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

[princealbertofb]

Genersis, I'm getting a bit annoyed now by people who don't understand because they'll never KNOW what it's like, and by that standard, what they have experienced is good enough. And so they decree that the operation isn't that serious. No, it's not good enough. Even you agree with me.

I'll never know what it means to be a woman, but I can try to understand what it's about, no? Just a question of being able to step in someone else's shoes for a moment. People who have been circumcised in their infancy will not remember what it was like to have a foreskin and will never be able to gain that sensitivity and part of their body back. I'm sorry for them because they had no choice in the matter. Those who say they don't miss it, don't know that they are missing it, so can't judge and why does their not missing it mean that someone else might not miss it?

The debate isn't even about whether it's better to be circumcised or to be intact (a personal opinion or choice, when we start thinking about it), the question is about giving personal choice and conserving integrity and showing respect for another human being's right to their whole body. Too many people seem to be downplaying the term 'mutilation'. That's what it is.

[OrphanPip]

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?

Well it's clearly not the same since it's being done in public and not for the sexual gratification of the mohel. If a baby is left with a babysitter I wouldn't accuse them of being a pervert if they cleaned the child after a mess.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't think the right of the individual to self-determination is entirely relevant in this case. For children we often make decisions for them, many of which can have just as much influence as a circumcision, and no one bats an eye about it.

I think it is quite fair to say the operation isn't that serious, considering hundreds of millions (maybe even a billion) men have undergone it without much sign of mass harm.

It may indeed be a bad decision for a parent to take, but I'm far from accepting the proposition that it shouldn't be available to parents as a choice.

[Genersis]

Genersis, I'm getting a bit annoyed now by people who don't understand because they'll never KNOW what it's like, and by that standard, what they have experienced is good enough. And so they decree that the operation isn't that serious. No, it's not good enough. Even you agree with me.

I'll never know what it means to be a woman, but I can try to understand what it's about, no? Just a question of being able to step in someone else's shoes for a moment. People who have been circumcised in their infancy will not remember what it was like to have a foreskin and will never be able to gain that sensitivity and part of their body back. I'm sorry for them because they had no choice in the matter. Those who say they don't miss it, don't know that they are missing it, so can't judge and why does their not missing it mean that someone else might not miss it?

The debate isn't even about whether it's better to be circumcised or to be intact (a personal opinion or choice, when we start thinking about it), the question is about giving personal choice and conserving integrity and showing respect for another human being's right to their whole body. Too many people seem to be downplaying the term 'mutilation'. That's what it is.

I understand how easy it is to get emotionally involved.
It's quite a sensitive subject to me, for reasons i'd rather not get into.

My point is, you're forcing people into a box by appealing to emotion.
Your comparison to molestation being a rather ridiculously charged false equivocation(OrphanPip has explained how rather well); implying opposing your position is like being ok with molestation.
It introduces aggression that makes discussion impossible.

[Genersis]

...
Like I said in my earlier post, I don't think the right of the individual to self-determination is entirely relevant in this case. For children we often make decisions for them, many of which can have just as much influence as a circumcision, and no one bats an eye about it.

Sure there's some pretty serious decisions parents must make for their children, circumcision rarely is a decision made out of necessity.
I'm not sure there is any other permanent cosmetic medical procedures which are performed on newborns out of personal preference.

I think it is quite fair to say the operation isn't that serious, considering hundreds of millions (maybe even a billion) men have undergone it without much sign of mass harm.

No, it's not serious.
It is irreversible, and done without consent.
Like removing a newborn's earlobes would be.(though, circumcision likely has more possibility for complication.)
As i said in one of my older posts, i'd rather such a decision was down to the person who has to live their life with a permanently modified body.
Rather than the preference of that person's parents.

It may indeed be a bad decision for a parent to take, but I'm far from accepting the proposition that it shouldn't be available to parents as a choice.

I guess we differ on the latter.

[Sylph]

I don't know about you guy's countries, but here, it's a choice for the parent's to make, not normally for religious reasons.

My Dad split early on and my mom was 14 when she had me[don't ask, it's a long story I'd rather not share], so she didn't know all the details and blah blah, so she told the doctor, "Like Father, Like Son" and that ladies and gentlemen, is how I found out my Dad was Circumsized... not something I wanted to know, but oh well.

