrate that male circumcision actually causes harm. Banning a religious practice because you don't like it is neither rational, nor appropriate.

Little babies shouldn't be subjected to having their ears pierced, or getting a nose job (unless is done for medical reasons). A child should be at least old enough to ask to get her ears before it is done.

My point there was more about what is or is not disfigurement. I think saying that only medically necessary surgery should be allowed on young children is overly restrictive as I think there are plenty of cases where young children are born or become disfigured and parents would want corrective cosmetic surgery. In a case like that, I think it should be up to the parents to decide if the risks of elective surgery are worth the benefits to the child from a social perspective.

I do completely agree, though, that non-religious circumcision should be discouraged... there are still people who are under the false impression that there are medical reasons to get it done and those myths should absolutely be dispelled. But without any proof of actual harm, outlawing it for religious reasons just becomes an infringement on the ability of parents to practice their religion. The instant I see data that proves that there is long term harm I will jump ship, but until that day banning it is just not something I can support. Because without proof of harm, the religious beliefs of the parents are all the justification necessary.

 

[Miss Chicken]

My point there was more about what is or is not disfigurement. I think saying that only medically necessary surgery should be allowed on young children is overly restrictive as I think there are plenty of cases where young children are born or become disfigured and parents would want corrective cosmetic surgery. In a case like that, I think it should be up to the parents to decide if the risks of elective surgery are worth the benefits to the child from a social perspective.

I believe that corrective cosmetic surgery can often be placed under the label "therapeutic surgery" (if it is for the child's psychological well-being) as the child will benefit from it at an early age. However I don't think circumcision of a baby boy can ever be put into this category.

By the way - are cases such as this one proof of harm?

 

[scotpens]

Amputation does not disfigure? What do you think the word means?

Here's a definition for disfigure: deface, disfigure, blemish (mar or spoil the appearance of)

Disfigurement is in the eye of the beholder.

There's also another issue. To many men, their own penis is a large percentage of their identity.

Especially if they happen to be named Dick.

 

[Davros]

There's no problem with outlawing religious practices that injure or disfigure children too young to give consent.

Then those laws wouldn't cover circumcision then, since it doesn't injure or disfigure them. The paranoid delusional fear some people seem to have about this procedure is baffling. Plus there is the upside of the skin cut away often being used to grow material for skin grafts for burn victims and the like.

 

[Miss Chicken]

It isn't baffling to say circumcision is fine if the person consents to it. Unless the circumcision is a medical necessity (or maybe if it is a religious necessity) there is absolutely no harm in waiting until the male is old enough to give consent.

 

[Davros]

It isn't baffling to say circumcision is fine if the person consents to it. Unless the circumcision is a medical necessity (or maybe if it is a religious necessity) there is absolutely no harm in waiting until the male is old enough to give consent.

There is also no harm in letting things continue as they are now. Passing laws banning this harmless procedure is a massive waste of time that will achieve nothing in a time when we have far more important things to worry about.

 

[Miss Chicken]

The harm is that a very small percentage of baby boys die from the procedure, other have complications which are occasionally severe enough to require the removal of the penis.

No baby boy suffers from not having a non-therapeutic circumcision. Some might suffer if they are denied a therapeutic circumcision but no-one is saying that medically necessary circumcision shouldn't be carried out.

Therefore I think the penis should be left alone until a medical condition serious enough to warrant surgery arises (which for the vast majority of male never happens) or until the male is old enough to give informed consent.

No new laws have to be passed it would seem that, at least here in Australia, and probably the UK and New Zealand, existing laws might be enough to stop non-therapeutic circumcision though in all likelihood it will simply parents and doctors will stop doing them at all. I am not sure how different the laws are in the USA to know if new laws would have to be introduced.

As I said as soon as grave doubts were raised in Tasmania about whether circumcision is legal or not the circumcision rates dropped in Tasmania to one of the lowest in the English speaking world - it was 1.6% in 2004 and is most likely even lower today.

