Let's cut bits off of babies, yes?

[DeafPoet]

Many of the posts in defense of circumcision seem to be coming from circumcised males who claim they are not adversely affected by it. I'll accept that at face value since I don't know a damn thing about actually being circumcised.

My problem with the issue is that it's obviously biologically "normal" to be born with a foreskin. If I were to have a son I'd need a lot better reason than "most circumcised guys aren't complaining."

It's great that they feel okay about it but that's not an argument for the practice. For whatever evolutionary reason, the damn thing's there. A medical rationale for removing it would be nice. Religion, culture and "no complaints so far" are really poor reasons to put a baby under the knife.

Like Miss Chicken, I think people who are capable of giving consent should just go to town on their foreskins if they wish. But I think it's pretty telling that almost nobody in that position actually does it.

 

[iguana_tonante]

That's definitely not what he meant...

oh oh oh oh oh, my bad totally! I didn't put it in context with the post above! I read it as just a general opinion on the main topic, like:

Circumcision? Better to err on the side of caution.

Totally see now!

No biggies. I was surprised by your reply, given I've expressed my opinion on circumcision before, but I understand not all posters here hang on every word of mine.

 

[Trekker4747]

My problem with the issue is that it's obviously biologically "normal" to be born with a foreskin. If I were to have a son I'd need a lot better reason than "most circumcised guys aren't complaining."

It's also biologically normal to be born with an appendix.

 

[TheSeeker]

I'll just go on record saying I am a circumcised male who will not continue the practice should I be lucky enough to have a son one day.


I don't resent my parents for having it done to me but I see no reason at all why this procedure should be carried out. Just the thought of putting my child through that much pain makes me feel horrible. If you have ever seen a baby scream in pain I think you know where I'm coming from.

 

[Kelthaz]

I'm rather neutral on the whole issue. I was circumcised and I don't believe it has had a negative effect on my life in any way, but I'm not for circumcision either. It's a complete pointless procedure done because, well, just because. If I have a son I won't have him circumcised, but if for some unusual medical reason doctors recommended that he be circumcised I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. This just isn't an issue I feel strongly about one way or the other.

 

[iguana_tonante]

My problem with the issue is that it's obviously biologically "normal" to be born with a foreskin. If I were to have a son I'd need a lot better reason than "most circumcised guys aren't complaining."

It's also biologically normal to be born with an appendix.

And in fact, it's not a normal procedure to remove an healthy appendix from newborn babies. Right? Right?

 

[Trekker4747]

My point is more that even though it's "biologically normal" to be born with something doesn't mean it's needed or an affront to God and/or nature to remove it. And considering even today removing an appendix from an adult is a tricky process that comes with all of the dangers that come with invasive surgery (infections, stays in hospital, general anesthesia) removing the foreskin poses pretty much no meaning full risk other than pain.

 

[iguana_tonante]

That makes no sense. It's there, and it works fine. Leave it alone except in the very few cases it gives you problems, like any other part of your body. Or maybe you want to try again stating that "it's not a body part".

Your comment is especially funny because some people choose to remove it explicitly because keeping it is an "affront to God".

 

[ThankQ]

Yeah, when my leg becomes gangrenous I'll amputate, until then, I'd rather hang on to it if it's all the same to you.

 

[DeafPoet]

My point is more that even though it's "biologically normal" to be born with something doesn't mean it's needed or an affront to God and/or nature to remove it. And considering even today removing an appendix from an adult is a tricky process that comes with all of the dangers that come with invasive surgery (infections, stays in hospital, general anesthesia) removing the foreskin poses pretty much no meaning full risk other than pain.

Well yeah, but you're still noy addressing the issue of why it should be removed in the first place. You're just repeating the argument that since it's not really causing you any harm then you should go ahead and do it.

 

[Deckerd]

I think this thread has a wormhole where we keep looping back to the same place.

 

[Trekker4747]

There's no "real reason" to remove it, at least nothing we can point to and say, definitively, it needs to go. An appendix pretty much does nothing for you, may gobble up some pus and other crap and then make you sick -necessitating its removal.

