I've spoken to many men Mormon who wish they hadn't been circumcized and even a young 20s Jewish guy who doesn't criticize his religion except for his mutilation. He is jealous of the uncircumcized. So am I.

We the circumcized have been mutilated. We have had our foreskins taken from us and for many of us they were stolen for a religious reason.

I don't know about now but when I was young I was told I was circumcized because it was proper for hygiene and Biblically inspired.

I now know better and wish like the young Jewish guy I met a month ago had my lost foreskin back.

That is all. Except I have to keep up my prolific posting and creation of threads. Thanks for tolerating this behavior of mine.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 11:26AM by Elder Berry.

Oh, come on. Next you’ll suggest that doctors stop bloodletting and leaches.

Oh, I see you are attacking my humors.

I don't find this to be an issue.

May I see your appendix?

You my have my appendix when it starts to bother me.

I wonder if it is as tasty as a placenta?

https://www.webmd.com/baby/should-i-eat-my-placenta#1

If something comes out of me I don't want it back in me.

Ghandi reportedly drank his own urine. Is that a good thing ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 11:47AM by Dave the Atheist.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger with magical thinking. Just ask Mother Teresa's ghost.

"caring for the sick by glorifying their suffering instead of relieving it, …"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

Shalom.

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball.

Or a bullet.

I know it is painful to have done as an adult if indeed it is a choice to do so, but a religion making this a requirement without the individual's informed adult consent is troubling.

It's one thing to have a medical condition or make an informed choice as an adult about what one prefers for their own body. It's another for it to be a religious custom.

In this day and age, I'm surprised people perpetuate this, but they do. Children's genitals should not be seen, touched or defined in any way by clergy. It's barbaric and creepy that religion is in a child's pants.

I feel the same way about piercing children's ears. Their bodies are theirs, not mine for my favorite customs and decoration.

Elder Barry, shame on you for starting so many threads and then derailing it by talking about other body parts.

I think you are confusing me with my adopted Jewish twin brother Elder Barry.

Shalom.

Oh. Well no wonder I'm confused. I never read your threads because all you talk about is your polygamist roots.

LOL! I'll let you have the last word. Whoopsie!

"I feel the same way about piercing children's ears."

I do too but my daughters got their piercings at their "age of accountability." I was going up against that at the same time. It was awful. What little girl doesn't want their ears pierced?

I know. It's what they want for sure. Thankfully my daughter didn't push and did it on her own as an adult. It would be much harder nowadays.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/risk-factors.html

>>Men who were circumcised as children may have a much lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not. In fact, some experts say that circumcision as an infant prevents this cancer. The same protective effect is not seen if circumcision is done as an adult.

>>The reason for the lower risk in circumcised men is not entirely clear, but it may be related to other known risk factors.

It is not definitive, but may be true.
We also know cutting off breasts early helps prevent breast cancer.
We assess the risk when this is done. We don't do it because some religion says so. That's the only point I am really trying to drive home.

FYI: my dad was an OB/GYN. In my experience, opposition to male circumcison is more of a religious predjudice rather than a health concern -- especially in Europe.

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

"Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 04:11PM by anybody.

I had my son circumcised because that is what you do, but I'll never forget when he and his sister were laying in their beds next to my hospital bed and he was whimpering. I checked. His circumcision had been done. And then I began to wonder why I would do such a thing.

For one thing, I had the comparison of 2 children at the same time. I wish I had never had it done.

My boyfriend's mother chose not to have her sons circumcised, but my boyfriend converted to Judaism and he had his son circumcised. When he talks about the bris and the family and rabbi getting together to perform it, I tell him I don't want to listen. I know I've asked him before why he would have his son circumcised and I can't remember what his answer was.

But I completely agree with you. If I had it to do over again, I'd never have my son circumcised.

Now I see where this subject came from. I consider it male mutilation. And like dagny posted, the definition in the dictionary says male mutilation. My Jewish convert boyfriend has not had circumcision even as a convert. As an adult, they only make a small cut and it is considered circumcision in some aspects of Judaism. Can't remember whether he is reform or what they are called--so I'm sure it is different for each group. His ex-wife and kids often don't treat him as though he is really Jewish because he doesn't have Jewish blood as far as we know. It is painful to him as he is much more versed in Judaism than his ex-wife is. Also, in order to convert, he had to go through many classes and have 3 rabbis allow him to be converted. His new daughter-in-law went through the same process. He does say that many Jews would never consider him Jewish because he hasn't had a circumcision.

