Legality of unconsented circumcision in minors.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

So, this is an extremely important subject for me. I have done extremely extensive research and read many books, e.g.
[Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery]
[Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma]
I've watched videos of the operation (an extremely mentally scarring thing to sit though)
I've researched the functions of the foreskin and how it works for masturbation and for intercourse, what it does for the penis [protects the glans, keeps it covered and moisturized]
And I've researched the anatomy of the foreskin [key points: ridged band and 20,000 sexual nerve endings]
And I have come to the ultimate conclusion: Circumcision should be illegal to perform on a minor for any reason other than absolute necessity [and research this yourself, there are very few instances of absolute necessity, and with modern medicine, there are alternative to cutting the foreskin off]

Wikipedia search Preputioplasty: it's a simple procedure that makes a tiny incision across the tightened ridged band, loosening it up, stitch the incision and bam, good as new. ehealthforum.com/health/topic84482.html#axzz2DlbWgblu a man's experience with curing his own phimosis with gentle stretches.

In my experience, and with my research, I am of the utmost opinion that this is directly sexual control and a violation of the male's right to his body as nature intended and to a fulfilling and whole sexual experience! I am for the restriction of religious rights when it comes to protection of individual's rights.
Take, for example, the US Government's Federal Ban on female circumcision (in any form, and there are several, a few of which are less extreme than male circumcision). Female genital alteration for any reason other than absolute medical necessity is federally banned. So for religious, cultural, hygienic, beauty reasons, it is banned, so why then shouldn't it be banned for male children and that protection afforded to them as well?

[CharlieFinley]

I actually have done a great deal of research on the subject, and can assure you that it is not the government's place to interfere in something so minor. Now, the government should mandate anesthesia, but once anesthesia is used, the complication rate drops to almost nothing. Parents have always had both the right and the obligation to make decisions for their offspring, even when those decisions are viewed as harmful by the scientific community. There is not a legal basis for your proposal in the U.S.

[PrimedPenguin]

Wow its great to see you take interest in this subject. I agree with you to a extent, males should not be able to get circumcised without their written and verbal approval. This would stop stop circumcision, of young males. Though when we deal with religion things get a bit complicated. In the Jewish faith b
Male baby's get circumcised and this could violation the right of free religion in the U. S. I see were you come from though, I was cut as a baby and I wished I knew what it was like to be uncut but the past is the past and there is no way to change it.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Wow its great to see you take interest in this subject. I agree with you to a extent, males should not be able to get circumcised without their written and verbal approval. This would stop stop circumcision, of young males. Though when we deal with religion things get a bit complicated. In the Jewish faith b
Male baby's get circumcised and this could violation the right of free religion in the U. S. I see were you come from though, I was cut as a baby and I wished I knew what it was like to be uncut but the past is the past and there is no way to change it.

Actually, there's foreskin restoration which gives you back the gliding skin making masturbation and intercourse more comfortable and enjoyable, and it moisturizes the head of the penis and returns it to the shiny, pink, supple state it was before hand, removing all the built up skin and making it as sensitive as it was meant to be. Yes, you will never get back your 20,000 nerve endings, but the look and most functions are returned! :] I'd google it if I were you, non-surgical restoration that is. Surgical methods offer really bad results.

I actually have done a great deal of research on the subject, and can assure you that it is not the government's place to interfere in something so minor. Now, the government should mandate anesthesia, but once anesthesia is used, the complication rate drops to almost nothing. Parents have always had both the right and the obligation to make decisions for their offspring, even when those decisions are viewed as harmful by the scientific community. There is not a legal basis for your proposal in the U.S.

Ah, but there should be. This lack of protection of male minors in favor of the religious rights of the parents is unequal in that female infants are protected. Also, no major health organization states that proposed benefits of circumcision: hygiene and reduction in STD's is significant enough to recommend male circumcision. The only way to ensure good hygiene and good sexual health is education on hygiene and proper safe sex practices. Circumcision doesn't prevent anything aside from phimosis and paraphimosis, and that's because the foreskin isn't there. These can be treated without cutting it off.

[PrimedPenguin]

Actually, there's foreskin restoration which gives you back the gliding skin making masturbation and intercourse more comfortable and enjoyable, and it moisturizes the head of the penis and returns it to the shiny, pink, supple state it was before hand, removing all the built up skin and making it as sensitive as it was meant to be. Yes, you will never get back your 20,000 nerve endings, but the look and most functions are returned! :] I'd google it if I were you, non-surgical restoration that is. Surgical methods offer really bad results.

Honestly even though I wonder what it's like to have forskin I realy don't think I would want it if that makes any sense. I think it's more curiosity than want.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Honestly even though I wonder what it's like to have forskin I realy don't think I would want it if that makes any sense. I think it's more curiosity than want.

I understand exactly how you feel. Also, if you are definitely curious about what it feels like to be intact, restoration yields really good results. I suggest google foreskin restoration and you will come across some online forums and such that tell all about it. There are thousands of men who are doing it to get back the appearance, the gliding and the sensation in the head of the penis that has lessened over the life span. Also, a point of interest, the skin between the head of the penis and the circumcision scar is what's left if your foreskin, so, if one does do restoration, one has a very sensitive inner foreskin. :]

[MalditoDia]

I agree dude. I think it should be an option when the kid gets older.

[PrimedPenguin]

Also watched a video of a circumcision on YouTube. I hate that feeling you get when you see someone else having needles plunged in the bade of their penis. I lol

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I agree dude. I think it should be an option when the kid gets older.
I also feel that parents shouldn't pressure their children into it when they're older either. I know a few guys who have been pressured into it. :L

Also watched a video of a circumcision on YouTube. I hate that feeling you get when you see someone else having needles plunged in the bade of their penis. I lol
Yeah :L I've seen both operations, one that was anesthetized and one without anesthesia. They're both extremely horrifying.

[Human]

Parents shouldn't be allowed to circumcise their child until they are old enough to make an educated choice...

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Parents shouldn't be allowed to circumcise their child until they are old enough to make an educated choice...

I agree. One thing I really have to interject is that when one is of age, unless one does extensive research, with our current education on anatomy and sexuality, 100% informed consent is really really rare. I highly doubt anyone anywhere would get circumcised if they knew everything I and many others know. But yes, parents shouldn't be allowed to. :]

[Gigablue]

I think it should be banned for infants and young children, those who can't consent and can't understand the risks associated. Complications are fairly rare, but can be severe in some cases, and therefore the surgery should only de done with informed consent. In medically necessary cases, I think parents should be able to make the decision on their child's behalf, but medically necessary cases or circumcision are rare.

I think that teenagers should be able to choose to get circumcised if they should choose to, but they must understand the risks. Parents shouldn't be able to pressure their son into being circumcised, though this would be very hard to enforce in practice.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I think it should be banned for infants and young children, those who can't consent and can't understand the risks associated. Complications are fairly rare, but can be severe in some cases, and therefore the surgery should only de done with informed consent. In medically necessary cases, I think parents should be able to make the decision on their child's behalf, but medically necessary cases or circumcision are rare.

I think that teenagers should be able to choose to get circumcised if they should choose to, but they must understand the risks. Parents shouldn't be able to pressure their son into being circumcised, though this would be very hard to enforce in practice.

I agree, it would be hard to enforce the practice. One thing that is overlooked in decisions to circumcise are the lifelong affects on sexual capabilities and function and not many people know or understand them fully. Also, research is emerging that shows that all teenagers don't progress at the same pace so some males at age 11 or 12 can fully retract their foreskins and it functions 100% to capacity, and some males are 18 and their foreskins haven't loosened up completely yet. So the medical field misdiagnoses often and unfortunately, the males lose what had no reason to be taken away. :l I feel that the medical field will become enlightened on the penis and foreskin in it's totally natural state and how to help it along with it's development. It may take decades (hopefully not) But I do foresee heavy restrictions on the practice in the future and the medical field knowing how to properly care and properly diagnose certain problems.

[Gigablue]

Also, research is emerging that shows that all teenagers don't progress at the same pace so some males at age 11 or 12 can fully retract their foreskins and it functions 100% to capacity, and some males are 18 and their foreskins haven't loosened up completely yet. So the medical field misdiagnoses often and unfortunately, the males lose what had no reason to be taken away. :l I feel that the medical field will become enlightened on the penis and foreskin in it's totally natural state and how to help it along with it's development. It may take decades (hopefully not) But I do foresee heavy restrictions on the practice in the future and the medical field knowing how to properly care and properly diagnose certain problems.

This is sadly true. Circumcision is effective at relieving phimosis, but, in many cases, it will go away without treatment or with stretching and other non surgical treatment. Circumcision does have medical uses, but is over-preformed.

[CharlieFinley]

I think it should be banned for infants and young children, those who can't consent and can't understand the risks associated. Complications are fairly rare, but can be severe in some cases, and therefore the surgery should only de done with informed consent. In medically necessary cases, I think parents should be able to make the decision on their child's behalf, but medically necessary cases or circumcision are rare.

I think that teenagers should be able to choose to get circumcised if they should choose to, but they must understand the risks. Parents shouldn't be able to pressure their son into being circumcised, though this would be very hard to enforce in practice.

Informed consent is not a requirement. Parent can consent for infant children in medical matters.

[Gigablue]

Informed consent is not a requirement. Parent can consent for infant children in medical matters.

Parents should be able to consent for medically necessary treatments for their children. Circumcision, other than in rare cases, is not medically necessary. It is a cosmetic procedure, and thus I don't think parents should be able to consent on their child's behalf.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

This is sadly true. Circumcision is effective at relieving phimosis, but, in many cases, it will go away without treatment or with stretching and other non surgical treatment. Circumcision does have medical uses, but is over-preformed.
Phimosis is misdiagnosed in infants, adolescents and teens. As I said, the foreskin is tight in infancy and childhood and sometimes through the teen years because it isn't fully matured yet. :l Sadly, many males have been circumcised because of false diagnosis.

True phimosis is the re-tightening of the foreskin AFTER it loosens in maturity, that's how it's defined. And now, there are alternative cures to it, such as preputioplasty which is far less invasive and leaves no damage in the long run. Google it and you'll find the wiki page that explains it thoroughly, there's also this way:
http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic84482.html#axzz2DlbWgblu

he cured his phimosis with stretches. No doctor consulted whatsoever.

Parents should be able to consent for medically necessary treatments for their children. Circumcision, other than in rare cases, is not medically necessary. It is a cosmetic procedure, and thus I don't think parents should be able to consent on their child's behalf.


Well said!

[Korashk]

I actually have done a great deal of research on the subject, and can assure you that it is not the government's place to interfere in something so minor.
While I agree in principal (because I'm an anarchist). I also think that infant circumcision is a violation of that child's bodily integrity and is morally wrong except in emergencies. There's no downside to leaving it, and the risks of the procedure (though EXTREMELY rare) are very devastating.

Now, the government should mandate anesthesia, but once anesthesia is used, the complication rate drops to almost nothing.
I'm going to need a source on this. Most complications in surgery are anesthesia related, and I doubt making anesthesia mandatory will do anything but cause more yearly circumcision related deaths.

Parents have always had both the right and the obligation to make decisions for their offspring, even when those decisions are viewed as harmful by the scientific community.
1.) You're wrong, parents don't have unilateral control over their children.
2.) You don't think that's a problem?

There is not a legal basis for your proposal in the U.S.
Sure there is. In any other context forcing someone to undergo cosmetic surgery would be considered illegal.

[deadpie]

Why is it the world's most controversial surgery: because it's a dick

Why is it a trauma: people make a big deal get biased, not giving a damn about the medical benefits

You watched medical videos of a surgery and were bothered? DUDE! You watch ANY surgery video and you will probably be bothered. I'd rather watch someone get their foreskin taken off then their leg hacked off which I've watched.

So the foreskin gives you more sensitivity... now you're going to be traumatized, cry about it forever, and even try to restore your foreskin? You're going to make that big of a deal?

So it should be banned because you lose some sensitivity? That's stupid. It can save lives, it does actually have benefits. Now someone will say that the surgery can kill you. Well, it's the anesthesia that is the cause, not the surgery. This happens over any surgery. This happens in life - you never know when you're actually going to die. Get used to that nihilism of life.

And do people really need to point out the difference between female and male circumcision?

Actually, there's foreskin restoration which gives you back the gliding skin making masturbation and intercourse more comfortable and enjoyable, and it moisturizes the head of the penis and returns it to the shiny, pink, supple state it was before hand, removing all the built up skin and making it as sensitive as it was meant to be. Yes, you will never get back your 20,000 nerve endings, but the look and most functions are returned!

Shiny, pink, supple, I love how much detail you go into it. Well, it's quite obvious you find that extra patch of skin quite hawt. That's no problem, but it's biased and a bad thing to base your views on. You want to ban it on the fact it takes away sensitivity, say you should restore yet you'll never get the sensitivity, then say 'but the look and most functions return'. What if people don't care about the look? What if people don't find the foreskin as OMG SO SEXY as you do? Functions as in pulling the skin back and forth? Like what functions are we talking about that actually matter?

