PDA

View Full Version : Male Genitalia Mutilation


-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 09:53 AM
So, I think many of us overlook circumcision as a social norm. However, female circumcision has been deemed cruel by our society. Is it right to remove a part of the human male's anatomy without the child's consent? Should a parent be able to decide to remove part of their child's foreskin, if having a non-circumcised penis is a non-health threatening condition?

Why are infants circumcised?

Religion: Mostly it is done for religious reasoning among the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian communities. Also, the amount of skin removed in modern surgeries is somewhere from 4 to 5 times more than what Abraham had removed from the foreskin.

Social Norm: Since most male infants are circumcised in the U.S., there is a societal pressure to have children circumcised. Also, in media and culture, it has been expressed that non-circumcised penis are not as "attractive."

Health: Although there are studies that say that there are benefits; there are many studies that also day it has adverse effects. For the most part, .edu and .gov sites explain that if there are any benefits or adverse effects, that they are minuscule, and that there is little "hard evidence" either way. If you do any internet research, beware old/non-endorsed studies, generalities, and any sites that are not .gov or .edu.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[25] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[25]

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[47]

The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."[218]

The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.


So, these groups do not recommend circumcision, nor are they actively against the procedure.

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 10:11 AM
Circumcising infants should be illegal. People should be free to mutilate themselves however they want once they're adults; parents should not be free to mutilate their children at an age when they cannot give consent.

Myles
July 24th, 2011, 10:29 AM
Even though I am against circumcision (in that I would suggest against it; not that I would illegalise it), it's certainly not an equivalent to female genital cutting (FGC). FGC is cruelty by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, although some Christian denominations require it, most Christians take no religious stance on circumcision due to the New Testament saying it's not needed:


Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.


I very much recommend circumcision in third world countries because it is estimated that it would save huge amounts of lives from AIDS and other diseases if it was done there. It's not needed for health reasons as much in Western society though.

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 10:48 AM
I very much recommend circumcision in third world countries because it is estimated that it would save huge amounts of lives from AIDS and other diseases if it was done there. It's not needed for health reasons as much in Western society though.
The AIDS argument I've seen never made much sense to me. Wouldn't AIDS instances be higher with more circumcision? I mean, doctors in first world countries usually use new instruments for each surgery, but in Africa, they might reuse them and not clean them well enough. Doesn't make much sense to me. It doesn't help that instances of AIDS haven't seem to decreased lately despite the large push for circumcision there. It seems like another placebo to me.

Gothitelle.
July 24th, 2011, 11:54 AM
Meaning, parents can ask to remove their kids, private parts? This is new to me to be honest.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 12:07 PM
The connection between AIDS and circumcision is concealed within the connection between circumcision and hygiene. With foreskin's absence, there is are less crevices for germs and bacteria. For third-world countries, that have poor hygiene, there is a higher tendency for STI transmission. For the U.S., since we have more resources that promote hygiene, the reduction of AIDS transmission is not very much, if any. But Twocows does make a compelling point about the risks of anatomy-altering surgeries in Africa.

I think one point I forgot to add was, the functions of the foreskin. It is meant for sexual stimulation and structural protection.

There is an interesting study on here: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~ccrooks/4600/MALEGENMUT.pdf

"The physical and sexual harm reported by respondents (whom were circumcised) included:

(1) progressive sensory deficit in the glans (61%);
(2) excess stimulation required to reach orgasm, leading to sexual dysfunctions and orgasmic difficulties (40%)
(3) prominent scarring (33%);
(4) insufficient shaft skin to cover the erect penis (27%);
(5) erectile bowing/curvature from uneven skin loss (16%);
(6) pain and bleeding upon erection (17%);
(7) painful skin bridges (12%); and
(8) physical anomalies that included beveling deformities of the glans and meatal stenosis (20%)

Meaning, parents can ask to remove their kids, private parts? This is new to me to be honest.

To clarify,male circumcision is a procedure in which the foreskin is surgically removed from the penis. So essentially, yes, parents currently are able to decided whether or not this part of the anatomy should be removed or not. It is quite a scary thought.

Freedom Fighter N
July 24th, 2011, 01:54 PM
The connection between AIDS and circumcision is concealed within the connection between circumcision and hygiene. With foreskin's absence, there is are less crevices for germs and bacteria. For third-world countries, that have poor hygiene, there is a higher tendency for STI transmission. For the U.S., since we have more resources that promote hygiene, the reduction of AIDS transmission is not very much, if any. But Twocows does make a compelling point about the risks of anatomy-altering surgeries in Africa.

I think one point I forgot to add was, the functions of the foreskin. It is meant for sexual stimulation and structural protection.

There is an interesting study on here: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~ccrooks/4600/MALEGENMUT.pdf

"The physical and sexual harm reported by respondents (whom were circumcised) included:

(1) progressive sensory deficit in the glans (61%);
(2) excess stimulation required to reach orgasm, leading to sexual dysfunctions and orgasmic difficulties (40%)
(3) prominent scarring (33%);
(4) insufficient shaft skin to cover the erect penis (27%);
(5) erectile bowing/curvature from uneven skin loss (16%);
(6) pain and bleeding upon erection (17%);
(7) painful skin bridges (12%); and
(8) physical anomalies that included beveling deformities of the glans and meatal stenosis (20%)



To clarify,male circumcision is a procedure in which the foreskin is surgically removed from the penis. So essentially, yes, parents currently are able to decided whether or not this part of the anatomy should be removed or not. It is quite a scary thought.
....
(2) excess stimulation required to reach orgasm,YAYAYAY HELL YEAH I forgive my parents for doing that barbarian thing to me!
leading to sexual dysfunctions and orgasmic difficulties (40%)
N-no.. damn it.


Anyway, let's leave it at me, a rabbi, a holy chair and (probably) medical inexperience. But I never encountered any of those with myself.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 03:30 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

I can't allow the left's obvious anitsemitism to take away the liberty of an entire group of people to practice their religion.
Then I assume you also endorse the activities of many other groups that call themselves religions? For instance, the many cults around? Or perhaps you would respect the rights of people to take their religious texts way too literally, as well?

Allowing unethical behavior under the guise of religion is not acceptable. Having beliefs is one thing, but using them to disfigure other people (including your children) is entirely different.

Also, I wish you would stop casting everything in a "right versus left" light.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 03:49 PM
Then I assume you also endorse the activities of many other groups that call themselves religions? For instance, the many cults around? Or perhaps you would respect the rights of people to take their religious texts way too literally, as well?

Allowing unethical behavior under the guise of religion is not acceptable. Having beliefs is one thing, but using them to disfigure other people (including your children) is entirely different.

I've always been a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I support practices such as peyote use, animal sacrifice, and Sharia law.

Also, until a person is 18, their parents have full legal authority make medical decisions for them. That includes surgical procedures. I support the liberty of parents to be able to raise their children free from government interference.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 24th, 2011, 04:25 PM
I'm fairly religious but I don't really think its right to change the body of a baby when there's no real medical backing.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 04:55 PM
I have to agree. All individuals should have religious freedoms, when you alter a child's anatomy (without their consent) you have gone too far. Everyone, however, should have the religious right to alter their own anatomy at the age of, maybe, 18.

It was against my will to have a circumcision, and I should not have had to undergo a surgery purely based off my parent's religious beliefs. Matter of fact, they botched it the first time, and I had to get surgery for the infection and scarring. Children do not need to be subjected to this barbaric, and painful procedure.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 05:11 PM
You're welcome to hold these beliefs, and to express them. Legislation banning all circumcision, especially without an exemption for religious purposes, is unconstitutional; however.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 24th, 2011, 05:25 PM
From what I gather, it seems to me like any supposed medical/health advantages are purely propaganda/poor science and that circumcisions only saving factor is that it has religious roots.

...I honestly don't know how to answer that problem though. It seems to be beyond me at this point and time. Therefore, as little as I respect circumcision I can't really advocate for its ban.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 05:33 PM
But think of it this way. What if for some religious purpose I wanted my male child to have his nipples removed or a child of either gender to have their earlobes removed. Neither part have much function. So is that constitutional, for me to remove my child's nipples or earlobes? Should we circumcise female infants because of our religious beliefs? How far does this religious right go? Is it truly constitutional to have these body parts removed against your own free will? I think not.

But as I said, if you want to be circumcised, there should not be a problem.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 24th, 2011, 05:55 PM
That's disrespecting someones religion though. I may not agree with circumcision, but if I do not stand up and defend others when their religion is being disrespected, then who will be left to stand up for me when it is my religion being disrespected? This is a day and age in which secular attacks are far from uncommon. It makes me very afraid for the future.

If you were to step into my shoes, you'd find that I'm simply left stuck between a rock and a hard place. It's... unfortunate, to say the least.

twocows
July 24th, 2011, 06:07 PM
I've always been a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I support practices such as peyote use, animal sacrifice, and Sharia law.

Also, until a person is 18, their parents have full legal authority make medical decisions for them. That includes surgical procedures. I support the liberty of parents to be able to raise their children free from government interference.
What about human sacrifice? Cannibalism? These are religious practices held by numerous faiths throughout the world.

I draw the line at any religious practice that harms a human being. Any practice that harms a human being without his or her direct consent is an unacceptable practice and should be disallowed by law. Parents should be no more allowed to circumcise their children any more than they should be allowed to break their bones. Once someone is legally allowed to consent to surgery themselves should be the point when someone is allowed to decide whether to undergo circumcision.

Zet
July 24th, 2011, 06:36 PM
I'm circumcised and I feel great.

Shining Raichu
July 24th, 2011, 06:39 PM
Also, until a person is 18, their parents have full legal authority make medical decisions for them. That includes surgical procedures. I support the liberty of parents to be able to raise their children free from government interference.

This is one instance where I do not agree with religious freedom. This is a medical issue first and foremost, which has been turned religious. And since there is no sound medical reason for this horrible procedure, I think the government actually should intervene and make it illegal to mutilate a baby unnecessarily. This isn't a matter of medical advantage or disease prevention, this has no benefit to the child at all - it is selfish for parents to inflict this on a baby, and it should not be allowed.

Zet
July 24th, 2011, 06:41 PM
Not sure why people are saying this is horrible, I've heard girls prefer a man that is circumcised.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 06:45 PM
What about human sacrifice? Cannibalism? These are religious practices held by numerous faiths throughout the world.

I draw the line at any religious practice that harms a human being. Any practice that harms a human being without his or her direct consent is an unacceptable practice and should be disallowed by law. Parents should be no more allowed to circumcise their children any more than they should be allowed to break their bones. Once someone is legally allowed to consent to surgery themselves should be the point when someone is allowed to decide whether to undergo circumcision.

If the human scarafice or person being eaten consented to the activity, then yes. I feel that the right to live includes the right to end your life when you see fit.

Mr. X
July 24th, 2011, 06:59 PM
This is one instance where I do not agree with religious freedom. This is a medical issue first and foremost, which has been turned religious. And since there is no sound medical reason for this horrible procedure, I think the government actually should intervene and make it illegal to mutilate a baby unnecessarily. This isn't a matter of medical advantage or disease prevention, this has no benefit to the child at all - it is selfish for parents to inflict this on a baby, and it should not be allowed.

While there is no proven medical benefits to this, there are also no proven medical risks besides those that are a risk of any medical operation.

Also, can you remember pain from when you were a baby? Bet you can't.

To Locz

And what if the religious practice is to eat people agenst their will? Do you support this? Also, what if the person gives his/her consent but is unable to comprehend what he/she just consented to?

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 07:18 PM
Well, religious beliefs should not be allowed to be exercise without any regulations. Over the year, many children have died b/c their parents do not believe God permits them to have blood transfusion, or worse yet, any type of surgery at all.

For example, I remember reading a story of about a 9 year old girl who had diabetes. She needed to go to the hospital; she was very ill with a high fever, and then she lost conscientiousness. The parents thought it was THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHT to decide to not seek medical attention. They prayed for her instead. The next day she was dead. This is not right; it is cruelty to a child. The same cruelty is exhibited through removing body parts, for religious preference.

Although some express that they are fine or enjoy being circumcised, I should have the right to decide that I do not want to be circumcised. Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The first amendment religious freedom rights have been construed to deny my rights; it is unconstitutional.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 07:24 PM
Well, religious beliefs should not be allowed to be exercise without any regulations. Over the year, many children have died b/c their parents do not believe God permits them to have blood transfusion, or worse yet, any type of surgery at all.

For example, I remember reading a story of about a 9 year old girl who had diabetes. She needed to go to the hospital; she was very ill with a high fever, and then she lost conscientiousness. The parents thought it was THEIR RELIGIOUS RIGHT to decide to not seek medical attention. They prayed for her instead. The next day she was dead. This is not right; it is cruelty to a child. The same cruelty is exhibited through removing body parts, for religious preference.

Although some express that they are fine or enjoy being circumcised, I should have the right to decide that I do not want to be circumcised. Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. My right was denied; it is unconstitutional.

You have very little legal rights as a minor. You are under the complete ward of your parents until the age of majority. Your rights were not denied because you did not have those rights at the time.

I agree that regulation can take place. Safety and sanitation regulations are fine. An outright ban does not meet the strict scrutiny standard required for the government to interfere with the free exercise of religion.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 08:06 PM
I did not have the right to a complete anatomy?

With that mentality, I guess female genital mutilation and tattooing should be allowed so that parents can exhibit "free exercise".

The two body-modifying procedures above are not permitted to be performed on infants, even with the consent of parents, because it forcibly changes the infants anatomy. In the U.S. however, there is a BIAS, not RIGHT, that male genital mutilation is acceptable.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 08:48 PM
I did not have the right to a complete anatomy?

