Circumcision should it be done to babies? Why?

[Rebiu]

Circumcision should it be done to babies? Why?

[sabbath]

I read in an article over the net regarding research that proved babies who were circumcised were more sensitive to pain later on in life. It seems that the brain becomes sensitized and "conditioned" to pain more than those who are circumcised when they are older.

 

Will be looking for that article.

[sabbath]

so to answer your question, the answer is no.

[mattbimbo]

it was once widely accepted that circumcision of males significantly reduces the sexual transmission of viruses, but this is not to certain as was once thought.

 

if it is true that male circumcision prevents diseases, then i can't see how circumcision is any different from a vaccination. well i can see a difference, but not ethically.

[sabbath]

it is believed that circumcision prevents the acquisition of certain diseases but the question at hand is whether babies should be circumcised. what effects whether good or ill does circumcision have on infants?

[alice]

no..not babies...they should do it to children at the age of maybe 2-4

[insane_alien]

well it means that they might not have to have it done for various medical reasons(foreskin too tight) in the future. But my position is that it is up to the parents. I wasn't circumsised at birth but had to get circumsised later because my foreskin was too tight. i don't miss it. it hasn't changed my life at all.

[alice]

so...they shouldn't do it to babies...but they should let the child get circumsiced at an older age. they should put an age limit. like maybe start circumcision at the age of 4...at that time...the human being is not that soft anymore. (what a dumb answer)

[insane_alien]

i didn't say that. i just said that the parents should decide at birth and then if there are problems later in life then it should be done for medical reasons. i didn't get circumsized until i was 16. if you do it at 4 they are likely to remember it and its not something i would have liked to go through at 4.

[sabbath]

from http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

"PHYSIOLOGIC CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH PAIN

Cardiorespiratory Changes

 

Changes in cardiovascular variables, transcutaneous partial pressure of oxygen, and palmar sweating have been observed in neonates undergoing painful clinical procedures. In preterm and full-term neonates undergoing circumcision99,100 or heel lancing,101-103 marked increases in the heart rate and blood pressure occurred during and after the procedure. The magnitude of changes in the heart rate was related to the intensity and duration of the stimulus104 and to the individual temperaments of the babies.105 The administration of local anesthesia to full-term neonates undergoing circumcision prevented the changes in heart rate and blood pressure,99,100,106 whereas giving a "pacifier" to preterm neonates during heel-stick procedures did not alter their cardiovascular or respiratory responses to pain.101 Further studies in newborn and older infants showed that noxious stimuli were associated with an increase in heart rate, whereas non-noxious stimuli (which elicited the attention or orientation of infants) caused a decrease in heart rate.22,107,108....

 

Further detailed hormonal studies126 in preterm and full-term neonates who underwent surgery under minimal anesthesia documented a marked release of catecho- lamines,127 growth hormone,128 glucagon,127 cortisol, aldosterone, and other corticosteroids,129,130 as well as suppression of insulin secretion.131 These responses resulted in the breakdown of carbohydrate and fat stores,127,132,133 leading to severe and prolonged hyperglycemia and marked increases in blood lactate, pyruvate, total ketone bodies, and nonesterified fatty acids."

 

So tell me, is it beneficial or harmful?

[badchad]

Circumcision can improve male hygiene.

 

And while it is purely a social contruct, it is my opinion that circumcised men are viewed as more *ahem* "visually pleasing" by women. I also recall that removing the foreskin reduces the sensitivity of the penis, which would result in "performance enhancement" during coitus.

 

I am aware of emerging evidence suggesting the procedure can result in psychological problems later in life, however it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of men whom are circumcised turn out "just fine".

 

Thus, based on hygienic and cosmetic factors alone, I'm all for it.

[5614]

parents should decide at birth and then if there are problems later in life then it should be done for medical reasons. i didn't get circumsized until i was 16. if you do it at 4 they are likely to remember it and its not something i would have liked to go through at 4.

I wouldn't like to be circumsised at 16, I'm quite happy having it done when I was a baby so I don't remember it at all.

[insane_alien]

i didn't say i liked but it had to be done.

[husmusen]

Circumcision can improve male hygiene.

To suggest surgery in place of a simple hygiene procedure is a bizarre argument.

 

And while it is purely a social contruct, it is my opinion that circumcised men are viewed as more *ahem* "visually pleasing" by women. I also recall that removing the foreskin reduces the sensitivity of the penis, which would result in "performance enhancement" during coitus.

 

And this is really important for little babies HOW?

