Male Genitalia Mutilation

Male Circumcision Ethical?

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.

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.

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:

Galatians 5:2 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Myles said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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%)

Gothitelle. said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

-ty- said:

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.

Click to expand...

....

(2) excess stimulation required to reach orgasm,

Click to expand...

YAYAYAY HELL YEAH I forgive my parents for doing that barbarian thing to me!

leading to sexual dysfunctions and orgasmic difficulties (40%)

Click to expand...

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.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
-United States Constitution

FreakyLocz14 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

twocows said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

FreakyLocz14 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I'm circumcised and I feel great.

FreakyLocz14 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Not sure why people are saying this is horrible, I've heard girls prefer a man that is circumcised.