With that mentality, I guess female genital mutilation and tattooing should be allowed so that parents can exhibit "free exercise".

The two body-modifying procedures above are not permitted to be performed on infants, even with the consent of parents, because it forcibly changes the infants anatomy. In the U.S. however, there is a BIAS, not RIGHT, that male genital mutilation is acceptable.

Religious tattooing is a contstitutionally protected.

And yes, parents have parts of their child's anatomy removed and altered all the time. Kids have their tonsils and appendixes removed every day, and now parents are beggining to have their genitals "mutilated", as your phraseology puts it, to get them sex change operations.

And male circumcision is currently a right, until legislation says otherwised and that legislation is reviewed by the courts.

Oryx
July 24th, 2011, 09:18 PM
Religious tattooing is a contstitutionally protected.

And yes, parents have parts of their child's anatomy removed and altered all the time. Kids have their tonsils and appendixes removed every day, and now parents are beggining to have their genitals "mutilated", as your phraseology puts it, to get them sex change operations.

And male circumcision is currently a right, until legislation says otherwised and that legislation is reviewed by the courts.

Just throwing this out there...you often argue with someone saying a law should be changed using the law in question. You can't really argue that male circumcision shouldn't be banned because it's not banned.

Well you could, it would just make no sense.

Could you back up the claim that tattooing a baby isn't against the law as long as it's protected by religion please? I can't find anywhere that says something for or against it, but it seems like a gross oversight on the part of the government if they're allowing babies to be tattooed for religious reasons.

-ty-
July 24th, 2011, 09:37 PM
Umm. Look at case law. A 7 year-old was forced to have a tattoo, and the father was sentenced to 6 years in prison. The tattoo artist was given 5 years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/7yearold-tattooed-judge-c_n_306666.html
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7561882

Question that the judge had to assess:
"The question that a judge says she will decide Friday is whether placing a tattoo on a minor is a permanent and painful disfigurement worthy of the potential life sentence that comes with a mayhem conviction, or is it something less?"

Here is why she found him guilty:

These things must be done in order for someone to tattoo anyone.
"(E) A properly authorized consent form signed by the patron acknowledging that he or she has been informed in person and in writing, pursuant to section (2) of this rule, of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and that the patron agrees to the procedure in light of the foregoing. The informed consent form shall be retained on file in the tattoo, body piercing and/or branding establishment; (F) The signature of the practitioner attesting that the practitioner has reviewed the
completed form(s), has advised the patron in person and in writing of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and the date of the review." http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/20csr/20c2267-5.pdf

The court deemed that the child was unable to know the risks of obtaining the tattoo, and that the forcible tattooing caused permanent and painful disfigurement.

BTW, just because it is LEGAL does not mean it is RIGHT. If we used that mind set, then laws would not be able to evolve over time. Was slavery right because it was legal before the mid 1800's?

Alright, I can explain why I refer to circumcision as genital mutilation:
The foreskin is anatomically part of the penis, just as much as a thumb is an anatomic part of the hand. By removing the thumb, one would call that mutilation of the hand. Same with the foreskin, it is mutilation of the penis.

Finally, the appendix and tonsils are removed for medical reasons as deemed by doctors, not parents. If a child had severe appendicitis, the parent cannot just decide, well you cannot have the procedure to have it removed.



Just throwing this out there...you often argue with someone saying a law should be changed using the law in question. You can't really argue that male circumcision shouldn't be banned because it's not banned.

Well you could, it would just make no sense.

Could you back up the claim that tattooing a baby isn't against the law as long as it's protected by religion please? I can't find anywhere that says something for or against it, but it seems like a gross oversight on the part of the government if they're allowing babies to be tattooed for religious reasons.

I agree; you beat me to the punch just as I was writing a response! As I said, laws cannot evolve if we just accept them as indefinite rights or wrongs.

FreakyLocz14
July 24th, 2011, 09:46 PM
Just throwing this out there...you often argue with someone saying a law should be changed using the law in question. You can't really argue that male circumcision shouldn't be banned because it's not banned.

Well you could, it would just make no sense.

Could you back up the claim that tattooing a baby isn't against the law as long as it's protected by religion please? I can't find anywhere that says something for or against it, but it seems like a gross oversight on the part of the government if they're allowing babies to be tattooed for religious reasons.

There is no federal prohibition on minors being tattooed. State and local laws vary, but such legislation almost always allows minors to be tattooed if they get parental permission.

Oryx
July 24th, 2011, 09:56 PM
There is no federal prohibition on minors being tattooed. State and local laws vary, but such legislation almost always allows minors to be tattooed if they get parental permission.

You didn't answer my question. I asked about tattoos on babies, without the child's consent. If a 15 year old wants a tattoo and the parents want to consent, sure. If it's given before the child CAN give consent or without the child's consent, is it still legal? And please back up your answer. :x

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 07:49 AM
Yes, the thread is re-opened. Although there is not a law prohibiting the tattooing a minor, in some states, in all of the government regulations they state that the patron, or person being tattoo, needs to consent as well as the parents.

These things must be done in order for someone to tattoo anyone.
"(E) A properly authorized consent form signed by the patron acknowledging that he or she has been informed in person and in writing, pursuant to section (2) of this rule, of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and that the patron agrees to the procedure in light of the foregoing. The informed consent form shall be retained on file in the tattoo, body piercing and/or branding establishment; (F) The signature of the practitioner attesting that the practitioner has reviewed the completed form(s), has advised the patron in person and in writing of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and the date of the review."

The courts have interpreted the following to convict parents of FORCING children to get tattoos.

There have been several cases in which tattooing young children against their own will was found illegal. Perhaps the same mindset will be used to find that removing the foreskin is altering a sexual organ, and that the infant cannot understand the health risks nor consent.

Yes, the thread is re-opened. Although there is not a law prohibiting the tattooing a minor, in some states, in all of the government regulations they state that the patron, or person being tattoo, needs to consent as well as the parents.

These things must be done in order for someone to tattoo anyone.
"(E) A properly authorized consent form signed by the patron acknowledging that he or she has been informed in person and in writing, pursuant to section (2) of this rule, of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and that the patron agrees to the procedure in light of the foregoing. The informed consent form shall be retained on file in the tattoo, body piercing and/or branding establishment; (F) The signature of the practitioner attesting that the practitioner has reviewed the completed form(s), has advised the patron in person and in writing of the dangers and contraindications of the procedure, and the date of the review."

The courts have interpreted the following to convict parents of FORCING children to get tattoos.

There have been several cases in which tattooing young children against their own will was found illegal. Perhaps the same mindset will be used to find that removing the foreskin is altering a sexual organ, and that the infant cannot understand the health risks nor consent.

Myles
July 25th, 2011, 08:45 AM
There is some proven evidence for some medical benefits of having the procedure. And there are proven medical problems too (some would say 'side effects'). Except for AIDS transmission, they are mainly minor though.

I don't see why you would be so adamant to illegalise it anyway. The disadvantages don't far outway the advantages or vice versa (unless you're in a third world country), meaning that the debate seems to be largely respect religious views vs appeal to nature.

Circumcision is roughly equivalent to tonsils or appendix removal rather than FGC. Are they mutilation?

For FGC (from WHO (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/)):

- The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
- Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.

These things are not true for circumcision. They aren't equivalents.

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 09:54 AM
The benefits and risks cancel each other out.

As for appendix removal, if that breaks and isn't removed you have a chance of dying. Not commenting on tonsils, but I still have both of mine.

Personally, I don't care either way. My view though is keep it legal but allow the person to make the decision when they can comprehend both the benefits and the risks.

Also, religion be damned. All that religion has done is cause wars, prevent scientific advancement, create a group of high ranking pedophiles, attribute to the creation of numerous terrorist groups, and a large amount of other unsavory things. While religion has done some, and I say some, good the negatives that it has caused far exceed whatever amount of good it has done.

Personally, I think religion should not play a part in politics at all. Things would be simplier that way.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 11:37 AM
In some states, religious tattooing is an exception to the rule. It should also be noted that minors generally cannot give legal consent anything or sign a legally binding doccument. Any doccument or contract signed by a minor is invalid and unenforceable. The minor's parent or legal guadian must act on their behalf.

In the same fashion, we have laws prohibiting giving alcohol to minors; yet, minors may legally consume commmunion wine as part of a religious observance.

Freedom Fighter N
July 25th, 2011, 11:56 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution
You do understand that doing that to a baby is basically enforcing religion on him/her?

Also, do you know the difference between religion and ethnicity? I'm Jewish myself (ethnically), and see nothing antisemitic with that.
I've always been a staunch supporter of religious freedom. I support practices such as peyote use, animal sacrifice, and Sharia law.

Also, until a person is 18, their parents have full legal authority make medical decisions for them. That includes surgical procedures. I support the liberty of parents to be able to raise their children free from government interference.
Oh, and parents most of the time do it because of a religious commandment. They don't come from a medical point of view on it, but a religious one.
You're welcome to hold these beliefs, and to express them. Legislation banning all circumcision, especially without an exemption for religious purposes, is unconstitutional; however.
How about banning religious enforcement on a child?
Not sure why people are saying this is horrible, I've heard girls prefer a man that is circumcised.
What's the difference?
Religious tattooing is a contstitutionally protected.

And yes, parents have parts of their child's anatomy removed and altered all the time. Kids have their tonsils and appendixes removed every day, and now parents are beggining to have their genitals "mutilated", as your phraseology puts it, to get them sex change operations.

And male circumcision is currently a right, until legislation says otherwised and that legislation is reviewed by the courts.
Religious tattooing is religious enforcement as well.

Well then, parents should not have that right.
You know, you gave me a nice idea. Let's put 'em in a BlendTec blender.. um no wait, they wouldn't survive it. Let's mix them anyway.
Religion - gods and other fancy stuff.
Rules - You can do this and not that.
Your logic - Don't get me started.

Let's see what a wonderful drink we have here.
Fortify Magicka (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Fortify_Magicka) 100 for 9001 seconds
Chameleon 100% (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:100%25_Chameleon#100.25_Chameleon) for 1337 seconds
Restore Health +20- wait, I've been playing too much Oblivion lately.

Well, don't say I misinterpreted you because that's exactly what you're sending, but with religion, a parent can do everything he/she pleases with his/her child. Let's go for sexual abuse, just because that's an excellent.. hmm, forgot the word, you should get it anyway.

And for the sex change thing - absolutely disgusting. That should be banned without question.
There is no federal prohibition on minors being tattooed. State and local laws vary, but such legislation almost always allows minors to be tattooed if they get parental permission.
Know what? Here's some magic words: damn your federal, constitutional, or any other government bodies you would bring up.

Yes, that's the best reply I could give you to that: 12 years old COD mic-screeching dude response. Actually, sometimes I think they are very fitting, and in this situation they fit perfectly. Good thing I deleted some of the things before I posted this message. I could've said more and reply respectively but I'm too damn pissed with seeing the same message written in a different fashion. Please, if it's legal, that surely does not mean it's right, or you shouldn't use your head in matters like these. If you can't really see how much tolerance of "religious freedom", or in my terms, religious enforcement you're tolerating then please... Nah, I'll pass on saying it. Not that it was that much of a cruel statement anyway. But it certainly wasn't a heartwarming one.
Your arguing with a brick wall. People so intwined into their beliefs will forgo all morals regarding the subject, and only answer upon specific parts of questions on the subject.

That said, Locz, if you ever have a son and choose to have him mutilated here is hoping that you get a terriable doctor to do so. Sadly, traumatic experiences are the only thing that can change a persons (sometimes wrong) beliefs.

Anyway, since you seem to enjoy defending anything remotely related to religion, give us your thoughts on this story.

http://www.infoniac.com/breaking/cult-toddler-killed-because-he-wouldnt-say-amen.html
Haha, extreme example. Good idea!

Oh, and an ending note freakylocz: Having tolerance is good. But knowing when there's a line you can't pass is important as well. And sorry if anything was offending here, I'm slightly pissed and what a coincidence, it was a fight between me and my mother over something religious. I also say that you're giving too much respect for religion. Way too much respect, actually. It doesn't deserve it. Freedom of religion is something to be kept to yourself, not to be forced (or a better term: shove down the throat) on your kids or whatever.

Stormbringer
July 25th, 2011, 12:00 PM
I will remind you all, once, to behave yourselves.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 12:04 PM
The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from enforcing religious beliefs. It has no mention o private parties. I can, when I have children, raise them Catholic and require them to attend Mss every Sunday and I'd be within the law doing so. Everything in the Constitution restricts the government only.

Regarding religious tattooing, it seems like there is not much case law on it. We don't cite criminal convictions as case law, since those trial courts usally don't rule on the constitutionality of the law that the defendant was convicted under. That gets tested on appeal.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 12:11 PM
We cannot provide each other with different perspectives if we use such a brazen tone. It will only make them ignore what we really want to say. Discredit the person's stance, but not the person.

I think that the issue at hand has been kinda narrowed to whether parents should be able to make life altering decisions in their children. But what about the doctors? DO you guys think that doctors have any ethical issues with male circumcision? Parents cannot young children breast augmentations, or other body modifying surgeries, unless of course there is a medical reasoning to do so like appendicitis. Should a doctor give a child a blood transfusion to save their life if the parents are strictly against blood-transfusions for religious purposes?

Again, we are all human and passionate about our opinions, try to direct that passion into something constructive. Research .edu, .gov, and online news sources, and state your case with the most objective stance. Thanks, in advance, to everyone!