 

[Kestra]

There is also no harm in letting things continue as they are now. Passing laws banning this harmless procedure is a massive waste of time that will achieve nothing in a time when we have far more important things to worry about.

I dunno, the merit of a law shouldn't really be concerned with whether or not there are more important laws. I don't know how harmful circumcision really is other than anecdotal evidence, but isn't it at least something worth examining? Just because something has been done, as a tradition, doesn't really mean that it should continue to be done.

A few men have posted saying they've had it done and aren't the worse for it, but are there any actual benefits? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I really just don't know much about the issue.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Amputation does not disfigure? What do you think the word means?

Here's a definition for disfigure: deface, disfigure, blemish (mar or spoil the appearance of)

Exactly.

As I already pointed out, surgical procedures that affect the body are not automatically considered to be disfigurement. In case you missed it, I used the examples of ear piercings and nose jobs and of course there are many other sorts of commonplace body modifications which are not considered disfigurement. To be valid under the english word "disfigure" then appearance has to be spoiled, or affected in a negative way.

Ear piercings should not be done to babies, either, and a nose job would be done to correct a disfigurement.

So, once again: can you demonstrate to me that circumcised men are treated with scorn or any of the other typical consequences of being "disfigured"? Because otherwise, well...

That's irrelevant. We're talking about surgically removing a part of the body.

This doesn't change the fact that you have been consistently unable to demonstrate that male circumcision actually causes harm. Banning a religious practice because you don't like it is neither rational, nor appropriate.

I don't care one way or the other about religious practices. What we're talking about is the surgical removal of a body part that is not indicated by medical necessity.

Then those laws wouldn't cover circumcision then, since it doesn't injure or disfigure them. The paranoid delusional fear some people seem to have about this procedure is baffling. Plus there is the upside of the skin cut away often being used to grow material for skin grafts for burn victims and the like.

Again: Non-indicated surgical removal of a body part.

 

[Davros]

The harm is that a very small percentage of baby boys die from the procedure, other have complications which are occasionally severe enough to require the removal of the penis.

The percentage of kids that die by falling off their bikes is far higher and you don't see anybody saying kids shouldn't be able to ride bikes.

I dunno, the merit of a law shouldn't really be concerned with whether or not there are more important laws. I don't know how harmful circumcision really is other than anecdotal evidence, but isn't it at least something worth examining? Just because something has been done, as a tradition, doesn't really mean that it should continue to be done.

Any risk of harm from the procedure has been vastly overstated in this thread and others.

A few men have posted saying they've had it done and aren't the worse for it, but are there any actual benefits? I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I really just don't know much about the issue.

Easier maintenance and slightly less chance of disease. Nothing dramatic but no down side at all. The way some people are acting here they act like doctors are cutting off the whole thing.

Then those laws wouldn't cover circumcision then, since it doesn't injure or disfigure them. The paranoid delusional fear some people seem to have about this procedure is baffling. Plus there is the upside of the skin cut away often being used to grow material for skin grafts for burn victims and the like.

Again: Non-indicated surgical removal of a body part.

So what? It causes no harm and wasting time passing laws banning it will help nobody.

 

[Deckerd]

Does anyone else think it's creepy that adults are so interested in cutting babies' penises?

 

[Miss Chicken]

We aren't interested in the babies' penises, we are interested in stopping any medically unnecessary surgery or procedure being performed on children too young to give consent. I have previously mentioned that the law in Tasmania that questions the legality of circumcision could also be used to question the legality of piercing little girls' and little boy's ears.

Or should we totally ignore an unnecessary or painful procedure being performed just because in involves a part of the anatomy that some people are uncomfortable talking about?

The percentage of kids that die by falling off their bikes is far higher and you don't see anybody saying kids shouldn't be able to ride bikes.

