circumcision - human rights issue?

[Basstrap]

I heard on the radio today that this is now being cosidered a human rights issue.

Doctors are refusing to do it as it is unecessary and irreversable.

Female genital mutilation is banned in both Canada and the US. Technically, circumcision is involuntary male gential mutilation.

reading:


http://www.cirp.org/library/general/legato1/

http://www.universalway.org/circtruth.html

http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcision/circumcision.htm

I know there are religious reasons, as it is mentioned in the bible and many jewish texts. But I think it was a contexual thing and has no relevance to us. Nor can I imagine how it was ever spiritually beneficial.

Of course, it isn't only jewish children who are circumcised. There are somewhere around 1.2 million circumcisions in the us annually!
Somewhere around a 66% circumcision rate in the US!
over 80% in the midwest

I find it very odd I posted this...
seems very random
guess my interest was just captured by it

 

[A_Wanderer]

Male circumcision is not really a problem and I would hardly say that it constitutes a human rights issue, female circumcision on the other hand is a very nasty practice that does long term damage and can greatly reduce the quality of life of a woman. It is often done crudely and does a lot of damage that lasts a lifetime. So generally speaking it is allright however in particular instances it is a gross violation of human rights.

 

[Basstrap]

well...circumcision is very very painful for the baby.

not to mention when they go wrong
there are horror stories

anyway, it is still technically mutilation. irreversable, sometimes damaging, involuntary, pointless..etc

 

[DaveC]

Circumcision should be illegal. Plain and simple.

Cutting into an otherwise healthy body for unnecessary surgery is mutilation. Pure and simple. It violates every tenet of the Hippocratic Oath.

If I ever become a doctor I will refuse outright to do anything similar unless the child is in danger.

 

[BVS]

I think today for most westerners it's just common practice due to a mixture of tradition, religious reasons for some, and the belief that it's "cleaner"(which recently the majority of doctors say is untrue). Everyone has there arguments on both sides but after the research I've done, if I have a son I probably will not circumsize them.

The one thing I've always found strange is God creates the body, yet somehow somewhere we as humans decided some pieces are unnecessary. So we remove it to please God...isn't that really an insult?

By no means is this an insult to anyone, just something I've never understood.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well if you spend your life as a nomad with lots of sand blowing about and all manner of such things circumcision can avoid, complications later in life. All these religious laws were written down as part of the collective knowledge of an entire people and although they may seem archaic today they are still part of that religion and as long as it doesn't cripple the infant or cause a lot of undue pain and suffering then I cannot say that it should be banned.

 

[Basstrap]

yes, there is a clash between freedom of religion and freedom of choice here.

which one wins?

maybe you could get the best of both worlds by letting the child grow to an age where he can choose himself.

though.......that is not something I care to think about....oi oi oi

 

[beli]

having recently given birth to a male this has been a hot topic in our household. Im not going to allow it. millions of men have healthy genitals without cutting bits off, i dont see any valid reason to injure my child.

 

[melon]

Circumcision should be illegal. Plain and simple.

Cutting into an otherwise healthy body for unnecessary surgery is mutilation. Pure and simple. It violates every tenet of the Hippocratic Oath.

If I ever become a doctor I will refuse outright to do anything similar unless the child is in danger.

I 100% agree. This procedure is not only unnecessary, but, for Christians anyway, there's not even a religious need for it! Paul goes on multiple tirades about how Christians *shouldn't* get circumcised.

It should be banned. I don't care how fucking old or "traditional" it is.

Melon

 

[dandy]

i think there's a world of difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation, and you can't really lump them into one simple category of circumsicion. male circumcision is linked to religious ceremony and cleanliness concerns, but it (unless it's a botched procedure) leaves the penis relatively intact and fully functional. fgm on the other hand is about brutally controlling women's sexuality by cutting women open and maiming them for life, all in the name of chasteness.

don't get me wrong, i'm not for cutting up anyone's gentials. i just get a little, um, animated when these two are mentioned as analogous.

rant finished, thanks for listening.