I don't really care...

I personally don't know if I'd like one or the other better, but I'm just glad with what I have now

All the risks and complications and biases and what ever, is not something I think I'd personally try to take on, no offense Princey, I respect you for it, it's just not something I want to tackle, and so if a parent decides their child is to be circumsized or not, that's the choice they've made, wether it's right or wrong.

Parent's normally and generally should only do what they believe is best for their child and even if they are sometimes wrong, it's their decisions and their lives and their children.

If my mom hadn't had me circumsized, I'd probably have grown up and want to get circumsized, just because of who I am now, although I would probably be different in my views of this particular topic, due to the fact that I would've probably been on the opposite side of my view now, so I can't technically say, but knowing myself now, this is what I believe I would do.

Not because of what a religion says; I'm Agnostic, Not because of what my parents say; My Father is absent and my Mother allows me to be me, Not because of what Society says; because I don't give a shit and definitely not because of an opinion based upon statistical data that says I should do this or that, because I've always been an individual and free-spirit, even in ignorance sometimes...

To each his own and I respect that.

If I adopt a Male child and I believe leaving him uncircumsized is the best option, then I shall, not necessarily to give him a choice, although I will always allow any child I have to make their own decisions[within reasonable logic], but it's what I believe is the best choice.

And if he grows up to want to get a circumsition, then that's his decision, but that wasn't the primary reason for the decision, even though it's a benefitial side-effect.

I don't know, I just believe parent's should do what they believe is best for their children.

What if you give your child a circumsition and he grows up to desperately want Foreskin? Though he now wants Foreskin, at the time, it's what you felt was right, even though he now wants Foreskin. Vice Versa for boys with Foreskin.

It's basically 50/50.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, I just wanted to give my Queenly opinion .

[princealbertofb]

Well it's clearly not the same since it's being done in public and not for the sexual gratification of the mohel. If a baby is left with a babysitter I wouldn't accuse them of being a pervert if they cleaned the child after a mess.

Like I said in my earlier post, I don't think the right of the individual to self-determination is entirely relevant in this case. For children we often make decisions for them, many of which can have just as much influence as a circumcision, and no one bats an eye about it.

I think it is quite fair to say the operation isn't that serious, considering hundreds of millions (maybe even a billion) men have undergone it without much sign of mass harm.

It may indeed be a bad decision for a parent to take, but I'm far from accepting the proposition that it shouldn't be available to parents as a choice.

Thank you for your post, Michael, but its relative innocuousness is still NOT the point. And please see below, in an answer to Genersis, why I think this is a question of YES or NO. The "Maybe" should be medically informed, not otherwise (aesthetic, or religious - which seem to be the two principle concepts driving this). Oh btw, circumcison is also a great financial addition to the medical profession's pay (just saying). There's a whole industry out there. Should we (not) put them out of work?

I would only agree with you if it was life threatening.
A similar right I would also give if it was to CORRECT an anomaly that might later be used as a discrimination, such as a cleft palate. I hear they often correct those as soon as the baby can take the operation. But that's a correction to something that is abnormal and can lead to discrimination.
Now I know, you're going to say that not being cut in a generally cut society can lead to discrimination. I say let the kids choose to have it done, when he's old enough to speak for or against it. He can decide if this is a sacrifice he'd like to make.
You might also argue, that arranged / forced marriages don't 'harm' a person. Well, they can do if they are forced. The UK is now taking up arms in legislation to ban this. It's legitimising personal choice.

[princealbertofb]

I don't know about you guy's countries, but here, it's a choice for the parent's to make, not normally for religious reasons.

My Dad split early on and my mom was 14 when she had me[don't ask, it's a long story I'd rather not share], so she didn't know all the details and blah blah, so she told the doctor, "Like Father, Like Son" and that ladies and gentlemen, is how I found out my Dad was Circumsized... not something I wanted to know, but oh well.

I don't really care...

I personally don't know if I'd like one or the other better, but I'm just glad with what I have now

All the risks and complications and biases and what ever, is not something I think I'd personally try to take on, no offense Princey, I respect you for it, it's just not something I want to tackle, and so if a parent decides their child is to be circumsized or not, that's the choice they've made, wether it's right or wrong.