Myself, I don't think that women should have any say in this matter. It should be the man who decides if HE HAS A CIRCUMCISION. Not the parents, not the religion.

I saw a dateline or 48 hours or some show some years ago about a twin boy who was actually MUTILATED when he had his circumcision because the doctor slipped, so the doctors determined he should be raised as a female. He wasn't female. So they took a perfect little boy and made this big of a mistake because of a slip of the knife of a procedure that never needed to be done.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 12:51PM by cl2.

I agree with Elder Berry. I did not want my sons circumcised. My obstetrician agreed with me but said that sons should look like their fathers for psychological reasons. I was against it three decades ago and against it still. There is no medical reason for it. It’s all craziness and superstition.

I never saw my dad’s weenie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 06:39PM by babyloncansuckit.

I was listening to npr the other day and they had a segment on female circumcision and male circumcision. It was quite enlightening. We in the west say it's barbaric and a horrible practice and the African tribal people are mutilating their girls and boys, But they have their reasons for doing it. In certain tribes they have a ceremony when they are 13-17 where the elders take a sharp stick and cut. They walk on hot coals and don't drink anything for days. They are expected to not wince. The strongest ones make it through the ordeal and get the pleasure of plural wives and become tribal leaders. The girls are believed to be able to give birth to strong men, not wusses, or sissy boys.

It seems to have worked because these same tribal people excel in running and are very tough. Maybe not especially bright but tough!

Yes, if you were gelded you would sire children who "excel in running and are very tough" too.

I haven't seen it, but there is some medical evidence / research findings that say that STD incidence is less for men who've been cut.

A gay friend of mine had his done for that reason.

No, I'm not going to look it up (maybe).

That used to be the dominant view: that there was a marginal advantage relative to STIs. More recent analysis, however, casts doubt on that, or at least the extent of it. As a result, the medical establishment now thinks any advantage is too small to justify a practice that also entails other physical risks.

The consensus may change, but my guess is it probably won't.

The following is an excerpt from the Policy Statement of the Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (2004) re health benefits and recommendations. The paper includes opinions from the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Bottom Lines:

1. They state that "many" consider circumcision to be "mutilation"

2. The health benefits previously ascribed to the practice are no longer supported by current evidence-based medicine so routine infant circumcision is no longer recommended by Canadian physicians.

3. The procedure is now considered "non-therapeutic" (i.e. not performed as a necessary medical procedure).

4. It is acknowledged that cultural and religious practices that favour infant circumcision make the matter more complex.


https://canadiancrc.com/circumcision/Male_Circumcision_Policy_Statement_College_Physicians_BC_JUN04.aspx



"Until recently, only public health and religious views were taken into consideration in the debate over infant male circumcision. However, our understanding of medical practice must change as research findings become available. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia is issuing this guide for physicians regarding routine infant male circumcision in light of evidence-based medicine and contemporary principles in ethics, law and human rights.

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention. From a religious standpoint, infant male circumcision is acknowledged to be an important ritual and an integral part of Jewish and Islamic religions. Male circumcision is also practiced in other parts of the world as a rite of puberty.

"A wider societal discussion on infant male circumcision is warranted based on a current understanding of bioethics that takes into account the non-therapeutic nature of the procedure as well as the high importance it plays in religious and traditional customs.

"Medical Considerations":

"Circumcision removes the prepuce that covers and protects the head or the glans of the penis. The prepuce is composed of an outer skin and an inner mucosa that is rich in specialized sensory nerve endings and erogenous tissue. Circumcision is painful, and puts the patient at risk for complications ranging from minor, as in mild local infections, to more serious such as injury to the penis, meatal stenosis, urinary retention, urinary tract infection and, rarely, even haemorrhage leading to death. The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended.


"Legal Considerations"

"To date, the legality of infant male circumcision has not been tested in the Courts. It is thus assumed to be legal if it is performed competently, in the childs best interest, and after valid consent has been obtained.