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 12:18 PM
We cannot provide each other with different perspectives if we use such a brazen tone. It will only make them ignore what we really want to say. Discredit the person's stance, but not the person.

I think that the issue at hand has been kinda narrowed to whether parents should be able to make life altering decisions in their children. But what about the doctors? DO you guys think that doctors have any ethical issues with male circumcision? Parents cannot young children breast augmentations, or other body modifying surgeries, unless of course there is a medical reasoning to do so like appendicitis. Should a doctor give a child a blood transfusion to save their life if the parents are strictly against blood-transfusions for religious purposes?

Again, we are all human and passionate about our opinions, try to direct that passion into something constructive. Research .edu, .gov, and online news sources, and state your case with the most objective stance. Thanks, in advance, to everyone!

Doctors have a personal call to make regarding the ethics of circumcision. This is the same as doctors who perform abortions and assist with prison executions. While some people, and some doctors, find those things unethical, there are just as many who hold a different view.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 12:22 PM
The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from enforcing religious beliefs. It has no mention o private parties. I can, when I have children, raise them Catholic and require them to attend Mss every Sunday and I'd be within the law doing so. Everything in the Constitution restricts the government only.

Regarding religious tattooing, it seems like there is not much case law on it. We don't cite criminal convictions as case law, since those trial courts usally don't rule on the constitutionality of the law that the defendant was convicted under. That gets tested on appeal.
This is case law as defined by the Bar Association.

"Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis."

"Court of first impression (known as primae impressionis in Latin) is a legal case in which there is no binding authority on the matter presented. Such a case can set forth a completely original issue of law for decision by the courts. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction. In that situation, courts will look to holdings of other jurisdictions for persuasive authority."

All cases proceeded the court of first impression have followed suit with the case law. Although it is not binding it is persuasive authority, as a single case. The culmination of cases may proved to be much more persuasive. If I had my student WESTLAW during the summer, I might have more specifics to show.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 12:24 PM
What a timing.

Again with your government..
Read my post. It was talking about private parties, not the government. Making your child do things according to your religious beliefs is enforcement and nothing. I'm not talking about something that can be considered relatively nothing, like only eating kosher food, compared to circumcision or religious tattooing.
Also what the hell are you talking about? How the hell did you get from circumcision to sunday school? Do you really like evading the subject that much?

Please do not make personal comments; The thread will be closed.

Religious freedom is a major part of this discussion. It is the balance between parental and child religious freedoms. If you do not believe that parents should force religion onto their children, then try to make a mature argument. I personally think it is a balance, it is just a matter of where do we draw the line, and why. It is not a simple question by any means.

Doctors have a personal call to make regarding the ethics of circumcision. This is the same as doctors who perform abortions and assist with prison executions. While some people, and some doctors, find those things unethical, there are just as many who hold a different view.

Yes, I agree that doctors should have some leniency to decide their own ethics, to some extent. Do you think that it is ethical for a doctor to use their own religious beliefs in order to decide whether something is ethical or not? Also, if there is an unnecessary surgery, should health insurance cover it?

I am surprised we did not circle back to the parallels of this issue and abortion until now! I am not religious, but I do think that abortion and other surgeries that affect fetus/infants against their own will should not be exercised.

Mr. X
July 25th, 2011, 12:41 PM
Religious freedom is fine. Go ahead, pray in school. Wear your turban. Cover your head. We don't mind.

But once religious freedom is used to defend mutilation, murder, rape, and a entire list of crimes that have been defended by this then that is were religious freedom gets tested.

I'll just say something that i've said in almost every topic about religion. (In other forums) Lets keep religion in churches, monastary's, or were ever you pray. Other then those places, religion has no place in anything.

As my earlier post was deleted, im going to pull a part that is semirelated (And hopefully not the reason why it was deleted)

For you who love defending religious freedom no matter what it is a cover for, give us your thoughts on this story.

http://www.infoniac.com/breaking/cult-toddler-killed-because-he-wouldnt-say-amen.html

Somewhat extreme, but I consider this testing just how far you will defend your beliefs.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 01:11 PM
Religious freedom is fine. Go ahead, pray in school. Wear your turban. Cover your head. We don't mind.

But once religious freedom is used to defend mutilation, murder, rape, and a entire list of crimes that have been defended by this then that is were religious freedom gets tested.

I'll just say something that i've said in almost every topic about religion. (In other forums) Lets keep religion in churches, monastary's, or were ever you pray. Other then those places, religion has no place in anything.

As my earlier post was deleted, im going to pull a part that is semirelated (And hopefully not the reason why it was deleted)

For you who love defending religious freedom no matter what it is a cover for, give us your thoughts on this story.

http://www.infoniac.com/breaking/cult-toddler-killed-because-he-wouldnt-say-amen.html

Somewhat extreme, but I consider this testing just how far you will defend your beliefs.

Wrong! Religion is protected everywhere we go. I can say a prayer over my meal while eating out. Religion deserves protection is all aspects of life in a free society.

While some crimes are unexcuseable, circumcsion is not a crime.

Also, many doctors who choose to not perform controversial procedures undoubtedly are influenced by religion.

Regarding insurance coverage of unnecessary procedures: That is for private insurers to decide.

twocows
July 25th, 2011, 01:32 PM
If the human scarafice or person being eaten consented to the activity, then yes. I feel that the right to live includes the right to end your life when you see fit.
That's the whole point. Consent. A child cannot give consent. If a parent believes his or her child should be sacrificed or raped in the name of whatever god, should we allow that? I don't think we should.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 03:37 PM
Wrong! Religion is protected everywhere we go. I can say a prayer over my meal while eating out. Religion deserves protection is all aspects of life in a free society.

While some crimes are unexcuseable, circumcsion is not a crime.

Also, many doctors who choose to not perform controversial procedures undoubtedly are influenced by religion.

Regarding insurance coverage of unnecessary procedures: That is for private insurers to decide.

Oh I was referring to state or federally funded money like Medicaid. Should tax dollars be spent on unnecessary surgery?
Also, where do you think the line should be drawn on free exercise of religious rights, is it when it imposes on another's religious rights?
Also, it's one thing for a doctor to not operate based off religious beliefs, but what about operating purely based off religious beliefs, even if the surgery is unnecessary and puts a life at stake.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 05:30 PM
I think the main controversy we're overlooking here is the fact that the people who believe these religious things believe them very strongly. I can't imagine how they must feel about others telling them what they can and can't do, restricting them from practicing their religion, regardless of the fact you might think there's a good reason.

The line isn't... clear.

-ty-
July 25th, 2011, 05:45 PM
I think the main controversy we're overlooking here is the fact that the people who believe these religious things believe them very strongly. I can't imagine how they must feel about others telling them what they can and can't do, restricting them from practicing their religion, regardless of the fact you might think there's a good reason.

The line isn't... clear.

I really am against prohibiting someone else's religious beliefs, but I think once they impede on someone else's rights then we have a problem. You should be able to tattoo your face. you should be able to eat whatever you want. you should be able to believe in what ever you want. You should be able to slit your own throat because of your religious beliefs. (even though I really do not like the idea of it, since it may affect the people around you.)

But once your actions force another person to do something against their beliefs, or you harm someone, it is undermining someone else's religious and personal freedoms. You should not be able to coerce someone to tattoo their face. You should not slit someone's throat because of your beliefs. You should not be able to remove part of a sexual organ based on your own religious beliefs.

But that is just me. I think that the line is very hard to draw as you state.

Shining Raichu
July 25th, 2011, 06:49 PM
I think the main controversy we're overlooking here is the fact that the people who believe these religious things believe them very strongly. I can't imagine how they must feel about others telling them what they can and can't do, restricting them from practicing their religion, regardless of the fact you might think there's a good reason.

The line isn't... clear.

It might feel a little something like it does when the religious tell others what we can and can't do. At least we have valid logical reasoning for our arguments toward prohibition. I'm not suggesting a 'tit for tat' argument, but if they can so successfully do it, why shouldn't we when we feel there's a misjustice?

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 09:04 PM
That's the whole point. Consent. A child cannot give consent. If a parent believes his or her child should be sacrificed or raped in the name of whatever god, should we allow that? I don't think we should.

Murder and rape are crimes. Religion cannot be used to justify crime. They are also crimes at common law and society is pretty much in consensus agreeing that they are wrong. Circumcision is a widely practiced surgical procedure in both the religious and secular fields. Only extreme left-wingers seem to be proposing it be banned.

Oh I was referring to state or federally funded money like Medicaid. Should tax dollars be spent on unnecessary surgery?
Also, where do you think the line should be drawn on free exercise of religious rights, is it when it imposes on another's religious rights?
Also, it's one thing for a doctor to not operate based off religious beliefs, but what about operating purely based off religious beliefs, even if the surgery is unnecessary and puts a life at stake.

No. Medicaid/Medicare should only provide basic coverage that only covers medical necessities. Also, government funding of a religious practice violates the Establishment Clause.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 25th, 2011, 09:35 PM
At least we have valid logical reasoning for our arguments toward prohibition.

Excuse me what? Are you implying that religious beliefs and valid logical reasoning cannot exist together?

Also, government funding of a religious practice violates the Establishment Clause.

It technically doesn't. I'm just saying, they can fund any religious things they want as long as they do it in a fashion that does not blatantly show preference for one religion over others.

Oryx
July 25th, 2011, 09:55 PM
Excuse me what? Are you implying that religious beliefs and valid logical reasoning cannot exist together?

No, he's implying that the reasoning behind getting a child circumcised is only "my religion says so". He's not saying that religious beliefs can never coexist with logical reasoning, he's just saying that there isn't a logical reason why circumcision is anything more than mutilation other than "God said it isn't".

And this isn't implying that I agree with his beliefs, but you're assuming that he's generalizing to every instance, when I believe he was just referring to this particular instance of male circumcision.

FreakyLocz14
July 25th, 2011, 10:47 PM
This is case law as defined by the Bar Association.

"Case law is the reported decisions of selected appellate and other courts (called courts of first impression) which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents in a process known as stare decisis."

"Court of first impression (known as primae impressionis in Latin) is a legal case in which there is no binding authority on the matter presented. Such a case can set forth a completely original issue of law for decision by the courts. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction. In that situation, courts will look to holdings of other jurisdictions for persuasive authority."

All cases proceeded the court of first impression have followed suit with the case law. Although it is not binding it is persuasive authority, as a single case. The culmination of cases may proved to be much more persuasive. If I had my student WESTLAW during the summer, I might have more specifics to show.

Courts of first impression decisions are not binding authority, so they are not law. While they can be persuasive for use in other cases and in legislative debate, they are not binding precedent in their own right. Once that case you cited is appealed, we'll get a decision on the issue.


It technically doesn't. I'm just saying, they can fund any religious things they want as long as they do it in a fashion that does not blatantly show preference for one religion over other.

That is a theory of jurisprudence, but established case law has moved away from the nonpreferential approach in recent years.

-ty-
July 26th, 2011, 09:37 AM
Courts of first impression decisions are not binding authority, so they are not law. While they can be persuasive for use in other cases and in legislative debate, they are not binding precedent in their own right. Once that case you cited is appealed, we'll get a decision on the issue.



That is a theory of jurisprudence, but established case law has moved away from the nonpreferential approach in recent years.


I understand, I was just stating that this case was case law. Persuasive authority, although not binding, is case law.

twocows
July 26th, 2011, 06:18 PM
Murder and rape are crimes. Religion cannot be used to justify crime. They are also crimes at common law and society is pretty much in consensus agreeing that they are wrong. Circumcision is a widely practiced surgical procedure in both the religious and secular fields. Only extreme left-wingers seem to be proposing it be banned.
So are you saying that it shouldn't be illegal because it's not illegal? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning)

Or are you saying that because a lot of people do it, it must be acceptable? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

Also, calling your opponents "extreme left-wingers" does not make their arguments less valid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

"Religion cannot be used to justify crime." I'm trying to argue that circumcision without consent ought to be a crime. The fact that a lot of people do it to their children doesn't change anything about my argument. It's unacceptable because it removes a potentially useful part of the body without the recipient's consent. There may be those who, come adulthood, decide they want to undergo the procedure, and that's fine. However, it should not be forced upon a person. I honestly don't understand why people find the matter of choice to be so disagreeable.

And really, we don't need name-calling. I'm taking a traditionally leftist position, but I hold plenty of traditionally rightist positions as well (I firmly support second amendment rights, for instance). Using overly-broad, emotionally-charged labels in an attempt to make someone seem less credible is something that has no place in an intellectual discussion (especially since it has no effect on the validity of my arguments, it just makes people ignore them in favor of more name-calling).

Black Ice
July 26th, 2011, 06:29 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution
So you're going to let the parents exercise their religion on a baby, even if it has no significant purpose and may actually harm it (maybe, maybe not, I don't know, doesn't matter)? Even if the baby has no choice in the matter, even though it's the baby's own body? Aren't you republicans the ones trying to save babies? Or does it not matter after they're born?

I'm not even sure how much you know about circumcision, and you definitely don't have any firsthand experience of what it's like. But at least try to think about it from a male's perspective.

G.U.Y.
July 26th, 2011, 06:51 PM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

I'm going to rape all the woman, then marry all of them at the same time! But if they're not a virgin I will kill them.

YAY!