New born babies don't ride bikes. The kids that ride bikes usually have a desire to ride bikes and I would say that riding a bike is of some benefit to the child i.e it teaches them coordination and balance and it is fun. Show me that a non-therapeutic circumcision is of any benefit to a baby or is in any way an enjoyable experience for a baby.

The reason that circumcision dropped so quickly in Australia is because parents of my generation did start to talk about it and question its necessity whereas most of my mother's generation just accepted it as the right thing to do.

 

[Switch]

The reason that circumcision dropped so quickly in Australia is because parents of my generation did start to talk about it and question its necessity whereas most of my mother's generation just accepted it as the right thing to do.

Circumcision is actually on the rise in Australia. Or, more precisely, in New South Wales, in part a function of the state's increasing Muslim population:

 

[Trekker4747]

Amputation does not disfigure? What do you think the word means?

Here's a definition for disfigure: deface, disfigure, blemish (mar or spoil the appearance of)

Exactly.

Ear piercings should not be done to babies, either, and a nose job would be done to correct a disfigurement.

That's irrelevant. We're talking about surgically removing a part of the body.

This doesn't change the fact that you have been consistently unable to demonstrate that male circumcision actually causes harm. Banning a religious practice because you don't like it is neither rational, nor appropriate.

I don't care one way or the other about religious practices. What we're talking about is the surgical removal of a body part that is not indicated by medical necessity.

Then those laws wouldn't cover circumcision then, since it doesn't injure or disfigure them. The paranoid delusional fear some people seem to have about this procedure is baffling. Plus there is the upside of the skin cut away often being used to grow material for skin grafts for burn victims and the like.

Again: Non-indicated surgical removal of a body part.

Is it really appropriate to call the foreskin a "body part?" That just strikes me as trying to be overly hyperbolic.

It's a cosmetic change the affects nothing more than a flap of skin. They're not "cutting off a body part" they're remove a bit of "excess skin." It's no more "cutting off a body part" than trimming your nails is. I mean it's not like they're removing an imporant or vital piece of the body like a digit or limb.

It's just a piece of skin whose removal effects nothing at all. Other than, anecdotally, the feeling of sexual pleasure.

Stop. The. Presses.



Show me that cutting off the foreskin causes harm real and true harm and I'll get on this bandwagon. But right now calling it "major surgery" or "cutting off a body part" and things of that nature just strikes me as being extreme for the sake of being extreme. Similar to how a group of a few dozen cells on a uterine wall is a "life" or "a baby."

(Keep in mind that on a personal level I am Pro-Life.)

It has to cause real harm to everyone involved or at least a majority. That 1 in 100,000 rate of botched circumcisions doesn't count as there's risks with any surgical procedure.

Yes we can argue the merits of doing this verses risk but the parents of a baby have to make the best choices they can for it. I hold no grudges against my parents for making that choice because, well, I don't know any different so why does it effect me? They made that choice. Fine. Millions of parents make and have made that choice around this country and millions of male babies have grown up to be fine, functioning adults to be lawyers, doctors and successful adults so any "psychological harm" it causes must be pretty damn rare. Go figure, something that occurs when you're five-minutes old won't bother you 30-some years later.

 

[Miss Chicken]

The reason that circumcision dropped so quickly in Australia is because parents of my generation did start to talk about it and question its necessity whereas most of my mother's generation just accepted it as the right thing to do.

Circumcision is actually on the rise in Australia. Or, more precisely, in New South Wales, in part a function of the state's increasing Muslim population:

I was really talking about the huge drop in rate in Australia in the 1970-1980s. In the 1960s the majority of newborn boys were circumcised (more than 70%).

My first son was born in 1977 and at that stage women in Tasmania were asked if they wanted their sons circumcised.

By the time my second son was born in 1980 the rate of circumcision in Australia that had dropped to 39% and I suspect it was even lower in Tasmania. By 1982 when my third son was born it was actively discouraged in Tasmania.

As you can see from the chart Tasmania has the lowest rate in Australia.