"At all times the physician must perform the procedure with competence, and at all times, the parent and physician must act in the best interests of the child. Signed parental consent for any treatment is assumed to be valid if the parent understands the nature of the procedure and its associated risks and benefits. However, proxy consent by parents is now being questioned. Many believe it should be limited to consent for diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, and that it is not relevant for non-therapeutic procedures.


"Human Rights Considerations"

"The matter of infant male circumcision is particularly difficult in regards to human rights, as it involves consideration of the rights of the infant as well as the rights of the parents.

"Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be unwarranted mutilating surgery.

"Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision. They claim that an infants rights should take priority over any parental rights to make such a decision. This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non-therapeutic procedure.

"Others argue that this stance violates the parents right to religious or cultural expression, and that adherence to their religious and cultural practices would be in the best interests of the infant.


"Ethical Considerations"

"Ethical considerations regarding infant male circumcision centre on the welfare (or best interests) of the infant and the potential benefit and harm associated with the procedure. Ethics points us to corrective vision, i.e. to question practices that have become routine, or which we take for granted.

"Therefore, each request for the procedure should be carefully evaluated, and an agreement to perform the procedure should take into consideration the ethical principles of beneficence (duty to benefit); non-maleficence (do no harm); veracity (accurate information); autonomy (consent); and justice (fairness).


"Beneficence (duty to benefit)

"Item 1. Consider first the well-being of the patient.

Item 14. Recommend only those diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that you consider to be beneficial to your patient and not others.

For Consideration: Medical evidence is that the benefits of routine infant male circumcision do not outweigh the risks of complications from the procedure. Best interests also take into account the infants social circumstances.


"Non-maleficence (do no harm)

"Item 33. Refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.

"For Consideration: Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue."

-----

I wrote the following on another thread:

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Both my brothers were circ'd, just through common practice. However, one brother did not circ his son, due to changing/updated practices. It used to be more common for drs (at least in my world) to advocate doing the same thing for all males in a family - if father was done, so should sons be, if one son was circ'd, so should all other sons be. But I have the circ'd brother with his older son (a step-) done and the younger son (bio) not done. So far, the family hasn't fallen apart due to the differences. And now many drs ask parents to opt into doing it, rather than opting out as previously.

I can understand a religious practice that continues the practice. It would be a massive cultural change for some. Such is often s.l.o.w.

I was just interested in pointing out that it's not just a couple of people in these few threads that are questioning the need for routine circumcision. This professional article [excerpted above], with good sourcing, states that "many" consider the practice to be "unwarranted mutilating surgery". They use the word 'mutilating'. It's not meant to be offensive but rather is a statement of fact from a medical paper.

Other papers I have read on the subject specifically state that male circumcision is not akin to female genital mutilation (seems fairly obvious). However, I can see where people consider that the general *principle* is similar.

I don't think it ever hurts to examine one's cultural practices and preferences. So often we go along with something without giving it the consideration it is due. Familiarity breeds contempt, as they say. IOW, once a generation is accustomed to a certain practice the following generation/s may follow suit without thinking it through.

The more emphasis we can give on human rights being extended to everyone, including children and in this case, even babies, the more advanced we will become, I believe. Practices and opinions that were thought to be permissible or even advisable when I was a kid have gone out of style now, thankfully for some of them, such as "children should be seen and not heard", corporal punishment, being done to, rather than included in, etc. Obviously, the widespread practice of "amputating" a portion of a baby's penis (terminology used in some of the articles I checked out) is being re-thought and now, at the least, medical necessity is seen as a primary factor in the decision-making.

But a lot of room is still given for cultural and religious practice and preference. ...Pressure to change [may be] brought to bear. But here in Canada there is wide latitude given for diverse cultures and faiths. So I can't see change being mandatory any time soon.

I find it interesting to check out both sides. (I would come down on the side of human rights, to include infants).

I agree. Baby boys should not have this decision made for them. Sex is also better for both partners when the man is uncircumcised.

Really? How would that even be determined?