Wait..all those are illegal..but the Bible says it's okay! ;o;

I don't see why we should respect cutting off parts of the body in the name of religion. What about the religions that ban circumcision?

wakachamo
July 26th, 2011, 07:10 PM
I don't think my post was rude at all; it just outlined (albeit in a very simple manner) how it's strange that a certain someone should feel so entitled to enforce views on something exclusive to males while at the same time she claims to be against any kind of unfair indoctrination, or rather, shoving opinions 'down kids' throats'.

-ty-
July 26th, 2011, 09:17 PM
I don't think my post was rude at all; it just outlined (albeit in a very simple manner) how it's strange that a certain someone should feel so entitled to enforce views on something exclusive to males while at the same time she claims to be against any kind of unfair indoctrination, or rather, shoving opinions 'down kids' throats'.

Just try not making the comments too personal. If you have a problem with a moderators actions, please refrain from posting messages on this thread. Instead, it is more appropriate to PM a moderator. With that being said, I think issues of this nature should not be restricted one gender's concern. If this were female genital mutilation, I would not want to be censored because I am not female. I am sure that your opinions are great, but if you focus all of your energy into an individual rather than the topic, people may not listen to your ideas.

Myles
July 26th, 2011, 11:02 PM
There may be those who, come adulthood, decide they want to undergo the procedure, and that's fine. However, it should not be forced upon a person. I honestly don't understand why people find the matter of choice to be so disagreeable.

The problem here is that the procedure is riskier the older the person is. By the time they reach adulthood, it's pretty dangerous.

Oryx
July 26th, 2011, 11:37 PM
The problem here is that the procedure is riskier the older the person is. By the time they reach adulthood, it's pretty dangerous.

Could you back that up please? Not trying to be rude or anything, just seems like if that's true (it very well could be, I don't regularly research adult circumcision) there should be some good research you can use to back it up.

I don't think that adulthood is the right time to start giving the choice anyway. Although when you're young, you may be influenced by your parents, you also can make your own decisions. I believe at about 10-12 or so, if the family believes strongly in their religious beliefs, they should be able to sit the child down and talk to them about the procedure, and let them make the decision on their own. At that age, although the kid may not be a fully grown adult, he probably knows enough about his religion to know whether or not he wants to take that step.

This reminds me of my complaint with my school, honestly. It's a Catholic school, and on Fridays during Lent they don't serve meat. I'm not Catholic and I think they should serve it, but it has nothing to do with my desire to eat meat (omg on Fridays they have the best vegetables and seafood ever but off-topic). I feel like the sacrifice that the Catholics are asked to make is cheapened by the fact that they don't have a choice in the matter, even if they wanted to eat meat they couldn't. I don't believe it's really a sacrifice on the part of the student if they didn't have the option to eat meat in the first place.

This relates to this discussion because even religiously, honestly, there's no religious law that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong and consider the rest of this point moot) saying that circumcision has to be performed as a baby. One of the biggest reasons I believe that they do it as a child is because they don't believe most men in the religion will want to when they get older and realize what it entails, so they do it before the baby is old enough to object to the procedure. Therefore, that makes the sacrifice pointless honestly. The man didn't sacrifice that because he wanted to for his religion; he did it because his parents made a decision as a baby. It's not a choice for him to make this sacrifice at all.

Does anyone know the statistics of men who are born Jewish and grow up and decide not to follow that religion anymore? In the past circumcision made sense and was generally not given much thought because for the most part religion ran in the family - you were born Christian, your kids will be born Christian, no choice about it. But now that religion has become more choice-oriented, many men that have no desire to remain Jewish have this pushed on them before they have the chance to say no. It's not the same as "my parents took me to mass and got me baptized as a baby" - no baptism leaves you with scars and missing body parts for the rest of your life.

Myles
July 27th, 2011, 01:40 AM
Could you back that up please? Not trying to be rude or anything, just seems like if that's true (it very well could be, I don't regularly research adult circumcision) there should be some good research you can use to back it up.

Sure: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2490/10/2 (look under 'discussion'). There are also tables referencing researchers that that page leads to.

FreakyLocz14
July 27th, 2011, 02:06 AM
So you're going to let the parents exercise their religion on a baby, even if it has no significant purpose and may actually harm it (maybe, maybe not, I don't know, doesn't matter)? Even if the baby has no choice in the matter, even though it's the baby's own body? Aren't you republicans the ones trying to save babies? Or does it not matter after they're born?

I'm not even sure how much you know about circumcision, and you definitely don't have any firsthand experience of what it's like. But at least try to think about it from a male's perspective.

Male circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years on billions of people without major physical, emotional, or spiritual harm. The procedure has also been made safer as medical technology modernized. Given the fact that complications are extremely rare, it is completely unnecessary and quite antisemetic to ban male circumcision.

Cassino
July 27th, 2011, 03:48 AM
Nice to see this thread re-opened. I wasn't sure what to say in an appeal for that...


I'm probably playing into the 'appeal to nature' somewhat (and possible fallacy thereof), but I really don't think we would've been given/evolved genitalia with multiple layers just for us to cut them away.

Frankly, If I had been a circumcised male, I would be offended to be circumcised and would undergo reconstructive surgery. It's less damaging overall to only leave the potential to undergo such surgery once at most, ergo, people should not be circumcised as infants but make that decision should they so wish later...
The problem here is that the procedure is riskier the older the person is. By the time they reach adulthood, it's pretty dangerous.
... even if this is the case.

Furthermore, aren't a lot of people in favour of infant circumcision also in favour of the notions of general decency about not forcing their values and opinions onto others? If so, they'd be incredibly indecent by they own standards to circumcise other people, even if they 'own' them because they're their children, these people are going to grow up into self-omniscient individuals eventually.

If nothing else I could liken it to be removal of lower eyelids as 'superfluous', which of course isn't a nice thought, so why shouldn't circumcision also invoke disgust? Culture of course, that's the only reason either would be done, a strange remnant of ancient ways of living...

That's my input; good day folks.

FreakyLocz14
July 27th, 2011, 04:45 AM
A child under the age of 18 is under the complete legal ward of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every parent presses their opinions and beliefs on their children as they raise them. This includes what religion to bring them up as. When the kid hits the magic age of 18, they are free to convert over the objections of their patents. Until then, they're SOL.

The argument that "religion cannot be used to justify a crime" is invalid because male circumcision is not a crime.

Cassino
July 27th, 2011, 05:58 AM
The argument that "religion cannot be used to justify a crime" is invalid because male circumcision is not a crime.
That wasn't strictly my argument, I know it's not illegal (ie. a crime) and I'm not only against religious motives for circumcision. My take on the matter is much the same as twocows'.

A child under the age of 18 is under the complete legal ward of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every parent presses their opinions and beliefs on their children as they raise them. This includes what religion to bring them up as. When the kid hits the magic age of 18, they are free to convert over the objections of their patents. Until then, they're SOL.
You're right, but this isn't just enculturation — it's physical alteration for no life-necessitating reason, which I personally 'draw the line' before.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 27th, 2011, 06:30 AM
it's physical alteration for no life-necessitating reason

You realize the people that do these things see it differently from you. They see it as very necessary. Or are we just going to start dismissing religion as flat out irrelevant to life now? I certainly hope not, but it seems like we're borderline already there.

Myles
July 27th, 2011, 06:45 AM
This relates to this discussion because even religiously, honestly, there's no religious law that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong and consider the rest of this point moot) saying that circumcision has to be performed as a baby.

For Jewish people:


12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
12:3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
12:4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.


As I mentioned earlier Christians aren't even suppose to have to according to Galatians 5:2. I don't know a lot about Islam.

Cassino
July 27th, 2011, 06:46 AM
You realize the people that do these things see it differently from you. They see it as very necessary. Or are we just going to start dismissing religion as flat out irrelevant to life now? I certainly hope not, but it seems like we're borderline already there.
I simply find it the lesser of two evils to disrespect religion/custom than to actually remove bits from people.
The state of the physical form is the only objective thing we can all agree on, you either have a foreskin or you do not; but the condition of the spiritual form which religion tends to is something humans fail to agree unanimously upon. Given these two aspects to use as standards for everyone, I would pick the physical, objectively observable one. Logical is all my thinking is; I am not evil, only decisive.

I'll say this so to avoid potential misunderstanding: I don't want for circumcision in general to be illegal, only infant circumcision from which there is no consent of the individual undergoing the change.

Black Ice
July 27th, 2011, 08:21 AM
A child under the age of 18 is under the complete legal ward of their parent(s) or legal guardian(s). Every parent presses their opinions and beliefs on their children as they raise them. This includes what religion to bring them up as. When the kid hits the magic age of 18, they are free to convert over the objections of their patents. Until then, they're SOL.
When it turns 18, its dick will already have been mutilated by its parents. There is no turning back. Even if there were an option, it would cost money. Unnecessary money.

I don't understand why you would be against abortion but for circumcision. The baby has the right to life but not to his body? And the mother didn't have the right to her own body during pregnancy but now she can mess with the baby's body without permission?

The argument that "religion cannot be used to justify a crime" is invalid because male circumcision is not a crime.
This is a very circular argument. Revise?

You're not even answering all the other questions you've been asked. Selective arguing isn't going to prove your point. If you can't even argue your own side, why argue at all?

You realize the people that do these things see it differently from you. They see it as very necessary. Or are we just going to start dismissing religion as flat out irrelevant to life now? I certainly hope not, but it seems like we're borderline already there.
It's medically unnecessary. That has been proven. The religious benefits of circumcision have not been proven. We should go with what is proven.

If we wanted to play the religion card, there are a myriad of things I could pull from the bible that even you would instantly reject. Oh, and there's even a verse that states circumcision isn't necessary. So there goes that for the Christians. And Jews apparently.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 27th, 2011, 09:17 AM
I don't understand why you would be against abortion but for circumcision. The baby has the right to life but not to his body? And the mother didn't have the right to her own body during pregnancy but now she can mess with the baby's body without permission?

Oh hey look, you're attacking the integrity of the debater and not her argument!

This is a very circular argument. Revise?

Doesn't look like a circular argument. Looks like Loz successfully pointed out the flaw in a comparison.

Selective arguing isn't going to prove your point.

Neither is pointing out selective arguing. Because as it turns out selective arguing doesn't disprove her point either, making this pointless.

It's medically unnecessary. That has been proven. The religious benefits of circumcision have not been proven. We should go with what is proven.

Right. We've now traversed into the realm of disregarding religion based on the fact that you don't believe in that religion... I'm just going to wait for you to have the gall to pretend that's okay before I point out why it's not.

there are a myriad of things I could pull from the bible that even you would instantly reject. Oh, and there's even a verse that states circumcision isn't necessary. So there goes that for the Christians. And Jews apparently.

Nice straw man. When did I claim anything regarding the bible, or Christianity, or Judaism for that matter? You don't even know my religion, and for that matter I have no intention of enlightening you until it becomes relevant.

I simply find it the lesser of two evils to disrespect religion/custom than to actually remove bits from people.
The state of the physical form is the only objective thing we can all agree on, you either have a foreskin or you do not; but the condition of the spiritual form which religion tends to is something humans fail to agree unanimously upon. Given these two aspects to use as standards for everyone, I would pick the physical, objectively observable one. Logical is all my thinking is; I am not evil, only decisive.

I'll say this so to avoid potential misunderstanding: I don't want for circumcision in general to be illegal, only infant circumcision from which there is no consent of the individual undergoing the change.

I find that to be a respectable conclusion. I myself feel like I need more time to think about this before coming to a conclusion myself.

Cassino
July 27th, 2011, 09:59 AM
I find that to be a respectable conclusion.
I'm glad to hear that.

If we could all please calm down though...

Myles
July 27th, 2011, 10:09 AM
I'll point out the circular reasoning: the argument is that circumcision should not be a crime, because it is required in religious beliefs. This is then justified because although some religious beliefs are crimes, it's because they are crimes; which this isn't. Again they are crimes despite religious beliefs because they are crimes.

Black Ice
July 27th, 2011, 10:19 AM
Oh hey look, you're attacking the integrity of the debater and not her argument!
I'm trying to understand why she thinks infant circumcision is okay. Aside from "it's the parent's choice," I don't think I have my answer. And I don't think that's a legitimate argument, so I want a clearer explanation of her reasoning. How am I attacking her integrity?

Doesn't look like a circular argument. Looks like Loz successfully pointed out the flaw in a comparison.
See post above.

The sentence makes sense only to the point that infant circumcision is not a crime.

Right. We've now traversed into the realm of disregarding religion based on the fact that you don't believe in that religion... I'm just going to wait for you to have the gall to pretend that's okay before I point out why it's not.
I am not anti-religious nor anti-circumcision. I am simply stating that infant circumcision is not proven to be beneficial. And why is the kid's choice in his own body being disregarded again? Once he becomes an adult, maybe he can choose his own religion and what to do with his own body.

Nice straw man. When did I claim anything regarding the bible, or Christianity, or Judaism for that matter? You don't even know my religion, and for that matter I have no intention of enlightening you until it becomes relevant.
It was a general statement, not aimed specifically at you. And you're right, your religion will probably not be relevant at all.

Maybe some religions want it. What if the baby doesn't? What if the kid grows up into another religion? His circumcision could potentially be pointless, harmful (psychologically, at least), and against his will. This is all I've been saying the entire time.

I am not claiming anyone's religion to be irrelevant. But this is a baby's body we are talking about. I just can't understand why "the parent wants it that way" is proper justification.

I find that to be a respectable conclusion. I myself feel like I need more time to think about this before coming to a conclusion myself.
Funny, that quote is basically the same as what I've been saying.

icomeanon6
July 27th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Personally, I have had no problems with my "mutilated" penis. I don't hold it against my parents in any way, and going by what I've read I would seriously consider having it done on my own hypothetical son.

