Should circumcision be banned?

[Bo]

In response to what is currently happening in San Francisco, I am asking this question. I'd say No because it is a legitimate and beneficial medical procedure which helps eliminate penile cancer and reduce the risk of an STD infection. Plus, banning it would be against freedom of religion, and circumcision isn't very harmful to your body.

[Secretary Polnut]

I don't agree with it, but it shouldn't be banned.

[TexasGurl]

no.

[phk]

Not for males.

[ZuWo]

Not for males.

[Snowguy716]

No.  Studies have shown that transmission of HIV was reduced by half among men that were circumcised... and medical officials in Africa are now recommending circumcision as a good way to reduce the spread of HIV, especially in areas where there is pressure not to use condoms.

Though I wouldn't mind making it legal only for those who choose to do it once they are old enough to consent.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

Nobody should be allowed to force a painful and irreversible medical procedure on an unconsenting other.

[Tender Branson]

Nobody should be allowed to force a painful and irreversible medical procedure on an unconsenting other.

Agreed.  What's the point of being circumcised if you can't remember it?

[Χahar]

Not for males.

I'm in this line. I certainly don't regret the loss of that part of me when I was a few days old.

[The Mikado]

Circumcision of infants is a vile practice that shouldn't be permitted, much like you shouldn't tattoo an infant.  I am daily reminded of this symbol of a covenant of Abraham that I reject and want no part of literally cut out of my flesh.  If circumcision is to be practised, let it be done among understanding adults like Abraham and Ishmael, not infants.

[Senator Napoleon]

Not for males.

I concur. Female circumcision is mutilation but for males there is nothing wrong with it and I think it is better to have it done as early as possible. It would provably be much too painful to have done at age where one can consent. It is also a matter of religious freedom, since it isn't destructive for a male.

[King]

It's also much easier and less painful to cut an infant than an 18 year old.  

Besides, like most religious laws, this wasn't done because God just randomly said so because he's a sick .  In a world of clothing and little exposure to open air, the foreskin is dirty, useless and disease prone.  The leaders of these early Jewish communities (who also wrote the texts) could already see the health benefits of circumcision. It was made the covenant because making it the #1 connection to the Lord was the only way to convince the peasants to go through with it.

[The Mikado]

A matter of religious freedom, Napoleon?  A matter of freedom that I am forced to carry the mark of a religion that I regard with distaste and resentment?  Circumcision is the ultimate act of religious coercion, not freedom.  An infant is not a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, until mature enough to know what that term means and believe or disbelieve from his/her own intellect.  I'm stuck with a "property of the Abrahamic Covenant" symbol etched into my skin that I regard with something bordering on loathing every time I enter a shower.  If Uncle Sam had prevented this wicked and barbaric superstition, I would have been eternally grateful.

Edit:  sorry for the rant, but you've hit one of my very, very few issues that still provokes an emotional response.

[Senator Napoleon]

Very understandable. Personally, I am glad that I didn't have to wait to consent for circumcision,  it seems too painful to voluntarily go through later in life. It is a difficult issue, I will give you that. How do you view parents who feed meat to their children at young ages that view meat eating as immoral?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

People can stop eating meat, but they can't stop being circumcised.

[CathKhan]

I honest to God prefer that I not remember circumcision, and it really shouldn't have an affect on your life, except for of course helping you to avoid diseases.

[Secretary Polnut]

There's increasing evidence that the medical benefits of circumcision are VASTLY overstated. Plus nothing in the developed world that can't be prevented by showering, and the foreskin is most certainly not useless.

Since the majority of us in the forum live with running water, electricity, and pretty much all of the things that led to circumcision being taken on in places like Palestine and Egypt (although virtually non-existent in ancient Norther European and Asian cultures)  and not in place.

Of course I live in a country with a 10% cutting rate, and in my age group it's not "normal" to have been circumcised (depending on where you live - basically the higher the education/income level of your parents, the less likely you were to be cut). 

I personally think it's unnecessary, with limited "benefits" - and it's only out of respect for religious practice that I don't think it should be banned.

[Senator Napoleon]

People can stop eating meat, but they can't stop being circumcised.

That doesn't excuse being force fed meat. We have to accept that parents need to make certain decisions for their children at young ages, particularly decisions that don't have significant negative consequences.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No, I don't lament the loss of my foreskin.

[white trash heroes]

There's increasing evidence that the medical benefits of circumcision are VASTLY overstated. Plus nothing in the developed world that can't be prevented by showering, and the foreskin is most certainly not useless.

^^^

Even disregarding that, there's no compelling medical reason for it the vast majority of cases. Of course some people may wind up needing it removed or decide to do it for religious reasons later in life but barring that I don't see how you can justify it. We're not talking about childhood vaccination or anything like that here.

[Secretary Polnut]

No, I don't lament the loss of my foreskin.

I think that's the point - the people who are in favour of it are those who don't remember having one, have been culturally or otherwise conditioned to believe that it's dirty or something embarrassment worthy about it, or have had medical issues which required a circumcision.

It is a cultural thing, I remember I took a theatre class and we saw a University production of Six Degrees of Separation (one of my favourite plays) - now there is a scene with a completely nude man running around the apartment. Now when this scene happened in the University production - I didn't bat an eyelid... naked guy, eh moving on. But one girl in my class was traumatised because the guy was uncircumcised and didn't understand what was wrong with it... since the task of explaining it was given to me, the only non-American in the class - she seemed genuinely distressed. I basically had to say, look it hasn't hurt me... I ended up with a stalker because of it ... but as someone for whom the cut penis looks odd (well the penis will always look odd)... it comes to down to culture and religion.

It's not dirty, it's not "strange" to be uncircumcised - but while I would never circumcise my son, any more than I would remove tonsils or the appendix in advance (even though they are much more likely to be problematic), I think if you're happy the way YOU are that's great. But I don't think it's a decision that SHOULD be made for someone else, but I am respectful of the fact that it's key to a lot of people's religious practices.

[afleitch]

No. But it should not be performed on anyone who is not capable of giving consent; no exceptions.

[Grumps]

A matter of religious freedom, Napoleon?  A matter of freedom that I am forced to carry the mark of a religion that I regard with distaste and resentment?  Circumcision is the ultimate act of religious coercion, not freedom.  An infant is not a Jew, a Christian, a Muslim, an atheist, until mature enough to know what that term means and believe or disbelieve from his/her own intellect.  I'm stuck with a "property of the Abrahamic Covenant" symbol etched into my skin that I regard with something bordering on loathing every time I enter a shower.  If Uncle Sam had prevented this wicked and barbaric superstition, I would have been eternally grateful.

Edit:  sorry for the rant, but you've hit one of my very, very few issues that still provokes an emotional response.

Blame your mom.......in fact Sunday would be a very cool day to discuss it.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I'm against forcing unnecessary medical procedures whose effects can't be reversed on infants that can't consent.

People can stop eating meat, but they can't stop being circumcised.

That doesn't excuse being force fed meat. We have to accept that parents need to make certain decisions for their children at young ages, particularly decisions that don't have significant negative consequences.

Most of those decisions are not irreversible. Also, unless you're literally shoving the food down the child's throat I don't know if it can be considered force feeding. (not to mention that it's highly unlikely a very young child would be a vegetarian unless their parents are also vegetarians)

[opebo]

No. But it should not be performed on anyone who is not capable of giving consent; no exceptions.

That's the correct answer, afleitch.

I suppose those of us who are circumsized will never know what it could have been like to have been left normal, but I suspect that its a pretty big negative in terms of sensitivity.