PDA

View Full Version : Male Infant Circumcision


NewLeafsFan
January 2nd, 2017, 06:02 PM
Beneficial to health/ Social requirement or Genital Mutilation?

pconnor
January 2nd, 2017, 08:12 PM
Certainly not genital mutilation.

Devinsoccer
January 2nd, 2017, 08:26 PM
Its not a required thing for all babies.

Some do it cause of religion.
Some tribes do it.
Easier to clean.
Because there is something wrong with their penis.
There could be other reasons.

StoppingTom
January 2nd, 2017, 08:34 PM
Eh, I don't remember it, it hasn't impeded me in life, and gives me one less thing to worry about healthwise.

Microcosm
January 2nd, 2017, 09:21 PM
Technically, it's beneficial to health because with foreskin bacteria can build up, becoming difficult to clean. Besides that, I suppose it's really more of a personal choice.

When people say it's genital mutilation, I'd say that technically they are correct. However, in saying that they are implying a certain connotation that it is somehow emotionally harmful to the baby or something like that. It's simply a decision of health which is in the realm of the parent to make.

ThisBougieLife
January 2nd, 2017, 10:36 PM
I don't agree with routine infant circumcision. It should be just that--a personal choice on the part of the person to whom it is done, and they can have it done when they are older if they wish.

For one thing, the practice is almost uniquely American. In most other parts of the world, it's not done but for religious reasons. I'm not saying those reasons are more valid, but this idea that it's a health necessity doesn't seem to occur to most Europeans and East Asians and I'd like to know why. They also don't seem to be awash in penile cancer and other problems.

I would only agree with it in the situation of extreme phimosis (which is not always easy to determine since the foreskin is naturally tighter at birth and loosens as the boy gets older) or in a situation where circumcision can help prevent the spread of HIV in an AIDS-infested area like sub-Saharan Africa. Otherwise I am really not a fan. It isn't that hard to clean down there; I was taught to do it at a young age and I have had no problems as an uncircumcised male.

The label "genital mutilation" is an issue of semantics; those who wish to condemn circumcision call it that, those who don't don't. That's not my issue. However, it is interesting to note that if it were encouraged for baby girls to have a part of their sexual organ removed at birth it'd probably be seen as oppressive, anti-feminist, and sexist (especially when I've heard reasons such as "women prefer it" and "he should look like his daddy" given for having a male circumcised. Somehow "men prefer it" doesn't seem like it would fly).

Stronk Serb
January 3rd, 2017, 03:17 PM
I am uncircumsized and I had no problems with it, it's not that harder to clean, just pull the skin up, rub it a bit with soap and that's it. I think it should be a personal choice a person should make when they reach adulthood.

NewLeafsFan
January 3rd, 2017, 03:22 PM
I don't agree with routine infant circumcision. It should be just that--a personal choice on the part of the person to whom it is done, and they can have it done when they are older if they wish.

For one thing, the practice is almost uniquely American. In most other parts of the world, it's not done but for religious reasons. I'm not saying those reasons are more valid, but this idea that it's a health necessity doesn't seem to occur to most Europeans and East Asians and I'd like to know why. They also don't seem to be awash in penile cancer and other problems.

I would only agree with it in the situation of extreme phimosis (which is not always easy to determine since the foreskin is naturally tighter at birth and loosens as the boy gets older) or in a situation where circumcision can help prevent the spread of HIV in an AIDS-infested area like sub-Saharan Africa. Otherwise I am really not a fan. It isn't that hard to clean down there; I was taught to do it at a young age and I have had no problems as an uncircumcised male.

The label "genital mutilation" is an issue of semantics; those who wish to condemn circumcision call it that, those who don't don't. That's not my issue. However, it is interesting to note that if it were encouraged for baby girls to have a part of their sexual organ removed at birth it'd probably be seen as oppressive, anti-feminist, and sexist (especially when I've heard reasons such as "women prefer it" and "he should look like his daddy" given for having a male circumcised. Somehow "men prefer it" doesn't seem like it would fly).

Its common in more countries than you think. Its very common in many African countries to protect against aids.

Theyre are many health benefits accirding to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

auser_name
January 3rd, 2017, 04:11 PM
I'm going to be completely honest. Unless its a medical requirement I don't think hospitals should be allowed to circumcise a boy until they're 18 and can make there on decision on the matter

Flapjack
January 15th, 2017, 12:52 PM
Definitely genital mutilation! Don't get why female circumcision is frowned upon but with males it is okay? Unless it is medically needed then it should not be carried out until the child grows up and can make his own decisions on what to do with his body.

