Poll: Bans on Circumcision?

[Koroviev]

To Ban something is to say that its wrong, many cultures have it as a symbolic thing, are these places saying that this part of their culture is wrong, and is it medically dangerous? (any more so then other surgery),if so then only on medical grounds could it be banned. painful surgery such as cosmetic liposuction happens daily but this still legal, things that cause massive bruising and pain like face lifts are legal, and claiming its because it around the genital area is a poor defence sex change ops are legal. I personally dislike cosmetic surgery it appeals to vanity and the vain but I wouldn't presume to ban it any of it unless it posed a significant medical risk.

Most cosmetic surgery is reserved for those who can consent to it. An infant cannot consent to genital mutilation. And I cannot say as fact that the practice is wrong, however, I can disagree with it and argue my position. Simply saying that it's a cultural thing that been around for a long time is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to tradition.

 

[j0frenzy]

Is there some passage in the Jewish Bible stating "Thou shalt slit thy johnson because God demands it"? Because if there isn't (and even then) I think it needs a serious re-examination as a tradition.

...Actually, there is a passage like that. Even worse, it technically says you are supposed to do it with a sharp rock. Now I kind of want to go reread Genesis to find the exact quote.

Edit: Just reread the passage. I forgot that it was supposed to mark humans with the covenant of God. Basically, God treats us with kindness and blesses us, we agree to worship him. Now cut off the tip of the penis because we don't have paper to actually use as a contract to sign.
The sharp rock thing is just what Abraham used to circumcise himself.

 

[KorLeonis]

I was snipped as a baby due to my parent's religious beliefs. I have long since renounced any ties to their (or any other) religion, and I want my damn foreskin back! How dare they make a permanently disfiguring choice without my consent?

So I'm firmly in the "ban for kids" category. And no, I don't make exemptions for religion or tradition. If there's a legitimate medical reason, then alright, snip away. Otherwise wait til they're 18 and let them choose.

*Edit'd for spelling.

 

[messy]

There was a Jewish doctor who was circumcising babies with his teeth (as part of a particular religious doctrine, I'm not saying all Jewish people do this. My reference is the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens so yes biased by this is not just some rumour) and this lead to some of the children catching Herpes, not the strictly true "herpes" which is transmitted through sexual intercourse but the type which normally forms cold sores on lips. Practises like this I say should go.

you've been misinformed. There is a practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction, in which the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. Traditionally this was done as an attempt to avoid complications, but as you say this has been linked to the transmission of herpes. Only the most Orthodox Jews practiced this to begin with, and the ones that still do are advised to use a sterile glass tube.

the bottom line is that rabbis aren't going around biting the foreskins off of infants.

Oh I was never suggesting they were and I do apologise if it read as such, I was brining up one example that I know of. I was not making a blanket accusation of the Jewish people or faith. And if I have been misinformed I do apologise, like I say the text was biased and biting off does sound worse then sucking out blood.

I still stand by that this practise should stop, no matter how uncommon it is.

 

[Jonabob87]

Is there some passage in the Jewish Bible stating "Thou shalt slit thy johnson because God demands it"? Because if there isn't (and even then) I think it needs a serious re-examination as a tradition.

...Actually, there is a passage like that. Even worse, it technically says you are supposed to do it with a sharp rock. Now I kind of want to go reread Genesis to find the exact quote.

I think that's probably more because they didn't have scalpels in those days than God thinking sharp rocks are the best thing for the job.

 

[gillebro]

I think as an adult you should be allowed to do whatever you damn well want (also i think fellas, if you were to chop part of your junk off, neither you nor your lady partners would thank you), but circumcising baby boys is cruel. it hurts them so much that they go into shock. it has no medical benefits at all (what is this crap about circumcised penises being cleaner? seriously? it's called WASHING), and it's just inhumane! i'm so glad that in australia and england it isn't as practiced as it is in america. i dunno, yanks... i heard somewhere that you have to request not to have your child circumcised now. please tell me that's not true...

