• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

Bram Kaandorp said:
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)
Click to expand...



Actually that is not a bad analogy at all.

When I was a toddler I was a very very sickly boy and always had all sorts of illnesses. After my tonsillectomy I became a vibrant healthy 5 years old and hardly ever had a problem later in life other than ear infections after swimming which I loved to do a lot. I learnt later that a good cleaning with alcohol would prevent the infection. Fortunately no one thought about performing an Odioectomy :D
 
Last edited:
By the way....this topic and things like tonsillectomy and appendectomy and other such things show that ours is an Imbecilic Design for sure.

Why would an intelligent designer put inside us things that are useless and can actually cause us to die were it not for medical interventions? (and even with medical intervention especially in the days of old we would still die)

Not to mention the myriad of ways that functional things are vulnerable to failures. And don't even get me started on organisms that have no purpose in life other than to infect us, thus killing us in due process.
 
Last edited:
¡Sexual genital mutilation is wrong!

¡Sexual genital mutilation is wrong, whether done to boys, intersexed*, or girls!

* Doctors routinely fix intersexed infants so that they _"*LOOK*"_ normal but are sexually nonfunctional with little sexual function. Doctors should be limited to medically necessary procedures for the medically necessary needs of intersexed children.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
By the way....this topic and things like tonsillectomy and appendectomy and other such things show that ours is an Imbecilic Design for sure.

Why would an intelligent designer put inside us things that are useless and can actually cause us to die were it not for medical interventions? (and even with medical intervention especially in the days of old we would still die)

Not to mention the myriad of ways that functional things are vulnerable to failures. And don't even get me started on organisms that have no purpose in life other than to infect us, thus killing us in due process.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as you don't include the foreskin in that, as the foreskin has a very vital function. The head of the penis is very sensitive, and the foreskin protects it.

As for smegma, I've personally never seen any on my penis. But then, I wash it now and then. The fear of stuff getting stuck underneath it after ejaculating also sounds weird to me.. The skin is pretty tight around the head, and really doesn't leave a lot of room for stuff to collect there, especially since the skin is actually retracted during those moments when ejaculation happens. And again, I wash it now and then.
 
Also, let's not forget the best part about being uncircumcised.. It makes it so much easier to masturbate! :)
 
catsmate1 said:
If this is a serious attempt to begin a debate on the merits of circumcision
Click to expand...
The OP did not ask about "merits" of circumcision. It asked is it ethically right or wrong. The answer is no, if the subject is unable to form an informed opinion and give consent, which usually is the case.
 
JJM 777 said:
The OP did not ask about "merits" of circumcision. It asked is it ethically right or wrong. The answer is no, if the subject is unable to form an informed opinion and give consent, which usually is the case.
Click to expand...

The parents get an informed opinion (at least I hope they do) and give consent. What else can be expected? The infant be coherent at age 5 minutes?
 
Ryokan said:
Also, let's not forget the best part about being uncircumcised.. It makes it so much easier to masturbate! :)
Click to expand...

I think this is at the root of the christian insistence on circumcision. Make it hard for the little guys to get much pleasure, and they'll stay pure...

Doesn't work though. As another poster mentioned, teen boys regardless of religion 'beat it like it owes them money'.
 
Lowpro said:
There however is a zeitgeist acceptance of it as far as aesthetics go
Click to expand...

There is? I didn't know people spent that much time looking at penises that there was an accepted look for them. I'd also note that your zeitgeist is country-specific. Circumcision is not routinely done in European countries the way it is in the US, for example.
 
Lowpro said:
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.
Click to expand...

They only appear "too different" because your culture does not recognise female genital mutilation. However when looking at it from an anthropological stance the rationales given to support male and female genital mutilation are the same in the cultures which allow it. So both female and male genital mutilation will be explained as "more hygienic", "aesthetically pleasing" and so on. (Obviously my comments are only regarding the majority of FGMs type 1 and some type 2 - WHO definitions).
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
I think this is at the root of the christian insistence on circumcision. Make it hard for the little guys to get much pleasure, and they'll stay pure...
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the Christian insistence on circumcision is unique to just one country.. :) Outside the US, circumcision is seen as a distinctly Jewish or Islamic tradition, not a Christian one. Circumcision was actually banned by the Catholic church, and I suspect the main reason for the Church's reversal on that stance was that so many of their American members insisted on doing it anyway.
 
I don't care if people cut their own penises in half down the middle or cut it off entirely (and I've seen pictures of people who have done this!) but when they start disfiguring the penises of babies who can't undertstand the consequences let alone speak then i get pissed off.

Oh, and the aesthetics argument is so hilarious. Won't someone come forward and adovcate the superiour beauty of burn victims also?
 
Ryokan said:
I think you'll find that the Christian insistence on circumcision is unique to just one country.. :) Outside the US, circumcision is seen as a distinctly Jewish or Islamic tradition, not a Christian one. Circumcision was actually banned by the Catholic church, and I suspect the main reason for the Church's reversal on that stance was that so many of their American members insisted on doing it anyway.
Click to expand...

Having just read Christopher Hitchen's polemic against the death penalty, and his conclusion that it largely persists in theocracies, I did wonder how well the list of countries which routinely practice circumcision match up with those that have the death penalty.
 
Lowpro said:
The parents get an informed opinion (at least I hope they do) and give consent. What else can be expected? The infant be coherent at age 5 minutes?
Click to expand...

The parents could try to exercise what I call "patience".

In other words, wait until the kid is 18 (or whatever the equivalent is in other countries), and let him/her (yes, I said her, because I include the whole world in this one) decide for themselves, after having heard all the pros/cons of the operation.
 
I have stopped trying to debate this issue in terms of costs vs. benefits because it is just so subjective ( how costly the costs are, and how beneficial the benefits are ).

I started just using hard data -- look at the number of educated societies around the world that support the idea, and why they support it, and you have your answer.

The only reason it is still as popular as it is, where it remains popular at all, has more to do with lingering cultural biases than anything else.

I say if most of the countries of Europe frown upon something, it is probably not a good idea.
 
Lowpro said:
The parents get an informed opinion (at least I hope they do) and give consent.
Click to expand...
This is as legitimate as Osama Bin Laden giving consent to killing a few Americans. Hmm, or Bush giving consent to killing a few Iraqis.

Lowpro said:
What else can be expected? The infant be coherent at age 5 minutes?
Click to expand...
That no permanent damage be done to a person´s body until he is of age to decide about it himself.
 
We had a baby boy recently. I did some research and asked some questions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has this policy statement on the subject.

Based on the facts presented in that policy statement, along with the shared experiences of an older male relative who was circumcised as an adult, we decided to get our son circumcised (using DPB anesthetic). I watched.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Based on the facts presented in that policy statement, along with the shared experiences of an older male relative who was circumcised as an adult, we decided to get our son circumcised (using DPB anesthetic). I watched. The baby experienced less signs of discomfort during the procedure than he did during the state-mandated PKU test (which involved puncturing the heel and squeezing out a fair amount of blood).
Click to expand...

Having assessed the relative costs (apart from the rather obvious one that the heel puncture will heal up leaving no missing tissue), how would you assess the relative benefits?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Having assessed the relative costs (apart from the rather obvious one that the heel puncture will heal up leaving no missing tissue), how would you assess the relative benefits?

Dave
Click to expand...

Lowers the risk of UTI, lowers the risk of carrying certain STDs, eliminates possibility of tearing and other similar problems. Moderate benefit.

PKU test is state mandated; I was not given the actual probabilities of any of the diseases being tested for in order to compare benefits.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom