Circumcision should it be done to babies? Why?

[husmusen]

OK well lets look at the medical aspect only.

And examine this with the 4 principles.

 

Does it do good?

All the arguments are for minor benefits at best.

It may reduce the risk of penile cancer in adulthood.

It may offer a small protection against HIV.

However none of these apply ti children.

The biggest argument seems to be hygiene for which a nonsurgical and non-invasive alternative exists.

 

Does it do harm?

It amputates and destroys non-diseased, viable and normal tissue.

It has a range of side effects from pain and excessive bleeding, as the most common, infection and excessive scarring in the mid-range, and the rare end, gangreene, blood poisioning and death.

 

Is it just, and does it violate the autonomy of the person?

Given the procedure is not readily reversible, of dubious medical benefit,

with potentially serious side effects, and given that apart from hygiene all the other benefits relate to the adult form, It would seem prudent to wait so that the individual concerned may give appropriate informed consent to the procedure as a medical intervention.

 

As such as a medical intervention I find no case for it at this point in time.

 

Husmusen

 

P.S.

Obviously in the case of an existing morbidity that will cause major damage or death, e.g. a foreskin so tight the child cannot urinate(rare but not unknown), then that would obviously change the balance, my argument is based on the general case of a typical child.

[jeskill]

The justification there' date=' then is that as its quick and painless, and it is within my irrational belief system, it must be O,K. then. Is that it? Oh boy, that is a line of reasoning that can be applied to other things, too, like:

 

 

Labial mutilation.

Compulsory abortion for population control.

The death penalty.

Compulsory euthenasia.

Eugenics

Selective breeding.

 

You may say I have chosen extreme examples, but I have already stated my opposition in principle. It is up to you to selectively justify the acts in order of severity and say where you draw the line.[/quote']

 

I'm neither for nor against male circumcision, but I don't really think you can compare female and male circumcision. With the males, the foreskin is cut off, but the penis still functions and the men are still able to enjoy sex. With females, the entire clitoris, and sometimes the labia and clitoral hood are cut off, and in some cases their vaginal opening is sewn up. This can make sex for the females extremely painful.

 

Interesting tidbit: Turkish males go through this whole coming of age ritual when they're 6 or 7 -- they dress up as a prince and have a party and get circumcised. I think it's called a "Sunnet Dugunu".

[ecoli]

Is it just' date=' and does it violate the autonomy of the person?[/b']

Given the procedure is not readily reversible, of dubious medical benefit,

with potentially serious side effects, and given that apart from hygiene all the other benefits relate to the adult form, It would seem prudent to wait so that the individual concerned may give appropriate informed consent to the procedure as a medical intervention.

 

Are you kidding? I'd rather have it done as a child, then I wouldn't have to remember the pain.

 

The process is technically reversible (they used to do it in Roman times) but it is, as you'd imagine, VERY painfull... but hey, any sacrifice to wrestle in the nude, right?

 

As for violating autonomy... it's true that the child really doesn't have a choice in the matter. But, on the other hand, we don't give children other choices that can affect their life and health. We give children vaccinations, make choices about their diet and may other things that may influence the health of the baby. And we don't give the baby a choice in the matter. Circumcisions are even more questionable because they are often associated with one's belief system. One could argue that this is imposing a religious system upon a child without the child's consent, but honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. A parent should be allowed some degree of influence over their children. What's wrong with a parent wanting to apply their religion to their children? nothing at all.

 

you do NOT give little babies Booze in sufficuient quantities to work as an anaesthetic! unless KILLING them is the whole idea?

 

proof, Yt? Babies are only given a tiny bit of wine, just enough to wet the pallate, I believe.

[bascule]

Are you kidding? I'd rather have it done as a child, then I wouldn't have to remember the pain.

 

I don't think you're going to find anyone who would rather have a circumcision at an older age where they have a capacity for decision making becase at this point the procedure becomes more complicated with a longer recovery time. From solely the perspective of the IMMENSE PAIN and the recovery time, it's better to have it done to younger age.

 

The process is technically reversible (they used to do it in Roman times) but it is, as you'd imagine, VERY painfull... but hey, any sacrifice to wrestle in the nude, right?