Falcons_11
January 15th, 2017, 08:00 PM
I am uncircumsized and I had no problems with it, it's not that harder to clean, just pull the skin up, rub it a bit with soap and that's it. I think it should be a personal choice a person should make when they reach adulthood.

I hardly agree. I've had no problems with having a foreskin. I clean myself usually while taking a shower. It's so routine for me that I don't even think about it when I'm doing it in the shower. I can't imagine any guy who is uncircumcised not wanting to take care of his himself down there. It just makes good sense.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 15th, 2017, 08:49 PM
Circumcision is like, totally normal thing to do and is totally not genital mutilation! I identify as not having foreskin, so I should like totally have the right to have cosmetic surgery on my genitals! If you think I am crazy to be so obsessive and accepting of having my genitals cut, you are sexist!!! It is my human right to mutilate my body as I may, so much so that I am going to make you pay for it through taxes! If you don't allow me to cut my genitals, then you are totally preventing me from expressing my true self! And no! I am not crazy! I just want to cut my gentitals!

mattsmith48
January 15th, 2017, 09:08 PM
Yes it is genital mutilation, the only time it should be allowed is for medical reason or by choice when old enough to make the decison.

If done for other reason its kinda child abuse

pconnor
January 15th, 2017, 09:17 PM
It is usually performed at birth thus it is the parent's choice.

LRSSS02
January 15th, 2017, 10:48 PM
I think that it is good for you health because that foreskin can be used to grow new sling for a graft elsewhere on your body

whoisme
January 20th, 2017, 11:49 AM
Circumcision of newborn boys (I.e., within the first month of life) brings numerous health benefits, according to Dr. Muhammad Al-Baar ( Royal College of Surgeons in the UK), including:
1 – Protection against local infection in the penis, which may result from the presence of the foreskin, causing tightening of the foreskin, which may lead to retention of urine or infections of the glans (tip) of the penis – which require circumcision in order to treat these problems. In chronic cases, the child may be exposed to numerous diseases in the future, the most serious of which is cancer of the penis.
2 – Infections of the urethra. Many studies have proven that uncircumcised boys are more exposed to infection of the urethra. In some studies the rate was 39 times more among uncircumcised boys. In other studies the rate was ten times more. Other studies showed that 95% of children who suffered from infections of the urethra were uncircumcised, whereas the rate among circumcised children did not exceed 5%.
In children, infection of the urethra is serious in some cases. In the study by Wisewell on 88 children who suffered infections of the urethra, in 36 % of them, the same bacteria was found in the blood also. Three of them contracted meningitis, and two suffered renal failure. Two others died as a result of the spread of the micro-organisms throughout the body.
3 – Protection against cancer of the penis: the studies agree that cancer of the penis is almost non-existent among circumcised men, whereas the rate among uncircumcised men is not insignificant. In the US the rate of penile cancer among circumcised men is zero, whilst among uncircumcised men it is 2.2 in every 100,000 of the uncircumcised population. As most of the inhabitants of the US are circumcised, the cases of this cancer there are between 750 and 1000 per year. If the population were not circumcised, the number of cases would reach 3000. In countries where boys are not circumcised, such as China, Uganda and Puerto Rico, penile cancer represents between 12-22 % of all cancers found in men; this is a very high percentage.
4 – Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Researchers found that the STDs which are transmitted via sexual contact (usually because of fornication/adultery and homosexuality) spread more among those who are not circumcised, especially herpes, soft chancres, syphilis, candida, gonorrhea and genital warts.
There are numerous modern studies which confirm that circumcision reduces the possibility of contracting AIDS when compared to their uncircumcised counterparts. But that does not rule out the possibility of a circumcised man contracting AIDS as the result of sexual contact with a person who has AIDS. Circumcision is not a protection against it, and there is no real way of protecting oneself against the many sexually transmitted diseases apart from avoiding fornication/adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality and other repugnant practices. (From this we can see the wisdom of Islamic sharee'ah in forbidding fornication/adultery and homosexuality).
5 – Protection of wives against cervical cancer.

Matryoshkasystem
January 20th, 2017, 05:00 PM
whoisme note these results are actually extremely manipulated, cause if their true, why is it that babys with the slighteest health problem banned from it?Also some of these, are jus tflat out due to laziness such as infection. Cause during the healing time, & even after, circumcised bbies need to have complete cleaning& care of the head. Unike uncircumcised which until puberty the males foreskin& head are fused together. Meaning it dosen't need cleaned underneath.

