Are you American? Are you circumcized? Here is a video to watch.

The proceedure doesn't really change much. I guess theoretically an uncircumsized penis had more sensitivity and therefore a bit more pleasure during sex, but most circumsized people enjoy sex just fine. You're right, its a religious matter, and should stay a religious matter. If I marry and my wife insists on circumcision, I'll have it done to my kids, but otherwise, I won't. I think its wrong to justify it just because it was done to me.

 

These threads always go a bit crazy now that I think of it.

 

How is it? After all, both are done without the victim’s consent, both can be traumatising, and both have been practiced for millennia.

Again, just because it’s a tribal culture doesn’t mean practices should be continued, or that they’re moral/ok to do. Places in Papua New Guinea still perform cannibalism; very much a tribal practice. Should cannibalism be legalised for that reason? Or would it not make sense to tell them to not kill people to consume?

Comparing the permanent removal of skin from a baby’s reproductive parts (which have a use concerning sensitivity and lubrication) to a symbolic process involving a 2-second immersion in water, or sprinkling or whatever that has no permanent physical consequences.

And no, this isn’t taking away choice. In fact, it’s PRESERVING choice. Parents should be guiding their children in their beliefs, not forcing them without choice into joining their silly little cult, and this applies for any religion/belief. If a kid wants to be circumcised when they’re older, like 14, then go ahead and do it, but it should be their choice.

I tend not to care for beliefs that tend to harm infants and children, or involve a process in which they didn’t sign up for, when said process has no physically positive effects. They don’t belong in the 21st Century. Concerning their other beliefs, go ahead and practice them. If it doesn’t involve force then I don’t care.

Also, not to mention the possibility of botched circumcisions. Someone had one, became an unintended transsexual because of it, and eventually committed suicide because of it. Extreme example, but botching is a true possibility that can and do happen, and the psychological consequences of having one can truly wreck.

It’s an unnecessary procedure.

 

Yes, but circumcision is done once, and its not traumatising, because not a single person alive rememebers their birth day. Trauma requires painful memories. There have been many things practiced for millenia that are good (farming, irrigation, pet-owning) and bad (human trafficking, domestic violence, war), so the "practiced for millennia" argument is moot.

Finally, lots of things are done to a kid without their consent that their parents decide for them, for their best interest or whatever. I play piano today and really enjoy it, but I definitely wasn't the one who decided I should take lessons. I didn't decide what I ate, I didn't decide for my Mom to eat healthy while pregnant with me, I didn't decide to live on a house free of chokable items and lead paint. Parents have a deciding factor in the first 18 years of our lives, and that's okay, because for a good chunk of that time, we aren't capable of making those decisions.

It doesn't harm them, and it has no signifiant negative effects either, so why worry about it?

 

Careful. You’re promoting slavery with that type of logic.

 

No i'm not. Slavery is oppressive and affects a person's entire life, has tons of "negative effects," denies a person's freedom, and is not decided by a person's parents and continues past the age of eighteen. Of course its different from circumcision.

 

It seems obvious that many of the comments here^ were made without listening to the presentation in the first post. That was the basis for discussion. Only comments made with that specific information in mind are relevant to this thread.

 

...Touché. I'll spare myself the two hours, but you're right, I probably should have watched the video before leaving a reply.

 

In the same way being raped while unconscious/infant/toddler is not traumatising because the victim most likely won’t remember it? And that those rape victims should suck it up simply because they have no memories of it? Do you see anything wrong with that? Because the logic indicated in your post indicates such a belief that conscious memories = trauma, when that isn’t always the case. Trauma involves more than just the conscious mind.

Anyway, it leaves behind disfiguring scars which can be traumatic to others. Not everything traumatic requires a conscious memory of it.

???

If anything, you’ve actually solidified my point here. It was not my argument to keep things simply because they were practiced since ancient times.

All of these better a kid, from gaining a skill to becoming more physically/emotionally/mentally healthy. it does not compare to getting permanent body modifications for non-medical purposes, and it doesn’t have any extra benefits to it. Even in this thread, the only pro-circumcision reasons I see are because those nasty, gross-looking intact dicks! Oh, and spiritually (which a kid shouldn’t be forced to make permanent bodily changes in order to participate in).

My beef with everything is human rights should be above religion, and mutilation goes against such rights.