Also, no major health organization states that proposed benefits of circumcision

The American Academy Of Pediatrics (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0) does. This was updated in 2012, by the way.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2431/12/20/abstract

Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.

I was cut when I was twelve do to medical reasons and obviously prefer what I am now as to just staying with what I had, which was not fun. Would of rather been done at birth so I wouldn't of had to worry about a painful foreskin that made it hard to piss, couldn't pull back, and hurt every time I got a stupid boner. Of course I lean more to the medical side.

But if you don't want to get it done, fine. Being cut is a bit safer and takes out a few risks, but if you don't want to get it done, there's a chance you might not have much to worry about. It's not fun when you do have to worry though.

So the medical field misdiagnoses often and unfortunately, the males lose what had no reason to be taken away. :l I feel that the medical field will become enlightened on the penis and foreskin in it's totally natural state and how to help it along with it's development. It may take decades (hopefully not) But I do foresee heavy restrictions on the practice in the future and the medical field knowing how to properly care and properly diagnose certain problems.

1. You're not someone that is high up in the medical world who has done tons of research to find out the benefits and lack thereof. 2. You feel the medical field will be enlightened? In 2012, a year where health and science research is evergrowing beyond what you could imagine? They still hold the same position. Medical field is going to stick to the research they have then people that get turned on by foreskin. 3. The medical field knows how to properly care and properly diagnose certain problems because they're part of the medical field.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

(consolidating all that you said with some parenthasis)
@Damien Ark you really have a lot to say to stick up for a practice that is deemed non-therapeutic unnecessary surgery. Also, the AAP states that there are benefits BUT that the benefits aren't significant to recommend the procedure for every child.
It's reduction in STI's, UTI's and transmission of certain HPV strains isn't a prevention. The only thing circumcision prevents is phimosis and paramhimosis and there are other treatments to those that don't require circumcision.

And, just to clarify since you seem to take an interest in my personal sexual desires, I find the intact natural state of the human body to be beautiful. I don't want any interaction with something that's scarred, sliced up and doesn't bring as much enjoyment for both people as it should. Living life feeling 50% less than what you should and scraping the inside of your lover doesn't seem ideal. Google keratinization of the glans penis. Here's the short of it: it makes the glans penis (head of the penis) rough and thick, so intercourse is unpleasant in comparison with that with an intact penis. No scrapping and chaffing with an intact penis.

While I agree in principal (because I'm an anarchist). I also think that infant circumcision is a violation of that child's bodily integrity and is morally wrong except in emergencies. There's no downside to leaving it, and the risks of the procedure (though EXTREMELY rare) are very devastating.


I'm going to need a source on this. Most complications in surgery are anesthesia related, and I doubt making anesthesia mandatory will do anything but cause more yearly circumcision related deaths.


1.) You're wrong, parents don't have unilateral control over their children.
2.) You don't think that's a problem?


Sure there is. In any other context forcing someone to undergo cosmetic surgery would be considered illegal.

Well said.

[deadpie]

And, just to clarify since you seem to take an interest in my personal sexual desires, I find the intact natural state of the human body to be beautiful. I don't want any interaction with something that's scarred, sliced up and doesn't bring as much enjoyment for both people as it should.

That's really judgmental. Body modification, tattoos, piercings, all of that stuff can be very beautiful. Also are you saying someone with missing body parts isn't beautiful? They're ugly? You don't want any interaction with someone that has scars, sliced up skin? What about burn victims? I don't know, I personally have a stranger and more open view to beauty. Or maybe I really don't believe in beauty at all then. I can find what most people find ugly to be very... wicked, yo.

Living life feeling 50% less than what you should and scraping the inside of your lover doesn't seem ideal. Google keratinization of the glans penis. Here's the short of it: it makes the glans penis (head of the penis) rough and thick, so intercourse is unpleasant in comparison with that with an intact penis. No scrapping and chaffing with an intact penis.

Lol what are you talking about? You saying you can't have sex enjoyably unless you have foreskin? That's such BS yo. From personal experience and from just the obvious. Actually, it comes down to people's personal decision what they find to be enjoyable. Even if it was considered 'painful' like you think it is maybe some people enjoy pain! Heh, some people like being beaten up during sex.

And you're not living life 50 percent less than what you should because you're circumcised when you're having sex with someone, which you describe as scraping the inside of someone. You make it sound like it's a fucking cheese cutter or some insane sexual torture device. It's like when the foreskin comes off, it's a monster metal destruction machine, but when the foreskin is there it's just this epic do everything magic thing. When it comes down to it, there's not much difference what type of cock is in your ass or cunt. I could say, "Yeah, I don't see any difference when I fucked someone in the ass or when I was fucked in the ass" but like I said, personal choice. When it comes to personal choice it's a useless never ending argument.

Also dude, when it comes to ROTW, don't neg rep someone just because they disagree with you. I mean, they are what make your topic alive and interesting! Plus, that's just not fair. If I neg repped you, you would have double neg rep. I'm not gonna do that! That's not nice to do to you. And I respect your opinions and beliefs. Also, why leave your name not shown if it's so obvious who you are? Just sayin' man. Chill.

You say I base my opinions on my personal experiences, true, but I also base them on the evidence I've read and seen, which you say isn't logic. I think that's pretty logic for me to believe, just like you might find many things on your side and maybe I find many things you say to be also logic. You really are just one of those people that are like "if you disagree with me everything you say is shit and fuck you". That's not fun. There's no heart in debating there. Like I said, I base my views on the evidence I've seen, where you base your views on the evidence YOU'VE seen. Doesn't that mean we both have logical reasons to believe what we believe? Eh?

R.E.S.P.E.C.T and you will receive! Debating is about being about to rip every word someone says to pieces, but still being able to not be offended and have some nice tea and hookah after the debate is done together.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I gave you negative rep because you are basing everything you say on highly your own highly opinionated view point. I posted facts, then when asked I gave my personal opinion. As far as beauty, it shouldn't matter what the parents view as beautiful, they shouldn't be allowed to alter their child's body in such a permanent and damaging way. And, by definition and practice, circumcision alters sexual function. Look it up, Wikipedia Dr.John kellogg. He started circumcision in mainstream america to stop masturbation.
And before you bring up piercings the ear of a child, I'm not going to do it to my children. Doesn't mean other future parents won't or will. It's definitely not comparable with circumcision. Ear piercings can heal and have no lasting damage, circumcision affects the sexual function and sensation for the entire life.