Your foreskin? Pretty much just an wrinkly bulge of skin and tissue that doesn't really do anything for you but doesn't do anything against you.

But some people have made a justification in their minds that it needs to be removed for the good of the child. Whether this reason is based on religious belief, unfounded or unsupported medical reasons or maybe some founded medical reasons that today or either rare or no longer the case.

Never the less parents make these decisions in the best interest of their child. I doubt there's had-wringing parents out there intent to do their child irreparable harm by removing the foreskin. They have some belief that doing it is the best idea, no matter how much merit that belief has.

Since removing the foreskin carries with it little risk in the procedure (unlike the risks that'd be involved with removing other unneeded body parts like the appendix and considering the percentages of "botched" circumcisions just being statistical likelihood (all surgery and procedures have risks) and no lasting harm (the child is too young to have the procedure be of any lfe-long affect) or diminished function (considering the circumcised penis still performs it's main functions and any "reduced feeling" claims are anecdotal at best) then what's the "harm" in taking it off?

The parent has to make the best choice for their child until the child is old enough to decide for them self, something that won't occur for decades. This isn't the same thing as removing an organ a limb or harming the child in a way that causes risk, diminished capacity or other lasting harm.

It's. A. Flap. Of. Skin!

It doesn't really do anything. If a parent thinks it's best for his child to not have it the parent is allowed that choice. The parent is doing it in the best interest of the child and the child isn't harmed (other than pain) in any meaningful way.

Big deal.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I think this thread has a wormhole where we keep looping back to the same place.

It's like a foreskin Möbius Strip.

 

[Deckerd]

Your foreskin? Pretty much just an wrinkly bulge of skin and tissue that doesn't really do anything for you

And you would know this ... how exactly?

 

[ThankQ]

There's no "real reason" to remove it, at least nothing we can point to and say, definitively, it needs to go. An appendix pretty much does nothing for you, may gobble up some pus and other crap and then make you sick -necessitating its removal.

Your foreskin? Pretty much just an wrinkly bulge of skin and tissue that doesn't really do anything for you but doesn't do anything against you.

But some people have made a justification in their minds that it needs to be removed for the good of the child. Whether this reason is based on religious belief, unfounded or unsupported medical reasons or maybe some founded medical reasons that today or either rare or no longer the case.

Never the less parents make these decisions in the best interest of their child. I doubt there's had-wringing parents out there intent to do their child irreparable harm by removing the foreskin. They have some belief that doing it is the best idea, no matter how much merit that belief has.

Since removing the foreskin carries with it little risk in the procedure (unlike the risks that'd be involved with removing other unneeded body parts like the appendix and considering the percentages of "botched" circumcisions just being statistical likelihood (all surgery and procedures have risks) and no lasting harm (the child is too young to have the procedure be of any lfe-long affect) or diminished function (considering the circumcised penis still performs it's main functions and any "reduced feeling" claims are anecdotal at best) then what's the "harm" in taking it off?

The parent has to make the best choice for their child until the child is old enough to decide for them self, something that won't occur for decades. This isn't the same thing as removing an organ a limb or harming the child in a way that causes risk, diminished capacity or other lasting harm.

It's. A. Flap. Of. Skin!

It doesn't really do anything. If a parent thinks it's best for his child to not have it the parent is allowed that choice. The parent is doing it in the best interest of the child and the child isn't harmed (other than pain) in any meaningful way.

Big deal.

The people who preform female circumcision believe they're doing what's best for their child.

Parents who withold medical treatment and focus only on prayer based healing believe they're doing what's best for their child.

The Jonesboro Baptist people think what they are teaching their children is for their betterment.

"I believed I was doing a good thing" don't always cut the mustard.


And I don't know, a few thousand more nerve endings on my penis? Maybe that would do nothing for you, but I wouldn't turn down that offer!