There is actually statistical and reasonable evidence that circumcision could help guard against some STDs, such as herpes, HIV, etc. Because of the way the foreskin operates during sexual intercourse (it slides back), the area that on a circumcised penis would be the visible tip is exposed. The difference is that on a circumcised penis this area has become hardened, like the exterior of the foreskin or the rest of your body normally is. This makes it less susceptible to viruses entering the cells. Also, when the foreskin returns to its normal position it can trap viral cells inside and keep them in an environment where replication is easier.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that the practice is dangerous enough to warrant a ban. In my mind any significant medical reasons against circumcision would trump religious reasons, but as it stands right now circumcision appears to be benign in most ways and surprisingly helpful in one, so I'd say it should be up to the parents and their doctors.

EDIT:

(To tell you the truth, the only lasting harm that I've observed from circumcision is that point in a boy's life when he asks his parents what circumcision is. There's a few minutes of raw horror and feeling sick, but after that it's like 'Hey, whatever.')

Cassino
July 27th, 2011, 12:24 PM
Personally, I have had no problems with my "mutilated" penis. I don't hold it against my parents in any way, and going by what I've read I would seriously consider having it done on my own hypothetical son.

There is actually statistical and reasonable evidence that circumcision could help guard against some STDs, such as herpes, HIV, etc. Because of the way the foreskin operates during sexual intercourse (it slides back), the area that on a circumcised penis would be the visible tip is exposed. The difference is that on a circumcised penis this area has become hardened, like the exterior of the foreskin or the rest of your body normally is. This makes it less susceptible to viruses entering the cells. Also, when the foreskin returns to its normal position it can trap viral cells inside and keep them in an environment where replication is easier.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to suggest that the practice is dangerous enough to warrant a ban. In my mind any significant medical reasons against circumcision would trump religious reasons, but as it stands right now circumcision appears to be benign in most ways and surprisingly helpful in one, so I'd say it should be up to the parents and their doctors.

EDIT:

(To tell you the truth, the only lasting harm that I've observed from circumcision is that point in a boy's life when he asks his parents what circumcision is. There's a few minutes of raw horror and feeling sick, but after that it's like 'Hey, whatever.')
I can think of a number of possible sexual drawbacks that I don't think would be entirely appropriate to detail here. Nothing terribly profound but they bother me enough.
In any case, since your point in favour of it only matters if your hypothetical son is having sex, I don't see why you might have it done to him rather than let him decide upon the matter for himself at the sort of age he'd begin to do so...

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 27th, 2011, 12:53 PM
There is actually statistical and reasonable evidence that circumcision could help guard against some STDs, such as herpes, HIV, etc.

Let me just point out that if you're in the position that you're relying on not having a foreskin to not catch an STD you're pretty screwed either way as far as chances go. It matters that little at that point.

icomeanon6
July 27th, 2011, 12:57 PM
In any case, since your point in favour of it only matters if your hypothetical son is having sex, I don't see why you might have it done to him rather than let him decide upon the matter for himself at the sort of age he'd begin to do so...Because infant circumcision is quick, easy, and the infant forgets it before you can say "Boy, I'm glad this kid's having it done now, because if he had it done as a teenager or young adult it would be much more complicated and it would stick in his memory as an incredibly painful experience." (Not literally that quick, but you get the idea.) Infancy is the only stage where I would even consider circumcision. And I'm not dead-set on the idea, either. It's on the table, that's all.

EDIT:

Let me just point out that if you're in the position that you're relying on not having a foreskin to not catch an STD you're pretty screwed either way as far as chances go. It matters that little at that point.Who said anything about "relying" on it? It's just a statistical nudge in the right direction.

Seriously people, circumcision isn't all that big of an issue. It's a simple procedure with a few possible but unsubstantiated drawbacks, and a few possible but only moderately substantiated benefits, but is nonetheless very culturally charged. To me, that says "up to the parents" all over it.

Oryx
July 27th, 2011, 01:24 PM
Seriously people, circumcision isn't all that big of an issue. It's a simple procedure with a few possible but unsubstantiated drawbacks, and a few possible but only moderately substantiated benefits, but is nonetheless very culturally charged. To me, that says "up to the parents" all over it.

I'm glad that you have no problem being circumcised, but this applies to more than just you. Just as there are millions of people fine with it like you, there are also millions of people that wish their parents hadn't done that to them. It's very nice that the drawbacks don't matter to you, but it matters to other people so just because you're fine with it doesn't mean that it should necessarily stay the way it is.

If it was something that the child could change in the future and it would no longer physically affect them, I would agree. Sending people to Mass every Sunday, baptizing a baby, those things don't physically change a child and can be decided against once they become an adult. However, once the child is circumcised, that's it. They can't reverse it, they can't decide as an adult that they would no longer like to be circumcised and fix it. This kind of serious decision shouldn't be done without the child's consent.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 27th, 2011, 01:29 PM
Who said anything about "relying" on it? It's just a statistical nudge in the right direction.

The lives of everyone using it depends on its reliability. It's kind of important. <___>

Quite frankly, there are much better things we can be doing to prevent STDs that make whether one has foreskin irrelevant.

I'm trying to understand why she thinks infant circumcision is okay. Aside from "it's the parent's choice," I don't think I have my answer. And I don't think that's a legitimate argument, so I want a clearer explanation of her reasoning. How am I attacking her integrity?

Let's not play word games. The comparison of her views on abortion to her views on this topic had no place in this debate. That was a veiled accusation of hypocrisy if I've ever seen one.

The sentence makes sense only to the point that infant circumcision is not a crime.

And how does that make it wrong?

I am not anti-religious nor anti-circumcision.

I didn't technically accuse you of either. I did however accuse you of disregarding religion on the basis that you don't believe it (Because it hasn't been proven) based on the below quote.

It's medically unnecessary. That has been proven. The religious benefits of circumcision have not been proven. We should go with what is proven

So then, what does this mean if it doesn't mean that? By all means, clarify.

-ty-
July 27th, 2011, 01:32 PM
Because infant circumcision is quick, easy, and the infant forgets it before you can say "Boy, I'm glad this kid's having it done now, because if he had it done as a teenager or young adult it would be much more complicated and it would stick in his memory as an incredibly painful experience." (Not literally that quick, but you get the idea.) Infancy is the only stage where I would even consider circumcision. And I'm not dead-set on the idea, either. It's on the table, that's all.

EDIT:

Who said anything about "relying" on it? It's just a statistical nudge in the right direction.

Seriously people, circumcision isn't all that big of an issue. It's a simple procedure with a few possible but unsubstantiated drawbacks, and a few possible but only moderately substantiated benefits, but is nonetheless very culturally charged. To me, that says "up to the parents" all over it.

MGM BILL
"Studies linking male circumcision and AIDS are conflicting. Two studies completed in 2006 in Kenya and Uganda concluded that male circumcision had a 48% - 53% protective effect against HIV over a 14 month period, and an earlier published Auvert Study (criticized for having methodology flaws and overly optimistic conclusions) found that circumcision reduced HIV transmission in South African men by 63% over a period of 21 months. The multi-country Mishra study concluded that circumcision may actually increase transmission of the AIDS virus, however, which is what many earlier studies found. The Brewer Study published in March 2007, also concluded that circumcision in Kenya, Lesotho, and Tanzania increases the transmission of AIDS, and the Connolly study published in November 2008 found that circumcised men in South Africa are just as likely to be HIV-positive as uncircumcised men."

"The United States has one of the highest rates of male circumcision and also one of the highest rates of HIV infection in the developed world, suggesting that circumcision is not helping. Conversely, Finland and Japan have some of the lowest rates of circumcision and also some of the lowest rates of HIV/AIDS. In Australia, the AFAO has now concluded that male circumcision has no role in the Australian HIV epidemic."

Also, if you remove part of the body simply b/c it may prevent a disease later on in life. Who's to say I can not give my daughter a mastectomy, breast tissue removal surgery, in order to prevent breast cancer from ever developing! I don't think parents have a right to do anything unless there is a present health issue like appendicitis.

icomeanon6
July 27th, 2011, 01:52 PM
Also, if you remove part of the body simply b/c it may prevent a disease later on in life. Who's to say I can not give my daughter a mastectomy, breast tissue removal surgery, in order to prevent breast cancer from ever developing! I don't think parents have a right to do anything unless there is a present health issue like appendicitis.
Yeah, because breasts are totally comparable to the foreskin in terms of importance and impact of removal. Pardon me for saying so, but I think the comparison is laughable.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of contradictory and inconclusive studies on the matter, but the one thing everyone agrees on is that the impacts either way are pretty darn minor. Rule number one when dealing with government involvement in cultural and religious matters is that bans on practices that are significant in various cultures and religions should only be used when there is a pressing moral or medical need to ban them. In these sorts of matters, I wouldn't trust any government that doesn't place the burden of proof on those who are proposing the ban. Yes, circumcision is icky and makes people uncomfortable, but it's of far too little significance outside of cultural matters to warrant government interference.

-ty-
July 27th, 2011, 02:35 PM
Yeah, because breasts are totally comparable to the foreskin in terms of importance and impact of removal. Pardon me for saying so, but I think the comparison is laughable.

The bottom line is that there are a lot of contradictory and inconclusive studies on the matter, but the one thing everyone agrees on is that the impacts either way are pretty darn minor. Rule number one when dealing with government involvement in cultural and religious matters is that bans on practices that are significant in various cultures and religions should only be used when there is a pressing moral or medical need to ban them. In these sorts of matters, I wouldn't trust any government that doesn't place the burden of proof on those who are proposing the ban. Yes, circumcision is icky and makes people uncomfortable, but it's of far too little significance outside of cultural matters to warrant government interference.

The comparison used is not laughable. The logic of removing a piece of anatomy is laughable though, especially if there is contradictory evidence that deems it to be unnecessary.

FreakyLocz14
July 27th, 2011, 03:00 PM
The comparison used is not laughable. The logic of removing a piece of anatomy is laughable though, especially if there is contradictory evidence that deems it to be unnecessary.

Is the procedure grossly harmful to the child? No.
Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

icomeanon6
July 27th, 2011, 03:15 PM
The comparison used is not laughable. The logic of removing a piece of anatomy is laughable though, especially if there is contradictory evidence that deems it to be unnecessary.
Now this is the kind of talk that really gets on my nerves: the notion that the burden of proof is on the people who are doing something, not on the people making the rules. Part of the foundation of responsible government, and an integral element of the right to privacy I might add, is that an action is legal until there is sufficient reason to make it illegal. The question is not whether the procedure is necessary. As long as it is not seriously harmful, it should be allowed.

Myles
July 27th, 2011, 05:15 PM
Quite frankly, there are much better things we can be doing to prevent STDs that make whether one has foreskin irrelevant.

This (http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm) and this (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm) are irrelevant? Even if we have the correct technology to make it irrelevant, if that technology isn't being properly used, then that technology is the thing that's irrelevant. :P

To tell you the truth, my boyfriend doesn't complain about not experiencing pleasure in the sack. Circumcised men's glands in that region adapt.

Not too get to explicit on this forum, I'll just say that that's erroneous and anecdotal evidence isn't a good idea.

Mr. X
July 27th, 2011, 05:28 PM
To tell you the truth, my boyfriend doesn't complain about not experiencing pleasure in the sack.

Double negative much?

That said, not the best thing to say on a forum decicated to a show and game series that attract numerous amounts of young children. Nvm, kinda pointless.

Oryx
July 27th, 2011, 05:40 PM
Double negative much?

That said, not the best thing to say on a forum decicated to a show and game series that attract numerous amounts of young children. Nvm, kinda pointless.

What she was saying is that her boyfriend doesn't say "it's not as good because I was circumcised", tbh her statement makes sense. I don't think that's a double negative, those are two separate parts. Try separating it out or switching it around ("X is what he doesn't complain about") if you're having trouble understanding. :3

But have to agree with Myles there, anecdotal evidence proves nothing and says nothing. Your boyfriend most likely has never felt the difference, so it's not like he even has an unbiased view. No one is claiming that a circumcised man can never feel anything, they're just claiming that uncircumcised men are more sensitive because they have constant protection, which makes complete sense. I could easily pull out the multiple men I know that feel the opposite, but I don't because the way one man feels about the issue is in no way representative of the majority without some kind of backup proving that the majority actually do agree with him. It's nice your boyfriend feels that way, but hardly relevant to an actual discussion on the merits of prohibition.

-ty-
July 27th, 2011, 05:51 PM
Now this is the kind of talk that really gets on my nerves: the notion that the burden of proof is on the people who are doing something, not on the people making the rules. Part of the foundation of responsible government, and an integral element of the right to privacy I might add, is that an action is legal until there is sufficient reason to make it illegal. The question is not whether the procedure is necessary. As long as it is not seriously harmful, it should be allowed.

It is not harmful to have the earlobes, nipples on males, or our small toes removed. They do not have any significant functions. Does that mean that we should take UNNECESSARY surgery to remove them? Might I add, the foreskin does have significant functions.

If you want to be circumcised you should be able to.
If you don't want to be circumcised you should be able to refused to.

I do not want my privacy rights intruded upon. I want to decide what happens to my own body. I am not stomping on an individual's rights, however, those who advocate that circumcision should be exercised by a parent's discretion, are stomping on an individual's rights. Don't say that the parent's individual rights are being taken away by a ban, they would be able to choose to have a foreskin or to not have a foreskin.

