Is circumcision moral?

[Caravaggio]

It can be successfully argued that circumcision has health benefits and is not just "cosmetic surgery".

It can also be successfully argued that the act of circumcision is itself dangerous. Alphonse and Leonora Rothschild lost their son Rene to circumcision. He died from erysipelas shortly after. I'm guessing they could afford the best guy.
Full-length circumcision, as practiced on adolescent boys in the Cameroon, kills about a third of its victims.

Remember series 5 of Seinfeld, "the Bris", I think, when a very tense and angry Rabbi missed the foreskin and cut the Godfather's finger?

Look, if circumcision was so great adult guys would be queuing-up for it, wouldn't they? I see no such queue.
Fiddling with a baby's genitals should be outlawed. FGM is illegal in the civilised world, MGM will follow, as it has in Denmark, I believe.

In the modern world of abundant pure warm water, basic dick hygiene is easy.
In the grubbier bits of the third world, under-foreskin care is probably a problem, I'll admit.
But unless you are a Massai herdsman we are not obliged to follow third-world traditional practices.

 

[OverVolt]

I didn't mind. Its more of a looks thing.

 

[inachu]

It is not whether circumcision is moral or not but it is how you get it done.

If it is done by men with beards and black hats and they use their mouth to bite off the extra skin then yes it is a sin and also pedophilia and they should be sent to jail.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Introducing your child to pain so early on in their life is extremely morally wrong.

But one can also say that it's preparing them for the pain that is inevitable on this planet, better sooner than later.

I can understand that health factors, both have it's pros and cons.

Religious though, I can never relate too. That's some sick SICK human being that brought this onto other people or even thought of it.

It's disgusting to think what humans are capable of convincing people and way they do it.

 

[ControlD]

Introducing your child to pain so early on in their life is extremely morally wrong.

But one can also say that it's preparing them for the pain that is inevitable on this planet, better sooner than later.

I can understand that health factors, both have it's pros and cons.

Religious though, I can never relate too. That's some sick SICK human being that brought this onto other people or even thought of it.

It's disgusting to think what humans are capable of convincing people and way they do it.

Like many things that have found their way into various religions, I imagine circumcision was something that came about for other reasons first. Probably cleanliness at a time when there was no clean water and little or no soap, etc. At some point it became a ritual, an act that was performed on all boys of a certain age. Then as often happens, ritual becomes religious ceremony and gets passed down generation to generation. People forget about the reason the practice was started yet continue to do it because it has become part of their religion.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Like many things that have found their way into various religions, I imagine circumcision was something that came about for other reasons first. Probably cleanliness at a time when there was no clean water and little or no soap, etc. At some point it became a ritual, an act that was performed on all boys of a certain age. Then as often happens, ritual becomes religious ceremony and gets passed down generation to generation. People forget about the reason the practice was started yet continue to do it because it has become part of their religion.

I'm sure there were some reasons.....regardless, it doesn't change the fact that it is completely sick and disgusting.

And if there was no clean water to TREAT, well, not being able to drink clean water will have dire consequences to human health regardless.

What does it matter?

 

[alzan]

It can also be successfully argued that the act of circumcision is itself dangerous. Alphonse and Leonora Rothschild lost their son Rene to circumcision. He died from erysipelas shortly after. I'm guessing they could afford the best guy.
Full-length circumcision, as practiced on adolescent boys in the Cameroon, kills about a third of its victims.

Remember series 5 of Seinfeld, "the Bris", I think, when a very tense and angry Rabbi missed the foreskin and cut the Godfather's finger?

Look, if circumcision was so great adult guys would be queuing-up for it, wouldn't they? I see no such queue.
Fiddling with a baby's genitals should be outlawed. FGM is illegal in the civilised world, MGM will follow, as it has in Denmark, I believe.

In the modern world of abundant pure warm water, basic dick hygiene is easy.
In the grubbier bits of the third world, under-foreskin care is probably a problem, I'll admit.
But unless you are a Massai herdsman we are not obliged to follow third-world traditional practices.

So one anecdotal story out the millions of successful circumcisions, a reference to Camaeroon (I'm speaking of the US) and a reference to a Seinfeld episode.

I never said it was great for adult men; I would think it would be even more painful and traumatic.

It's a decision to be left to the parents and health professionals.

I have no hatred or angst towards my parents or pediatric physician for a missing piece of skin that I was not aware of anyway.

 

[OverVolt]

So one anecdotal story out the millions of successful circumcisions, a reference to Camaeroon (I'm speaking of the US) and a reference to a Seinfeld episode.

The most iron-clad internet argument I've ever heard.

 

[Vdubchaos]

It's a decision to be left to the parents and health professionals.

