Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

[Lowpro]

First off, I doubt it's fine to equate cutting off a finger with circumcision. Circumcision arised out of tradition and is currently fine, if a bit wavering as far as zeitgeist concerns. You can pretend to call it similar to finger cutting, but I think you're playing with emotions more than constructing a good argument. That's just my opinion.

So now we're talking about removing the foreskin off a baby's penis, mostly done out of tradition. The right to choose can't exist; the baby cannot choose. Only the parents can by proxy as given by law, so what you'd have to do is change THAT attitude if you want to influence the zeitgeist.

 

[Leumas]

When the Mohel (or Doctor) does it right it is no problem later in life and for a person acculturated in a circumcised society, the look of an uncircumcised one may even feel abnormal.

However, botched circumcisions abound. There are the slightly wrong ones where too much skin is taken off and the victim will forever have discomfort or even pain during an erection.

In cases of complete incompetence the penis is damaged and the poor victim will forever have problems in life.

Here is a case where a poor boy had his penis damaged . The parents of the boy were convinced by a psychiatrist to do an operation to convert the boy into a girl and to bring him up as a girl.

The EXPERIMENT by the vile Psychologist was to prove that GENDER is nurtured not natured.

The case is one of the most tragic things I have ever seen. But my interest in the case is beyond a botched circumcision. My interest is in how the psychologist DENIES that he was proven wrong despite the fact that the boy rejected his nurtured new gender upon puberty. He never wanted to play with dolls and wanted to play more with his twin brother's toys instead. In adolescence he desired girls and was disturbed by the perceived abnormality thinking he was a girl. Later he discovered the truth and tried to live as a man but committed suicide in the end.

The psychologist NEVER admitted that he was wrong and that Gender is natured and not nurtured.

The BBC did a documentary on the whole thing. Here is part 1 of 5. The next part should play automatically upon completion of the video. If not make sure to find all the parts.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

First off, I doubt it's fine to equate cutting off a finger with circumcision. Circumcision arised out of tradition and is currently fine, if a bit wavering as far as zeitgeist concerns. You can pretend to call it similar to finger cutting, but I think you're playing with emotions more than constructing a good argument. That's just my opinion.

So now we're talking about removing the foreskin off a baby's penis, mostly done out of tradition. The right to choose can't exist; the baby cannot choose. Only the parents can by proxy as given by law, so what you'd have to do is change THAT attitude if you want to influence the zeitgeist.

I think it can also be said that there is no analogy we can use that is sufficient.

I mean, what can we possibly use as a sufficient analogy for genital mutilation of a baby?

 

[hodgy]

First off, I doubt it's fine to equate cutting off a finger with circumcision. Circumcision arised out of tradition and is currently fine, if a bit wavering as far as zeitgeist concerns. You can pretend to call it similar to finger cutting, but I think you're playing with emotions more than constructing a good argument. That's just my opinion.

So now we're talking about removing the foreskin off a baby's penis, mostly done out of tradition. The right to choose can't exist; the baby cannot choose. Only the parents can by proxy as given by law, so what you'd have to do is change THAT attitude if you want to influence the zeitgeist.

I don't care about tradition nor 'zeitgeist'. Its a mutilation made for religious reasons and I think disgusting. We could choose other arbitrary things to chop off our babies and these would be equally disgusting. Indeed, the poor mites cannot express their pain (except for crying) so it must be ok....

 

[Lowpro]

I think it can also be said that there is no analogy we can use that is sufficient.

I mean, what can we possibly use as a sufficient analogy for genital mutilation of a baby?

For some reason I agree with that first sentence, and then the second feels like an appeal to absurdity/emotion, I dunno. I think it's better to say "circumcision does harm, not good" which I find more...rational. I think that's an indictment of my scrutiny though.

 

[Lowpro]

I don't care about tradition nor 'zeitgeist'. Its a mutilation made for religious reasons and I think disgusting. We could choose other arbitrary things to chop off our babies and these would be equally disgusting. Indeed, the poor mites cannot express their pain (except for crying) so it must be ok....

We can't choose arbitrary things to chop off (well I am sure we could, but that is not the case here), you're conflating some stupid appeal to emotion with what actually is going on. If you're going to argue for something, do it rationally.

I'm sure you find it disgusting however, and I find it disgusting too. But if you want to change something, you have to educate and raise awareness logically; appeals to emotion get little headway.

Keep a level head in other words. I would dare say that circumcision was not really religious but a mix of superstition and practicality at the time, and became mixed with religion later, as many religious dietary laws are.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

We can't choose arbitrary things to chop off, you're conflating some stupid ppeal to emotion with what actually is going on. If you're going to argue for something, do it rationally.

I'm sure you find it disgusting however, and I find it disgusting too. But if you want to change something, you have to educate and raise awareness logically; appeals to emotion get little headway.

And maybe we should look at the reasons given in favour of circumcision, which are mostly emotional/faith based, so we should almost by definition go the other way.

Not that I advocate "they do x, so we should do y". I just mean that their reasons fail because they are mainly emotional/faith based, so we should learn from that.

