Is circumcision genital mutilation?

[xman]

If it makes anyone feel better It's an issue I will be discussing with at least one doctor if not several. As far as people who said I was rushing to circumcise my future child without learning about it. Well since my girlfriend isn't pregnant I have more than 9 months to learn more. Seriously though guys this whole thing got more dogmatic than I could have expected. Discounting legitimate studies that disagree with you. Calling each other fanatics. Equating circumcision to female genital mutilation (That's a big ass stretch). Name calling. Chill out folks.

I'm taking to heart the arguments I've heard here and I will only consolidate my opinion after I talk to a physician or three.

,but don't stop arguing on my account. lol. Just try to be respectful.

Good to know you're being rational about this. It's very important after all, not to be considered lightly. You're talking about your own son's good and healthy perfect body. Good for you. Don't listen to tards. Do your research and then try to prove your own position wrong.

 

[Sloth]

I don't think we're actually a million miles away. The fact is that the only thing that really swings it are the "cultural" factors, and I just think that we should try to eliminate these cultural factors since, in their absence, the balance is to wait until the child is old enough to have an informed say. Of course, my aversion to giving undue weight to culture, tradition and religion in decision making is purely due to my PEARList stance.

I'm just a garden variety atheist... and I'm glad any time a child is circumcised in a hospital, and not by a rabbi.

As long as its not a religious person doing the mutilating, then its "awww right". :roll:

 

[Giliell]

I'm just a garden variety atheist... and I'm glad any time a child is circumcised in a hospital, and not by a rabbi.

Of course, if it's done it should be done in a hospital, but I'm seriously starting to wonder what went wrong with people routinely performing non-necessary surgery on healthy newborns.
A new-born is a very fragile thing, struggeling hard with this new life and all that stuff they suddenly have to do by themselves. They often have problems coming to term with that, especially with feeding and digesting.
All our instincts tell us to shelter and protect them and those instincts are not some "superstitious inventions" but good and solid mechanisms placed there via evolution to make sure that our offspring gets the best chances.
Now, why would anybody bypass those instincts in a situation with totally no medical indication and let somebody inflict a bleeding wound which then has to be treated with painkillers adding to the problems the newborn faces anyway?

 

[CowInSpace]

Yes it is mutilation, in the same way female circumcision is mutilation.
If it was the cultural norm to hack off your left hand, would you do that? Would you support it?

 

[nasher168]

Yes it is mutilation, in the same way female circumcision is mutilation.
If it was the cultural norm to hack off your left hand, would you do that? Would you support it?

I doubt anyone would. It's quite a poor example. I would use the fingernails on your ring and little fingers as a better example, as they do serve a useful purpose, like the foreskin, but their loss is not unbearable.
Think about it, they don't require cleaning if they're cut off, do they? And people prefer it. And it's better to do it as babies, because they don't feel it as much.

Of course, the ideo of ripping out a baby's fingernails is repulsive and immoral, but how is it really that different from circumcision? The only difference is that we are more used to the idea of circumcision.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Of course, if it's done it should be done in a hospital, but I'm seriously starting to wonder what went wrong with people routinely performing non-necessary surgery on healthy newborns.
A new-born is a very fragile thing, struggeling hard with this new life and all that stuff they suddenly have to do by themselves. They often have problems coming to term with that, especially with feeding and digesting.
All our instincts tell us to shelter and protect them and those instincts are not some "superstitious inventions" but good and solid mechanisms placed there via evolution to make sure that our offspring gets the best chances.
Now, why would anybody bypass those instincts in a situation with totally no medical indication and let somebody inflict a bleeding wound which then has to be treated with painkillers adding to the problems the newborn faces anyway?

"Totally no medical indication" doesn't sound like an accurate description to me. Further, as pointed out previously in this thread, the conditions under which the medical indications are strongest are in less-modernized locations, and there's hardly a location less modern than the Old Testament. People often hypothesize about the practical reasons for many ancient laws and taboos. Is there no chance of there being a reason for circumcision in your mind?