A lot of experimentation? :)

Hah. I wish I could tell you from personal experience. A friend told me that an uncircumcised penis gets more stimulation from the foreskin, helping the man feel more pleasure and having an easier time orgasming. For women, the experience is supposedly more comfortable because the foreskin prevents excess friction, so she has a more pleasurable experience and will orgasm more easily too.

nearly everything I have either been told or have personally experienced.

I agree with the original post.

On what evidence is the statement 'Sex is also better for both partners when the man is uncircumcised.' tendered?


waiting...

Exactly.

World Health Organization findings:

https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/neonatal_child_MC_UNAIDS.pdf

One takeaway is that circumcision has been shown statistically to decrease HIV transmission.

I'm glad I was circumcised as an infant. Better that than being asked to make that decision after I became capable of erections. From page 6: There are several advantages of
circumcising males at a younger versus older age, including a lower risk of complications, faster
healing and a lower cost.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 03:01PM by touchstone.

That report is a decade old, based on earlier evidence still. There have been subsequent studies that question the results, which is why the major health organizations no longer claim that circumcision reduces STIs.

I see that the study is a decade old, and that is a consideration. Still, it looks like WHO still takes stock in the idea today:
https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/


And I'll reiterate my personal gratitude about having the procedure at the time when it likely causes the least trauma.

The OPost mentions male circumcision, what about female circumcision?


are we afraid to discuss this?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> are we afraid to discuss this?

I'm not afraid. If male is mutilation than female is amputation.

Nope. We discussed female genital mutilation at length in the other thread. Everyone thinks it is terrible.

The question here is whether it is okay permanently, painfully and involuntarily to alter the physique and sexual future of baby boys. Those with especial reverence for Judaism and Christianity think that such practices should be protected because, well, they are religious traditions and hence sacrosanct.

Others of us thought that the baby's lack of input should matter and that the religious argument is unreasonable because it is only applied to some religions.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The OPost mentions male circumcision, what about
> female circumcision?

> are we afraid to discuss this?

Although the word "circumcision" is commonly applied, regardless of the gender of the person most directly involved, my own--highly personal--perspective is that these are two very different procedures.

The term "female circumcision" can involve many different things, all of them far more extensive than what we generally mean (currently, and in western culture) when we refer to male circumcision.

"Female circumcision" usually involves cutting away the clitoris, often the labia, and in a significant number of actual "female circumcisions," "sewing up" (sewing together) the freshly-cut vaginal lips, with some kind of impediment (a small, cylindrically-shaped, object of some kind) placed in the lower part of the affected parts as the cut(s) heal, so the female can continue to urinate, and menstrual blood (etc.) can pass through the intended opening. (If this were not done, urine/menstrual blood/other body substances, would be "locked up," inside the body--which would obviously lead to an incredibly painful death at some point.)

The girl (usually about nine-ish in age), must then be "opened" by her husband (the stitches need to be physically cut apart and then removed) for intercourse to occur, after which she is usually sewn up again. (Obviously, this same series of steps also occurs for childbirth.)

The "cutting" implements used are often broken pieces of glass, or a metal can top, or an incredibly UNsterile utility knife. The sewing material can be a wide variety of different materials: small cord, in some cases durable leaves from plants, etc.

The young female so "circumcised"is then set for a life of usually unrelenting pain, throughout her daily life routine, and for the rest of her life. As I understand from reading (and from seeing an anti-female-circumcision dramatic film set in West Africa), every act of sexual intercourse is, for the rest of her life, nightmarishly painful.

To me, as a female, I think that the common word "circumcision"--used for both males and females--elides a gigantic difference between the two different situations, not only in the "how" of how circumcision is initially accomplished, but also in the 24-hour-a-day, EVERY SINGLE DAY FOR THE REST OF THAT PERSON'S LIFE, aftermath.

The differences are so stark that the word "circumcision," applied to both genders, is misogynistically inaccurate in my opinion.

Until the two different situations are verbally differentiated (by not using the same word for both), it is very difficult (and perhaps impossible) to effectively discuss the real issues, in the case of each gender, which need to be discussed and appropriately dealt with.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 04:38PM by Tevai.

Do you object to the use of the word "mutilation" for when Japanese mobsters cut off the final segment of a person's pinky? How about when French explorers killed Native Americans and then cut superficial marks into the corpses?

