Circumcision...why is it still legal?

Two babies sickened by oral herpes following Jewish circumcision

Mohel tests positive for herpes

This already happened in 2005, yet no one seemed to care

My question, to you, Civfanatics, is why Federal law has prohibited genital cutting of any sort for any reason (religious, social, "medical") upon girls, but at the same time allows such horrible abuse of boys for any reason whatsoever? How is this constitutional under the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law? How is it that such blatant sexism and misandry has been allowed to continue for so long?

Evidence has been mounting for more than 30 years that circumcision of either gender is a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture that causes trauma in infants and is rooted in hatred of, and desire to control sexuality of both genders.

But our medical and political system doesn't seem to care, because purloined foreskins are worth big money to cosmetic companies who buy them, and to the doctors who amputate them without consent. As a matter of fact, the AAP briefly considered in 2006 to allow female genital cutting of a form far less severe than male circumcision on the premise that parents who wish to have this procedure on their daughters would go back to their home country where conditions are less safe. Seems to me they just wanted to collect more blood money by inflicting pain on infants.

Here is the AAP policy statement quote:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

Click to expand...

What do you think? Should we allow "ritual nicking" of girls? After all, the AAP itself believes that it is less "extensive" than male circumcision which is performed all the time in this country.

My bottom line is that routine genital cutting of any infant regardless of the gender is an abusive, harmful, unnecessary procedure that has no place in any society claiming to be humane.

The herpes is because of the use of the mouth in the circumcision, which should definitely be illegal and is disgusting.

What is wrong with people?

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

Moderator Action: Please don't try and inflame a rather sensitive topic. Contribute or don't bother posting in the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I of course realize that no parent in the United States who chooses to circumcise their child does so because they desire to abuse them. Absolutely not. Parents are simply trying to choose what is best for their child, and the doctors are the ones giving them fraudulent, dubious information without explaining the real risks and complications of this procedure which can include permanent sexual deformity or dysfunction, psychological trauma (symptoms of PTSD), loss of the penis and death.

There is also the issue that everyone seems to overlook, which is that in the case of infant circumcision informed consent about risks isn't being given to the patient undergoing the procedure (the baby boy). Parents are not qualified under any circumstances to give consent to the amputation of perfectly normal, healthy erogenous tissue. Such a procedure also quite clearly violates the Hippocratic Oath.

Many U.S. medical textbooks have no information about the functions and development of the foreskin, and often only mention the foreskin in regards to how to cut it off. Many doctors themselves are also circumcised and it has been found that doctors are far more likely to recommend circumcision if they themselves or their sons are circumcised.

ParkCungHee said:

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

Click to expand...

I understand the desire to be humorous about such a serious, painful and personal topic, but please try to add something of substance to the discussion.

galdre said:

The herpes is because of the use of the mouth in the circumcision, which should definitely be illegal and is disgusting.

What is wrong with people?

Click to expand...

I think we should go one step further and outlaw all routine genital mutilations on infants or children no matter what the gender, and no matter what the reason. Doctors, mohels and others who perform such procedures should be imprisoned, fined and banned from medical practice for life.

Just put down the knife, and walk away.

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene. On the other hand their is the ever present risk of complications and psychological damage. As with any other medical procedure which has such documented pros and cons, I say leave it up to the doctors.

As someone brought up in a culture where no penis parts get chopped off when you're born, I always found the practice odd and unnecessary.. Might as well chop off earlobes or something, makes as much sense to me.

But I do have to point out that female circumcision is NOT the same.. It is multitudes worse.. they are not really equivalent in any sort of way

Circumcision is not harmful to the long term health of men in the vast majority of cases. It does have some benefits Truronian mentioned. UTIs are no joke, but with 1st world hygiene and antibiotics the chief health reasons behind male circumcision are probably covered rendering it unnecessary most of the time.

Attempting to liken male circumcision to female circumcision/genital removal/mutilation in it's commonly practiced forms is a gross over-exaggeration.

Truronian said:

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene. On the other hand their is the ever present risk of complications and psychological damage. As with any other medical procedure which has such documented pros and cons, I say leave it up to the doctors.

Click to expand...

Going to have to keep bringing this up throughout this thread. As also pointed out Female "circumcision" does not have the same values nor is it anywhere near the same thing.

Yeah, I have to agree, you can't compare male and female circumcision. They're done for totally different reasons, and one has a legit medical purpose.

Are there risks associated with male circumcision? There sure are, just like with any medical operation. I had no idea anybody ever used their mouth for part of this process, but that sounds unhygienic as hell.

The procedure does have a medical purpose though. I don't know if you've ever had to clean an infant's penis before, but URIs are not very uncommon, and being cut makes that cleaning process a little easier. Given a competent doctor, the risk of complications in a modern hospital is still very low.

The issue of consent is really a non-starter. Medical decisions of minors are left in the hands of parents, and it doesn't make a difference if the kid is 12 or 12 hours.

All the health benefits of circumcision, whatever they may be, are still available to adult males who are able to make an informed choice as to whether to undergo the procedure. The medical case for routine infant circumcision is dubious at best.

As to why it is still legal, in recent times politicians who have suggested banning the procedure have found themselves subjected to charges of anti-Semitism. In most localities, that's political suicide. Only in a really left-leaning place like San Francisco would it even be considered.

duckstab said:

All the health benefits of circumcision, whatever they may be, are still available to adult males who are able to make an informed choice as to whether to undergo the procedure.

Click to expand...

Partially true. The risk of UTI in relation to foreskin as an adult is frequently not to the man but to his partner. The risk of UTI as an infant/child is to self and it isn't a non-issue.

Do not even attempt to compare male circumcision with female genital mutilation. The latter is akin to cutting off the head of your penis, not the foreskin.

Probably shouldn't be legal to do on babies. Ontario no longer pays for it.

Honestly, if the doctor does the circumcision right, there shouldn't be any complications. As Truronian said, it comes with some advantages. Not to mention that Judaism prescribes circumcision, and outlawing it would force Jewish parents to go against their conscience.

Female circumcision is wrong, and should be outlawed everywhere.

I really think that calling male circumcision "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture" is an overstatement.

I don't know whether or not it's beneficial, but unnecessary surgery on children shouldn't be done.

If we accept that 1. Surgery of an , at best , medically dubious nature should not be performed on infants and 2. Exceptions to this based on religious grounds are also dubious , then it follows that circumcision should be outlawed .

But I'm not completely sold on these 2 premises .

contre said:

Do not even attempt to compare male circumcision with female genital mutilation. The latter is akin to cutting off the head of your penis, not the foreskin.

Probably shouldn't be legal to do on babies. Ontario no longer pays for it.

Click to expand...

Cutting off the head of the penis at the very minimum. More like cutting off the whole penis and that's still just the beginning. What is called "female circumcision" is not any sort of "circumcision".

I would support a law against circumcising boys who could not consent.

Can we vaccinate children? I mean, 3 year olds can't consent to getting a shot. Should we give a kid a shot if he cries and says no no no?

The benefit of vaccinations is firmly established and they're a matter of public health.

Truronian said:

Well, various studies have indicated that male circumcision reduces the risk of UTIs, penile cancer, STDs (including HIV) and improves genital hygiene. On the other hand their is the ever present risk of complications and psychological damage. As with any other medical procedure which has such documented pros and cons, I say leave it up to the doctors.

Click to expand...

I very strongly suspect that these several studies have been made by medics who have an interest in not admitting their past (and ongoing) wrongdoing, and looking for ways to attempt to justify them. The arguments are ridiculous:
1) cutting away any body part reduced cancer in that body part: in fact it eliminates it. But as warpus suggested, that doesn't mean we go about cutting all those "useless" other parts.
2) UTIs and the whole "improves genital hygiene"... really, because it's so hard to keep the unmutilated penis clean! We may as well extract all the teeth from people as soon as they are formed, to prevent tooth decay.
3) Greater resistance to STDs... do we want to go there? Fine. These have been cohort studies where it is impossible to control all factors. Medical history is full of cohort studies being used to draw false conclusions: anyone wants to discuss all the that came out of the largest of those, and one of the oldest, the Nurses' Health Study? Sorry, I won't trust the any conclusion from any such study before a full biological explanation for the claimed correlations has been offered and tested.