 

[Giliell]

"Totally no medical indication" doesn't sound like an accurate description to me. Further, as pointed out previously in this thread, the conditions under which the medical indications are strongest are in less-modernized locations, and there's hardly a location less modern than the Old Testament. People often hypothesize about the practical reasons for many ancient laws and taboos. Is there no chance of there being a reason for circumcision in your mind?

Since I've stated several times that I'm OK with it if there's a medical indication you must have gotten me right there...
So, yes, for a lot of ancient religious laws, there was a good reason in their society.
There are pretty good reasons why you shouldn't eat lobster if you live in a bloody desert with no cooling.
But not all the laws are about "medicine and sanitation". Lots of them serve a purpose for the society. That women have to be virgins when getting married has nothing to do with the threat of STDs, but with being sure whose brats you feed and that you leave your possessions to your own kids.
I suppose for circumcision the reasons might lie within that realm, since ancient sources like the ones posted by Zylstra indicate a more "moral" reason than a medical.
And even IF there were those good medical reasons 4000 years ago in a place with little sanitation or medicine, then there's no reason why we should still do it without modern science backing it up, just like we can now enjoy lobster a thousand miles away from the nearest ocean.
And here the profesionals in the western world agree: there might be some benefits, but they are not that big that they justify a routine neonatal circumcison, so the baby should be left intact and make that decission when he's old enough to decide for himself.
That's all people you choose to call anti-circumcision-fanatists ask for: leave the decission to the person whose body it concerns.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That's all people you choose to call anti-circumcision-fanatists ask for: leave the decission to the person whose body it concerns.

Yep, "all" they are doing is making a fallacious argument.

 

[Giliell]

That's all people you choose to call anti-circumcision-fanatists ask for: leave the decission to the person whose body it concerns.

Yep, "all" they are doing is making a fallacious argument.

Why is that fallacious?
Where's the fallacy? In saying that non-necessary, non-reversible changes shouldn't be done without the person's consent?

 

[orpiment99]

I mentioned before that it is not uncommon for a healthy appendix to be removed during abdominal surgery, just in case it may rupture at some future date. The rebuttal to this was that the appendix is a vestigial organ. However, research indicates that the appendix does still have a reasonably important function. But, you can easily live without one. The body adapts to the lack and goes on. I fail to see how circumcision is any different.

Information about the appendix (pdf):
http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/MJC/old/20072008/Trent_paper.pdf

I do believe this was published (it notes that it has been accepted for publishing), but that was the only link my computer liked at the moment.

 

[Jotto999]

I mentioned before that it is not uncommon for a healthy appendix to be removed during abdominal surgery, just in case it may rupture at some future date. The rebuttal to this was that the appendix is a vestigial organ. However, research indicates that the appendix does still have a reasonably important function. But, you can easily live without one. The body adapts to the lack and goes on. I fail to see how circumcision is any different.

Information about the appendix (pdf):
http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/MJC/old/20072008/Trent_paper.pdf

I do believe this was published (it notes that it has been accepted for publishing), but that was the only link my computer liked at the moment.

Your body can adapt, sure. It might not harm, but why do it, especially when you could do it as an adult? When the baby can chose?

I think the very fact that there are differing opinions on whether or not circumcision is a good thing or bad thing, needed or not needed is reason enough to let people decide for themselves if they want it done to them.

Why is that fallacious?
Where's the fallacy? In saying that non-necessary, non-reversible changes shouldn't be done without the person's consent?

I wouldn't expect ImprobablyJoe to explain why it's fallacious, or why we're fanatics. He throws that at anyone who disagrees with him. It's a staple in his posts, actually.

 

[Giliell]

I mentioned before that it is not uncommon for a healthy appendix to be removed during abdominal surgery, just in case it may rupture at some future date. The rebuttal to this was that the appendix is a vestigial organ. However, research indicates that the appendix does still have a reasonably important function. But, you can easily live without one. The body adapts to the lack and goes on. I fail to see how circumcision is any different.

Information about the appendix (pdf):
http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/MJC/old/20072008/Trent_paper.pdf

I do believe this was published (it notes that it has been accepted for publishing), but that was the only link my computer liked at the moment.

Well, but that is some kind of difference: The surgery is done anyway. You're not scheduled routinely for an appendix removal during the summer break between 3rd and 4th grade.