 

Husmusen.

[badchad]

It depends on your definition of "simple". It can add up over a lifetime, and also reduce infection.

 

 

You're correct, it may not be important for babies. I guess my point was that I would prefer to have the procedure done at a point in my lifetime when I wouldn't remember it.

[YT2095]

Circumcision should it be done to babies? Why?

 

Yes, but only when Babies are able to talk and reason for themselves and make educated decisions about mutilating a perfectly healthy part of their Skin Organ anatomy.

until then No

[gcol]

Circumcision is mutilation, however people twist and turn to try and justify it.Performed later in life when the victim is old enough to make an informed decision, as when deciding to self-mutilate with body piercing and tattooing it can be seen as consenting. As a voluntary surgical procedure, as in amputation of infected limbs, removal of damaged organs, etc., it may also be justified.

 

Forcing this mutilation on infants too young to protest is barbaric. In principle it may just as well be argued that, for reasons of hygiene, all children should have thsir teeth extracted to prevent infection and decay.

 

I see no difference in principle between male circumcision and female labial excision, which is roundly condemned in civilised countries. Males should be treated with equal respect.

[YT2095]

in addition, don`t we have a DUTY as parents to protect our children from Harm (including potential) and Pain/Violence?

[gcol]

And another thing, can anyone prove that its origins are anything other than religious or tribal rites of passage? Do we still need these archaic relics of a barbaric past in a supposedly civilised society?

[mattbimbo]

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA 1976

Mere cleanliness, however, seems hardly an adequate motive for the practice. Sanitary reasons seem much more probable, judging from the well-ascertained physical advantages of circumcision to the Jewish race. But even this is not a complete explanation. Why was the practice adopted by some nations and not others ? The most scientific theory is that which refers it to a religious instinct common to all nations, though not always expressing itself in the same way, and this seems to be at least obscurely indicated by the tradition of the Israelites. The prophet Jeremiah (ix. 25,26), too puts it in the same class with cutting off of the hair (comp. Herod. iii. 8), which, like other bodily mutilations, has been shown to be of the nature of a representative sacrifice (Tylor’s Primitive Culture, ii. 363, 364). The principle of substitution was familiar to all ancient nations, and not least to the Israelites. Witness the story of Gen. xxii., the pascal lamb, and the redemption of the first-born by an offering (Exod. xiii. 11-16), and compare the similar phrase ascribed to Saul in 1 Sam. xviii. 25. On this principle circumcision was an economical recognition of the divine ownership of human life, a part of the body being sacrificed to preserve the remainder. But it was more than this ; otherwise it would scarcely have asserted its claim to existence among the Jews, when all other mutilations were strictly forbidden as heathenish (Lev. xix. 27, xxi. 25). It can scarcely be doubted that it was a sacrifice to the awful power upon whom the fruit of the womb depended, and having once fixed itself in the minds of the people, neither priest nor prophet could eradicate it. All that these could do was to spiritualize it into a symbol of devotion to a high religious ideal (comp. Jer. iv. 4 ; Deut. x. 16 ; Jer. ix. 25).

 

what prose!

[gcol]

Ah, yes, ritual self-sacrifice, forgot that add it to thelist. Very modern, humanitarian, civilised and enlightened, not.

[YT2095]

"a symbol of devotion to a high religious ideal " well god be damned then, because there`s no way I would do that to Any child, least of all my own, THAT`S where your "Devotion" should be.

 

edit: As an afterthought, since we`re All suposed to be gods children, how come we`re born with a foreskin in the 1`st place? surely being born without if it`s for cleanliness etc.. that would have been "seen to" by the creator?

sounds like a pack of excuses to me!

[gcol]

Yes, it ought to be a criminal offence, and by the strict letter of the law, I think it is. Which powerful lobbies allow it to be swept under the carpet, I wonder.......

[mattbimbo]

some cultures took ritual self-sacrifice as far as castration for men and mastectomies for women to make themselves look more like angels (fictionalized in this book). then you have the Great Papas, the chinese emporers' eunuch servants. i know the Great Papas were highly revered, and their self-sacrifice was important for their families.

 

but what about the future? for how long will priests promote circumcision and pull the foreksin over our eye?

[gcol]

"Prisoner in the dock, you stand charged with grievous bodliy harm, how do you plead, guilty or not guilty?"

 

"Not guilty, milud, I only sliced off his foreskin. How was I to know he would nearly bleed to death?"

 

"Is that all? case dismissed."