Flapjack
January 20th, 2017, 05:27 PM
Circumcision is like, totally normal thing to do and is totally not genital mutilation! I identify as not having foreskin, so I should like totally have the right to have cosmetic surgery on my genitals! If you think I am crazy to be so obsessive and accepting of having my genitals cut, you are sexist!!! It is my human right to mutilate my body as I may, so much so that I am going to make you pay for it through taxes! If you don't allow me to cut my genitals, then you are totally preventing me from expressing my true self! And no! I am not crazy! I just want to cut my gentitals!
I don't think you're crazy if you want to have it done personally but I do think it is crazy for parents to have it done to their babies before they know whether or not they identify as 'not having foreskin' XD

Hyper
January 26th, 2017, 12:24 AM
It is genital mutilation.

There are nearly 0 health benefits and the only reason it is so prevalent in America is because it was believed to lessen masturbation in the early 20th century.

Couple that with ''my sons donger must look like mine'' and there you go.

mattsmith48
January 26th, 2017, 12:34 AM
It is genital mutilation.

There are nearly 0 health benefits and the only reason it is so prevalent in America is because it was believed to lessen masturbation in the early 20th century.

Actually that believe is far older than early 20th century it is the reason male circumcision is required by most religion.

Hyper
January 26th, 2017, 12:56 AM
Actually that believe is far older than early 20th century it is the reason male circumcision is required by most religion.

Circumcision in America didn't start becoming as common as it is now until the 20th century - and one of, if not the main selling point was the aforementioned belief.

I didn't say that said belief originated then, did I?

mattsmith48
January 26th, 2017, 01:37 AM
Circumcision in America didn't start becoming as common as it is now until the 20th century - and one of, if not the main selling point was the aforementioned belief.

I didn't say that said belief originated then, did I?

Sorry, I must have misread you post.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 26th, 2017, 02:30 PM
mattsmith48 Circumcision in America is far more of a cultural thing than religious. As stated, circumcision didn't become common until the 1900s, and Christianity never mandates or even encourages circumcision.

mattsmith48
January 27th, 2017, 02:05 AM
mattsmith48 Circumcision in America is far more of a cultural thing than religious. As stated, circumcision didn't become common until the 1900s, and Christianity never mandates or even encourages circumcision.

I think I know that since you know I was raised Catholic. Who the fuck talked about Christianity anyway all I said is the believe that being circumcised makes it harder to masturbate is really old and is the reason most religion require their young boys to be circumcised, Christianity is not one of those religion all they ask from their young boys is to be left alone with a priest a few hours a week ;)

Olds01
February 24th, 2017, 04:32 PM
I feel as though circumcision is not beneficial to a boy by any medical means, and subjecting a baby to an unnecessary surgery so young has too much risk. If a male wishes to get circumcised after being old enough to way the evidence and make their own decision, they can certainly do it, but it should ultimately be the child's choice whether or not to receive a circumcision.

DerBear
February 25th, 2017, 07:24 AM
It is one of those things that has taken off in US due to religious, cultural and social influences. While it is true that there are minor and probably negligible health benefits. The idea of having someone circumcised for really nothing could be consider a form of mail genital mutilation.

Living For Love
February 25th, 2017, 05:23 PM
At the end of the day, it is not altogether clear that a minor reduction in the absolute risk of certain infections or diseases – whose prevalence in developed nations is generally low, and whose occurrence can typically be avoided by other, less injurious means – is worth the ‘trade-off’ of losing a part of one’s penis. What is certain, however, is that the answer to this question is likely to be highly subjective, and to depend upon numerous, unpredictable, and ultimately personal factors. Therefore, it should be up to the affected individual himself (or indeed herself, in analogous circumstances) to decide about permanent genital-modification surgeries at such a time as he or she can meaningfully factor in his or her own preferences and values. Circumcision before an age of consent is not a desirable health-promotion strategy, given more effective, and less ethically problematic, alternatives. (Earp, 2015 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364150/))

As far as semantics are concerned, male circumcision could be considered mutilation (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilate) if we consider that the removal of the foreskin severely injures of disfigures the penis. I'd say it's a question of ascertaining if a given person who has a circumcised penis would prefer being uncut, so to me it's quite a personal question.