But I still stand by my posts, even if they don't change anything.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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

Speak for yourself.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why don't you all go to the mega thread, and read from a few folks about the apparent (never saw it coming) advantage of circumcision reducing the risk of aids spreading. I'd never have heard of that until I read stuff on this forum.

My parents got the medical advice of "it's good for x, y, z" health reasons.

Dad isn't trimmed.

His sons are.

All is well, remain calm.

I suppose that the down side was that

1) I had one less method available for jacking off when I was a young'n.
2) ladies who preferred the turtleneck would find my presentation unappealing.

Life goes on.

I don't get the rage, nor the energy, that accompanies this topic.

 

[Lowpro]

And maybe we should look at the reasons given in favour of circumcision, which are mostly emotional/faith based, so we should almost by definition go the other way.

Not that I advocate "they do x, so we should do y". I just mean that their reasons fail because they are mainly emotional/faith based, so we should learn from that.

But I still stand by my posts, even if they don't change anything.

I agree, though I think you quoted the wrong post; the one you quoted was directed at hodgy. I think that circumcision does harm, not good*. That's my rationale to argue against it. I think you need to make a valid argument that isn't reactionary such as "they do x, so we should do y" which you yourself don't advocate. Circumcision has a faith base to it, but my family isn't religious, they never were, but I was circumcised because that's just the zeitgeist. They never saw it as a religious thing when they made me have it (as a baby of course) and same for my brothers. If you're going to appeal to those people, do you think something like "because it's emotional/faith based" will resonate with them? I doubt that.

That's all I'm trying to say. You can argue against circumcision easily and with less poisoning of the well by just saying "It does harm, not good"

*There may be health benefits, Darth Rotor mentioned some, but I don't know if they're true or significant (if you want to stop AIDS, don't share needles and wrap your tool) and even then as far as say, cleanliness goes...soap and stroke dude, soap and stroke...

 

[Irony]

I think it can also be said that there is no analogy we can use that is sufficient.

I mean, what can we possibly use as a sufficient analogy for genital mutilation of a baby?

I think cutting a small notch in a baby's ear could be considered roughly equivalent. It's unnecessary, painful, it could cause problems in rare cases and shouldn't be done, but it's not "mutilation". Mutilation implies something significant and life-effecting, not something which will in the vast majority of cases have no ill effect. If someone was mislead by doctors or other authority figures that doing it would improve the health of their child then it's understandable why it was done, and something that should be gently corrected, not something to go screaming and hollering about.

 

[Lowpro]

I think cutting a small notch in a baby's ear could be considered roughly equivalent. It's unnecessary, painful, it could cause problems in rare cases and shouldn't be done, but it's not "mutilation". Mutilation implies something significant and life-effecting, not something which will in the vast majority of cases have no ill effect. If someone was mislead by doctors or other authority figures that doing it would improve the health of their child then it's understandable why it was done, and something that should be gently corrected, not something to go screaming and hollering about.

On that subject, I think mutilation has become a bit taboo when it comes to genital mutilation in other parts of the world which is a cultural tradition to inhibit female libido and is often thought of as a method to subjugate women. Obviously these reasons seem inhumane.

But again, I'm circumcised and I live in a family who is and there is no knowledge, no agenda or even preconception of tradition or inhibition of libido so are they comparable then? On its face it seems like they are, but once you actually scrutinize it, they're too different to conflate in my opinion.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I agree, though I think you quoted the wrong post; the one you quoted was directed at hodgy. I think that circumcision does harm, not good*. That's my rationale to argue against it. I think you need to make a valid argument that isn't reactionary such as "they do x, so we should do y" which you yourself don't advocate. Circumcision has a faith base to it, but my family isn't religious, they never were, but I was circumcised because that's just the zeitgeist. They never saw it as a religious thing when they made me have it (as a baby of course) and same for my brothers. If you're going to appeal to those people, do you think something like "because it's emotional/faith based" will resonate with them? I doubt that.

That's all I'm trying to say. You can argue against circumcision easily and with less poisoning of the well by just saying "It does harm, not good"

*There may be health benefits, Darth Rotor mentioned some, but I don't know if they're true or significant (if you want to stop AIDS, don't share needles and wrap your tool) and even then as far as say, cleanliness goes...soap and stroke dude, soap and stroke...

Saying to them that it's emotional/faith based won't accomplish much; agreed.

However, keeping in mind that the arguments they use are mostly emotional/faith based will at least give a good base to start with arguments.

For instance, the emotional "my kid would feel the odd one out when showering after sports" could be countered with: "That could also go for big ears, flat feet, freckles, you name it. Doesn't mean we remove or correct them at birth."

But it is very important to understand that it's an emotional argument, and that it shouldn't be countered with the equivalent of shouting "what, are you crazy?", since that might scare them into the "circumcision is bad" position, in stead of getting there through reason. Worse still, they might decide to throw away your arguments altogether because you called them idiots.

Please note, I know that you know this, I'm merely clarifying my position.