Parent's normally and generally should only do what they believe is best for their child and even if they are sometimes wrong, it's their decisions and their lives and their children.

If my mom hadn't had me circumsized, I'd probably have grown up and want to get circumsized, just because of who I am now, although I would probably be different in my views of this particular topic, due to the fact that I would've probably been on the opposite side of my view now, so I can't technically say, but knowing myself now, this is what I believe I would do.

Not because of what a religion says; I'm Agnostic, Not because of what my parents say; My Father is absent and my Mother allows me to be me, Not because of what Society says; because I don't give a shit and definitely not because of an opinion based upon statistical data that says I should do this or that, because I've always been an individual and free-spirit, even in ignorance sometimes...

To each his own and I respect that.

If I adopt a Male child and I believe leaving him uncircumsized is the best option, then I shall, not necessarily to give him a choice, although I will always allow any child I have to make their own decisions[within reasonable logic], but it's what I believe is the best choice.

And if he grows up to want to get a circumsition, then that's his decision, but that wasn't the primary reason for the decision, even though it's a benefitial side-effect.

I don't know, I just believe parent's should do what they believe is best for their children.

What if you give your child a circumsition and he grows up to desperately want Foreskin? Though he now wants Foreskin, at the time, it's what you felt was right, even though he now wants Foreskin. Vice Versa for boys with Foreskin.

It's basically 50/50.

I hope I didn't offend anyone, I just wanted to give my Queenly opinion .

OK, let's just say this.
There is nothing wrong with the child. The doctors leave him intact. OK???
There is something wrong with the child... life threatening, or slightly abnormal, we try to get it fixed. OK???
So far, so good.
The doctor only suggests to the parents to have something corrected if it's wrong, ok???
If you keep following me: homosexuality is no longer considered wrong or sick by the medical profession. If there was a pill or surgery or some way to correct it (and that's supposing it was still considered a disease), what choice should we give the parents? Correct it, or not?

The same analogy, though you'll probably think it's different, is for left handers and right handers... Something that is hard wired. For centuries, schools have tried to correct it, before learning to handle it and cope.

Now to you Queenie, supposing you had a male child (I know, this might never ever happen, but I'm going to give you the parents' choice: CUT or LEAVE ALONE?) Your answer, please?

I'm afraid if you adopt a male child, the deed may already have been done.

And just for reminders, I know that there must be quite a few males who during the last world war would have been happy not to be circumcised... and that's not even to consider their sexual gratification.

[princealbertofb]

Btw, Queenie, you've proved my point... which is that people who've been circumcised in infancy don't have the (memory, sensation) tools to say whether it's better or not better (in terms of how it feels), whatever they think of the social or religious consequences. The rest is just pointless opinion.

[princealbertofb]

I understand how easy it is to get emotionally involved.
It's quite a sensitive subject to me, for reasons i'd rather not get into.

My point is, you're forcing people into a box by appealing to emotion.
Your comparison to molestation being a rather ridiculously charged false equivocation(OrphanPip has explained how rather well); implying opposing your position is like being ok with molestation.
It introduces aggression that makes discussion impossible.

We are talking about mutilation here... Some people seem to think that it isn't a mutilation... I think you'll agree with me that mutilation is aggressive. The child might not remember it or feel it for very long, it is true... Maybe you are failing to see why it should be stopped on grounds of unnecessary aggression against someone's physical integrity... although, you seem to agree with me on the right to the person's choice.
The fact is this is only a two way choice for the parent: CUT or leave UNCUT, and as you said, no going back, irreversible. So it is rather black and white.
You're either in one box, or the other.
Another point to this case: should we give the women the right to decide what's best for us in this respect? After all, my mother was the one who took the decision for my baby brother. Although it was ironic that he had to have the operation later on in life, she never regretted her choice at birth. The doctor was Jewish and American, she was neither, she didn't see the need for it. None of her four sons were circumcised at birth.

[wanderingboy]

Why do you have a chip on your shoulder about this? If you are uncut, it doesn't affect you. If you were cut, then there's nothing to be done about it (and most cut guys don't really mind it).


On a completely irrelevant note, I much prefer cut guys. Uncut ones always smell a little.