Oh, and I think I already mentioned that it's not done here, exactly because it has a function. There are a lot of body parts you can live without but that are usually not removed "just in case". Your amygdalas are one (they also serve in the imune system), your gall bladder (must hurt like hell to have an inflamation there) and so on.

 

[orpiment99]

Well, but that is some kind of difference: The surgery is done anyway. You're not scheduled routinely for an appendix removal during the summer break between 3rd and 4th grade.

Oh, and I think I already mentioned that it's not done here, exactly because it has a function. There are a lot of body parts you can live without but that are usually not removed "just in case". Your amygdalas are one (they also serve in the imune system), your gall bladder (must hurt like hell to have an inflamation there) and so on.

I remember you mentioning the amygdalas, anyway, but not the appendix.

It may not be scheduled like that, but when the doctors don't even ask for permission... Anyway, straying a bit from the topic. The point I'm attempting to make is that if there is no more reason to keep it than get rid of it, why shouldn't the parents be allowed to make that decision?

Also, there are partial circumcisions, which help prevent or control some of the issues that can occur in those who are uncircumcised, while still keeping the benefits of foreskin.

 

[Giliell]

It may not be scheduled like that, but when the doctors don't even ask for permission... Anyway, straying a bit from the topic. The point I'm attempting to make is that if there is no more reason to keep it than get rid of it, why shouldn't the parents be allowed to make that decision?

Also, there are partial circumcisions, which help prevent or control some of the issues that can occur in those who are uncircumcised, while still keeping the benefits of foreskin.

First of all, if a doctor would do that without permission, he could be sued. They are not allowed to remove anything without permission except in cases of emergency.
If there's no more reason to get rid of it then to keep it (I'm only turning around your phrase) except for minor benefits, why do surgery with all its risks and side effects, drugging a newborn with painkillers when the whole organism is under a lot of stress anyway?

 

[xman]

... You're not scheduled routinely for an appendix removal during the summer break between 3rd and 4th grade. ...

Well, sometimes.

When I was about 3 yrs old my adenoids had swollen, blocking my hearing so they cut them out and while they were there they decided to take my perfect pink tonsils too because they'd only have to do it later anyhow ...

I can hear just fine now.

 

[Abi]

why shouldn't the parents be allowed to make that decision?

Because it's not doing any harm and it's not their body they're making a decision (that's permanent) for.

 

[Giliell]

why shouldn't the parents be allowed to make that decision?

Because it's not doing any harm and it's not their body they're making a decision (that's permanent) for.

Please don't misquote me, I never said anything like that, I'm on the "their body, their choice side.

@Joe
It's not like we hadn't discussed that already *yawn*
Even though it's not practised everywhere, in that case you're going to have surgery ANYWAY and you said they would have to be removed ANYWAY.
Your foreskin hasn't got to be removed anyway and during the neonatal period there's no surgery scheduled anyway for the healthy newborn.

 

[Quincunx]

I haven't read all the posts in the thread, but I'll just drop my opinion on it anyway.

I think it is mutilation, by definition. The problems I have with it, are that, firstly there is no reason for default infant circumcision whatsoever. The arguments for circumcision are very weak, at best.
And secondly, also the fact that an infant cannot decide for himself or protest is problematic to me.

 

[Jotto999]

I haven't read all the posts in the thread, but I'll just drop my opinion on it anyway.

I think it is mutilation, by definition. The problems I have with it, are that, firstly there is no reason for default infant circumcision whatsoever. The arguments for circumcision are very weak, at best.
And secondly, also the fact that an infant cannot decide for himself or protest is problematic to me.

Yep, that's pretty much what one side has been arguing this whole time. The other side I'm actually not sure.

 

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

I haven't read all the posts in the thread, but I'll just drop my opinion on it anyway.

I think it is mutilation, by definition. The problems I have with it, are that, firstly there is no reason for default infant circumcision whatsoever. The arguments for circumcision are very weak, at best.
And secondly, also the fact that an infant cannot decide for himself or protest is problematic to me.

That's what I was thinking, but being someone who is circumcised, I can't imagine it any other way.