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.
I say leave it up to the babies, and trust me, not one of them ever decides to get cut.
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.
No, neither one has a legit medical purpose.
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.
Easier cleaning does not justify mutilation.
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.
Ah, the old "is = ought" fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while...
Honestly, if the doctor does the circumcision right, there shouldn't be any complications.
The complications are only secondary to the main reasons for opposing the practice...
I really think that calling male circumcision "a horribly abusive, damaging form of torture" is an overstatement.
How much pain would have to be inflicted on a baby, and how many body parts removed, before you'd consider it abuse/damage/torture?
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?
I wouldn't vaccinate a 3-year-old regardless of what they had to say about it, but to answer your question,
"no" means "no".
This... with the added stipulation that the act of circumsicion rarely causes harm to the child.
Circumcision harms the child
by definition.
Sure, there are some incredibly unfortunate circumstances that do cause the infants terrible harm, but that's no reason to outlaw the whole process any more than we should outlaw Baptism because of the
drowning from a couple years back.
Correct. The parts of the practice that go
exactly according to plan are the biggest reason for wanting it banned.
I have some cousins who are circumcised and they have had no issues with them, so generally it is safe to do.
On what planet do excruciating pain and the loss of functionally important tissue not preclude something from being "safe"?
If circumcision is torture I think we have literally run out of problems in the world. Torture, evidently, is a largely forgettable experience. Humans, it turns out, are largely incapable of administering any real harm to humans. The rack, the pit of Calcutta, hanging by hooks and wires, burning alive it's apparently all not too bad. Turns out, those people were all a bunch of whiners. Most of them weren't even circumcised.
I dunno. I might take the Rack over having someone cut into my Most Important Organ without anaesthetic.
I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration, plus its not really a harmful procedure.
1) The freedom to not have your junk mutilated against your will and without anaesthetic trumps anything that anyone might say about religious freedom.
2) It is, by definition, a form of harm.
I think it's a disgusting practice but I leave the choice to the parents.
You seem to be forgetting the one person whose choice matters most.
So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.
That sounds like a fair trade.
A more extreme example would be the Jehova's witnesses, who want to refuse their children blood even if they will die without it. What's your stance on that? Should that be legal just because a religion demands it?
I'd call Child Protective Services and ensure that the kids find new homes with parents who don't want to kill kids.
My sincerest apologies to any Witnesses in here.
circumcision isn't going to lead to death.
No, just horrible pain and the permanent inability to ever learn just how awesome sex can feel.
But ordinary circumcision does no real damage.
It
is damage by its very nature.
For me personally, I'm glad I was circumcised, but would never choose to be circumcised. The pain would be too great.
I'm pretty sure that you're given anaesthetics if you get it done as an adult.
I think unless a given medical procedure has a high chance of harming the baby, it should be a parent's decision, regardless. So I do hold to the "Circumcision is fine" position anyway.
Did you miss the step where the baby loses a body part, accompanied by blood and screaming? That falls under the definition of "harm".
I don't actually care if Jews are allowed to cut their infant sons. As I've said, I would support a ban on circumcising those that cannot consent. But an exception must be made for the Jews that are going to do it anyway so that it can be done as safely as possible.
I have a better idea. Make it illegal for everyone, and if they do it anyway, they get prison time.
Circumcision is not truly dangerous
You have a curious definition of "dangerous". Go out and ask a bunch people, "If something has a 100% chance of causing the loss of a body part and extreme pain, would you consider it dangerous?" I think you'll find that the people will disproportionately answer "yes".
millions of children have this happen to them each and every day, so what's the problem?
The problem is that millions of children have this happen to them each and every day.
True that it is a unnecessary in many regards (very few males actually have problems that circumcision claims to fix), but on the flipside, a problem that manifests itself that can only be cured by circumcision that appears in a person's later years can be even more painful to deal with.
Adults can get circumcised, you know. Problem solved.
No, I'm being serious, "reduces penile size and function"? That is the most ludicrous thing I have heard of for quite awhile.
I'm not sure about size, but there's definitely a loss of function if you consider sexual pleasure to be one of the functions of the penis.
it is a parent's decision to have their child circumcised, as the parents hold the most authority
No, the person to whom the penis belongs holds the most authority.
) in terms of own goal forms of argumentation. People are forgiven for ignoring these threads on those grounds alone. I certainly did.