 

[iguana_tonante]

But some people have made a justification in their minds that it needs to be removed for the good of the child.

Never the less parents make these decisions in the best interest of their child. They have some belief that doing it is the best idea, no matter how much merit that belief has.

Be it about circumcision, quantum mechanics, what you'll have for dinner, or any other subject on God's green earth, that's the single most irrational line of reasoning I've ever seen.

 

[cultcross]

Your foreskin? Pretty much just an wrinkly bulge of skin and tissue that doesn't really do anything for you

You can be as pro or anti circumcision as you like, but you are completely wrong about that.

 

[Garak]

Now, as we all know, certain cultures (Jews and Americans) regularly lop of foreskins of infant boys as a matter of at least unofficial policy. Usually, there is no anaesthetic used. And infants are supposedly more sensitive to pain than adults.

What are you talking about? I was at a Bris 2 months ago and there was plenty of anaesthetic used. The Mohel even said he always does it as he was prepping the baby.

In any event, my future son(s) will be getting the chop soon after they are born and there isn't a goddamn thing anyone can do about it. Well aside from pretending that they know what do do with someone else's child better than the parents themselves.

 

[ThankQ]

Now, as we all know, certain cultures (Jews and Americans) regularly lop of foreskins of infant boys as a matter of at least unofficial policy. Usually, there is no anaesthetic used. And infants are supposedly more sensitive to pain than adults.

What are you talking about? I was at a Bris 2 months ago and there was plenty of anaesthetic used. The Mohel even said he always does it as he was prepping the baby.

In any event, my future son(s) will be getting the chop soon after they are born and there isn't a goddamn thing anyone can do about it. Well aside from pretending that they know what do do with someone else's child better than the parents themselves.

Many, many people know what to do with someone else's children better than the parents know themselves.

I'm not saying YOU are one of those who doesn't, for all I know you may be the Parent of the Century. But "It's my child, therefore what I believe is best for him" is not necessarily true. If you need me to cite 467,083 examples, I will. And so can everyone else. And so can you.

And of course no one can stop you. If that's your decision, that's your decision. My take is that you're making an emotional decision, not a logically reasoned one. Again, that's your own business. While there isn't much evidence that there's long term harm, there is even less evidence that there is long term good in the vast majority of cases, as we've read many times.

I am interested in your motivation, though. Is it religious? Health/Medical? Just the way it looks?

 

[Garak]

Now, as we all know, certain cultures (Jews and Americans) regularly lop of foreskins of infant boys as a matter of at least unofficial policy. Usually, there is no anaesthetic used. And infants are supposedly more sensitive to pain than adults.

What are you talking about? I was at a Bris 2 months ago and there was plenty of anaesthetic used. The Mohel even said he always does it as he was prepping the baby.

In any event, my future son(s) will be getting the chop soon after they are born and there isn't a goddamn thing anyone can do about it. Well aside from pretending that they know what do do with someone else's child better than the parents themselves.

Many, many people know what to do with someone else's children better than the parents know themselves.

I'm not saying YOU are one of those who doesn't, for all I know you may be the Parent of the Century. But "It's my child, therefore what I believe is best for him" is not necessarily true. If you need me to cite 467,083 examples, I will. And so can everyone else. And so can you.

Agreed, I can also cite you 467,083 examples of people having no idea when it comes to other people's children. So it's a wash, I guess.

And of course no one can stop you. If that's your decision, that's your decision. My take is that you're making an emotional decision, not a logically reasoned one. Again, that's your own business. While there isn't much evidence that there's long term harm, there is even less evidence that there is long term good in the vast majority of cases, as we've read many times.

I am interested in your motivation, though. Is it religious? Health/Medical? Just the way it looks?

Aesthetic mostly, but I have read that the cells in foreskin are breeding grounds for things like HIV - obviously circumsicion is no protector against AIDS, but why not lessen the chances?

At the end of the day it's just something my wife and I agree on and having witnessed it 1st hand, standing about 2 feet away, we don't feel it's all that big a deal to a newborn.