Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Tylervo]

Recently there has been talk about the harmful effects of circumcision
on sexual health. Some men who have been severely affected by circumcision have even considered nonsurgical restoration to grow back their foreskins.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for Rule 4 and Rule 6.

 

[DallasDad]

 

[dafydd]

The unkindest cut of all.

 

[slingblade]

My reasons aren't very good, but I didn't know that at the time my sons were born. I was pretty young.

My mother had cervical cancer, while she was pregnant with me, and she blamed my father's lack of proper hygiene. He was uncircumcised. I heard this when I was young, and remembered it. Also, I didn't know any uncircumcised men. I'd not met one yet. So it was normative to me. It was "what you did." So, being all of 19 when my first son was born, I had it done. My second son was born 17 months later. Same thing. And honestly, not knowing anything about it, I wasn't sure I'd know how to teach a boy to take care of himself. So it was normal, it was easier, and it was done out of worry.

I'd not do it now, knowing what I know.

 

[JJM 777]

Answer: wrong.

It may be a small wrong, but still it is wrong.

 

[dafydd]

My reasons aren't very good, but I didn't know that at the time my sons were born. I was pretty young.

My mother had cervical cancer, while she was pregnant with me, and she blamed my father's lack of proper hygiene. He was uncircumcised. I heard this when I was young, and remembered it. Also, I didn't know any uncircumcised men. I'd not met one yet. So it was normative to me. It was "what you did." So, being all of 19 when my first son was born, I had it done. My second son was born 17 months later. Same thing. And honestly, not knowing anything about it, I wasn't sure I'd know how to teach a boy to take care of himself. So it was normal, it was easier, and it was done out of worry.

I'd not do it now, knowing what I know.

There are these substances called soap and water.

 

[catsmate]

Recently there has been talk about the harmful effects of circumcision
on sexual health. Some men who have been severely affected by circumcision have even considered nonsurgical restoration to grow back their foreskins. Foreskin restoration does not grow back nerves or complex anatomy, but it restores skin through mitosis. Personally, I strongly believe that circumcision is a violation of bodily rights, so much so, that I am an intactivist.

If this is a serious attempt to begin a debate on the merits of circumcision I suggest you peruse the previous threads (e.g. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202754, which I think is the most recent) and bump one of them.

ETA: this material appears to have been posted around the web from trekbbs to catholic.com therefore I'm doubtful that it's an attempt at legitimate debate.

 

[slingblade]

There are these substances called soap and water.

I didn't say that very well, I realize. Look, I was so easily embarrassed, that I couldn't even look while I hung up my husband's underwear on the clothesline. I really didn't think I'd be able to teach my boys how to take care of their foreskins. I was just a kid myself.

And I've said I was wrong, so please don't flog me for things I cannot now change.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I didn't say that very well, I realize. Look, I was so easily embarrassed, that I couldn't even look while I hung up my husband's underwear on the clothesline. I really didn't think I'd be able to teach my boys how to take care of their foreskins. I was just a kid myself.

And I've said I was wrong, so please don't flog me for things I cannot now change.

And for a long time in the U.S. it was presented to new mothers as a health issue, not just a hygiene issue. My husband and both my little brothers were circumcised.

ETA - however, asking as someone who can have no personal knowledge of the effects of the procedure, would someone mind sharing specific objections? Mostly all I've heard seems to amount to, "they had no right," and, actually, they did. They were your parents, and they either believed circumcision was better for your health or that it was necessary for religious reasons. That's not to say anyone has to agree, and I'd like to hear specifically what the disagreements are (aside from the obvious one that there's no evidence that the religious reasons are right.) Thank you!

 

[slingblade]

Well, Elizabeth, for me now, the main problem is that it was their foreskin, not mine. I was badly misinformed, and I should have left their bodies alone in this regard and let them decide for themselves, later. It wasn't something that was going to kill them. It could have been left.

 

[bikerdruid]

And for a long time in the U.S. it was presented to new mothers as a health issue, not just a hygiene issue. My husband and both my little brothers were circumcised.

ETA - however, asking as someone who can have no personal knowledge of the effects of the procedure, would someone mind sharing specific objections? Mostly all I've heard seems to amount to, "they had no right," and, actually, they did. They were your parents, and they either believed circumcision was better for your health or that it was necessary for religious reasons. That's not to say anyone has to agree, and I'd like to hear specifically what the disagreements are (aside from the obvious one that there's no evidence that the religious reasons are right.) Thank you!

as a circumcised male, and as someone who has always found the circumcised penis more attractive, i'm biased.