FreakyLocz14
July 27th, 2011, 07:51 PM
It is not harmful to have the earlobes, nipples on males, or our small toes removed. They do not have any significant functions. Does that mean that we should take UNNECESSARY surgery to remove them? Might I add, the foreskin does have significant functions.

If you want to be circumcised you should be able to.
If you don't want to be circumcised you should be able to refused to.

I do not want my privacy rights intruded upon. I want to decide what happens to my own body. I am not stomping on an individual's rights, however, those who advocate that circumcision should be exercised by a parent's discretion, are stomping on an individual's rights. Don't say that the parent's individual rights are being taken away by a ban, they would be able to choose to have a foreskin or to not have a foreskin.

Sorry, but your side does carry the burden of proof. When you are sued on a free exercise claim, you will be required to justify your circumcision ban by strict scrutiny.

You will need to show:
1) That there is a compelling government interest
2) That your law is narrowly tailored in addressing that interest
3) That your law is the least restrictive means on the free exercise of religion posdible in adressing that interest

Failure to satisfy all three of those requirements means that the ban is unconstitutional.

icomeanon6
July 27th, 2011, 08:04 PM
It is not harmful to have the earlobes, nipples on males, or our small toes removed. They do not have any significant functions. Does that mean that we should take UNNECESSARY surgery to remove them? Might I add, the foreskin does have significant functions.

If you want to be circumcised you should be able to.
If you don't want to be circumcised you should be able to refused to.

I do not want my privacy rights intruded upon. I want to decide what happens to my own body. I am not stomping on an individual's rights, however, those who advocate that circumcision should be exercised by a parent's discretion, are stomping on an individual's rights. Don't say that the parent's individual rights are being taken away by a ban, they would be able to choose to have a foreskin or to not have a foreskin.If you think that removing small toes or nipples (even on males) is comparable to removing the foreskin, whose "significant functions" are so unnoticeable that scientists have to debate about what the dumb thing's for, you need a reality check. And did I step into some bizarre alternate world where parents don't have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children? I do say that a ban on circumcision would infringe on parents' rights as parents. I think it's about time that government stopped trying to downgrade the role of family so much. Families have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and pass it to their children until their children are old enough to make their own decisions, and that doesn't change just because circumcision grosses other people out.

I have no problem if you want to convince families to stop circumcising, but I don't want a government to have such disregard for religious freedom and the basic parental right to make an infant's legitimate medical decisions by banning it.

FreakyLocz14
July 27th, 2011, 10:21 PM
Actually, I don't think talking about stimulation is inappropriate, since the anti-circumcision side uses it as an argument against circumcision. This entire topic is not safe for kids.

Stormbringer
July 27th, 2011, 10:25 PM
Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

And yet, somehow, abortion doesn't apply there? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, lets please avoid getting to overtly explicit on here please. I'd rather not close this because it's a little bit PG-13 for some people.

-ty-
July 27th, 2011, 10:56 PM
If you think that removing small toes or nipples (even on males) is comparable to removing the foreskin, whose "significant functions" are so unnoticeable that scientists have to debate about what the dumb thing's for, you need a reality check. And did I step into some bizarre alternate world where parents don't have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children? I do say that a ban on circumcision would infringe on parents' rights as parents. I think it's about time that government stopped trying to downgrade the role of family so much. Families have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and pass it to their children until their children are old enough to make their own decisions, and that doesn't change just because circumcision grosses other people out.

I have no problem if you want to convince families to stop circumcising, but I don't want a government to have such disregard for religious freedom and the basic parental right to make an infant's legitimate medical decisions by banning it.

Alright, obviously, there is a bias in the reasoning. You believe that is wrong for parents to be able to amputate the pinky toe (which is not needed for balance at all), nipples on males (not needed), and earlobes (not needed), but it is alright for them to remove foreskin? That's all I am going to say; I don't believe parents should be able to modify a child's body b/c pf their religious beliefs. They should only remove body parts if it is a health threatening condition. With unnecessary surgery comes great risk, and permanent disfigurement, disfigurement in which the child did not choose, but must live with for the rest of their life. I know several people who have had botched circumcisions, including myself. It left scarring and dryness as a result. I know others who have tears in their frenulum, and other who have had growths at the site of incision as the skin tries to repair itself. These results of botched surgeries do affect sexual functions; they cause pain, desensitizing, and discomfort. I, and many others just wanted our anatomies to be intact.

Therefore, this is a compelling state interest. There should not be ANY unnecessary surgeries performed, unless their is consent from the individual, because it puts the patient at unnecessary risk. You should be able to put yourself at that unnecessary risk, but not others. It is medically unethical.

PkMnTrainer Yellow
July 28th, 2011, 01:16 AM
This (http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm) and this (http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm) are irrelevant? Even if we have the correct technology to make it irrelevant, if that technology isn't being properly used, then that technology is the thing that's irrelevant. :P

This technology is called a condom. Its effectiveness is very significant. That makes it relevant. The fact that circumcision does not make it any safer for someone already using a condom and the fact that it does almost nothing without one make it irrelivent. Not to mention the fact that it requires surgery, a higher chance of screw ups than protecting against STDs, and the big controversy it comes with.

Also, yeah. Those links are in fact irrelevant, because circumcision isn't really going to do anything to change those numbers.

Myles
July 28th, 2011, 01:26 AM
Also, yeah. Those links are in fact irrelevant, because circumcision isn't really going to do anything to change those numbers.

Now that's an argument. It is, however, wrong. NIH (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm) and WHO (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html) both agree that it will reduce AIDS transmission by 50-60%.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 01:52 AM
And yet, somehow, abortion doesn't apply there? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway, lets please avoid getting to overtly explicit on here please. I'd rather not close this because it's a little bit PG-13 for some people.

Abortion isn't really a free exercise issue. No religion I've heard of requires abortion as part of its most sacred rites of passage.

Luck
July 28th, 2011, 02:22 AM
And yet, somehow, abortion doesn't apply there? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I really hope you're just joking around Live :c

If you think that removing small toes or nipples (even on males) is comparable to removing the foreskin, whose "significant functions" are so unnoticeable that scientists have to debate about what the dumb thing's for, you need a reality check. And did I step into some bizarre alternate world where parents don't have the right to make decisions about how they raise their children? I do say that a ban on circumcision would infringe on parents' rights as parents. I think it's about time that government stopped trying to downgrade the role of family so much. Families have the right to preserve their cultural heritage and pass it to their children until their children are old enough to make their own decisions, and that doesn't change just because circumcision grosses other people out.

I have no problem if you want to convince families to stop circumcising, but I don't want a government to have such disregard for religious freedom and the basic parental right to make an infant's legitimate medical decisions by banning it.

It's time to stop posting buddy; I understand where you're coming from, but there very much is something wrong with circumcision; it's awful, and more importantly, doesn't give the child a choice. While parents should decide many things, they shouldn't decide whether they want to mutilate their child's genitalia. Just as an example, here's a link from a simple google search, showing some of the complications of circumcision.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/botch.htm

And yes, the rates are likely skewed, but I can't imagine why you would defend something so impractical and pointless so you can cut something 'useless'(not that you're actually right of course) for the sake of tradition and making sure the big bad government stays out of everyone's lives.



Also, I'm wondering why everyone talks about male circumcision. While female circumcision certainly isn't as popular, it's still a little popular, and it sure as hell isn't less dangerous.

Now that's an argument. It is, however, wrong. NIH (http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec2006/niaid-13.htm) and WHO (http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html) both agree that it will reduce AIDS transmission by 50-60%.

This is where a bit of organizations get mixed. There are other sources that say that there's no noticeable difference in STD rates among circumcised and uncircumcised men, and there are a few that say the opposite. Here's a few links I found.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#doesn't
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Not exactly unbiased, but you can check the sources for yourself, since they have quite a few.

Shining Raichu
July 28th, 2011, 05:45 AM
Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.

Perhaps not, but it is certainly your child's business. Double entendre.

This is something that a parent is unnecessarily inflicting upon a child's body. There is simply no amount of freedom of religion or parental rights arguments that will change that fact.

Myles
July 28th, 2011, 06:54 AM
This is where a bit of organizations get mixed. There are other sources that say that there's no noticeable difference in STD rates among circumcised and uncircumcised men, and there are a few that say the opposite. Here's a few links I found.

http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#doesn't
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/

Not exactly unbiased, but you can check the sources for yourself, since they have quite a few.

Considering that organisations like NIH and WHO aren't biased and these are that's not good for a start. But let's see:

- The first one seems to discredit a few studies when there have been tons and then just assumes that that counts for all of them. And the reasons for discrediting them are sometimes a bit contrived anyway. It suggests that polygamy and a lack of alcohol consumption are likely to reduce HIV contraction without evidence. Anyway, it doesn't seem to mention the definitive article for what started all this circumcision-HIV link in the first place: Cameron (et al.)'s 1989 Female to male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1: risk factors for seroconversion in men.
- The second one again ignores Cameron (as well as other studies), but still credits Cameron's article with North American circumcision enthusiasts have further promoted male circumcision with opinion pieces in medical journals. I'm pretty sure Cameron didn't say that in his article. This seems to be outright lying, instantly losing them all credibility.
- The third one doesn't object to NIH or WHO's statements.
- The fourth one wants to pretend that all studies that show that circumcising reduces HIV (e.g. Cameron's article) simply don't exist with lines like this: While the entire body of medical literature gives no clear indication one way or the other whether circumcision protects against STD.

Yeah...

twocows
July 28th, 2011, 03:22 PM
Is the procedure grossly harmful to the child? No.
Whether it is necessary or not, what I choose to do with my child is nobody else's business.
That's silly; the government can and should be able to step in in situations of child abuse. I fail to see how circumcision doesn't fall under the banner of child abuse.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 05:18 PM
That's silly; the government can and should be able to step in in situations of child abuse. I fail to see how circumcision doesn't fall under the banner of child abuse.

Being familiar with California law, I can assure you that circumcision does not fall under the banner of child abuse here.

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 05:52 PM
Sorry, but your side does carry the burden of proof. When you are sued on a free exercise claim, you will be required to justify your circumcision ban by strict scrutiny.

You will need to show:
1) That there is a compelling government interest
2) That your law is narrowly tailored in addressing that interest
3) That your law is the least restrictive means on the free exercise of religion posdible in adressing that interest

Failure to satisfy all three of those requirements means that the ban is unconstitutional.

Alright, obviously, there is a bias in the reasoning. You believe that is wrong for parents to be able to amputate the pinky toe (which is not needed for balance at all), nipples on males (not needed), and earlobes (not needed), but it is alright for them to remove foreskin? That's all I am going to say; I don't believe parents should be able to modify a child's body b/c pf their religious beliefs. They should only remove body parts if it is a health threatening condition. With unnecessary surgery comes great risk, and permanent disfigurement, disfigurement in which the child did not choose, but must live with for the rest of their life. I know several people who have had botched circumcisions, including myself. It left scarring and dryness as a result. I know others who have tears in their frenulum, and other who have had growths at the site of incision as the skin tries to repair itself. These results of botched surgeries do affect sexual functions; they cause pain, desensitizing, tearing and discomfort. I, and many others just wanted our anatomies to be intact.

1) Therefore, this is a compelling state interest. There should not be ANY unnecessary surgeries performed, unless their is consent from the individual, because it puts the patient at unnecessary risk that affect sexual functions. I am not saying that foreskin is providing sexual functions; I am saying that the surgery may inhibit sexual functions. Seeing that there is little evidence proving circumcision to be beneficial, there are surgical risks. You should be able to put yourself at that unnecessary risk, but not others. It is medically unethical.

2) This is a narrowly addressed issue.

3) It would be excessive if consenting individuals were banned from anatomy-altering procedures that put the individual at unnecessary risk. But for a person who cannot give consent a ban like young girls and boys, circumcisions should not be performed b/c of the risks.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 06:11 PM
Alright, obviously, there is a bias in the reasoning. You believe that is wrong for parents to be able to amputate the pinky toe (which is not needed for balance at all), nipples on males (not needed), and earlobes (not needed), but it is alright for them to remove foreskin? That's all I am going to say; I don't believe parents should be able to modify a child's body b/c pf their religious beliefs. They should only remove body parts if it is a health threatening condition. With unnecessary surgery comes great risk, and permanent disfigurement, disfigurement in which the child did not choose, but must live with for the rest of their life. I know several people who have had botched circumcisions, including myself. It left scarring and dryness as a result. I know others who have tears in their frenulum, and other who have had growths at the site of incision as the skin tries to repair itself. These results of botched surgeries do affect sexual functions; they cause pain, desensitizing, tearing and discomfort. I, and many others just wanted our anatomies to be intact.

1) Therefore, this is a compelling state interest. There should not be ANY unnecessary surgeries performed, unless their is consent from the individual, because it puts the patient at unnecessary risk that affect sexual functions. I am not saying that foreskin is providing sexual functions; I am saying that the surgery may inhibit sexual functions. Seeing that there is little evidence proving circumcision to be beneficial, there are surgical risks. You should be able to put yourself at that unnecessary risk, but not others. It is medically unethical.

2) This is a narrowly addressed issue.

3) It would be excessive if consenting individuals were banned from anatomy-altering procedures that put the individual at unnecessary risk. But for a person who cannot give consent a ban like young girls and boys, circumcisions should not be performed b/c of the risks.