[Jean Poutine]

Have yourself circumcised all you want, that is if it is actually in your power to consent. I find it ridiculous that parents are allowed to drastically alter a part of their child's body with no repercussions. It doesn't matter if it's beneficial or not, your body is your body and it is yours to do with as you see fit.

How fair would it be to you if your parents had you tattooed when you were a kid? Or had you subincised so you have to piss by a tube?

[deadpie]

I gave you negative rep because you are basing everything you say on highly your own highly opinionated view point.

You didn't read a single word I said, did you? I could do the same thing because you're the same way.

it shouldn't matter what the parents view as beautiful, they shouldn't be allowed to alter their child's body in such a permanent and damaging way.

1. It's not permanent. Foreskin can be restored. 2. It's not based on beauty, but because the medical benefits. Maybe some parents do it for that reason, which I think is pretty stupid to be honest.

And, by definition and practice, circumcision alters sexual function. Look it up, Wikipedia Dr.John kellogg. He started circumcision in mainstream america to stop masturbation.

Except you can still masturbate and have sex being cut. You can still enjoy it. It's not an immediate "oh shit everything feels like nothing or horrible" thing. I'm also quite sure that Dr. Kellogg isn't the resource people use when it comes to the medical proof in documents recently put out. He's just a cray-cray like many people were when people were trying to cure all tons of things back in the days. We've been able to actually do research and figure what is fact and false now with the surgery.

And before you bring up piercings the ear of a child, I'm not going to do it to my children. Doesn't mean other future parents won't or will. It's definitely not comparable with circumcision. Ear piercings can heal and have no lasting damage, circumcision affects the sexual function and sensation for the entire life.

Lol, I never said parents should? You assume I'm going to? I don't want to ever have children. The only thing I'm arguing is that circumcision has medical benefits and those are good enough of a reason for the procedure to be done. You're arguing on different subjects that I don't think are important.

I don't get why you wouldn't be interested in going on about some of the previous things I said, but it's whatever. You aren't going to change your position, which is totally fine by me and I'm probably not going to change my position unless I find research studies saying that the evidence once shown is invalid. So far, it's been proven Phimosis and Paraphimosis are not a problem when the surgery is done. It also reduces UTI's, GUD, Balanoposthitis, and Penile Cancer.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104451
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004162318.htm
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=17415
http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592

And in terms of the effects when you talk about sensitivity, there's research here;

here (http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Bleustein), here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x/abstract;jsessionid=0790BF0089E65DBA03289955CA83AC0E.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+ Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+15+December+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance), here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526), and here. (http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Masters)

And this study here. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107101013.htm)

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

As I stated, the AAP says that there are medical benefits, and I don't doubt that. They also say the benefits aren't significant enough to recommend the procedure for all children.

Also, as you said, it reduces chances for "UTI's, GUD, Balanoposthitis, and Penile Cancer." None of those are prevented, just reduced. The only thing, and I repeat, the only thing circumcision 100% prevents is phimosis and paraphimosis. No health organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision, none. Many do cite the benefits, but none cross that line.

Also, foreskin restoration, while admirable, is a misnomer. You can't 100% restore the lost foreskin. You can grow more shaft and inner mucosa to get the appearance and mechanical functions of the foreskin, but you can't regrow the frenulum, the ridged band or any of those 20,000 fine touch sexual nerve endings that are excised.

One thing that you said that bothered me is that the reasons I argue against circumcision aren't important. So, you are telling me, in your words, permanent alteration to an unconsenting child's body is perfectly acceptable regardless of the long term physical side effects, even if it's done for no medically urgent or necessary reason? It's ok to cut the most sensitive parts of the penis off, why not, the kid won't remember. It's ok, they have a slightly less chance to get some diseases. Instead of using condoms and washing, just slice it in half.

And in response to those studies, which I've read them all, there may not be a change in the sensitivity of the shaft and the head of the penis [keratinization is an ongoing process that takes decades to feel a major difference] BUT the foreskin in an of itself is no longer present. Sensitive tissue is gone, so by definition, sensitivity of the organ as a whole is less. No one can refute that.

[CharlieFinley]

While I agree in principal (because I'm an anarchist). I also think that infant circumcision is a violation of that child's bodily integrity and is morally wrong except in emergencies. There's no downside to leaving it, and the risks of the procedure (though EXTREMELY rare) are very devastating. The risks of getting dressed in the morning to step outside are greater.


I'm going to need a source on this. Most complications in surgery are anesthesia related, and I doubt making anesthesia mandatory will do anything but cause more yearly circumcision related deaths.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said complications. I was referring to the side-effect quoted about five years back that said the pain of the operations had side-effects that lasted well into the second year. Anesthesia resolves this issue.

1.) You're wrong, parents don't have unilateral control over their children.
2.) You don't think that's a problem?
In one breath, you're telling me they can't, and in your next, you're telling me it's a problem that they can.

Sure there is. In any other context forcing someone to undergo cosmetic surgery would be considered illegal.But this is not any other context, and it has hundreds of years of tradition and I'm sure a fair bit of legal precedent on its side.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

The risks of getting dressed in the morning to step outside are greater.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said complications. I was referring to the side-effect quoted about five years back that said the pain of the operations had side-effects that lasted well into the second year. Anesthesia resolves this issue.
In one breath, you're telling me they can't, and in your next, you're telling me it's a problem that they can.
But this is not any other context, and it has hundreds of years of tradition and I'm sure a fair bit of legal precedent on its side.

The risks of circumcision are partial or complete amputation of the penis, infection, death from blood loss and long term complications [skin adhesions, painful erections, insufficient skin to accommodate growth]
Stating in such a way that risks of clothing oneself in the morning puts one at a risk greater than these is completely: 1) false, 2) childish, and 3) adds nothing to this but ignorance.

I don't even, my even can't anymore.

[CharlieFinley]

The risks of circumcision are partial or complete amputation of the penis, infection, death from blood loss and long term complications [skin adhesions, painful erections, insufficient skin to accommodate growth]
Stating in such a way that risks of clothing oneself in the morning puts one at a risk greater than these is completely: 1) false, 2) childish, and 3) adds nothing to this but ignorance.

I don't even, my even can't anymore.

Barring nudism, you're not likely to go outside and get hit by a car if you're naked. My point was to illustrate the fact that this almost never happens. You're engaging in a form of Pascal's mugging, my friend. You're confusing severity of side-effects with frequency of side-effects.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

The infrequency of the side effects doesn't negate their existence and doesn't warrant the risk.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I would rather allow parents to make those kind of decisions than the government.

I would like you to explain to me how it's harmful. So far I've read how the problems it solves can be solved in other ways and how the benefits aren't significant.