Health professionals are in business TO MAKE MONEY.

I doubt they will say "no" to profits and their opinion is somewhat "conflict of interest".

 

[alzan]

Health professionals are in business TO MAKE MONEY.

I doubt they will say "no" to profits and their opinion is somewhat "conflict of interest".

I'm not so cynical as you; as I previously said, my pediatric surgeon and parents made some really good decisions the day I was born. I don't think the circ was a bad decision,

 

[ControlD]

And if there was no clean water to TREAT, well, not being able to drink clean water will have dire consequences to human health regardless.

Why do you think people drank wine all of the time? Because there was no clean water to drink. Same reason most of our forefathers were brewers of some sort.

 

[ControlD]

I'm not so cynical as you; as I previously said, my pediatric surgeon and parents made some really good decisions the day I was born. I don't think the circ was a bad decision,

I'm with you alzan. I feel it was a good decision as well and I'm not in the least upset it was done to me. If I had sons they would would have been circumcised as well.

 

[alzan]

I'm with you alzan. I feel it was a good decision as well and I'm not in the least upset it was done to me. If I had sons they would would have been circumcised as well.

Thanks for that. Had I had sons I would've had them circumcised as well.

Personally I think it's led to my being a more "in control" and better lover; my wife agrees.

 

[Caravaggio]

I never said it was great for adult men; I would think it would be even more painful and traumatic.

Then if it is painful and traumatic, and the owner of the penis is not requesting the assault on his genitals, what possible case is there for performing the procedure?

It's a decision to be left to the parents and health professionals.

Palpable conformist drivel, a ludicrous justification of ritualised injurious religious tradition. It is painful at any age, babies can't fight back.

I have no hatred or angst towards my parents or pediatric physician for a missing piece of skin that I was not aware of anyway.

Well, you clearly need to have a chat with Moonbogg (message 1, here) who is really annoyed that his parents failed to consult him, before whipping-off his foreskin.

It is a wholly unnecessary 'club' ritual. There was once a fashion for it but now it is recognised as a genital assault in the more enlightened countries where it is forbidden.

Are you Jewish or Muslim by any chance?

If a sane adult male wants to cut at his penis, that's fine with me. But leave kids alone.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Well, you clearly need to have a chat with Moonbogg (message 1, here) who is really annoyed that his parents failed to consult him, before whipping-off his foreskin.

As I've mentioned in this thread, children, especially babies, have things done to them all the time with no consent. That is because they are not able to consent. It is a parents job to do what they feel best for their child, without ever asking for that child's consent. They might get it wrong, but to be mad at them because they did not ask your consent first is simply ludicrous.

I can't even believe we are arguing if parents should have a infants consent before performing a medical procedure. Just how bad is your argument that you have to resort to that as a premise?

 

[alzan]

Then if it is painful and traumatic, and the owner of the penis is not requesting the assault on his genitals, what possible case is there for performing the procedure?

Palpable conformist drivel, a ludicrous justification of ritualised injurious religious tradition. It is painful at any age, babies can't fight back.

Well, you clearly need to have a chat with Moonbogg (message 1, here) who is really annoyed that his parents failed to consult him, before whipping-off his foreskin.

It is a wholly unnecessary 'club' ritual. There was once a fashion for it but now it is recognised as a genital assault in the more enlightened countries where it is forbidden.

Are you Jewish or Muslim by any chance?

If a sane adult male wants to cut at his penis, that's fine with me. But leave kids alone.

If painful and more traumatic to adult males then don't get it done; if you marry and have male children then by all means consult with you wife and medical professional.

I've chatted with moonbogg, I'm not going to change his mind and he isn't going to change mine; Feeling angry/sad over the loss of somethin you weren't aware you had seems a little silly.

Agnostic actually. Raised Episcopal. My parents didn't have me circumcised for religious reasons, more about health considerations.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Thanks for that. Had I had sons I would've had them circumcised as well.

Personally I think it's led to my being a more "in control" and better lover; my wife agrees.

How would you know though?

And how would your wife know?

:hmm:

Many would argue that having foreskin is actually better for sex in many respects......

 

[Vdubchaos]

Why do you think people drank wine all of the time? Because there was no clean water to drink. Same reason most of our forefathers were brewers of some sort.

Thanks for the history lesson teach

I know this, I'm pretty sure beer was actually more commonly used than wine, wine was more of a luxury item.

And this goes back to my point, consuming alcohol on daily/regular basis is not exactly healthy either.



Better than contaminated water? yes

 

[Caravaggio]

As I've mentioned in this thread, children, especially babies, have things done to them all the time with no consent. That is because they are not able to consent.

Since when was a foreskin a preventable disease?