 

[Verlander]

There are medical reasons someone may need to have a circumcision, and at the end of the day there are health benefits to it as well. There are plenty of medical studies stating that the likelihood of STD's drop dramatically among circumcised men. Obviously that's dependent on lifestyle choice, but also majorly because it's easier to keep clean.

Also sounds like the anti semetic brigade to me. I kinda want to get rid of Jews, just so we can get rid of anti semites (jk)

I'm sure I disagree with virtually everyone about something. A religious creed is no different. I can disagree with an aspect of something and not despise it. If I were to say I wanted to ban the Jewish faith, then I'd really be throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

And the medical benefits really aren't that significant. If we really want to slow the spread of AIDS, we need to promote condoms, which protect both genders, not calloused penises that haphazardly protect men up until they very likely don't.

There are other medical benefits. Some children are circumcised at birth or at a young age for a different reason. At the end of the day, it's just a piece of skin. People have moles removed because they have a high tendency to become cancerous, and that's a potential problem. It you are born with an actual problem or an abnormality, it may need to be removed.

The problems arising from circumcision are almost non existent. Scrap what I said about the anti semetic brigade-this sounds like threatened men panicking. Oh noes, they chop bits off of our bits! People need to grow up and deal with it. It's pathetic how some men set so much store by this, when in this day and age, a real man is determined by other factors. I'm surprised this is happening in San Fran, because I've heard arguments like this for ages, and they are all very right wing arguments.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about condoms and suchlike though. Although calloused? Have you ever seen a circumcised penis?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yes, most instances of female circumcision are a lot more damaging than those concerning males. That being said, I still disagree with the belief that parents have the right to alter their children for non-medical reasons. I don't think circumcision should be banned outright, of course. Adults should be allowed to do as they please with their own bodies, and circumcision does have valid medical applications.

I think it'd be more acurate to say that all female circumcisions are a lot more damaging compared to males. But these days when the majority of Jews and Moslims don't live in desert tribs anymore, I don't see a reason for the male circumcision either. You can afterall pull the damn thing back and wash it like that, it's not too difficult.
Heck, my little one-eyed monster still has his shower cap and I'm the picture of health...minus a few pounds.

I don't know if male circumcision should be banned, but female circumcision definitely should and the people who performed it thrown in jail.

 

[JaredXE]

Why ban it? It's quick and clean, done at a time when the child will not remember the pain, helps keep the kid healthier when they get older and (despite so may people saying it) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DETRACTS FROM SEXUAL PLEASURE!

That one is the big one, the eroneous belief that a man feels LESS sensation when he's circumsized than if he weren't. For one....prove it. Two, circumsized men still are capable of reaching climax, still capable of pleasing their partners, and ladies.....do you really want men to have a MORE sensitive penis?

Male circumcision is nowhere near the same as female. Female circumcision's SOLE PURPOSE is to prevent women from feeling pleasure. It's mutilation with malicious intent.

 

[Koroviev]

Is there some passage in the Jewish Bible stating "Thou shalt slit thy johnson because God demands it"? Because if there isn't (and even then) I think it needs a serious re-examination as a tradition.

...Actually, there is a passage like that. Even worse, it technically says you are supposed to do it with a sharp rock. Now I kind of want to go reread Genesis to find the exact quote.

Just Google variants of it. If it exists, you'll find it online.

 

[Koroviev]

Why ban it? It's quick and clean, done at a time when the child will not feel pain, helps keep the kid healthier when they get older and (despite so may people saying it) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT DETRACTS FROM SEXUAL PLEASURE!

That one is the big one, the eroneous belief that a man feels LESS sensation when he's circumsized than if he weren't. For one....prove it. Two, circumsized men still are capable of reaching climax, still capable of pleasing their partners, and ladies.....do you really want men to have a MORE sensitive penis?

Male circumcision is nowhere near tha same as female. Female circumcision's SOLE PURPOSE is to prevent women from feeling pleasure. It's mutilation with malicious intent.

Infants don't feel pain? What? /:

 

[Koroviev]

There are medical reasons someone may need to have a circumcision, and at the end of the day there are health benefits to it as well. There are plenty of medical studies stating that the likelihood of STD's drop dramatically among circumcised men. Obviously that's dependent on lifestyle choice, but also majorly because it's easier to keep clean.