If you think "mutilate" is an appropriate verb in those circumstances, as I suspect you do, why is the term inappropriate to describe the involuntary severance of part of a baby's genitalia? What is it about violence against baby boys that merits carving out an exception from the dictionary definition of the word "mutilate?"

There is a distinction to be drawn between major and minor mutilation, to be sure, just as there is between misdemeanor assault and felonious assault--but both are still assault. I doubt anyone here would say that being punched in the face no longer qualifies as assault because someone else was assaulted with a deadly weapon.

I have no problem if you want to differentiate between minor mutilation and major mutilation. Qualify the form and extent of the act at will. But devising a new word for one subcategory of the dictionary definition is arbitrary.

This isn't linguistic logic: it is something else altogether.



ETA: That's a pretty extensive edit, Tevai. You completely removed your discussion of the word "mutilate" and substituted "circumcise." Wouldn't it have been better simply to acknowledge that you changed your mind about "mutilate" being inappropriate for little boys?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 05:13PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Do you object to the use of the word "mutilation"
> for when Japanese mobsters cut off the final
> segment of a person's pinky?

No.

> How about when French explorers killed Native Americans and
> then cut superficial marks into the corpses?

I am definitely not in favor of this, but if the corpses were indeed dead when this occurred, then it is not (in my opinion) "mutilation," but desecration.


> If you think "mutilate" is an appropriate verb in
> those circumstances, as I suspect you do, why is
> the term inappropriate to describe the involuntary
> severance of part of a baby's genitalia?

To me, this is more in the category of elective surgery (and yes, I DO understand that in the case of a male infant or young
male child, that child has NOT "elected" to do this).


> What is it about violence against baby boys that merits
> carving out an exception from the dictionary
> definition of the word "mutilate?"

I have had surgeries in my life (including a "nose job"/rhinoplasty), an ovarian resection, an operation to remove the end third of my Fallopian tubes--and an involuntary, and done without my permission or prior knowledge, appendectomy. I consider none of these to be "mutilations," though they would possibly fit within a dictionary definition of "mutilation."

Especially because I have had the benefit of hearing a number of different, first-hand, accounts of adult male circumcisions, I do not consider these to be significantly different.


> There is a distinction to be drawn between major
> and minor mutilation, to be sure, just as there is
> between misdemeanor assault and felonious
> assault--but both are still assault. I doubt
> anyone here would say that being punched in the
> face no longer qualifies as assault because
> someone else was assaulted with a deadly weapon.

This is an excellent point. In American (North American?) culture, infant male circumcision became a cultural norm (at some point in, I think, the earlier twentieth century).

Since ancient times, it has been a not only a norm, but a requirement, in Jewish religious culture. (There are work-arounds available for males who come from families where this is not medically wise--my memory (which may be faulty) is that, in these cases, "symbolic" circumcisions are substituted for full circumcisions.)

In either case, I see nothing "wrong" with male circumcision (either infant circumcision, or adult circumcision)--which may be because I am a born/raised American who, as an adult, became a Jew. (In other words, these are my dual cultural biases, which in this particular instance, support each other.)


> I have no problem if you want to differentiate
> between minor mutilation and major mutilation.
> But devising a new word for one subcategory of the
> dictionary definition of "mutilate", which applies
> only to boys undergoing a religious ceremony, is
> ridiculous.
>
> This isn't linguistic logic: it is something else
> altogether.

I understand your feelings, and I accept them as valid for you--but for me, male infant/adult male circumcision does not rise to the level of "mutilation"--any more than, for me, I do not consider myself "mutilated" because I no longer have the nose which has been generously passed down my paternal ancestral line for generations.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 05:27PM by Tevai.

SO I got a dick job when I was a baby?

Cutting up a corpse is "mutilation," a factual statement reflected in any detailed dictionary definition. It becomes "desecration" because mutilating a corpse is an act of religious sacrilege. The definitions of "desecrate" are "to divest of sacred or hallowed character, to divert from a sacred to a profane use or purpose, [or] "to treat with sacrilege; profane." In short, it is a religious or moral term.