 

It's reversible in that you can stretch out the mutilated remains of your foreskin until your penis has roughly the same shape it did prior to circumcision, but nothing will bring the nerve endings back. At least until we can regrow foreskin from stem cells or something... stretching the skin back into the original shape won't change the fact that your penis is short some 20,000 nerve endings it had before that, including thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles and the Frenar ridged band around the tip of the foreskin, which, prior to being hacked off through circumcisions comprised the primary erogenous zone of the male body:

 

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html

 

As for violating autonomy... it's true that the child really doesn't have a choice in the matter. But, on the other hand, we don't give children other choices that can affect their life and health.

 

However, I don't know any other body parts it's societally acceptable for parents to decide to hack off of their children... couldn't they have chopped off, I dunno, my earlobes instead of the primary erogenous zone of my body?

 

Circumcisions are even more questionable because they are often associated with one's belief system. One could argue that this is imposing a religious system upon a child without the child's consent, but honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. A parent should be allowed some degree of influence over their children. What's wrong with a parent wanting to apply their religion to their children? nothing at all.

 

The thing about parents instilling religious systems in their children is that, in the future, the child has the option of rejecting the parents' religion and embracing their own belief system. You can't, however, get your foreskin back.

[sabbath]

Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human fetus, pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns...

 

None of the data cited herein tell us whether neonatal nociceptive activity and associated responses are experienced subjectively by the neonate as pain similar to that experienced by older children and adults. However, the evidence does show that marked nociceptive activity clearly constitutes a physiologic and perhaps even a psychological form of stress in premature or full-term neonates...

 

Like persons caring for patients of other ages, those caring for neonates must evaluate the risks and benefits of using analgesic and anesthetic techniques in individual patients. However, in decisions about the use of these techniques, current knowledge suggests that humane considerations should apply as forcefully to the care of neonates and young, nonverbal infants as they do to children and adults in similar painful and stressful situations.

 

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

[ecoli]

However, I don't know any other body parts it's societally acceptable for parents to decide to hack off of their children... couldn't they have chopped off, I dunno, my earlobes instead of the primary erogenous zone of my body?

 

There are cultures who put the rings around their female's necks to strecth them out. Then there's foot binding in China. all cultural phenomenon.

 

The thing about parents instilling religious systems in their children is that, in the future, the child has the option of rejecting the parents' religion and embracing their own belief system. You can't, however, get your foreskin back.

 

But, if removing the foreskin of your child is part of the religion, and the parent wants to follow the religion, there really isn't stopping it. Especially when compared to other cultural/religious mutilations, it's rather mild.

 

As for your last point, I've never heard anyone compain, after giving up their religion, about missing their foreskin. Either you have one or you don't... I've never heard of anyone being upset by the lack.

[YT2095]

proof, Yt? Babies are only given a tiny bit of wine, just enough to wet the pallate, I believe.

 

you ask me for proof and then tell me that it`s only a "tiny bit" after stating:

Not exactly true... Jewish enfants are given a small amount of wine, which acts as a anaesthtic.

to "act as an anaesthetic" more than a "tiny bit" would be required (a dangerous amount).

 

Ergo ONE of your statements is False.

[gcol]

In the UK, there has been legislation passed recently severely curtailing the docking of dogs' tails, because the warm and cuddly brigade campaigned that it is "cruel, barbaric, painful and inhuman and cruel to animals".

 

I wonder how many of them eagerly consent to their own offsprings' penis being docked. They must think their dogs are more important than their children. Talk about double standards.....

[Royston]

In the UK, there has been legislation passed recently severely curtailing the docking of dogs' tails, because the warm and cuddly brigade campaigned that it is "cruel, barbaric, painful and inhuman and cruel to animals".

 

Sorry for going off topic, but why are people cutting dog tails off...are they trying to palm them off as some rare breed of manx dog ? Is this due to a certain belief ?

[gcol]

As I remember, it is for several reasons:

 

The wagging tails knock things off tables, (so tails are inconvenient).

 

They get dirty. (inconvenient)

 

Tail breakage is not uncommon in some highly inbred species.

 

In some breeds, for show purposes, it is is regarded as visually desirable.

 

Long tails are vulnerable for hunting and retrieving breeds, loosely termed "working dogs", getting snagged in the undergrowth.

 

So if you are uncircumcised, dont wave it about where there are ornaments on low furniture, or go rummaging through the undergrowth in the nude.

[YT2095]

So if you are uncircumcised, dont wave it about where there are ornaments on low furniture, or go rummaging through the undergrowth in the nude.