There are nearly 0 health benefits and the only reason it is so prevalent in America is because it was believed to lessen masturbation in the early 20th century.
"Observational studies in the United States show that male circumcision is associated with reduced risk of men acquiring heterosexual HIV and HR-HPV infection. Thus, STIs are a persistent problem in the United States, and male circumcision may provide individual and societal benefits." (Tobian, 2013 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/))

There are health benefits, the problem is determining if those health benefits justify the procedure and all the ethical problems it arises. To me, they don't.

I think I know that since you know I was raised Catholic. Who the fuck talked about Christianity anyway all I said is the believe that being circumcised makes it harder to masturbate is really old and is the reason most religion require their young boys to be circumcised, Christianity is not one of those religion all they ask from their young boys is to be left alone with a priest a few hours a week ;)
A ban on neonatal male circumcision denies religious freedoms to Jewish and Muslim parents, which would be potentially unconstitutional. You could argue, however, if circumcision falls under religious freedom.

mattsmith48
February 25th, 2017, 05:54 PM
A ban on neonatal male circumcision denies religious freedoms to Jewish and Muslim parents, which would be potentially unconstitutional. You could argue, however, if circumcision falls under religious freedom.

For Jewish and Muslim circumcision is part of the practice of their religion so you could say it falls under religious freedom, but its also child abuse so the outlaw of male circumcision for non-medical reasons until that boy is legally allowed to make that decision himself wouldn't be a deny of freedom of religion.

Hermes
March 3rd, 2017, 12:23 PM
Gentital mutilation, as in the original question, is a very emotive term.

My personal view is that the only surgery that should be carried out on a child too young to consent for himself or herself is surgery that is necessary for the health of the child and could not resonably be delayed until the child is old enough to give informed consent. A perfect example of that would be repairing a heart defect that, if not repaired, may mean the child does not live to an age where they would be able to give that consent.

To me, circumcision does not fit that criteria. Most of the world does not circumcise their boys at birth and they do just fine. On that basis I think surgeons should leave baby boys alone and let them decide for themselves when they're older.

Dmaxd123
March 6th, 2017, 06:50 PM
i'm circumcised and fine with it.

i think it's a simplicity thing when young but also when you're older (like 70's, 80's, +) then the health benefits really start to kick in as far as keeping things cleaner even if you aren't as mobile or able bodied

mattsmith48
March 7th, 2017, 02:57 PM
i'm circumcised and fine with it.

i think it's a simplicity thing when young but also when you're older (like 70's, 80's, +) then the health benefits really start to kick in as far as keeping things cleaner even if you aren't as mobile or able bodied

What if you didn't like being circumcised would you be fine that you didn't make that choice?

If someone wants to get circumcised because there might be health benefits to it, nothing stops them to from doing it later in live when they can give their consent.

JakeyZ
April 12th, 2017, 05:56 AM
Medically: that's ok since it's serving a purpose

Religion: I feel that is forcing a religious lifestyle on a child which is wrong

Cosmetic: let the child decide when he's older. I feel for any reason except medical it is genital mutilation

Nelli
April 12th, 2017, 12:31 PM
Genital mutilation. There are no medical reasons to do it for infants.

Chaosphere
April 25th, 2017, 12:18 AM
Assuming we're sticking to the definition of words, it is technically damaging to a boy's penis to cut off a part of it, beneficial in the long run or not. Give the boy himself a chance to choose, when he gets old enough. The decision should be his own to make, regarding his own body. As for my own opinions on the act itself, I think it is genital mutilation, at least to some degree. You are severing a natural part of a male's body. All the supposed, "health benefits," are nearly zero when you include sex and hygienic education as a part of your study. As long as a boy knows how to keep himself clean, he'll be heathy.

boyfromthesouth
April 25th, 2017, 07:00 PM
i think circumcized looks way better.

SethfromMI
May 5th, 2017, 07:00 AM
People say it is a personal choice, but honestly, it is not a choice I would want to have to make, even if it was indeed for health reasons at this age, it can be painful (even if they put you under for the procedure, which, I assume they would (?) the recovery would be a pain in the butt.

Like many/most guys around where I am, I was circumcised at/near birth. I'm glad I was. I know some guys like being uncircumcised. that's fine too. I know there were different reasons mentioned why it was done near birth. I think part of it goes back to it being easier to do it at that age compared to a boy going through puberty/adulthood

ShineintheDark
May 5th, 2017, 10:33 AM
It's pretty universally agreed upon now as a cosmetic thing outside religious requirements. I don't have a major opinion on it, ltting the parents decide csos it's not my business.

themanconnor
May 22nd, 2017, 10:00 PM
I see the arguments for both sides, but i do think that it should be a personal decison since you are directly affected

Matryoshkasystem
May 22nd, 2017, 10:10 PM
On top of what I sid earlier, some baby boys have died due to circumcisison . Also, with the religous freedom, what takess precedence the childs life-doctors outright refuse too in cases such as with heart problems at birth,etc- or the parents beliefs.

kryptonite
May 24th, 2017, 04:58 PM
I see the arguments for both sides, but i do think that it should be a personal decison since you are directly affected

Funny you bring that up. A lot of people who choose to circumcise their babies tell their anti-circumcision friends "It's a personal decision. Stay out of it."