It follows that mutilating a corpse, or a human, absolutely comprises desecration. But the terms are not mutually exclusive. Mutilating a killed cow in preparation for its sale as meat is not desecration. Mutilating a human corpse is desecration because the human is sacred.

Your treatment of the term "elective" troubles me for the simple reason that the baby never elected anything. It was the parents who made the choice, so circumcision is the epitome of a procedure that is NOT elective. To state otherwise is to assert that the child does not have, and never will have, moral autonomy--a proposition, with which I agree, that contradicts your implicit statement that human bodies are sacred.

As for whether circumcision rises to the level of "mutilation," it is clear what the dictionaries say and what verbiage the medical associations choose to use. I believe I am on sounder ground going with those bodies--are their views "valid" in general or only "for them?"--than you are in rejecting their judgments. It may also make sense to listen to the men who, on this site, are expressing their own views.

You and I would in almost all cases agree that the wishes of the subjects of outside forces and decisions should be heard--in fact, should be deferred to. I submit that in this instance you are contradicting your usual principles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 05:57PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mutilating a killed cow in preparation for its sale as meat is not desecration. Mutilating a human corpse is desecration because the human is sacred.

Although many people do have their sacred cows. :)


LW:
> It was the parents who made the choice, so circumcision is the epitome of a procedure that is NOT elective.

The policy paper I referenced above includes that in the "against" category and, also, once again, the word 'mutilation' is included in their paper:

"Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an infant has rights that include security of person, life, freedom and bodily integrity. Routine infant male circumcision is an unnecessary and irreversible procedure. Therefore, many consider it to be unwarranted mutilating surgery.

"Many adult men are increasingly concerned about whether their parents had the right to give consent for infant male circumcision. They claim that an infants rights should take priority over any parental rights to make such a decision. This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non-therapeutic procedure.


These points are of vast medical and legal importance. I don't think everyone will ever agree. However, I lean towards the medical knowledge side, as well as the ethical considerations. It is likely quite a new concept for many that parents are no longer seen to have ultimate rights over their own children. Rather, it is at least under discussion that even infants have rights that supercede their parents' right to choose for them. It was far easier, true enough, when all major medical bodies agreed with the thinking that the procedure was medically advisable.

I do understand the religious angle. That is yet another thorny thicket to be negotiated. It will likely be a long, long time, if ever, before a tenet of religious belief gets changed.

On this topic, pardon my ignorance, Lot's Wife, but *is it* a Christian belief? I've never heard that before, despite many years in various churches. But then maybe those on the more fundamentalist end of the scale don't discuss such matters, at least not in public, or maybe not with women? I have no idea or else I've forgotten it.


> It may also make sense to listen to the men who, on this site, are expressing their own views.

That is certainly a group whose opinion is significant (men in general). I do agree that it's "easier" to contemplate, and to undergo, the procedure shortly after birth than as a grown male. But, as we see from the paper I referenced, that is getting to be controversial, not least because they seem no longer to be able to justify the procedure medically. That, of course, is a primary focus of an ethical physician/surgeon.


As for the details Tevai gave re FGM, YOW! I have read quite a bit about it, mostly info centred on the efforts to get it stopped, but have never run into the kind of details Tevai outlined. I had NO CLUE that they had to get sewn up and ripped open over and over throughout life. That is beyond barbaric. And I highly doubt the women give permission. And certainly they would like a rapid and complete change in the practice altogether. I wince at just the thought of the lack of hygiene and wince harder still imagining undergoing such torture on a regular basis. I knew there is a reason they refer to it as "mutilation" and I am aware of what is involved in terms of physical alteration (to use a euphemism in the interests of time and not needing to repeat the details that Tevai has laid out so completely). Horrible. I have great respect for the women working so hard to publicize the matter and to get it stopped.

Humans are strange creatures indeed. Somehow I used to have the impression that we have progressed far along the path towards ultimate truth, knowledge and fair play.

I know. I'm too easily conned into quiescence through faulty info and unrealistic expectations.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 06:29PM by Nightingale.

Traditionally Christians circumscribed their male children. The status of the rite was somewhat unclear, but it was predominant in most parts of Christianity. That has now changed in a lot of communities.