There could be complications? Just cause there are people that have been hurt by it doesn't mean that you should disallow the procedure for those that can benefit from it. If there was a cure for cancer, but there was a 15% chance it could cause death should it be banned?

Then there's the issue of religion. Aren't Jews supposed to be circumcised as infants?

Parents should be able to consent for medically necessary treatments for their children. Circumcision, other than in rare cases, is not medically necessary. It is a cosmetic procedure, and thus I don't think parents should be able to consent on their child's behalf.

Who decides whether a procedure is unnecessary? In my opinion you're giving some bureaucracy too much power.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I would rather allow parents to make those kind of decisions than the government.

I would like you to explain to me how it's harmful. So far I've read how the problems it solves can be solved in other ways and how the benefits aren't significant.

There could be complications? Just cause there are people that have been hurt by it doesn't mean that you should disallow the procedure for those that can benefit from it. If there was a cure for cancer, but there was a 15% chance it could cause death should it be banned?

Then there's the issue of religion. Aren't Jews supposed to be circumcised as infants?

Who decides whether a procedure is unnecessary? In my opinion you're giving some bureaucracy too much power.

Is the protection of the individual's rights to physical autonomy and genital integrity really too much power given to the bureaucracy? We've already made the decision to protect infant females and that decision is now federal law.
Also, to do circumcision to reduce the chance of penile cancer doesn't really affect the person's chance by a major margin. The instances of penile cancer at 1 in 100,000 men, it's a rare enough disease as is. By that logic, why not perform routine masectomies on all infants to prevent breast cancer? Far more people die from breast cancer are suffer from it than penile cancer.
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_cancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_breast_cancer
The instances of male breast cancer are far more prevalent than that of penile cancer.


"Who decides whether a procedure is unnecessary?"
All major health organizations around the world. It's never deemed necessary as a preventative measure.

[Jean Poutine]

K v Public Trustee, 1985 CanLII 766, para. 21

He concluded that a person seeking to give “substituted” consent to a non-therapeutic sterilization has the onus of demon*strating that the procedure is “in the best interests of the incompetent” because society “regards the right to security of the person to be of such fundamental importance to the well-being of all its members that the law must necessarily raise it as a presumption against anyone who would seek to give substituted authority for non-therapeutic medical treatment or surgery”.

Canada is just waiting on somebody to challenge infant circumcision. There was a group in 2001 that wanted to do it but no news since. That snippet about a, I admit, different factual base is still relevant, though, even though the issue is complicated by a bunch of derps wanting to reenact tribal life in the desert 2500 years ago in a modern setting.

Also see 268 (1) and (3) C.cr. :

268. (1) Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.

Punishment

(2) Every one who commits an aggravated assault is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Excision

(3) For greater certainty, in this section, “wounds” or “maims” includes to excise, infibulate or mutilate, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person, except where

(a) a surgical procedure is performed, by a person duly qualified by provincial law to practise medicine, for the benefit of the physical health of the person or for the purpose of that person having normal reproductive functions or normal sexual appearance or function; or

(b) the person is at least eighteen years of age and there is no resulting bodily harm.

Consent

(4) For the purposes of this section and section 265, no consent to the excision, infibulation or mutilation, in whole or in part, of the labia majora, labia minora or clitoris of a person is valid, except in the cases described in paragraphs (3)(a) and (b).

I don't see why vaginal lips are protected and the foreskin isn't. Notice that somebody can actually consent to the procedure once she has the power to consent.

Freedom of religion? We're not in the Negev or Arabian desert anymore. I don't see why old tribal traditions should take over modern law, but of course they will because religion is the sacred cow of the Western world and freedom of religion wins against almost any other right. One of the teachers at my faculty actually wrote a whole book on the issue.

I would rather allow parents to make those kind of decisions than the government.

Courts have parens patriae competence to decide in cases like infant circumcision. If you remove the right of the Court to decide in cases like this, you also allow Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse life-saving blood transfusions on behalf of their children. (http://canlii.ca/t/1frmh)

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Is the protection of the individual's rights to physical autonomy and genital integrity really too much power given to the bureaucracy?


Not the point. You're taking a decision away from people who love the individual involved and giving it to people who may have alternative motives.


We've already made the decision to protect infant females and that decision is now federal law.


I would like to point out that there are absolutely zero benefits to this procedure [female circumcision] and therefore there is no reason a parent would even want it done. Also I'm sure the risk of complications is also much higher. The difference is that there is a large group of people who feel that male circumcision is beneficial where as there is likely no group that feels the same way about female circumcision.


Also, to do circumcision to reduce the chance of penile cancer doesn't really affect the person's chance by a major margin. The instances of penile cancer at 1 in 100,000 men, it's a rare enough disease as is. By that logic, why not perform routine masectomies on all infants to prevent breast cancer? Far more people die from breast cancer are suffer from it than penile cancer.
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_cancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_breast_cancer
The instances of male breast cancer are far more prevalent than that of penile cancer.


I was not saying that circumcision prevents penile cancer (although it's interesting to know that it does even if so slightly) I was simply arguing that the benefits should not be taken away because of the small percent of circumcisions that result in complications.

I'm curious though. If you had a malignant tumor in your heart and your parents chose to open you up to have it removed would you be angry with them? Why is it any different because it involves your penis? I realize that circumcision isn't life saving, but it isn't exactly damaging either.

Sure your parents are making a decision for you. It isn't exactly life changing, unless of course you want to make a big deal about it. Your parents also decide what school you go to, at least at a younger age. The school you grow up going to is more influencial than whether or not you have a certain piece of skin on your penis or not. Should the government be making that decision for them too [what school their children go to]?

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Not the point. You're taking a decision away from people who love the individual involved and giving it to people who may have alternative motives.

I would like to point out that there are absolutely zero benefits to this procedure [female circumcision] and therefore there is no reason a parent would even want it done. Also I'm sure the risk of complications is also much higher. The difference is that there is a large group of people who feel that male circumcision is beneficial where as there is likely no group that feels the same way about female circumcision.

I was not saying that circumcision prevents penile cancer (although it's interesting to know that it does even if so slightly) I was simply arguing that the benefits should not be taken away because of the small percent of circumcisions that result in complications.

I'm curious though. If you had a malignant tumor in your heart and your parents chose to open you up to have it removed would you be angry with them? Why is it any different because it involves your penis? I realize that circumcision isn't life saving, but it isn't exactly damaging either.