Well...if it's a personal decision, shouldn't it be the decision of the person it directly affects??

themanconnor
May 28th, 2017, 09:52 PM
Funny you bring that up. A lot of people who choose to circumcise their babies tell their anti-circumcision friends "It's a personal decision. Stay out of it."

Well...if it's a personal decision, shouldn't it be the decision of the person it directly affects??

ahahahah yeah exactly my point

Voice_Of_Unreason
May 29th, 2017, 03:26 PM
The problem with your argument, is that the child does not have the capacity to make that decision, and wouldn't really be mentally able until their late teens. On issues that would severely change a child's life, I would agree with your sentimentally, that the parent can't make such life altering decisions for their child. But given that male circumcision does not change the child's life in any real way, and that the procedure itself over no real cons, I think it falls in the realm of appropriate parent decisions.

On a related subject, it does disturb me that so many people are making a false equivalency of male and female circumcisions, especially in the wake of the recent Muslim FGM reveal in Michigan. Male circumcision is a custom that evokes minimal impact on the child's life. Female circumcision is a custom that almost completely removes female sexual pleasure, and is often defended as a way to oppress women. They are fall from morally equivalent, and while none of you have claimed they are, I just wanted to make sure you knew they weren't.

kryptonite
May 29th, 2017, 09:50 PM
The problem with your argument, is that the child does not have the capacity to make that decision, and wouldn't really be mentally able until their late teens. On issues that would severely change a child's life, I would agree with your sentimentally, that the parent can't make such life altering decisions for their child. But given that male circumcision does not change the child's life in any real way, and that the procedure itself over no real cons, I think it falls in the realm of appropriate parent decisions.

It's simple: Is circumcision necessary on a baby in order for the baby to live? Some stuff, say the kid is a month premature and needs urgent medical attention, that's one thing. A premature baby could die if not in a hospital with medical care 24/7. Circumcision, the kid can decide later on.

Circumcision doesn't affect life? Look at where erectile dysfunction medicine is commonly advertised. Look at where circumcision is popular.



Here's more:
http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/circumcision-effects
http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm

Benefits:
Full length. The first thing a parent does is make his son smaller down there? Thanks a lot!
http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

Not to mention the images which are so graphic and the stories of the parents who can hear the kids screaming from down the hall... and why? Because the parents feel some urge to have a doctor slice the kid's most private of areas to match what they think it should look like?

Circumcision is cosmetic. Nothing else.

Every "yes reason" has a "no reason." Every "plus one" has a "minus one" and you start and end at zero... it's there for a reason. Look at tails. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Humans have tailbones, yet we don't have tails. Evolution took care of that. If we didn't need foreskins, wouldn't evolution have taken care of that?

Religious people say that "God doesn't make mistakes" yet immediately slice-and-dice...that makes no sense.

mookie
June 4th, 2017, 03:23 PM
I think you should leave the foreskin on. I have mine and like it.

kyle2003
June 6th, 2017, 08:36 PM
I think circumcision used to be more of a health concern when people didn't bathe as frequently as we do now. I think as long as a guy keeps clean, there should be no difference between circumcised and not circumcised. However, there are still probably health benefits especially in specific circumstances.

I don't believe male circumcision is genital mutilation like female circumcision. First, there have been proven health benefits at least in certain circumstances, whereas female circumcision has no proven health benefits. Second, female circumcision is used to oppress women and keep them from enjoying sex.

I am circumcised. I don't know exactly why, but, I do not experience any pain or displeasure because of it and I don't remember the procedure whatsover. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.

Coolteenboy
June 6th, 2017, 10:14 PM
I think circumcision is best done as an infant....... Imo

Omnomnom
June 10th, 2017, 05:28 AM
I think it's wrong to do such a thing to an infant child who can't defend himself. Circumcision should be a choice made on his own when he's old enough.

Aldee
June 10th, 2017, 09:36 PM
I wouldn't consider it mutilation. Religious or medicinal reasons are the main reasons I think it is done.