But a lot of Christians still automatically perform the procedure, impulsively support it, or at least think it deserves respect by dint of tradition. It is sad to see those prejudices trump the moral autonomy of the infant and the man he will become.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traditionally Christians circumscribed their male
> children.


Okay, is this another triangle joke like before?

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2242213,2242567#msg-2242567

Hah!

I was proud of that one! This time it was just stupidity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 06:47PM by Lot's Wife.

Yeah, that one was good.

I actually started thinking about religions and "circumscription," but all I could come up with was this:

https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&biw=1366&bih=663&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=sadMXc-SItSGtQb5kb6gCQ&q=child+circumscribed+pentagram&oq=child+circumscribed+pentagram&gs_l=img.3...7300.7746..8754...0.0..0.66.316.5......0....1..gws-wiz-img.TeNQNmLmmx0&ved=&uact=5#imgrc=qGshhMvZOFp7bM:



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2019 07:10PM by lurking in.

I got ill reading this when I did a couple of years ago.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/detroit-doctor-female-genital-mutilation-1.4071228

You consented to your change, a baby can't. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Was the appendectomy done to save your life or due to a health concern? If the answer is yes, then also apples and oranges. There was a time that anytime a surgery was performed in the area around the appendix, they would remove it as a matter of a preventative measure. It's my understanding that this has changed because it's medically unnecessary, and could cause complications. Why doesn't male circumcision do the same?

You also equating infant and adult circumcision... Again, the adult can consent, the baby can't.

You use culture and religion to justify changing the physical attribute of a child via a medically unnecessary procedure. History is full of ideas and actions where culture and religion was totally fine with something that now considered abhorrent. This one should be a no-brainer. Harm a child and cause a permanent physical change for no reason, or don't do that.

Thanks to this culturally and religiously accepted procedure, a close relative of mine had painful erections for his teenage years and will likely impact him his entire life (he was told by his doctor when he could finally talk to someone about his embarrassing situation, to masturbate and "hopefully" it'll get better as the skin stretches). It seems the doctor who did his circumcision got a little overzealous in the amount removed. You may say, well, that only happens in a few cases. How many cases of damage caused by an unnecessary, non-consensual, elective medical procedure are required to rise to the level of, "we probably shouldn't do that?"

A LOT happens to babies without their consent. The don't get to choose their parents, some bizarre language gets forced on them, etc. So a bit of perspective is in order. Be that as it may, I recognize consent is an important moral consideration, so I do feel the pull of the argument. But I still remain grateful I didn't have to make the choice myself later on, that my circumcision had already been taken care of.

Touchstone, you are in a special situation. You have decided you are glad you underwent the procedure, so the question becomes whether it happened in the right way. It sounds like it did.

But the situation is different for those who wish they had never been circumscribed. For them the fact that it was foisted upon them when they were incapable of understanding the procedure, let alone deciding on it, is paramount.

For the vast majority of the world's male population, the latter perspective is more appropriate.

How would you know you aren’t affected by being traumatized by the procedure? Baby passes out and they’re “aw look, he’s sleeping”.

Holy Cow, I had to cross my legs while reading this post.

And, I hope Ziller doesn't get a hold of this post, or, maybe I do.

Well my daddy didn't get cut and when first I noticed him I wondered what was wrong with me and my obvious deficiency.

Then I wondered if mine would grow back just like Pop's when I grew up.

Now I wonder why the fuck did he let them do to my junk that which was never done to his.

Brilliant.

And opposition to child molestation is anti-Catholicism.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Brilliant.
>
> And opposition to child molestation is
> anti-Catholicism.

Anti-Catholicism often uses that as an excuse to attack Catholics in general, and to condemn all priests.

Pure dogwhistle tactics. Like the people who want KFC to stop halal butchery or hate kosher, because 'it's cruel' but have no problem with factory farming.

Circumcision isn't practised anymore in Mormonism, and was only introduced as a brief experiment.

And opposition to police brutality is a dog whistle for anarchists while anger at the Mormon church's abuse is a dog whistle for anti-white racism.

"Circumcision isn't practised [sic] anymore in Mormonism, and was only introduced as a brief experiment."

You are truly a gem.