 

[pax]

I think dandy is right. Don't get me wrong--not having the, uh, equipment to know much of anything about circumcision, it might well be unadvisable. But the two are certainly not analogous.

 

[anitram]

No benefits to it that I can see, and no, I would not circumcise a son if I had one.

 

[BAW]

I didn't have it done to my sons 19 and 17 years ago and I have felt really guilty over the years, like I doomed them to be freaks or something...its really great to to see that there are other people who wont have it done to their sons.

Hopefully (in North America) we'll get to point where an uncircumcized male will stop eliciting "turtleneck" jokes and an automatic "ewwwww!" when its mentioned.

 

[melon]

i think there's a world of difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation, and you can't really lump them into one simple category of circumsicion. male circumcision is linked to religious ceremony and cleanliness concerns, but it (unless it's a botched procedure) leaves the penis relatively intact and fully functional. fgm on the other hand is about brutally controlling women's sexuality by cutting women open and maiming them for life, all in the name of chasteness.

don't get me wrong, i'm not for cutting up anyone's gentials. i just get a little, um, animated when these two are mentioned as analogous.

rant finished, thanks for listening.

Incorrect. Circumcision actually reduces sensitivity in the penis; that was actually the main reason why the practice was continued in the United States. Some very anti-sex Protestants wanted to stop boys from enjoying sex too much during the 19th century, and, while circumcision was their most enduring form of ridiculousness, they also created Graham crackers and corn flakes in attempts to reduce one's sex drive. Thankfully, the latter two didn't work, and are now just sugary foods. As for "cleanliness," it's bullshit. Learn how to clean it properly like anyone should when bathing and that isn't a problem.

But I also agree that "female circumcision" is abhorrent; it should be stopped as well.

I guess I'm tired of the prevailing American attitude that whatever we do is "right," but then point fingers at other cultures telling them how wrong they are. We are right, at times, to point those fingers, but we cannot forget that we do things as well that are not only ridiculous, but should also be stopped. Male circumcision should end now as well!

Melon

 

[pax]

Yes, but Melon, that is not the reason circumcision is performed today, whereas the rationales (if you can call them that) that dandy mentioned are in fact the same reasons FGM continues. I'm all for ending unnecessary medical procedures, but to compare male circumcision--which is typically done under sterile medical conditions, unless you're talking about religious circumcisions--to FGM, which is typically performed under filthy conditions and can be lethal and disfiguring, is stretching it a little too far.

 

[melon]

Yes, but Melon, that is not the reason circumcision is performed today, whereas the rationales (if you can call them that) that dandy mentioned are in fact the same reasons FGM continues. I'm all for ending unnecessary medical procedures, but to compare male circumcision--which is typically done under sterile medical conditions, unless you're talking about religious circumcisions--to FGM, which is typically performed under filthy conditions and can be lethal and disfiguring, is stretching it a little too far.

Speaking of "rationales," would "female circumcision" be okay if done in "sterile medical conditions"? I say this, because this is a debate in anthropology currently, where their goal is to just observe cultures without working to change them, no matter what they do. Some anthropologists do disagree with this "rationale," and some have actively worked to end the practice, while others have provided those "sterile medical conditions" of which you speak to prevent the infections that often result otherwise. So does this make it okay?

As someone who has studied anthropology and read up on the philosophy behind the debate, I have come to the conclusion that it is a tradition not worth continuing, no matter the "rationale." Thus, such "enlightened" cultures as ours (sarcasm intended, of course) should work to be above such "savagery" of all forms, including our own form of "permissable savagery" as male circumcision. After all, shouldn't we be setting the example? Just because male circumcision seems "ordinary" to us does not make it okay, and these African tribes that still continue female circumcision aren't dumb. When anthropologists have said to tribal leaders that the practice is damaging and should be stopped, some fully know that male circumcision is readily practiced in the United States and point out our hypocrisy with glee.

