About religion's rights to sever a very neat bundle of nerve ends... (ie circumcision

[OrphanPip]

I think, to an extent, circumcision is an acceptable practice in terms of risk because we endanger infants quite regularly in many ways without their consent on a daily basis, the choice argument isn't quite convincing. Nonetheless, there are certainly going to be people who would wish it hadn't been done. Then there are going to be plenty who were glad it was done for religious reasons.

I wouldn't refer to a bris as barbaric, and they often do use local anaesthesia. Besides, most circumcisions are performed in hospital. Surely, if we allow parents to abstain from vaccinating their children, which poses far greater risk than the circumcision, then the procedure should be allowed.

I think when it comes to a question of individual rights vs. religious/cultural rights that the answer isn't always straightforward. I take issue with the idea of legislating against a cultural practice of minority groups, in this case Muslims and Jews, on the basis of the rights of the child. If one wants to say it violates the child's right to religious choice later in life, then what about the parent's right to bring their child to their various churches, or to participate in religious ceremonies. Baptisms have been implicated in exposing infants to disease, but I'm sure no one in the UK would dare propose that banning baptisms would be an acceptable means of protecting children from germs. Sometimes risk is acceptable in the name of pluralism and liberty.

[Rainbowmum]

I find the whole process barbaric .
Both my sons and my husband are intact.

[mrk2010]

Personally I'm neither for or against it, to be fair if you have been used to being circumcised all your life I think you'll be less likely to make a fuss. I know some people have a circumcision because their foreskin is tight so maybe after the procedure they feel like they have lost something. Personally I just think its one of those things in life, where some men are circumcised and others aren't, no need for a big stress attack.

[princealbertofb]

I don't see why people get so upset about it. It is part of sincere religious practice for many, and it really doesn't cause harm. I'd personally rather be circumcised when too young to really remember (or worry about erections) than when older.

Except that is nothing that anybody can know about ahead of time... I maintain that it is UNNECESSARY mutilation.

[princealbertofb]

I myself am circumcised. Mainly for the "hygiene" thing (yeah my mom fell for that too). But I've never felt like I was missing out on anything

And you'll never know either... Imagine if you were born without an arm or a leg, you would never know what it's like to be a whole man either.... same difference.

[princealbertofb]

I was circumcised as a baby. So this shit never bothered me like some. I never felt like half a man or some weird view that that.

Mick

That is NOT the point. Fortunately, men who have been circumcised don't feel less men than those who haven't been. But those who've been circumcised will NEVER (stress NEVER) know what they have missed because of some barbaric act imposed on them. I could cut your little finger off, you would not miss it either, you would compensate for its loss. But who in their right mind would accept that the finger were cut off, or a hand, or a foot? Who would have their tonsils or appendix taken out if those organs were not a health problem and until they became a health problem???

[princealbertofb]

I was circumcised as a baby. So this shit never bothered me like some. I never felt like half a man or some weird view that that.

Mick

That sentence is probably a fallacy anyway.... NEVER bothered you? You were too young then to remember now how it bothered you at the time it happened to you.

I know this is a big step to take a comparison, but if you were tortured at some time in your life, only for a short while and then were never subjected to it again, and then chose to forget it, or hid it so far down in your memory or subconscious that you felt it had NEVER bothered you, I'd understand. By the same standards, a child might be beaten black and blue, and then forget about it completely, especially when it only happens once, by mistake.

Nature gave us those hoods. They are full of sensitive nerves. Of course they can be cut off and fortunately it will generally prove to be of little (or so you think) consequence, but that is NOT the point.

The point is a person has a right to their personal bodily INTEGRITY until they can choose what happens to them (except in cases of life threatening diseases or ailments of course). Sometimes too, these circumcisions don't go as expected and end in death.

[Genersis]

To recycle from the other forum i post on:

I never quite understood why it's considered ok for a parent to have their child circumcised strictly for religious reasons.

Why not let the child decide when they are considered old enough to be able to? It's the child's body, not the parents. The parents do not own their children to do with as they wish.
It not like circumcision is reversible, nor is it impossible to get done when the child is older.
What if the child decides they aren't going to follow their parents religion? The decision to have a child that young circumcised is done on the assumptions and preferences of the parents, not considering what the child would want...because you can't possibly know what the child will want at that age, can you?

I think it important considering the child's rights, as it is a part of his body being removed, over the parents, often religious based, preferences.(Which they force on the child through circumcision.)

[princealbertofb]

if left un cut till about 16-18 years old i bet no one would get it done. Its just there is no champion for not getting it done early at birth. I think the individual should judge for them selves and there should be laws enabling that. Any parent that does this to their child has latent personal issues and is not proud who they are.

you cant compare people in Zimbabwe with the UK/ US which has more than adequate access to hygiene. Use a condom; 99% protection level; low tech and available for free here.

during college i worked in a hospital and yes it is indeed wild to see a circumcision procedure. again along the lines; if most parents had to witness it themselves it would not get done.

Sometimes, kids younger than that age have to have the operation because of phimosis, which means the glans cannot be fully exposed and erections can be very painful... this is a medical condition, the operation is justified for great discomfort and possible dangers. I don't think any kid would want the operation done from even a much younger age.

As for parents not getting it done if they saw it, I'm not so sure. The Jews seems to have a big thing about it since they have this ceremony, the BRIS, which is completely public.

What's more, if you look at it in this way, it's really immodest for a grown-up man to be touching a child's penis who isn't even one of his parents or a doctor??? Isn't that molestation?

There's been trouble in the church for such stuff... I know I'm splitting hairs here, but come on! What makes that acceptable and 'normal' more than the Catholic priests who have molested little boys?

[Genersis]

Relax PA.
Try and keep down the emotional hyperbole.
It's not necessary.