Sure your parents are making a decision for you. It isn't exactly life changing, unless of course you want to make a big deal about it. Your parents also decide what school you go to, at least at a younger age. The school you grow up going to is more influencial than whether or not you have a certain piece of skin on your penis or not. Should the government be making that decision for them too [ what school their children go to]?

Proponents of female circumcision do it for supposed benefits [hygiene, aesthetics] and for not so noble reasons [of which there are no noble reasons whatsoever] and the main one is control over the sexual capabilities of the woman.

" I realize that circumcision isn't life saving, but it isn't exactly damaging either." The excision of normal healthy functional tissue is by definition damage. :l You take the foreskin away, you take it's sensation and it's functions away with it, limiting the sexual capacity of the individual. And no, I wouldn't be angry if my parent's decided on open heart surgery to save my life, the two are in no way comparable whatsoever.

Also in reference to you calling the prepuce [the actual name of the foreskin] it isn't simply skin. It contains structures vital to a complete and fully fulfilling sexual experience. It contains 20,000 sexual nerve endings located in the ridged band, the frenulum [which is also sensitive] and it provides essential mechanical functions that make intercourse enjoyable and comfortable, as it should be. Also comparing the decision to excise normal, functioning healthy sexual tissue from an unconsenting child is in no way comparable with choosing your school.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Proponents of female circumcision do it for supposed benefits [hygiene, aesthetics] and for not so noble reasons [of which there are no noble reasons whatsoever] and the main one is control over the sexual capabilities of the woman.

" I realize that circumcision isn't life saving, but it isn't exactly damaging either." The excision of normal healthy functional tissue is by definition damage. :l You take the foreskin away, you take it's sensation and it's functions away with it, limiting the sexual capacity of the individual. And no, I wouldn't be angry if my parent's decided on open heart surgery to save my life, the two are in no way comparable whatsoever.

Also in reference to you calling the prepuce [the actual name of the foreskin] it isn't simply skin. It contains structures vital to a complete and fully fulfilling sexual experience. It contains 20,000 sexual nerve endings located in the ridged band, the frenulum [which is also sensitive] and it provides essential mechanical functions that make intercourse enjoyable and comfortable, as it should be. Also comparing the decision to excise normal, functioning healthy sexual tissue from an unconsenting child is in no way comparable with choosing your school.


And in terms of the effects when you talk about sensitivity, there's research here;

here (http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Bleustein), here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x/abstract;jsessionid=0790BF0089E65DBA03289955CA83AC0E.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+ Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+15+December+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+GMT+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EST%29+for+essential+maintenance), here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526), and here. (http://www.circs.org/index.php/Library/Masters)

And this study here. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080107101013.htm)

Gotta love when someone else does the work for you.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Gotta love when someone else does the work for you.

Those are wonderfully magical studies and all. However, one cannot deny the fact that the removal of 20,000 nerve endings, BY DEFINITION, reduces sensitivity. If they aren't there, how can you feel them? Can you honestly tell me that, say, if your leg were to be removed, you'd still be able to feel someone touching your foot? o-o No? That's right, it's not there.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Those are wonderfully magical studies and all. However, one cannot deny the fact that the removal of 20,000 nerve endings, BY DEFINITION, reduces sensitivity. If they aren't there, how can you feel them? Can you honestly tell me that, say, if your leg were to be removed, you'd still be able to feel someone touching your foot? o-o No? That's right, it's not there.

Fair enough. I'm going to take a guess and say that you're angry at your parents for circumcising you. You are against circumcision, so don't get it done on your child. Why force that belief on others?

[Jean Poutine]

Fair enough. I'm going to take a guess and say that you're angry at your parents for circumcising you. You are against circumcision, so don't get it done on your child. Why force that belief on others?

Why force that belief on the child?

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Fair enough. I'm going to take a guess and say that you're angry at your parents for circumcising you. You are against circumcision, so don't get it done on your child. Why force that belief on others?

For the simple fact that a protection is offered for female children and not for male children and I find it contradictory to do so. I, in no way, advocate for the removal of the ban on female genital cutting in infants and minors, but I find it ludicrous to not offer it to males. No other cosmetic surgery is allowed to be performed on minors that isn't actually necessary [think reconstructive surgery following bodily damage] I find it astonishing that this practice is allowed when it targets the most private place of a person, the genitals. Why is healthy erogenous tissue being cut off and allowed to because of culture/religion/aesthetics or any reason other than absolutely medically necessary? As we can all agree on, it doesn't prevent anything [other than disorders of the foreskin, if it ain't there, nothing can go wrong with it, duh], simply reduces chances of contracting certain diseases. It's not a preventative measure, and no health organization recommends it as such.

One final thing: In regards to religion, allowing this practice to be forced on a child is in no way comparable with taking a child to church or temple or mosque. People can grow up and renounce their religion, and restore some semblance of a foreskin, but they can never 100% undo all that is done during circumcision. I find it a violation of the rights of the child to choose their own religion as they'd be permanently branded as a member with the scar on their penis [or vagina, for instance, in many Islamic regions around the world, FGM is still practiced because of religious reasons]

Does this answer your question?

Why force that belief on the child?

Well put.

[sparkles]

It just seems so weird to me that in the US (where I live) many boys are routinely cut at birth. Have you ever seen a video of this being done? Does not look fun. I understand religious reasons for it, but for so many in the US it is not done for religious reasons. US is still the only major industrialized country where it is done routinely and not for religious reasons. Really confuses me.

Unless medically necessary, let it be until the child can decide. I might have to have it done due to tightness and ripping (sorry if TMI).

[Cicero]

So if the son didn't want to be circumcised what will he do, sue his parents? I doubt that would have any legitimacy in court.

It's really not that big of a deal. Instead, maybe the parents should just do a half circumcision (if thats possible).

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

According to whom? The act of having one's child circumcised is rarely done with the child's personal interests in mind. I see the legitimacy if seeking legal action against one's parents. There are proven adverse affects of circumcision and it directly affects function and sensation. [If you remove half of a machine, it won't function the same, and if remove a part of the body you can't feel it] By definition, function and sensation are altered. I see it as perfectly legitimate to sue either one's parents or the doctor, or both. How is it unacceptable to do so in your opinion?

[Cicero]

According to whom? The act of having one's child circumcised is rarely done with the child's personal interests in mind. I see the legitimacy if seeking legal action against one's parents. There are proven adverse affects of circumcision and it directly affects function and sensation. [If you remove half of a machine, it won't function the same, and if remove a part of the body you can't feel it] By definition, function and sensation are altered. I see it as perfectly legitimate to sue either one's parents or the doctor, or both. How is it unacceptable to do so in your opinion?