It is not Polio, now is it? Of course we use science to protect infants from transmissible diseases. Go for all the immunity shots your son can acquire.

But a foreskin is there to protect the developing glans and not as some weird inverse test of your 'faith'.

You already know that, why are you being so silly?

 

[moonbogg]

In response to the "no clean water" arguments, I would suggest that the human penis has functioned just fine for well over 200,000 years at the minimum, before which we may have been considered an outright different species, but even before that time, our distant ancestors had functioning penises, with or without clean water. So, cutting the penis at birth does not aid in function.
It wasn't until we evolved just enough, to be just intelligent enough, to finally come up with the really stupid idea of cutting our babies penis skin off. You have to be just intelligent enough to come up with such a stupid idea, but certainly just, and no more or else you would no longer do it.
It is a ritual which never had any useful function. How many animals on this planet come equipped with penis sheathes? What number of those species thinks they need to cut theirs off in order to function properly? The answer is one. One species out of so many well sheathed species thinks it needs to de-sheathe itself.
If you are that concerned with having a clean penis, then you already live in the first world. Your life is already one of privilege if you can look down at yourself and say, "I wish it were cleaner, but I have no water". So your first order of business is NOT to go find water so your entire tribe doesn't die of thirst, but instead to devise a clever way to ensure future generations never have to be bothered with lifting their penis hat to freshen up on a hot day.
Sounds legit.

 

[Vdubchaos]

But a foreskin is there to protect the developing glans and not as some weird inverse test of your 'faith'.

There is many more reasons why it's there also.

To protect SENSITIVITY of the head, which BTW is EXTREMELY sensitive. And to reserve it for sexual intercourse.

Something most people that are circumcised wouldn't know.......as that sensitivity/feeling goes completely out the window as your penis head is constantly touched > in time sensitivity goes away.

read: circumcised men don't get the full/complete feeling during sex.

Then there is woman's end too......without the foreskin, the agitation to vagina is greater and requires more lube, which often women cannot produce/keep up with > which leads to pain/soreness etc.

 

[Vdubchaos]

In response to the "no clean water" arguments, I would suggest that the human penis has functioned just fine for well over 200,000 years at the minimum, before which we may have been considered an outright different species, but even before that time, our distant ancestors had functioning penises, with or without clean water. So, cutting the penis at birth does not aid in function.
It wasn't until we evolved just enough, to be just intelligent enough, to finally come up with the really stupid idea of cutting our babies penis skin off. You have to be just intelligent enough to come up with such a stupid idea, but certainly just, and no more or else you would no longer do it.
It is a ritual which never had any useful function. How many animals on this planet come equipped with penis sheathes? What number of those species thinks they need to cut theirs off in order to function properly? The answer is one. One species out of so many well sheathed species thinks it needs to de-sheathe itself.

You are making sense, please stop.

> waits for storm of people that don't make sense to support their "cut off penis" ego.

()

If you are that concerned with having a clean penis, then you already live in the first world. Your life is already one of privilege if you can look down at yourself and say, "I wish it were cleaner, but I have no water". So your first order of business is NOT to go find water so your entire tribe doesn't die of thirst, but instead to devise a clever way to ensure future generations never have to be bothered with lifting their penis hat to freshen up on a hot day.
Sounds legit.

LMAO

 

[ControlD]

^^^

So you don't believe there was any functional reason why the practice was started that has been lost to us over the years as it was adsorbed into religious ceremonies? I find that hard to believe.

 

[ControlD]

There is many more reasons why it's there also.

To protect SENSITIVITY of the head, which BTW is EXTREMELY sensitive. And to reserve it for sexual intercourse.

Something most people that are circumcised wouldn't know.......as that sensitivity/feeling goes completely out the window as your penis head is constantly touched > in time sensitivity goes away.

read: circumcised men don't get the full/complete feeling during sex.

Then there is woman's end too......without the foreskin, the agitation to vagina is greater and requires more lube, which often women cannot produce/keep up with > which leads to pain/soreness etc.

Hogwash. I should have highlighted the entire post after the first sentence really.

 

[Caravaggio]

Agnostic actually. Raised Episcopal. My parents didn't have me circumcised for religious reasons, more about health considerations.

Likewise, raised (C of E) Episcopal, now secular atheist.
I was not circumcised and having talked to men who have been, I am still glad about that. Moonbogg sort of confirms my view. He is only one case, of course, but he strikes me as rational. Do you agree?

My foreskin, washed twice daily, has yet to give me any trouble. My wife has not complained about infections, etc.

What was so wrong with yours that your parents believed that removal would be a benefit to you, as an innocent, un-consulted infant?

Why do you think Danish and Swedish doctors argue against the procedure?