I'm studying law and I can tell you that you failed the test. First, you didn't even attempt to answer number 2. Secondly, you've failed to demonstrate a compelling interest. Banning an unnecessary medical procedure just because there may be some risk like there is with any medical procedure is not a compelling. It might be a legitimate interest, but it's bout a compelling interest. Number three doesn't ask for your reasoning; only that you show that there no other possible method that it less restrictive on religion.

Myles
July 28th, 2011, 07:03 PM
Being familiar with California law, I can assure you that circumcision does not fall under the banner of child abuse here.

Some of the people in this topic are lobbying for California law to say that yes, it is child abuse. So that statement is kind of irrelevant. But it still seems to have been repeated over the last five pages.

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 08:08 PM
I'm studying law and I can tell you that you failed the test. First, you didn't even attempt to answer number 2. Secondly, you've failed to demonstrate a compelling interest. Banning an unnecessary medical procedure just because there may be some risk like there is with any medical procedure is not a compelling. It might be a legitimate interest, but it's bout a compelling interest. Number three doesn't ask for your reasoning; only that you show that there no other possible method that it less restrictive on religion.

1) Compelling state interest is not explicitly defined with a set of criteria. I have stated that it is compelling because you put a child at risk for no medical purpose Here was the compelling state interest for Female Circumsion - that the practice "often" results in physical and psychological harm and that it violates the human rights of those who undergo it, the same can be said for male circumcision. We really do have a bias in the U.S about the difference of Female genital mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation, first off I will list what the surgeries entail:

Cutting? Both
Of the genitals? Both
Of babies? Both
Of children? Both
Without consent? both
At parents' behest? both
Removing erogenous tissue? both
Supposedly beneficial? both
Justified by aesthetics? both
Justified by supposed health benefits? both
Justified by religion? both
Justified by sexual effects? both
Justified by custom? both
Justified by conformity? both
Effects minimised by its supporters? both
Performed by its adult victims? both
Extremely painful? both
Can cause harm? both
Very severe damage? both
Anesthesia? Both
Can cause death? both
Legal in Western countries? Only female circumsion.

If the above things make a compelling interest of FGM, then the same can be said for MGM. IN Africa, and other third world regions, FGM has been exercised to an further extreme than the surgeries performed in the U.S.

Also, the usage of anesthesia puts an infant at a MAJOR RISK! With each time a child is administered anesthesia, it increases risks. The study also says that the risks without the procedure (life-threatening conditions) often outweigh the risks of anesthesia. Parents should not be able to put their child at this unnecessary risk of developing major health problems due to anesthesia.

"Studying a group of more than 5,000 children born between 1976 and 1982 in Olmstead County, Minn., researchers tracked the number of operations each youngster underwent before age 4, as well as his or her scores on reading, writing and math tests, administered once a year from elementary school through high school. Infants who had just one exposure to anesthesia showed no greater risk of having learning problems by age 19, but those with two or more exposures had a 60% increased chance of developing a learning disability compared with babies who had not had any operations. Three or more exposures to anesthesia by age 3 doubled children's risk of having difficulty in thinking, speaking, spelling or performing math calculations by the end of high school."


2) Is very self-explanatory. The government cannot create broad laws covering several interests. To spell it out, the ban would be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of not forcing unnecessary surgery, including those requiring anesthesia, on infants and children.

3) Apparently I do not have to have an explanation for the third criterion.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 08:17 PM
1) Compelling state interest is not explicitly defined with a set of criteria. I have stated that it is compelling because you put a child at risk for no medical purpose Here was the compelling state interest for Female Circumsion - that the practice "often" results in physical and psychological harm and that it violates the human rights of those who undergo it, the same can be said for male circumcision. We really do have a bias in the U.S about the difference of Female genital mutilation and Male Genital Mutilation, first off I will list what the surgeries entail:

Cutting? Both
Of the genitals? Both
Of babies? Both
Of children? Both
Without consent? both
At parents' behest? both
Removing erogenous tissue? both
Supposedly beneficial? both
Justified by aesthetics? both
Justified by supposed health benefits? both
Justified by religion? both
Justified by sexual effects? both
Justified by custom? both
Justified by conformity? both
Effects minimised by its supporters? both
Performed by its adult victims? both
Extremely painful? both
Can cause harm? both
Very severe damage? both
Anesthesia? Both
Can cause death? both
Legal in Western countries? Only female circumsion.

If the above things make a compelling interest of FGM, then the same can be said for MGM. IN Africa, and other third world regions, FGM has been exercised to an further extreme than the surgeries performed in the U.S.

Also, the usage of anesthesia puts an infant at a MAJOR RISK! With each time a child is administered anesthesia, it increases risks. The study also says that the risks without the procedure (life-threatening conditions) often outweigh the risks of anesthesia. Parents should not be able to put their child at this unnecessary risk of developing major health problems due to anesthesia.

"Studying a group of more than 5,000 children born between 1976 and 1982 in Olmstead County, Minn., researchers tracked the number of operations each youngster underwent before age 4, as well as his or her scores on reading, writing and math tests, administered once a year from elementary school through high school. Infants who had just one exposure to anesthesia showed no greater risk of having learning problems by age 19, but those with two or more exposures had a 60% increased chance of developing a learning disability compared with babies who had not had any operations. Three or more exposures to anesthesia by age 3 doubled children's risk of having difficulty in thinking, speaking, spelling or performing math calculations by the end of high school."


2) Is very self-explanatory. The government cannot create broad laws covering several interests. To spell it out, the ban would be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of not forcing unnecessary surgery, including those requiring anesthesia, on infants and children.

3) Apparently I do not have to have an explanation for the third criterion.

A compelling interest is something like national security, economic security, major public health concerns, etc. Your interest isn't compelling.

Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.
It looks like the courts are seeing things my way. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-27-san-francisco-circumcision-ban_n.htm)

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 08:20 PM
A compelling interest is something like national security, economic security, major public health concerns, etc. Your interest isn't compelling.

Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.

NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 08:27 PM
NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

The issue at hand is male circumcision, not anesthesia. Nice straw man argument, though.

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 08:29 PM
A compelling interest is something like national security, economic security, major public health concerns, etc. Your interest isn't compelling.

Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.

NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

And wait a second, didn't you tell me that I didn't need an explanation for the third term? After I stated my reasoning for the third criterion the first time, you stated that I didn't need to give a reasoning. I will re-iterate that it would be excessive to ban unnecessary surgeries when the patient consents to having the procedure. however, it would be least restrictive to just put a ban on surgeries that do not have the consent of the individual. FGM has proved to satiate this criteria as well, you are allowed to have a circumcision at 18 once you are able to consent, but parents cannot consent to the procedure.

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 08:34 PM
NOT COMPELLING?! The fact that anesthesia has been proven by the medical community as very dangerous for the development of infants? That's not a major health concern?

And wait a second, didn't you tell me that I didn't need an explanation for the third term? After I stated my reasoning for the third criterion the first time, you stated that I didn't need to give a reasoning. I will re-iterate that it would be excessive to ban unnecessary surgeries when the patient consents to having the procedure. however, it would be least restrictive to just put a ban on surgeries that do not have the consent of the individual. FGM has proved to satiate this criteria as well, you are allowed to have a circumcision at 18 once you are able to consent, but parents cannot consent to the procedure.

You are avoiding point three with another straw man. The question has nothing to do with who should give consent.

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 08:37 PM
The issue at hand is male circumcision, not anesthesia. Nice straw man argument, though.

Male Circumcision entails using anesthesia, it's a part of the procedure. It's not a straw man argument. Especially because you have not stated anything to debunk it.

Anesthesia is just an ADDITIONAL argument that states the risks of the surgery. Do you think that it is not a health concern to expose children to anesthesia for no medical purpose?

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 08:39 PM
Male Circumcision entails using anesthesia, it's a part of the procedure. It's not a straw man argument. Especially because you have not stated anything to debunk it.

Anesthesia is just an ADDITIONAL argument that states the risks of the surgery. Do you think that it is not a health concern to expose children to anesthesia for no medical purpose?

Anesthesia is not used in a Jewish bris.

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 08:43 PM
You are avoiding point three with another straw man. The question has nothing to do with who should give consent.

Now I guess I have to give you a piece of legislation rather than just give a few points:

1) the practice of male genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
``(2) the practice of male genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the men involved;
``(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
``(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of male genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
``(5) the practice of male genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
``(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.''

Anesthesia is not used in a Jewish bris.

I didn't account for how barbaric some practices are.

Well anyway, that is a straw man. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - "There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants."

They also state that the risks of not using anesthesia are worse than the risks of using anesthesia, although it too has major risks.

Black Ice
July 28th, 2011, 09:09 PM
seriously i know if i had a flap of skin hanging over my dick it would be that much harder to get a woman.
is this seriously an argument

i mean what's wrong with waiting until you're not a baby anymore and you have your own choice?

infant circumcision is becoming less popular and san francisco banned it.


edit: was wrong about the sf thing

FreakyLocz14
July 28th, 2011, 09:10 PM
Now I guess I have to give you a piece of legislation rather than just give a few points:

1) the practice of male genital mutilation is carried out by members of certain cultural and religious groups within the United States;
``(2) the practice of male genital mutilation often results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the men involved;
``(3) such mutilation infringes upon the guarantees of rights secured by Federal and State law, both statutory and constitutional;
``(4) the unique circumstances surrounding the practice of male genital mutilation place it beyond the ability of any single State or local jurisdiction to control;
``(5) the practice of male genital mutilation can be prohibited without abridging the exercise of any rights guaranteed under the first amendment to the Constitution or under any other law; and
``(6) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I, the necessary and proper clause, section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment, as well as under the treaty clause, to the Constitution to enact such legislation.''



I didn't account for how barbaric some practices are.

Well anyway, that is a straw man. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS - "There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision pain include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants."

They also state that the risks of not using anesthesia are worse than the risks of using anesthesia, although it too has major risks.

Your legislation doesn't explain how it is the least restrictive means possible on religion. And nice antisemitism, there.

-ty-
July 28th, 2011, 09:24 PM
Your legislation doesn't explain how it is the least restrictive means possible on religion. And nice antisemitism, there.

I am antisemitic because I think that surgeries performed without anesthesia are cruel, and cause psychological damage according to the AAP?

Also, that legislation is from Female Genital Mutilation statute, and that section was pertinent to the least restrictive means criteria.

Myles
July 28th, 2011, 09:29 PM
Is that general anesthesia or local anesthesia that's a problem? Because local is what they use for infants.

Black Ice
July 28th, 2011, 09:33 PM
Oh. Haven't checked this thread in a while and I probably ignored your post or something. That decision still shouldn't be taken as a support for it though.

I find it kinda funny that the judge was a woman.

groteske
July 29th, 2011, 09:41 AM
There is an interesting study on here: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~ccrooks/4600/MALEGENMUT.pdf (http://frank.mtsu.edu/%7Eccrooks/4600/MALEGENMUT.pdf)

"The physical and sexual harm reported by respondents (whom were circumcised) included:

(1) progressive sensory deficit in the glans (61%);
(2) excess stimulation required to reach orgasm, leading to sexual dysfunctions and orgasmic difficulties (40%)
(3) prominent scarring (33%);
(4) insufficient shaft skin to cover the erect penis (27%);
(5) erectile bowing/curvature from uneven skin loss (16%);
(6) pain and bleeding upon erection (17%);
(7) painful skin bridges (12%); and
(8) physical anomalies that included beveling deformities of the glans and meatal stenosis (20%)

That list clearly refers to males who were consciously circumcised later in life, not as infants. Of course there are going to be complications the later the surgery is performed. I've never, ever heard any male complaining about required "excess stimulation," LOL

A friend of mine had a circumcision at age 17, and described the procedure as both the best and worst thing he's had to do. For years before the surgery he harbored resentment towards his parents for not circumcising at birth.

I honestly don't understand the desire of keeping the entire foreskin, besides the increased sensitivity (which, as a male during sex, isn't necessarily a good thing; virgins need not comment on this). IMO, as a straight female, it's extremely unappealing to look at.

-ty-
July 29th, 2011, 12:14 PM
That list clearly refers to males who were consciously circumcised later in life, not as infants. Of course there are going to be complications the later the surgery is performed. I've never, ever heard any male complaining about required "excess stimulation," LOL

A friend of mine had a circumcision at age 17, and described the procedure as both the best and worst thing he's had to do. For years before the surgery he harbored resentment towards his parents for not circumcising at birth.

I honestly don't understand the desire of keeping the entire foreskin, besides the increased sensitivity (which, as a male during sex, isn't necessarily a good thing; virgins need not comment on this). IMO, as a straight female, it's extremely unappealing to look at.

Yes, you are correct, this is a before and after study.
It says in need of excess stimulation, it does create more stimulation; this is a sexual dysfunction.

But you are forgetting that just b/c you find the procedure more aesthetically pleasing it doesn't mean that a child should be forced to have it, especially with the risks. Many heterosexual men think that breast augmentations are aesthetically pleasing as well, but you don't see anyone forcing their kid to get one, lol.

Be advised, this link will bring you to site analyses very common abnormalities that occur after circumcision at birth including pictures.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html
Many of these abnormalities cause pain and sexual dysfunction. Similar to that of FGM.

This is a compelling state interest, the AAP reports that 4.7% of surgeries require additional surgeries to correct complications of the surgery. Men's health reports complication in surgeries occur in 3-5 percent of surgeries, this doesn't include the later effects of adhesion and skin bridging that disrupt sexual functions which they estimate is at 17%. I do not understand why so many people have a bias when it comes to MGM but not FGM. Both are cruel and unnecessary treatments.