Melon

 

[pax]

I see what you're saying, but I still don't think the two are analogous. A man can still have a perfectly healthy and fulfilling sex life if he's circumcised (just ask my fiance), but a woman's sexual enjoyment is pretty much over when she is "circumcised"--if it ever had a chance to begin.

I'm not pro-male circumcision; to be perfectly honest, being a non-Jewish woman not planning on having children, it's something I absolutely never thought about. Surely there are a lot of good reasons to stop doing it. I'm just saying I think it's a false comparison to compare it with FGM, that's all.

 

[deep]

Well if you spend your life as a nomad with lots of sand blowing about and all manner of such things

In America we wear trousers.

 

[Doozer61]

i also agree that you can not compare the two. this was a big discussion when my step daughter was pregnant with her son and since the state insurance does not pay for circumcision, she had to decide what to do. all the issues came up about cleanliness, being like daddy, and letting it be the boy's choice when he gets older. ultimately they did circumsize him and she had to pay for it.

i know this is not the same, but i also feel the same way about parents that pierce their daughter's ears as infants just so they look like little girls. my sister and i did not get pierced as children and we made the choice on our own as adults. but if we are talking about pain being pain, the child does feel pain, whether its circumcision or piercing of the ears.

my ex boss had two adopted sons that he decided to have circumsized when they were 11 and 12! how traumatic is that?

 

[Liesje]

I'm glad someone else mentioned ear-piercing b/c I know TONS of girls who had it done while they were still in the hospital for being born so should that be banned too?

Every boy and man I know are circumcized and none have ever complained of any negative effects. They can all get erections, have sasitfying sex, climax, etc. Female genital mutiliation is more along the lines of being castrated.

I'll have my future son(s) circumcised I guess for traditional reasons if religion doesn't count here (again). I don't see any reason not to.

Just for kicks, I asked my bf if he'd rather be circumcised or not and he said "Circumcized - I don't like the big flappy thing"

 

[melon]

(What the hell's the point of writing anything in this thread? Clearly, there isn't one, so rather than have my posts contorted as a "personal attack," I've thus removed it.)

Melon

 

[pax]

Melon, that's enough.

We've all read your arguments, and the fact that we simply do not agree does not mean that you are talking to a brick wall. I do not believe I have the sort of myopia to which you here refer, and I'm not sure the people who also disagree with you here do either. If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: DO NOT resort to personal attacks in FYM. Period.

This thread is over, I suspect, but I'll leave it open on the off chance that we can return to a civilized discussion about the merits, or lack thereof, of male circumcision.

 

[adam's_mistress]

My son is circumcized, as I am Jewish and have planned to raise my son in the faith, even though somewhat loosely. My husband is not Jewish, and he is circumcized as well (because back then circumcision was pushed in hospitals on the grounds that it promotes cleanliness in the area + his father was, and his father before him, and so on and so forth) I am sorry, but I get the feeling here that I must be some evil woman for "injuring" or disfiguring my son with this outdated tradition.

I can understand why people feel circumcision is not a necessary option and there are many doctors (like my stand-in doctor at the hospital after my son was born) who flat out refuse to do the procedure no matter what the reasons are - spiritual or otherwise.

Still though, to be accused of mutilating my son for outdated, selfish faith based reasons doesn't sit well with me. And I'm with pax when she says that female circumcision and male circumcision are false comparisons... she summed up my feeilngs so there's no need to get any wordier than I already have.

 

[melon]

(Nevermind...it's not worth it.)

Melon

 

[pax]

Funny...sometimes I feel like I'm just talking to a brick wall, but I guess I'd like to hope that people can, at least, understand where everything comes from, but I guess I cannot change human tendencies to look at everything "foreign" suspiciously, but look at "domestic" idiosyncrasies as "normal."

 

[pax]

You edited too late.

But your compliments have been duly noted!