Not really but then again my wiener looks like everyone elses.
Its basically a cosmetic procedure at this point.
Its basically a cosmetic procedure at this point.
You think its silly to get angry about having a piece of your body hacked off without your permission?
Slicing off the penis of an infant has no purpose. It is immoral, misguided and violates the infant's sovereignty. In addition, it results in pain with no benefit to the infant.
There is no way around this. Its wrong. I know its wrong. I asked the question in the OP to see why people think it could be right. So, why do you think its justified?
I'm pretty sure you've had a haircut when you were young. Did they ask permission? Did you get angry about having a part of your body hacked off without permission when that happened?
And braces stop their suffering? I'm pretty sure it's cosmetic. Crooked teeth are ugly, not painful and certainly not debilitating.
Basic body modification for cosmetic reasons of children by parents is so widespread it's entirely disinteresting.
Please tell me you understand the difference in the concept of a haircut and a circumcision. Even braces aren't the same. Not only are the children usually of an age where they have a concept of what's happening to them (and potentially input), it's a realignment procedure. Nothing is being permanently removed.
Children, especially infants, don't get to make decisions. They don't get to give or remove permission. They have no right to bodily autonomy. Thier guardians make EVERY ONE of those decisions, from what they eat, to when they sleep, when they are allowed to go to the restroom, and especially what body parts are removed.
You think so. Others disagree. Unless we appoint you 'Master of Our Moral Compass' then each person gets to make that decision for themselves. Freedom requires that we each get to make our own choices, and those for our dependents.
Perhaps circumcision is objectively wrong and has no redeeming qualities that would give reason for it. If so you need to prove it, and then convince the rest of society of it. Just making blanket statements that you are angry that no one asked you if you wanted it is not going to convince anyone.
Your emotional reaction to what is a normal societal practice has little argumentative value.
We pierce the ears of children before they are able to understand these concepts. I am not equating them, but they still exist. And, in a lot of places, we "assign" genders to infants through surgery if it is ambiguous at birth.
How silly. I suppose I should also prove that female circumcision is also wrong? Perhaps we should allow parents to do that here as well. Maybe some parent would find it more attractive if their kids had a testicle removed, since all you really need is one anyway. If you don't think that cutting an infants penis skin off is wrong, then you are twisted.
I thought so, I was trying to be nice though.How silly.
Yes, a strong argument along with some evidence was required to outlaw it. Luckily we have that evidence, and society made a decision on that based on the argument.I suppose I should also prove that female circumcision is also wrong? Perhaps we should allow parents to do that here as well.
Maybe some parent would find it more attractive if their kids had a testicle removed, since all you really need is one anyway. If you don't think that cutting an infants penis skin off is wrong, then you are twisted.
Just one reason why you shouldn't circumcise from intactamerica.org.
Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference. Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect the child's life or health. "Routine" circumcision fails this test because it painfully and permanently removes a normal and healthy part of a boy's penis, does not protect the child’s life or health, and in fact creates new risks. Removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part.
Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. Washing beneath the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis is generally easy, however.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The overall risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later on.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.
The question as posed by you was "Is it moral?". If your parents believe that circumcision carries some tangible health (or other) benefits then I would say the answer is indeed "yes, it is a moral decision". I don't see the big deal honestly. Unlike with female circumcision, all of my parts still work just fine.
I had my tonsils removed as a very young child as well for health reasons. My parents didn't ask my permission for that either. In both cases they believed they were acting in the best interest of my continued health and thus they were both morally justified decisions.
OK, I counter that with the Mayo Clinic:
Looks to me like each parent needs to weigh the decision and decide if the pain is worth the benefits. According to your link it isn't. According to mine it is.
This fails. Doing evil acts just because you thought you were doing something good, does not make you moral. It makes you ignorant and wrong.
People who do female circumcision may think they are sparing their kid from hell and preventing sin. According to you that is a moral act simply because the parent thinks so. They are wrong and so are you.
I am sorry that you lost a part of your body to such thinking, and I'm sorry I lost a part of mine. It needs to be stopped.