Function is not altered at all. Technically, the dick is only used for reproduction of a child. If a guy is cut, that doesn't interfere at all. It's not like the child will grow up to be messed up. The function of the reproductive glands are to reproduce.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Function is not altered at all. Technically, the dick is only used for reproduction of a child. If a guy is cut, that doesn't interfere at all. It's not like the child will grow up to be messed up. The function of the reproductive glands are to reproduce.

Semantics have no place in a factual based discussion. With circumcision, 1/2 the skin of the penis is removed and with it the gliding function, the lubrication function, the protective function and the sexual sensation function are all removed.

[TigerBoy]

Given that this issue is strongly contested by religious groups, who are strongly represented in the states, in addition to the ethical conflict where money is earned from performing such operations, I suggest you are going to get a large degree of bias in local research on this issue. This isn't a clear cut case of "science says x", this is highly contested (see the Australian study I noted below). In countries with far weaker religious influence, the decisions are quite different and there is plenty of research on both sides.

I was just reading through the articles Deadpie (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2043776#post2043776) provided links to, and noticed that with one notable exception these are are all USA studies.

USA (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1104451)(Journal of the American Medical Association)
USA (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111004162318.htm)(Johns Hopkins) - editorial, not study. Authors acknowledge their data conflicts with other studies, article notes that major religious groups are pro-circumcision.
Australia (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=17415)- the policy in that country in fact based on review by Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) who advise NOT to circumcise (http://www.racp.edu.au//index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E), thus presumably disregarding this article.
USA (http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592)- NB thirteen year old article

By contrast the World Health Organisation (http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf) research is AGAINST routine circumcision. In this paper they clearly state that while it is advisable in some circumstances those do not include routine circumcision in the first world.

Here is the summary of the World Health Organisation section dealing with health benefits of circumcision:


Male circumcision is medically indicated for only a few conditions. There is substantial evidence that circumcised men have a lower risk of some reproductive tract infections, as well as penile cancer, but some of these conditions are rare while others are uncommon or treatable, and routine neonatal circumcision is not currently recommended on medical grounds.
Note the highlighted portion.

US proponents should be aware that the rest of the world holds some very differing views. For example circumcision is ILLEGAL in Germany and is not available on the national health programmes of many countries including the UK except for exceptional cases.

[PinkFloyd]

ever since I learned this procedure was done to me, i haven't looked at my parents the same way. I could not agree more. It's child abuse. Pure and simple.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

ever since I learned this procedure was done to me, i haven't looked at my parents the same way. I could not agree more. It's child abuse. Pure and simple.
You are well within your rights to view it as such and many men do. Thank you for sharing your view. Maybe this will show some people that there are most definitely guys out there who aren't happy with this decision that was made without their consent, well guys on this website at least.

[Gigablue]

Function is not altered at all. Technically, the dick is only used for reproduction of a child. If a guy is cut, that doesn't interfere at all. It's not like the child will grow up to be messed up. The function of the reproductive glands are to reproduce.

Though it can still function, a lot of sensation is lost. Also, it doesn't change the fact that circumcision is basically a cosmetic procedure and that it is unethical to preform a cosmetic procedure on a non consenting infant.

[Cicero]

Semantics have no place in a factual based discussion. With circumcision, 1/2 the skin of the penis is removed and with it the gliding function, the lubrication function, the protective function and the sexual sensation function are all removed.

I'm cut, and when I feel orgasm I feel sexual sensation. Having the government make circumcision banned is infringing on religious rights. Because there are tons of religions that say circumcision is needed (FYI Christianity is NOT one of them, they just tend to do it too).

Though it can still function, a lot of sensation is lost. Also, it doesn't change the fact that circumcision is basically a cosmetic procedure and that it is unethical to preform a cosmetic procedure on a non consenting infant.
Basically a Cosmetic procedure? Some religions ask their members to circumcise their children. So no, its not 'basically a cosmetic procedure'.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I'm cut, and when I feel orgasm I feel sexual sensation. Having the government make circumcision banned is infringing on religious rights. Because there are tons of religions that say circumcision is needed (FYI Christianity is NOT one of them, they just tend to do it too).


Basically a Cosmetic procedure? Some religions ask their members to circumcise their children. So no, its not 'basically a cosmetic procedure'.

But you don't feel the foreskin and the sensation that are part of having it, so by definition and fact the total sensation in your penis is less than it would be if you had your foreskin. Also, we already infringe on religious rights by federally banning female genital cutting [which is practiced even in Islam] so how is it acceptable to infringe on religious rights to protect female infants but not male infants?

Also, circumcision in Judaism is sexual control. It's done to limit the sexual sensation of the man so his greatest pleasure will come from their God, not from his body. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpMdj7MfJSk Here's a rabbi explaining it.

[Cicero]

But you don't feel the foreskin and the sensation that are part of having it, so by definition and fact the total sensation in your penis is less than it would be if you had your foreskin. Also, we already infringe on religious rights by federally banning female genital cutting [which is practiced even in Islam] so how is it acceptable to infringe on religious rights to protect female infants but not male infants?

Also, circumcision in Judaism is sexual control. It's done to limit the sexual sensation of the man so his greatest pleasure will come from their God, not from his body. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpMdj7MfJSk Here's a rabbi explaining it.

So because we already infringe on other religious groups rights its okay to infringe on more religious groups rights? That logic seems kind immature (to point out, cause someone wont read that right, I am NOT calling you immature, I'm calling that logic immature). It's sort of like this other persons post that I have read before that basically said "Because the economy is already fucked up, we should try to fix it". That seems very similar to your logic.

[Gigablue]

I'm cut, and when I feel orgasm I feel sexual sensation. Having the government make circumcision banned is infringing on religious rights. Because there are tons of religions that say circumcision is needed (FYI Christianity is NOT one of them, they just tend to do it too).

I didn't say that there was no sensation, just that it is diminished. When you remove nerve endings, the sensation will be diminished.

Basically a Cosmetic procedure? Some religions ask their members to circumcise their children. So no, its not 'basically a cosmetic procedure'.

I think that the rights of the child are more important than the religious freedom of their parents. People shouldn't be able to preform medically unnecessary procedures because an ancient book tells them to.

Female genital mutilation is banned in nearly all countries, even though it is religiously motivated. I think that circumcision should be banned for the same reason.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

So because we already infringe on other religious groups rights its okay to infringe on more religious groups rights? That logic seems kind immature (to point out, cause someone wont read that right, I am NOT calling you immature, I'm calling that logic immature). It's sort of like this other persons post that I have read before that basically said "Because the economy is already fucked up, we should try to fix it". That seems very similar to your logic.