Also sounds like the anti semetic brigade to me. I kinda want to get rid of Jews, just so we can get rid of anti semites (jk)

I'm sure I disagree with virtually everyone about something. A religious creed is no different. I can disagree with an aspect of something and not despise it. If I were to say I wanted to ban the Jewish faith, then I'd really be throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.

And the medical benefits really aren't that significant. If we really want to slow the spread of AIDS, we need to promote condoms, which protect both genders, not calloused penises that haphazardly protect men up until they very likely don't.

There are other medical benefits. Some children are circumcised at birth or at a young age for a different reason. At the end of the day, it's just a piece of skin. People have moles removed because they have a high tendency to become cancerous, and that's a potential problem. It you are born with an actual problem or an abnormality, it may need to be removed.

The problems arising from circumcision are almost non existent. Scrap what I said about the anti semetic brigade-this sounds like threatened men panicking. Oh noes, they chop bits off of our bits! People need to grow up and deal with it. It's pathetic how some men set so much store by this, when in this day and age, a real man is determined by other factors. I'm surprised this is happening in San Fran, because I've heard arguments like this for ages, and they are all very right wing arguments.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about condoms and suchlike though. Although calloused? Have you ever seen a circumcised penis?

I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, but I am now having trouble locating it. It was something about scar tissue, not callousing. However, I cannot find the source at present; you have complete justification to ignore it. Also, I'd like to edit an earlier comment in which I said that circumcision is 40% effective at blocking STD transmission. It should have been 60% [http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html]. That will teach me to think I can remember things from past online discussions -__-;

Edit: Finally found a source on scarring from circumcision. Wikipedia: circumcision scar. Not linking it; don't want to be banned. The article has valid sources.

 

[cobra_ky]

There was a Jewish doctor who was circumcising babies with his teeth (as part of a particular religious doctrine, I'm not saying all Jewish people do this. My reference is the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens so yes biased by this is not just some rumour) and this lead to some of the children catching Herpes, not the strictly true "herpes" which is transmitted through sexual intercourse but the type which normally forms cold sores on lips. Practises like this I say should go.

you've been misinformed. There is a practice known as metzitzah b'peh, or oral suction, in which the mohel sucks blood from the circumcision wound. Traditionally this was done as an attempt to avoid complications, but as you say this has been linked to the transmission of herpes. Only the most Orthodox Jews practiced this to begin with, and the ones that still do are advised to use a sterile glass tube.

the bottom line is that rabbis aren't going around biting the foreskins off of infants.

Oh I was never suggesting they were and I do apologise if it read as such, I was brining up one example that I know of. I was not making a blanket accusation of the Jewish people or faith. And if I have been misinformed I do apologise, like I say the text was biased and biting off does sound worse then sucking out blood.

I still stand by that this practise should stop, no matter how uncommon it is.

Honestly, even as a (Reform) Jew, I'd never even heard of the practice until a thread like this one with someone shouting "THEY'RE BITING DICKS OFF!!!!!11". you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I just wanted to make sure it was based on actual facts.

 

[Verlander]

I think as an adult you should be allowed to do whatever you damn well want (also i think fellas, if you were to chop part of your junk off, neither you nor your lady partners would thank you), but circumcising baby boys is cruel. it hurts them so much that they go into shock.

No they don't

And there are many many women who prefer it. You don't loose any size to your penis, you realise this? Maybe a could of millimeters when it's flaccid

it has no medical benefits at all (what is this crap about circumcised penises being cleaner? seriously? it's called WASHING)

You'd be amazed how many people can't do it properly. Other than that it's very difficult to keep a hooded penis as clean as a circumsised one

and it's just inhumane! i'm so glad that in australia and england it isn't as practiced as it is in america.

You may surprised, but it's done loads. The only differnece between the US and the rest of the world, is that there are more circumisions done for religious reasons.

i dunno, yanks... i heard somewhere that you have to request not to have your child circumcised now. please tell me that's not true...