Don't be sorry me for, I'm glad my parents had it done to me. So is my wife. I would have done the same if I had sons.
You are the one applying the word "evil" to the act. If you can arbitrarily assign good and evil to things there can be no argument in the first place. I say it is a good act, and thus my reasoning does not fail. See how that works?
Just one reason why you shouldn't circumcise from intactamerica.org.
Because children should be protected from permanent bodily alteration inflicted on them without their consent in the name of culture, religion, profit, or parental preference. Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect the child's life or health. "Routine" circumcision fails this test because it painfully and permanently removes a normal and healthy part of a boy's penis, does not protect the child’s life or health, and in fact creates new risks. Removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part.
People throughout history have been convinced that many things were right when later they were shown to be mistaken. This is one of those things. You accept your circumcision for two reasons: 1) Its too late. 2) Others had it done too.
You believe this is one of those things. Others believe it is not. Your side has emotive arguments from people that feel they have been wronged, the other side has respected scientists. I need more then your anger to convince me.People throughout history have been convinced that many things were right when later they were shown to be mistaken. This is one of those things.
Finally an argument. But does it convince? To be honest I had heard this argument before and didn't think it did then, and I'm still not convinced now. Let me explain why.
First off, it is misleading. "Under accepted bioethical principles, parents can consent to surgery on behalf of a child only if it is necessary to protect the child's life or health."
This is simply wrong. There are all sorts of surgeries that parents can, and do, consent to that are not to protect the child's life or health. Things like have birthmarks, vestigial tails, and extra fingers and toes removed, and these are just a few examples. There is an entire field of pediatric plastic surgery.
"Removing the foreskin is no more justified than removing a finger or any other healthy body part."
Funny they say that since this is actually routinely done to the around 1 in 500 children that are born with Polydactyly.
No, I accept it because I believe in a good number of points as mentioned by my Mayo Clinic quote above. If real medical studies (not uncutAmerica or whatever) can disprove all of the currently believed benefits of circumcision then I would certainly change my views.
You say "later they were shown to be mistaken". Where is the medical proof that shows there are no benefits to circumcision?
Here is something worth a read. Also, its not my job to prove what you ask. You are the one cutting away at baby penises. You should prove it is absolutely necessary. Such proofs are being called into serious question. Your burden of proof designation is misplaced.
Wait a minute ... I need to understand the ground rules here. You are the one asserting that circumcision is amoral, evil, and of no benefit with no supporting evidence yet I carry the burden of proof? My proof is previous medical conclusions showing the health benefits. Your link addresses only UTIs in male children through one year of life. While interesting it doesn't exactly shoot the whole thing down in one fell swoop. My stance is that it is not an amoral act because there are tangible health benefits, unlike with female circumcision. I am only addressing the "is it moral?" question that is the basis of the thread. If people choose not to have their babies circumcised that is perfectly fine with me. I'm not trying to convince people to do so, only answer why I believe it is a morally justified choice. I believe it is justified because I believe the medical professionals until proven otherwise.
Vaccinations also cause pain in babies yet they provide real measurable health benefits. Have you heard a baby or small child getting a shot? It's terrible also.
This is real simple. There are countless people who haven't been circumcised and they have no medical issues because of that. It isn't necessary to do it. If you cut someone and it isn't necessary, then its wrong. OK? Remember that. Cutting people for no reason is wrong yesterday, today and forever.
Natural is one way, it's not the only way.
Possibly. It's also possible you chose the term "mutilation in order to elicit an emotional response.
Parents who choose circumcision for their male offspring do so because they believe they're acting in the child's best interest and there's nothing wrong with that.
There are countless people who <insert high risk activity here> and have not <insert consequence of high risk activity here>. We should allow said high risk activity, because countless people have not suffered the consequences.
This is real simple. There are countless people who haven't been circumcised and they have no medical issues because of that. It isn't necessary to do it. If you cut someone and it isn't necessary, then its wrong. OK? Remember that. Cutting people for no reason is wrong yesterday, today and forever.