 

oh Riiight, go ahead!

 

Spoil All my Fun why don`t ya

[Royston]

So if you are uncircumcised, dont wave it about where there are ornaments on low furniture, or go rummaging through the undergrowth in the nude.

 

Boooo, I have a penis that agrees with health and safety issues, how boring.

 

As for the dog tails, it does seem incredibly daft for the reasons you stated, but it's not really through belief of one sort or another, so it's not such a sensitive issue (no pun intended) by disputing it.

 

I think the problem is putting this whole thing in perspective...I'm quite suprised at some people attacking Jewish practices (it seems acting on emotions.) I have to agree with Ecoli...to an extent, it's not that big a deal. I don't think I've ever heard anyone being bothered about not having a fore skin...and as for Bascules comments, I can guarantee sex is no worse with or without a foreskin, otherwise I think there would of been some pretty hard evidence (no pun intended, again) that this is the case.

[YT2095]

I'm quite suprised at some people attacking Jewish practices (it seems acting on emotions.)

 

please Don`t bring Jews or Religion into this arg, that`s also Strawmanning!

this is Nothing to do with religion, this IS all about the procedure however.

so keep it on track.

[Royston]

please Don`t bring Jews or Religion into this arg' date=' that`s also Strawmanning!

this is Nothing to do with religion, this IS all about the procedure however.

so keep it on track.[/quote']

 

Ok, sorry...I thought the argument was about circumcision being undertaken when there was no medical reason for the procedure taking place i.e it had to be performed due to a complication (foreskin being too tight), what other reason (other than religious) is circumcision done on infants without a medical complication for the procedure to take place...please don't think I'm trying to strawman again, that is a genuine question.

 

EDIT: On second thoughts, forget about it...you're right, I'm going off track. I was purely going by the OP, it seemed (to me) that he was getting at whether it's justifiable to perfom the procedure if there was no medical reason to do so.

[husmusen]

Bascule wrote:

I don't think you're going to find anyone who would rather have a circumcision at an older age where they have a capacity for decision making becase at this point the procedure becomes more complicated with a longer recovery time. From solely the perspective of the IMMENSE PAIN and the recovery time, it's better to have it done to younger age.

 

ecoli wrote:

Are you kidding? I'd rather have it done as a child, then I wouldn't have to remember the pain.

 

Well if you did it stone age style it would hurt like heck.

As an adult it's much safer to give you drugs like Tramyl and Morphine.

And I can assure you the doctor would give you some form of anaesthetic before doing the cutting. It's not the stone age.

 

This IMMENSE PAIN argument therefore seems to me to be baseless.

 

Ecoli wrote:

As for violating autonomy... it's true that the child really doesn't have a choice in the matter. But, on the other hand, we don't give children other choices that can affect their life and health. We give children vaccinations, make choices about their diet and may other things that may influence the health of the baby.

 

If you evaluate vaccinations with the 4 principles rule, then you get a quite different result, a normal vaccination does not harm a child, there is a small risk that there may be an adverse reaction, but only a few of these are serious and pale into insignifigance with the risks of the disease they protect against(Mumps, Measles, Tetanus, Whooping Cough etc etc etc).

Most importantly, if you wait until the child is 16 the child will have contracted many of the infections they protect against, hence one reason why we give them at that age.

 

One could argue that this is imposing a religious system upon a child without the child's consent, but honestly, I don't see anything wrong with that. A parent should be allowed some degree of influence over their children. What's wrong with a parent wanting to apply their religion to their children? nothing at all.

 

In many cases I think it is more a culture or tradition.

If it's done for cultural reasons then the medical benefits or lack thereof is a side issue and not the primary motivation of the people seeking the circumcision.

 

Husmusen

[ecoli]

Well if you did it stone age style it would hurt like heck.

As an adult it's much safer to give you drugs like Tramyl and Morphine.

And I can assure you the doctor would give you some form of anaesthetic before doing the cutting. It's not the stone age.

 

This IMMENSE PAIN argument therefore seems to me to be baseless.

 

Not really' date=' considering, if you do it for religious reasons, you're not allowed to take those pain killers for a circumcision anyway (probably not, I'm just guessing here)

 

 

In many cases I think it is more a culture or tradition.

If it's done for cultural reasons then the medical benefits or lack thereof is a side issue and not the primary motivation of the people seeking the circumcision.