Oryx
July 29th, 2011, 01:25 PM
I honestly don't understand the desire of keeping the entire foreskin, besides the increased sensitivity (which, as a male during sex, isn't necessarily a good thing; virgins need not comment on this). IMO, as a straight female, it's extremely unappealing to look at.

Both of these are completely subjective and have no place in this discussion. The people that I know that regret circumcision and wish it had never been done do so because they know that they're not experiencing sex the way they were designed to; they're experiencing a watered-down version because of the circumcision. They'll never be able to have the full experience and it disappoints them. Claiming that circumcision should be allowed because more stimulation isn't always good is a terrible argument.

And I'm not going to even get into how your idea of aesthetically pleasing should not be used as the basis for all medical procedures.

groteske
July 29th, 2011, 01:45 PM
Both of these are completely subjective and have no place in this discussion. The people that I know that regret circumcision and wish it had never been done do so because they know that they're not experiencing sex the way they were designed to; they're experiencing a watered-down version because of the circumcision. They'll never be able to have the full experience and it disappoints them. Claiming that circumcision should be allowed because more stimulation isn't always good is a terrible argument.

And I'm not going to even get into how your idea of aesthetically pleasing should not be used as the basis for all medical procedures.


Those were subjective asides, not arguments, dear. Don't read into what isn't there.

If you're already circumcised, bemoaning the fact just makes you appear foolish and bitter, and accomplishes nothing. Choosing whether or not to let your child decide is the only proactive difference you can make. If I have children, any male will be circumcised for the health reasons listed throughout this thread. That's it.

Oryx
July 29th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Those were subjective asides, not arguments, dear. Don't read into what isn't there.

If you're already circumcised, bemoaning the fact just makes you appear foolish and bitter, and accomplishes nothing. Choosing whether or not to let your child decide when he's old enough is the only proactive difference you can make.

Discussing it with others may also affect their decision. For example, I never looked into circumcision, and had no opinion on it at all, before I heard from people why they wish it had never been done. That caused me to research it and ask other people and form an opinion of my own about it. So speaking about it to other people, "bemoaning" it to use your (totally unbiased, I'm sure) word, is effective in my personal experience. I was moved by it to think of circumcision as an actual issue instead of something that doesn't really matter, since it did matter to those people and they had no way of reversing what was done to them.

If someone thinks that it shouldn't be done and has personal experience with it, I would encourage them to talk to people, in context of course. The opinion of someone who's been through it holds much more weight than us girls, if only because they're the one dealing with the consequences; all we can do is theorize.

Esper
July 29th, 2011, 02:13 PM
I have not read through this thread and avoided it since I didn't want to get dragged into another controversial thread so apologies if I'm bringing up something already discussed, but I do want to say that I am against medically unnecessary procedures without consent. From what I understand this isn't a necessary procedure. To me, it's along the same lines as forcing a newborn with ambiguous genitalia to be surgically altered to appear as a boy or girl based on the parent's preference. Obviously they aren't nearly the same thing, but the idea behind them is.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
July 31st, 2011, 01:59 PM
Since you can't argue number three, you law is unconstitutional.
It looks like the courts are seeing things my way. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-27-san-francisco-circumcision-ban_n.htm)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that article say that the main problem was that:

the proposed law prohibiting circumcision of male children violates a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.

I'm not familiar with USA law so I might be completely misunderstanding it, but I thought that the judge took the ban off the ballot because it was dependant on a state-wide law, not something to be decided by individual cities. The actual context of circumcision never came up in the striking off. The ban was only taken off the ballot due more to bureaucracy than due to the actual matter at hand.

Or am I reading this article completely wrong?

#Emochu
July 31st, 2011, 05:57 PM
Look, for females, it's bad and barbaric.

Males, it's a very good thing!
I had it done when I was like 3 weeks old.
Muslims do it, Jews do it, they do it in Japan and some other places.

It's very hygenic and makes your willy not look like an alien.

If you want to keep your dirty foreskin, then keep it!

sirboulevard
July 31st, 2011, 06:36 PM
Ok, new blood on this argument.

I personally am circumcised. Was shortly after I was born. Personally I am opposed to it (and I have researched it). I do not, however, think it should be outlawed as there are plenty of people who are happy being circumcised as an infant. I may wish I had my foreskin, but my penis is my penis and I'm happy with it.

I do, however, think there needs to be more regulation as I have heard about people who's child was circumcised without the parents consent because of oversights and that it's the norm. There needs to be more information out there on the subject and parents should not make the decision for their child without knowing what could happen. There are also doctors who encourage it (older physicians) because for years medical schools labeled foreskin as something that had to be removed and no treatment options were added to textbooks (circa 1950s - 1960s).

As for legal rammifications, one of the Scandanavian countries banned circumcision (with included exemptions for religious and medically proven conditions [aka they have to show documentation the child NEEDS a circumcision]). I don't remember which one, Finland or Sweden I think...

I personally live in one of the Pacific Northwest states of the US and our rate is down to about 18% right now. So, up here it's going down regardless. I will leave my son intact and if he chooses to remove or modify his penis as an adult it's his choice. But I know there will still people who do that to their kids. Thank god we have the internet to become more aware of these things.

Black Ice
July 31st, 2011, 07:15 PM
If you want to keep your dirty foreskin, then keep it!
too bad babies can't make that decision then huh

Bluerang1
July 31st, 2011, 07:48 PM
I haven't commented here?

Your parents gave you life, let them do it to you if they wish.

m2287
August 1st, 2011, 10:26 AM
it shouldnt be done to babies, only with consent

#Emochu
August 1st, 2011, 12:30 PM
too bad babies can't make that decision then huh
It's like this:
Two choices: Clean and preventing diseases, looks better.
OR
Alienatic and gathers bacteria under Fskin, must always pull up if you need to pee to prevent a mess and getting urine under there. And then theres phimosis.

Theres no choice, it's best to be circumsized. Babies don't really make choices, it's up to the parents. I seriously don't see whats with you people thinking that boys shouldn't get circumsized. It's disgusting.

Sire
August 1st, 2011, 02:55 PM
Look, for females, it's bad and barbaric.

Males, it's a very good thing!
I had it done when I was like 3 weeks old.
Muslims do it, Jews do it, they do it in Japan and some other places.

It's very hygenic and makes your willy not look like an alien.

If you want to keep your dirty foreskin, then keep it!

Circumcision being healthy is a plain myth. There is no advantage to being circumcised; in fact, foreskin sometimes enhances the pleasure of sexual intercourse. Your "alien" theory is an opinion, so stop spitting it in our faces like it's true. I also love how it's very wrong for females but good for males, apparently. Again, that's an opinion. If you think a female looks more attractive without circumcision, that's your opinion.

These certain religion groups do it because it used to be believed that foreskin was unhealthy to have, you generally wouldn't be accepted if you weren't circumcised, and their religious books or bibles told them to do it. It's also not right just because a few different religions support it.

I believe that circumcision is generally wrong. This is something that the child should make a decision about at an adult age. Foreskin won't grow back and I think the person getting circumcised should follow their opinion on the matter.

twocows
August 1st, 2011, 04:09 PM
Being familiar with California law, I can assure you that circumcision does not fall under the banner of child abuse here.
You keep confusing "legal" with "morally tolerable." They're completely different things. Legalized child abuse is still child abuse and it's still wrong.

Shining Raichu
August 1st, 2011, 04:25 PM
I haven't commented here?

Your parents gave you life, let them do it to you if they wish.

Uh... what? Just... huh? I don't even know what to do with this...

It's like this:
Two choices: Clean and preventing diseases, looks better.
OR
Alienatic and gathers bacteria under Fskin, must always pull up if you need to pee to prevent a mess and getting urine under there. And then theres phimosis.

Theres no choice, it's best to be circumsized. Babies don't really make choices, it's up to the parents. I seriously don't see whats with you people thinking that boys shouldn't get circumsized. It's disgusting.

Yeah, it is up to the parents, but that shouldn't be the case. This is something that should be taken out of parents' hands and given to the child when they're old enough to make such a decision. This is just another case of religion making a mistake and then sticking to it, no matter the evidence stacked against it.

And everything you've said about the benefits of circumcision is, as Sire has already said, a myth. And alien? Really? If that's not completely subjective I don't know what is.

Anders
August 1st, 2011, 04:33 PM
I'm in two worlds about it. Despite not agreeing at all, I guess it should be a choice to make.

I just don't see why. I strongly believe nobody here is arguing it because they feel unhappy with their circumcised penis, that doesn't mean they can't argue against it but if the only argument is freedom of choice, I don't believe that's enough of a reason not to do something.

But like I said, I can't tell you you're wrong. I just know I'm happy to have been circumcised. If I grew up with foreskin it would suck to make the decision to have it cut off, which I would, because it's easier to have it done when you're a baby.

twocows
August 1st, 2011, 06:03 PM
It's like this:
Two choices: Clean and preventing diseases, looks better.
OR
Alienatic and gathers bacteria under Fskin, must always pull up if you need to pee to prevent a mess and getting urine under there. And then theres phimosis.

Theres no choice, it's best to be circumsized. Babies don't really make choices, it's up to the parents. I seriously don't see whats with you people thinking that boys shouldn't get circumsized. It's disgusting.
So because you personally think it's cleaner, it should be forced on every child ever?

The human body is disgusting and dirty in plenty of ways. For instance, the intestines are the most bacteria-ridden organs in the body, with millions of times more bacteria and viruses than any other part. The appendix, which is attached to the intestines, can often times get blocked and infected, plus it is a completely useless organ. I still don't want to have mine removed unless the circumstances are life-threatening. Choice is the issue here, not your personal take on hygiene.

-ty-
August 1st, 2011, 11:57 PM
I'm in two worlds about it. Despite not agreeing at all, I guess it should be a choice to make.

I just don't see why. I strongly believe nobody here is arguing it because they feel unhappy with their circumcised penis, that doesn't mean they can't argue against it but if the only argument is freedom of choice, I don't believe that's enough of a reason not to do something.

But like I said, I can't tell you you're wrong. I just know I'm happy to have been circumcised. If I grew up with foreskin it would suck to make the decision to have it cut off, which I would, because it's easier to have it done when you're a baby.

Please do not make generalizations about other people's reasons for their stance on this issue. I have had to undergo surgery twice after I was circumcised as an infant. First off, their is a nasty scar still. Secondly, adhesion are very common in this procedure. The skin, in an attempt to grow back, can extend over the glans creating a "bridge". This adds additional friction during sexual activity which causes redness and throbbing pain. And, like I said, this has happened to many people including myself; I think the article I referenced earlier from Men's Health stated that it was about 17% of men who have circumcision develop adhesion over the glans and/or scar tissue that causes pain and discomfort, resulting in sexual dysfunction. Every man has the right to a full anatomy and sexual function; just because you have not experienced any procedural mishaps, it doesn't mean that others haven't.

Shizz
August 2nd, 2011, 07:51 PM
Don't mean to be rude, but it's done as an infant for two reasons that I know of; They don't remember the pain of it, and then it's not as hard to clean, because it doesn't have foreskin to go back into, and when it does, I hear it requires a lot of maintenance to ensure that it doesn't get infected or something like that.

Besides; I /personally/ can't handle *ahem* uncircumcised sizes. I can't imagine how difficult it'd be for me and my fiancé to share tender moments. >n>;

Gold warehouse
August 2nd, 2011, 08:07 PM
All surgery should take place with the consent of the individual it is performed on.
As children are too young to make the decision, no surgery should be performed on them unless it's for purely medical reasons.

That's all there is to it, imo.

Just because the parents want something for their child doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Parents wouldn't be allowed to surgically alter their children in any other way for no good reason, it shouldn't be allowed just because they "believe" it's the right to do. We're in 2011 now people.

Bluerang1
August 2nd, 2011, 08:14 PM
Please explain the flaming to my argument. You say "one of the worst arguments". "I don't know what to do with this". If you have nothing to say, don't quote. Even though it's your body, you can't make the decision as a baby, d'uh. It'll hurt too much when you're older and you probably won't want to do it which if fine. If your parents want ti for you, it's their choice, when you're a baby. Deal with it. Some of you just like making people look dumb when you don't agree. Make valid statements.

One more thing, this debate is a tad silly no? What does it matter if you're circumcised or not. Worse things happen to people, way worse.

twocows
August 3rd, 2011, 05:31 PM
Please explain the flaming to my argument. You say "one of the worst arguments". "I don't know what to do with this". If you have nothing to say, don't quote. Even though it's your body, you can't make the decision as a baby, d'uh. It'll hurt too much when you're older and you probably won't want to do it which if fine. If your parents want ti for you, it's their choice, when you're a baby. Deal with it. Some of you just like making people look dumb when you don't agree. Make valid statements.

One more thing, this debate is a tad silly no? What does it matter if you're circumcised or not. Worse things happen to people, way worse.
Things that happen to my body ought to be my choice. It's not something that can be undone, which is why I take issue with it. I would be equally upset if any other part of my body was removed in a situation where it was not causing problems. It is the permanent removal of a part of the body. "Deal with it" is not an acceptable reason.

Oryx
August 3rd, 2011, 05:38 PM
Worse things happen to people, way worse.

Rule of thumb: if your argument can be applied to justify many things that should not be justifiable, it's not a good argument. For example, you can easily use this argument to justify plenty of crimes because "worse things happen to people". Your house was broken into? Worse things happen, deal with it, etc.

Just because worse things happen doesn't mean that people shouldn't be upset at this violation of personal rights. Feeling like circumcision is wrong doesn't mean that you can't think that other, worse things are wrong.