circumcision

[Damien0124]

(Stolen from wikipedia)

Male circumcision is the removal of some or all of the foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The word "circumcision" comes from Latin circum (meaning "around") and cædere (meaning "to cut").

Female circumcision refers to "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons."

In other words, it's chopping off a piece of somebody's genitals. Mostly for religious reasons. Circumcisions are mostly preformed on young children.


Do you think it's right or wrong?

Please discuss.

 

[Straggler]

In general I don't think carving people up for any religion is necessary

 

[Shredderbeam]

When performed on infants, it's non-consensual body mutilation. I don't see why any parent would opt for this.

 

[shakaka]

It's not always religion. It has to do with hygiene also. Don't give me the "oh, just clean it" bullshit either. I go to high school, and the people there don't know how to properly was their hair let alone the rest of their bodies.

I agree that it's not right, but it's pretty much the standard in society today anyway.

 

[g0tg0t]

Its pretty much standard nowadays, and as a baby you wont remember it anyway. Plus for hygenic reasons, thereforeless infections/deseases etc.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

It is a disgusting bronze age practice. Cutting off a baby's foreskin? God that's sick.

 

[aghostoooo]

im uncircumcised and i havent got infected or anything...? even if you're circumcised and you don't shower or clean your junk, then its bound to get infected...

 

[Damien0124]

The medical advantages are pretty negligible. Also, sombody with an uncircumcised penis has more pleasure during sex because the foreskin stimulates the glans. Circumcision does reduce the chances of getting AIDS, but condoms do too, so why mutilate somebody for that?
I do think that parents have no right deciding what happens with their childrens body, since it's not their body. If the child is old enough and can choose for itself, than it's okay. Untill than, it's a big no no, in my opinion.

 

[AMS]

i believe this is wrong. What religion is this?

 

[FreedomFight]

When performed on infants, it's non-consensual body mutilation. I don't see why any parent would opt for this.

Nonconsensual? Ha, as if you have a right to make choices for yourself at that age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not forced by the physician, and has had no PROVEN negatives...it's just like getting shots or getting your embilical cord cut off..

This isn't just some Jewish or religious practice. And don't be crazy, getting circumsized as an adult or teen would be MUCH more painful and awkward than otherwise.

 

[Damien0124]

i believe this is wrong. What religion is this?

Islam and judaism

 

[Noobkillerah]

i don't think its a religious thing...i thought it was for hygiene???
Im circumcised and i don't belong to any weird religion.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Nonconsensual? Ha, as if you have a right to make choices for yourself at that age. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's not forced by the physician, and has had no PROVEN negatives...it's just like getting shots or getting your embilical cord cut off..

It doesn't really have any positives, either, so the analogy to shots/cutting the umbilical cord doesn't fit.

This isn't just some Jewish or religious practice.

Then why is it done?

And don't be crazy, getting circumsized as an adult or teen would be MUCH more painful and awkward than otherwise.

I'm sure it would, yes.

 

Circumcized penises are aesthetically appealing.

 

[J a K e Y]

Circumcision isnt that popular anymore, it used to be in the 80's i think, and mainly only people of a certain religion would have this done. I dont agree with it at all.

 

[FreedomFight]

It doesn't really have any positives, either, so the analogy to shots/cutting the umbilical cord doesn't fit.

Well, it does. A circumsized penis is generally easier to keep clean, SLIGHTLY reducing infectious rates... and as Verts put it ^_^

I do agree that evidence to support or mandate circusicion is quite weak. Just as weak are the suggestions that circusicion is mutilation or the idea that it somehow reduces sexual pleasure. Thus, while I would be AGAINST a law requiring circusicion, I would NOT categorize this under child-abuse and thus let the parents decide.

Edit: Forgot to mention, female circusicion should not be compared to male circumcision, it is not nearly as widespread nor justifiable.

 

[xx mdv xx]

I'm Christian and so are my parents and my parents decided to make me get it. I heard it can also be for preventing your penis from getting infected because it can get infected with all that extra skin.

 

[Billyy]

More skin = harder to keep clean.

I was born in 1991, and I'm circumsized.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Well, it does. A circumsized penis is generally easier to keep clean, SLIGHTLY reducing infectious rates... and as Verts put it ^_^

Is there data to show that infection rates in uncircumcised males are lower?

I do agree that evidence to support or mandate circusicion is quite weak. Just as weak are the suggestions that circusicion is mutilation or the idea that it somehow reduces sexual pleasure. Thus, while I would be AGAINST a law requiring circusicion, I would NOT categorize this under child-abuse and thus let the parents decide.

Even if it's not harmful, the child has still not consented to this permanent surgery.

 

[FreedomFight]

Well there are a few viewpoints. Most have not reached a strong conclusion favoring either - there has been some association with prevention of certain STD's, but each experiment is obviously hard to control for ethics reasons. They would have to be observational studies (and not experimentation) and thus subject to numerous bias possiblies.

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD003362/frame.html

Either way, the child has very little rights as it is born. The parents make ALL the decisions as long as it does not fall upon child abuse. Until circucision can be proven to be a severe "abuse" of the child, I see no moral concern when allowing the parents to make the choice.