I'm not following your logic. Yes, if a country's economy is messed up, there should be an effort to fix it. And no, curtailing religious freedoms when they infringe on the rights of others is not immature in any way, it's logical and necessary for building a future where all are considered equal and social injustices such as circumcision [of either gender] become extinct. How is that immature?
I didn't say that there was no sensation, just that it is diminished. When you remove nerve endings, the sensation will be diminished.

I think that the rights of the child are more important than the religious freedom of their parents. People shouldn't be able to preform medically unnecessary procedures because an ancient book tells them to.

Female genital mutilation is banned in nearly all countries, even though it is religiously motivated. I think that circumcision should be banned for the same reason.
Well said.

[CharlieFinley]

Also, circumcision in Judaism is sexual control. It's done to limit the sexual sensation of the man so his greatest pleasure will come from their God, not from his body. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpMdj7MfJSk Here's a rabbi explaining it.

I hope you're aware that the idea of a rabbi defining for all of Judaism what a religious procedure's purpose is is about as ridiculous as the idea of a mailman giving a definitive ruling on a mail fraud trial.

[StoppingTime]

I hope you're aware that the idea of a rabbi defining for all of Judaism what a religious procedure's purpose is is about as ridiculous as the idea of a mailman giving a definitive ruling on a mail fraud trial.

To add on, circumcision in Judaism is performed to show the covenant between the Jewish God and a Jewish boy/man, not for "sexual control."

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

I hope you're aware that the idea of a rabbi defining for all of Judaism what a religious procedure's purpose is is about as ridiculous as the idea of a mailman giving a definitive ruling on a mail fraud trial.

I'm pretty sure a Rabbi of the Jewish faith has far more credibility to describe a practice than you.

To add on, circumcision in Judaism is performed to show the covenant between the Jewish God and a Jewish boy/man, not for "sexual control."

That covenant is to make God more important to the man than any earthly thing, including his own body and sexual pleasure.

[StoppingTime]

I'm pretty sure a Rabbi of the Jewish faith has far more credibility to describe a practice than you.



That covenant is to make God more important to the man than any earthly thing, including his own body and sexual pleasure.

Like so many Jewish commandments, the brit milah is commonly perceived to be a hygienic measure; however the biblical text states the reason for this commandment quite clearly: circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man. The health benefits of this practice are merely incidental. It is worth noting, however, that circumcised males have a lower risk of certain cancers, and the sexual partners of circumcised males also have a lower risk of certain cancers.

The commandment is binding upon both the father of the child and the child himself. If a father does not have his son circumcised, the son is obligated to have himself circumcised as soon as he becomes an adult. A person who is uncircumcised suffers the penalty of kareit, spiritual excision; in other words, regardless of how good a Jew he is in all other ways, a man has no place in the World to Come if he is uncircumcised.

So no, that's not why it's done. But back on topic:


There's been concrete evidence to prove both sides of this argument, so really, I don't see any reason for it to be outlawed.

[TigerBoy]

There's been concrete evidence to prove both sides of this argument, so really, I don't see any reason for it to be outlawed.

Because the balance of evidence isn't even in the USA, since religious groups have their thumbs on the scales. If you want to check against unbiased sources look outside the states: per the link I gave above, the WHO advice (http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf)is not to routinely circumcise in the first world.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

Because the balance of evidence isn't even in the USA, since religious groups have their thumbs on the scales. If you want to check against unbiased sources look outside the states: per the link I gave above, the WHO advice (http://www.malecircumcision.org/media/documents/MC_Global_Trends_Determinants.pdf)is not to routinely circumcise in the first world.

Agreed, the US will only provide biased information at this time.

In fact, no one in the world recommends it to be done routinely.

@Shopping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpMdj7MfJSk

[StoppingTime]

@Shopping https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpMdj7MfJSk

That's a Rabbi interpreting an ancient text, it's not even in the Old Testament, it's in the Shulchan Aruch, but more importantly, the Zohar. If you knew about Judaism, you would know these two books are open to wide interpretation, especially the Zohar, which is all mystical and whatnot. He's not saying what every Jew should do; he's explaining how he interprets it.

And I'm not really too sure why you're debating here. You seem to have some deep connection to this topic, and that's not something that will ever change.
If you don't come into a debate open minded, what's the point?

[CharlieFinley]

I'm pretty sure a Rabbi of the Jewish faith has far more credibility to describe a practice than you.


Appeals to authority are meaningless, especially in theology.

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

That's a Rabbi interpreting an ancient text, it's not even in the Old Testament, it's in the Shulchan Aruch, but more importantly, the Zohar. If you knew about Judaism, you would know these two books are open to wide interpretation, especially the Zohar, which is all mystical and whatnot. He's not saying what every Jew should do; he's explaining how he interprets it.

And I'm not really too sure why you're debating here. You seem to have some deep connection to this topic, and that's not something that will ever change.
If you don't come into a debate open minded, what's the point?

Why would I be open minded to the contrary of protecting children's rights?

@Charlie reevaluate your statement please. How is it possible for you, someone not of the faith, to tell me, also someone not of the faith, how a Rabbi, of the faith, doesn't know what they're talking about, about the faith? And as far as that being an appeal to authority, I will never appeal to any religious authority that seeks to do this. I will simply draw from their logic and expose it from a logical point of view: pure barbarism.

[TigerBoy]

Appeals to authority are meaningless, especially in theology.

Incorrect. Appeals to authority are the basis of most arguments.

If you don't share assumptions, it is necessary to provide some sort of assurance. This frequently means citing studies for example. If the authority is trusted to know what they are talking about, the argument may proceed. If you never trust authority the argument degrades into what is called "skeptical regression" - I.e. the example of a child whose only response to an explanation is to ask "why?"

The fallacy occurs when one appeals to a false authority - i.e. one that doesn't exist or doesn't know what they are talking about. Appealing the authority of God is thus seen as fallacious by the atheist. In this case the appeal is to an expert regarding their knowledge of their religion, not the veracity of the religion itself.

[ApresMidi]

A baby in England was killed the other day due to a circumcision going wrong.

Meh.

That just is enough for me... A baby died,after an operation that it possibly could not have wanted went wrong? Really? :/

[GuillaumeBordeaux]

A baby in England was killed the other day due to a circumcision going wrong.

Meh.

That just is enough for me... A baby died,after an operation that it possibly could not have wanted went wrong? Really? :/

Unfortunately, that poor child isn't the only one to die. There are roughly 150 infants who die in the US a year from this. :l But yes, this operation is dangerous and making the decision for a child is unethical.