 

[Leumas]

And maybe we should look at the reasons given in favour of circumcision, which are mostly emotional/faith based, so we should almost by definition go the other way.

Not that I advocate "they do x, so we should do y". I just mean that their reasons fail because they are mainly emotional/faith based, so we should learn from that.

But I still stand by my posts, even if they don't change anything.

Actually I have personally known of ADULT circumcisions that HAD to be done due to infection etc. The persons involved usually found it traumatic psychologically later on.

So there is a case for MEDICAL reasons. And if that is so then clearly doing it in childhood when the trauma would not be remembered and where the person would grow up with the looks is perhaps a desirable thing??

The religious practice stems from a cultural practice made religious. The cultural practice may stem from a DISCOVERY of a NEED and thus it became culturally preferred.

If you notice the practice seems to be more prevalent in cultures living in desert or tropical habitats.....there might be a better chance of infections etc. in these regions.

Also cleaning after ejaculation or intercourse is a LOT easier. I can imagine problems arising due to entrapped semen in the skin fold if not cleaned thoroughly after every ejaculation. And with children and adolescents and even not so clever men personal hygiene is not highly prevalent.

There is a reason for the expression “wet behind the ears”. If children can’t dry themselves well enough to give rise to the expression then imagine about the innards of that fold of skin. Especially in hot humid or sandy smelly environments.

I can really imagine the practice arising from a prevalence of incidents of HAVING to perform the operation while growing up or later when the guys became more acquainted with their sheep and females.

 

[Dragonrock]

I'm against chopping off bits of people for not reason other than tradition or religion. I would favor outlawing the practice on anyone under the age of 18 except for medical reasons. The problem would be people saying things like "I have an great uncle who died of wiener cancer so I want to lop off some of my kid's dingus to be sure."

Having been circumcised as a child I don't know what it's like to be intact, but I have found that the area behind the glans where the foreskin used to be attached has a different level of sensation from the part further down.

But, regardless of how it may or may not affect sexual pleasure, it's still wrong to remove parts of children when those parts present no danger to the welfare of the child.

ETA: And it's not up to those who are against the practice to explain their position any more than it's the place of an abused woman to explain why she didn't deserve to be hit.

 

[Lowpro]

<snip>

Please note, I know that you know this, I'm merely clarifying my position.

I understand, I just think it's unnecessary. I mean you yourself find that the opposition's pleas to emotions/faith are not only unnecessary but misdirected and I myself find that you shouldn't meet their arguments with a similar level type.

That being said, you are NEVER going to win the circumcision argument with this argument. If you want to change things, you need to determine an infant's rights against the rights of the parents by proxy. You said yourself a parent may feel a weight of responsibility for health reasons or simply making the kid "abnormal, just like everyone else" but I think if you just raise their consciousness, and not meet them with gnashed teeth you'll make more headway.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Actually I have personally known of ADULT circumcisions that HAD to be done due to infection etc. The persons involved usually found it traumatic psychologically later on.

So there is a case for MEDICAL reasons. And if that is so then clearly doing it in childhood when the trauma would not be remembered and where the person would grow up with the looks is perhaps a desirable thing??

The religious practice stems from a cultural practice made religious. The cultural practice may stem from a DISCOVERY of a NEED and thus it became culturally preferred.

If you notice the practice seems to be more prevalent in cultures living desert or tropical habitats.....there might be a better chance of infections etc. in these regions.

Also cleaning after ejaculation or intercourse is a LOT easier. I can imagine problems arising due to entrapped semen in the skin fold if not cleaned thoroughly after every ejaculation. And with children and adolescents and even not so clever men personal hygiene is not highly prevalent.

There is a reason for the expression “wet behind the ears”. If children can’t dry themselves well enough to give rise to the expression then imagine about the innards of that fold of skin. Especially in hot humid or sandy smelly environments.

I can really imagine the practice arising from a prevalence of incidents of HAVING to do while growing up or later when the guys became more acquainted with their sheep and females.

Yes, of course there are cases where circumcision would be necessary. However, to some people it seems as prudent as pre-emptive tonsillectomy (although apparently that practice is in decline, luckily).

Maybe tonsillectomy is the analogy we should use (if analogies would ever be successful)

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

ETA: And it's not up to those who are against the practice to explain their position any more than it's the place of an abused woman to explain why she didn't deserve to be hit.

Somehow, that sentence made me go "Aha! Now I understand!"

 

[Leumas]

In the Talmud there is a decree that a boy who has had two brothers before him die from circumcisions must not be circumcised.

Could this indicate some genetic tendency to die from it?

Imagine the tragedy of the parents who have to see TWO boys die before they are allowed to stop the practice.


ETA: Haemophelia?

 

[Leumas]

Yes, of course there are cases where circumcision would be necessary. However, to some people it seems as prudent as pre-emptive tonsillectomy (although apparently that practice is in decline, luckily).

Maybe tonsillectomy is the analogy we should use (if analogies would ever be successful)

Have a look at this wiki article about the Smegma. In particular pay good attention to the picture shown there.

I can imagine this causing all sorts of trouble in the case of bad hygiene.