Circumcision

[Darien]

The debate is simple;

Should babies, infants, children; for no medical value, be circumcised.

Being that I assume this forum has both Europeans as well as North Americans, and etc; this may be an interesting topic.

Are you (if you're comfortable sharing) circumcised or uncircumcised?
What do you believe the benefits are, for, or against it?
Do you have any children; if so did you get them circumcised or not? What made you make this decision.

Etc.?

Let the mastur-debaters begin! HOOO (horny joke.. I know... oh I mean corny.)










_______________________________________
Hate to take away from my EPIC-BEYOND-EPIC joke; but I'll start us off.. (wow I swear I didn't even plan that one!)

I am Canadian and uncircumcised.. I believe that foreskin; for whatever reason or another, is a part of your body.. Grown that way.. Probably with good reason.. Should probably stay!? Whadya say?!

P.P. (wow .... i swear i didnt... even.. think of that...pp.. lol)S
buttons made me make a debate I swear.. sorry if this is a past-debated topic. I'm new, don't hate. actually hate all you want then ask if I give a shiitake mushroom?! LOL... p.s. someone join in so i dont end up debating myself on the topic... cause i know ill win. HA

Edited by Expling (Trialist Forum Moderator): Removed the thread prefix which you added into the title!

[Hannah]

I personally believe that if it wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't be. However, it most definitely isn't something that is medically required and is a mutilation implemented commonly for religious beliefs.

A quick look online shows that advantages are that it may reduce the risk of UTIs, the risk of some types of sexually transmitted infections, female partners developing some types of infections and the risk of developing cancer in the penis.
HOWEVER, these are all listed with may and I'm not too sure if there are any certainties (correct me if I'm wrong).

I believe that if a person wishes to be circumsized, they should make the decision themselves when they reach adulthood. I do not believe that this mutilation should ever be because a parent wishes it so, or because it fits their religion or culture. It is not their body - and once it is removed, it is removed. It won't just grow back.

If/When I have children and have a male, I will not circumsize them - and if they wish to have this in their future then that is their decision to make. Not mine.

[Kyle]

Entirely up to the parents to assess any potential risks and act accordingly. you can't miss something you only ever had for a minuscule portion of your life.

[FlyingJesus]

Can't miss arms if you've never had them either, but mutilating children for no sound reason is still something I'd oppose personally. The reason that North America practices infant circumcision on such a huge scale is that it's a massive money-maker for doctors and requires very little by way of equipment - they don't even anaesthetise the child, just strap them down to a table with a hole in it for the blood and cut away.

The entire issue (other than as a religious rite as with Jews and Muslims) came from John Harvey Kellogg YEP THE CEREAL GUY who published a load of papers about how it is necessary to circumcise all boys and "snip" all girls with the express intent of lessening sexual pleasure... because he thought that having a Tommy Tank was the worst of all bodily sins and was the type of person to impose his prejudices on everyone. He was so anti-sex that he never even did it with his own wife, and he genuinely invented granola and cornflakes as anti-sex-drive food. He literally thought you could stop people having a tug by giving them cereal, and this is the bloke that the American health system and American society at large chose to dictate suggested medical procedures.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I had the slice a couple of years ago now although it was for medical purposes. I prefer it having had it done as an adult and my choice, but again it was based on a medical problem although as I say I prefer afterwards. On whether it should be banned, I wouldn't do it to a child although given the large numbers who have had it done in America and indeed the western world it isn't the most pressing issue: as well as the fact there's degrees to how you have it done.

[Coactum]

I personally think that, unless for a sound medical reason, circumcision is a barbaric practice. The idea that someone could be mutilated based on the idea that the child is part of a religion is wrong, not only in practice itself but on the assumption that his or her's religious beliefs are givens because of the family they were born to. There's no such thing as a Jewish baby any more than there is such thing as a Conservative or LibDem baby, and from my point of view, like political beliefs, religious belief is something that should be assigned when that person is of sound mind and maturity to be able to associate themselves willingly. Baptisms are one thing, genital mutiliation is a totally different kettle of fish. Especially female circumcision - quite literally a punishment simply for being female.

[Darien]

"is that it's a massive money-maker for doctors and requires very little by way of equipment"

I really wanted to point attention to that statement; which is a HUGE factor in this discussion.


Undertaker; I'd like to hear more of your opinion, having been both. How old are you? You say you 'prefer after'; where you sexually active before? What is the preference? (Perhaps just a disdain due to your medical requirement of it?)

[AgnesIO]

I personally believe that if it wasn't supposed to be there, it wouldn't be. However, it most definitely isn't something that is medically required and is a mutilation implemented commonly for religious beliefs.

Err, often it is medically required...

----

I have been circumcised. Happened as a young child, for medical reasons. I have no real feelings about it - it isn't anything like as big an issue as FGM, which has far more serious consequences. Also worth noting that the Old Testament of the bible clearly states that boys should be circumcised.

[FlyingJesus]

it isn't anything like as big an issue as FGM, which has far more serious consequences

Depends entirely on the type of circumcision on both sides, the most common form of FGM is "just" a snip to the hood which is entirely analogous to common MGM in terms of trauma, and far LESS in terms of nerve loss

[DPS]

I was cut not as a child but as a 23 year old for medical reasons and it was the best thing ive done body wise.

But i believe a child/infant should only be cut if it needs to happen, you should be able to choose when you are abit older if you want it done or not.