 

I haven't mentioned health reasons once as a benefit of circumcision... so it's not my argument your trying to use against me. I happen to agree with you... the studies are inconclusive and probably meaningless.

[sabbath]

A parent should be allowed some degree of influence over their children. What's wrong with a parent wanting to apply their religion to their children? nothing at all.

 

Because a child must have the choice over that. I think religion is a personal choice, and parents must not impose upon children their own personal choice on who to believe and what to believe.

 

It is up to the child whether or not his god is Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Brahma, or whether he does not believe in a god at all.

 

It is the parent's task most of all to allow his children to walk in his own path, and not the parent's.

 

We believe because we believe. We do not have faith just because it has been chosen for us.

[sabbath]

There are cultures who put the rings around their female's necks to strecth them out. Then there's foot binding in China. all cultural phenomenon.

 

But' date=' if removing the foreskin of your child is part of the religion, and the parent wants to follow the religion, there really isn't stopping it. Especially when compared to other cultural/religious mutilations, it's rather mild.

 

As for your last point, I've never heard anyone compain, after giving up their religion, about missing their foreskin. Either you have one or you don't... I've never heard of anyone being upset by the lack.[/quote']

 

Just because "there really isn't stopping it" doesn't mean that circumcision should be accepted. I don't recall the said cultures discussing the medical benefits/disadvantages of the said practice. No wonder, there's no stopping it.

[Rebiu]

Is the foreskin vestigial?

 

I do not think so. It has purpose and function. The foreskin protects the penis from abrasion, pinching, and another potential injuries. I am sure you boring straight missionary guys cannot conceive of the sexual benefits of having a foreskin but there are plenty.

 

I hardly think those who have never had a foreskin have a useful opinion as to its loss. Regardless of the decisions importance it has risks and should be up to the individual.

[insane_alien]

there are no sexual benefits of having a foreskin except that maybe somebody your trying to sleep with prefers the guy to have a foreskin. i mean if you have a use for the foreskin during sex then please enlighten us, i'm sure somebody would be willing to gove it a try. although i can't disagree with the statement about abrasion and stuff.

[gcol]

there are no sexual benefits of having a foreskin except that maybe somebody your trying to sleep with prefers the guy to have a foreskin. i mean if you have a use for the foreskin during sex then please enlighten us, i'm sure somebody would be willing to gove it a try. although i can't disagree with the statement about abrasion and stuff.

A true gent would never go out without a hat, for protection, comfort and being well-dressed. He would doff it as a mark of respect when greeting a lady, and would automatically take it off when relaxing indoors, and certainly in bed.

 

I am glad I have my, er, built-on hat for protection. And I know the ladies appreciate its symbolic withdrawal when demonstrating the ultimate affection. Those without one are surely less of a gentleman.

 

Cavaliers forever!!! Down with roundheads, may they get trouser rash and sunburn.

[insane_alien]

I had non-aesthetic reasons for getting it removed. If it was normal then i would have kept it. I'm not a roundhead by choice.

[padren]

Is the foreskin vestigial?

 

I do not think so. It has purpose and function. The foreskin protects the penis from abrasion' date=' pinching, and another potential injuries. I am sure you boring straight missionary guys cannot conceive of the sexual benefits of having a foreskin but there are plenty.

 

I hardly think those who have never had a foreskin have a useful opinion as to its loss. Regardless of the decisions importance it has risks and should be up to the individual.[/quote']

 

When I was a baby it was thought to be a health benefit, but to be honest I find the idea of foreskin somewhat scary. I can't speak from experience but I would imagine that the penis itself can take a lot more abuse than foreskin.

Having a "zipper incident" is always a painful thought, but having the liability of foreskin sends chills down my spine.

 

And I take great exception to being called a "boring straight missionary guy" just because I lack a turtleneck..you sir are a bigot and a...[oh god I have no idea of the correct term]ist of the highest order!

 

 

(though, the idea of having lost 20,000 nerve endings..hmm, I don't really like the sound of that)

[insane_alien]

yeah missionry position... can't remember the last time i done that one. been too busy expanding the kamasutra.

 

padren:having a foreskin isn't much different from not having one. sure you get a bit more protection with it but its not vitally important.

[Prime-Evil]

It's a tribal thing. What is culture without diversity?

It should be done by a doctor though, unless a witch doctors is available.