 

Your beef is misplaced since human rights dictate that parents have a right to make sure their children are and remain healthy. Circumcision has been said to have health benefits such as:

• A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
• A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
• Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Source:https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

I’m sorry you don’t think parents should have the right to make health decisions for their own children. I’m also sorry that you fail to see that similarities do not mean something is the same. I don’t know any slaves that we’re put into slavery because of its health benefits. Do you?

 

All these occur when you don’t wash, which of course is simple to do in the 21st Century, and with that factor thrown in, many of those studies have been disproven. As such, this isn’t a health decision but rather one of cosmetic appearance.

 

Your source simply quotes the AAP, and doesn't provide links to actual articles or studies on the claims, even from the AAP itself. No doctor signed off on the WebMD page, either. The AAP is a professional association like any other, and will look out for its interests. The AAP wants to encourage circumcision because it's big money. They are looking out for their interests, not the patients' interests!

 

How would people react if doctors were encouraging parents to circumcise their daughters? Even the WHO stands against female genital mutilation. So, why do people want to encourage male genital mutilation? Amputating body parts without medical necessity is cruel and inhumane.

 

That's actually a fair point. And after doing a little research, it supposedly does great harm to the baby and many doctors don't give the baby anything to take the pain away. That's pretty messed up. I misspoke, then, this actually convinces me that I was wrong.

Its still not the same thing as slavery, though.

I wasn't trying to make an argument for circumsicion in that paragraph, I was challenging your reply to Chris when he said that comparing circumcision to slavery is extreme. You were trying to compare the justification of circumcisions with the justification of slavery, correct? (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I understand how frustrating it is when someone poorly summarizes your argument)

One of the ways you tried to compare circumcision to slavery is that its a long-standing tradition, in addition to the lack of consent, and I was trying to refute each point, taking each of those comparisons and showing how common they are. Its like comparing Water to Sodium Hydroxide and saying water must be poisonous because it also contains Hydrogen. Its an irrelevant comparison because lots of chemicals, poisonous and not poisonous, can contain Hydrogen atoms, the most abundant element in the universe.

 

What the hell?
Anyone with basic knowledge in human biology would know, that every single thing you just mentioned, is not true.

Sexually transmitted diseases?
You can get HIV by simply touching your hand and transfering it. The skin makes not difference.
If you are born with it, most likely it shouldnt be tempered with. The skin was actually made to protect your penis.

 

True. My comparison to slavery was a far-fetched, but I wasn’t comparing the justification of it (if it came out like that then I didn’t mean it to). Obviously slavery’s evil and is usually life-long. But what I was comparing circumcision and slavery to, is the fact that both are ancient practices (with no long term known benefits to the victim) that put the wants of the parent/master over the wants of the child/victim (obviously we don’t know the wants of the child, as it’s too early). Chris seemed to have stated in a previous post that it was an ancient tradition and tribal, and thus (in the case of circumcision) should be given the green light.

If circumcision had a medical necessity, or it’s something comparable to forcing a kid to be healthier and eat broccoli (which it isn’t) then I’d support it. Otherwise, no I don’t, as there’s no such proven benefit.

 

Okay, so it sounds like you had the same goal as me; and when someone tried to say that circumcision is okay because its an ancient practice, you gave an example of an ancient practice that wasn't okay, to try to discredit the ancient practice argument. We can easily agree on that!

 

That´s complete bullshit. You cannot transfer HIV by handshakes, sneezing or kissing. Also there are valid studies, that indeed proove that circumcision is reducing the risk for an active man to get infected by HIV, because the virus needs contact of mucous membranes to enter. Uncircumsized men in Africa got infected with significant higher rates, than the circumsized ones.

Else, this thread is a mess. I won´t start with the video, also because of the bad review by @IGY. Ain´t nobody has time for that narcissistic stuff. And I can also see that OP has no other intention here, then to initiate turmoil, just by checking his content and username so far. There is an antisemitic tendency coming with several comments right from the start, while circumcision is also an established worldwide islamic practice and by many african tribes.

It´s not comparable with genital mutilation of girls. The last one is a brutal practice, done to older children often under terrible sanitary circumstances, against their will and removing their clitoris with nearly no anesthesistic. I doubt that most american men would identify themselve with this or want to deal with it on the same level.

 

I never said that ding dong. Go read my post again.

You mention "valid studies", well why dont you show me these studies. lol.
That wouldnt make any sense. HIV is transfered through contact. The skin, wether it be there or not, does not make difference when it comes to that.