It's not true. Don't feel all threatened about circumcisions, it's absolutely nothing. Generally people feel squeamish about them because they are uneducated, or they believe silly rumours. I suppose if you relate the concept of circumcision to castration, it can be scary, but the reality is far from it. The foreskin is rather like the human tail-useless thanks to evolution, but with no reason to loose it fully. Thousands of people (perhaps millions) have circumcisions, and have very very normal lives. There is nothing wrong or humiliating, or mutilating about it, not unless you are a very shallow and simple human being. Female circumcision, now that's a different matter altogether

I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, but I am now having trouble locating it. It was something about scar tissue, not callousing. However, I cannot find the source at present; you have complete justification to ignore it. Also, I'd like to edit an earlier comment in which I said that circumcision is 40% effective at blocking STD transmission. It should have been 60% [http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html]. That will teach me to think I can remember things from past online discussions -__-;

Ha, no worries my friend

 

[JaredXE]

Infants don't feel pain? What? /:

Sorry, I immediately went back and edited it to don't REMEMBER pain, but you must have quoted me before that happened.

 

[Kirch Libre]

Okay call me evil but the last thing I want to see on a grown man is "Mr. Baldy with his turtleneck still on."

Also, dick cheese.

 

[Boba Frag]

wow, the religion thing is nearly getting this thread out of hand...

Anyway, I respect the right of the Jewish community to engage in the practice- I understand it's done by someone who's been specially trained in the correct surgical techniques and a small amount of local anaesthetic can be used as well.

I'm not circumcised as I'm Catholic, although there's no prohibition on it in my religion, it's just not practised very much.

A non-Jewish friend of mine had the procedure done as a child, but for medical reasons.
Doesn't really seem to factor in daily life, so it's no big deal.

I think our attention should be directed towards people who practice it without the appropriate medical training or supervision.
There have been a few tragic cases in Dublin where a child has bled to death as a result of a botched circumcision as part of a non-Jewish ritual, amongst newly immigrant families originating from African nations.

Furthermore- female circumcision IS genital mutilation, and is utterly barbaric.
I don't have detailed reports or links to share, so I can't comment much on the matter, although it has cropped up in the Irish media on occasion that asylum seekers from war torn nations in Africa have claimed that such a fate awaits their daughters if they are deported.

I respect the right of parents to share and practice their faith with their children, but I think it crosses the line when they want to permanently alter their child for the sake of it. First, it is an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. I mean, think about it. What if I am part of some obscure religion that calls for Johnny's ears to be clipped at the top? I assure you that my religion has been around for at least 1000 years and I think he can clean less of an ear better. Does that seem like a good idea?

All very well, but religions have for centuries involved rites and rituals which appear rather kooky to outsiders.

The Romans thought early Christians actually ate flesh and drank blood when celebrating Eucharist, after all.

Also, I agree with your point, although at the same time we can't just lump in a religious practice that's carefully monitored with the same kind of mutilation by witch-doctors.

I'm not really qualified to argue the Jewish position on it, and I also realise that the same goes for tribal rituals.

However, I will say that while I'm uncomfortable with the idea of it being done to me, at the same time it's not a harmful procedure when correctly performed on a male child.

It's done in an extremely humane manner in the Jewish faith, but I cede your point about altering of the body. I would point out that the parents consent on this matter.

That's really something to be argued between a person born into the Jewish faith and a Rabbi, though.
All very well to object, but are you honestly going to start calling people who practise the ritual barbarians?

Why don't we ask people who've actually had it done at infancy?

 

[Justank]

I apologize for this, I do need to provide a source. I recall it from a WHO pamphlet, and yes, I am aware of WHO's stance on male circumcision, at least as it concerns developing nations. I have a feeling I should have said scar tissue, but until I locate the source, you can disregard my comments.

All good man, I was just curious. I'd never heard of it before, and my current girl was actually surprised at how soft the skin is, so I just wanted to know.

 

[Sandernista]

Don't ban it!

It looks better

 

[Koroviev]

Infants don't feel pain? What? /:

Sorry, I immediately went back and edited it to don't REMEMBER pain, but you must have quoted me before that happened.

Okay, that's a lot different XD