 

[Milbrandt]

And ETA - however, asking as someone who can have no personal knowledge of the effects of the procedure, would someone mind sharing specific objections? Mostly all I've heard seems to amount to, "they had no right," and, actually, they did. They were your parents, and they either believed circumcision was better for your health or that it was necessary for religious reasons. That's not to say anyone has to agree, and I'd like to hear specifically what the disagreements are (aside from the obvious one that there's no evidence that the religious reasons are right.) Thank you!

Actually I don't think they have the right. They might be the parents, but that doesn't give them a free pass to do whatever they like with their son's foreskin.
I still have mine and I'm very glad I have. Without getting too much into detail, let's just say there's a lot of feeling in it, and I'd never have it removed for any other reason than if it would threaten my health.

If parents think it's necessary for religious reasons, they can believe that. But they believe that, not the child itself. To me it's not about the right or beliefs of the parents, because it's not their body. The way I see it, they have nothing to say in the matter. When the child is old enough (say, 18 years) to decide for himself, let him decide. Of course they could still be influenced by their parents to have it done, but then at least they've had the chance to play with their foreskin and know what it feels like.

As for the medical part, I'm no expert on that, but from all that I've read and heard about it, it's just not necessary. If there are no direct health risks caused by the foreskin, leave it on there. Just wash it like you wash other parts of your body. Nobody goes around chopping off their child's ears because they might get infected when you don't wash them.

 

[maggot9779]

I think it's cruel to do it to a kid without their consent. It seems to me it's highly necessary and pretty much the only "benefit" is aesthetics.

If it's for a medical reason is another story.

 

[Beerina]

The god who recommended them is a psychotic ass who should have his infinite head guillotined as a sick, diseased pervert.

 

[Spaghetti]

I think it is wrong to circumcise a male, for the same reason it is wrong to circumcise a female. These days with good hygiene there is no problem with a foreskin.

I have read that removing the foreskin removes a bunch of very sensitive nerve endings, so the pleasure experienced during sex is reduced. Also, it causes unnecessary pain in the infant and i have also heard if done wrong can cause problems later in life with erections (tight skin and sometimes tearing). Also I have heard some males feel insecure about not being fully "intact".

FWIW, I was with a girl not too long ago who had been with only one uncircumcised male before and she said the last guys was "messy". She was surprised at how normal mine was, and she asked a couple times if I was sure that i wasn't circumcised (I'm not). So i guess foreskin runs the gamut of being neat and tidy, to large and unwieldy (like labias I guess).

 

[catsmate]

I think it's cruel to do it to a kid without their consent. It seems to me it's highly necessary and pretty much the only "benefit" is aesthetics.

If it's for a medical reason is another story.

I think you mean 'unnecessary'.

 

[hodgy]

Its a nasty mutilation - I think its disgusting for anyone to support it.

 

[Lowpro]

Circumcision is a strange debate. On its face, it is mutilation derived from religious (possibly derived from tribal how far apart are they anyways) tradition. There however is a zeitgeist acceptance of it as far as aesthetics go, and a child has no rights other than that by proxy of the parents in this particular case. The question should be phrased: "Should a child be protected from this mutilation even against the wishes of the parents?" same as you protect a child from endangerment from families who are retarded and don't give their kid proper nutrition (damned hippies )

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Directed at people who are all for it:

Just as a thought experiment, switch "foreskin" with "ear", and see if the same arguments still ring as true.

"It's more hygienic": Sure, but if you clean out your ears regularly, there's no problem.

"It's aesthetically pleasing": Not to everyone.

"It's our culture": I'm not even going into that one, because I fear I might become too offensive.

"It's our religion": Your kid is not even old enough to speak, let alone participate in religion.



It's just not justifiable.

Luckily I haven't had the misfortune, but I do hope people will see reason, and stop this barbaric ritual.


And if the "ear" analogy is too gross, just replace "baby boy" with "baby girl", and see if you still like the general idea.

 

[hodgy]

Circumcision is a strange debate. On its face, it is mutilation derived from religious (possibly derived from tribal how far apart are they anyways) tradition. There however is a zeitgeist acceptance of it as far as aesthetics go, and a child has no rights other than that by proxy of the parents in this particular case. The question should be phrased: "Should a child be protected from this mutilation even against the wishes of the parents?" same as you protect a child from endangerment from families who are retarded and don't give their kid proper nutrition (damned hippies )

A child should be protected from it in the same way that a child should be protected from having his / her left little finger cut off arbitrarily. Yes - children should be protected against such mutilation against the wishes of the parents if necessary.