Circumcision in America: Should it be the parents choice? - General

I'm circumcised, and honestly I don't care. I think the choice should be left to the parents because if they want it, it's their baby. I'm not saying parents SHOULD be able to mutilate genitalia, but if they want to, nobody has the right to judge.

Part of me says, "It's just foreskin. You don't really benefit from having it or not having it". The other part says, "It's still the child's body and no one except them should be able to change it physically".

[QUOTE=atttapi0;35854750]I'm circumcised, and honestly I don't care. I think the choice should be left to the parents because if they want it, it's their baby. I'm not saying parents SHOULD be able to mutilate genitalia, but if they want to, nobody has the right to judge.[/QUOTE] This argument basically makes the baby the property of the parents and not a sentient human being who should be in control of adjustments to their body. Basically: bad argument. Why should the parents be allowed to decide whether their child has a circumcision or not? After all, it's not their penis that's being changed, they shouldn't have a say in it outside of medical conditions.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35853750]I don't remember anything about my circumcision.[/QUOTE] You could say that about repressed sexual abuse too.

[QUOTE=atttapi0;35854750]I'm circumcised, and honestly I don't care. I think the choice should be left to the parents because if they want it, it's their baby. I'm not saying parents SHOULD be able to mutilate genitalia, but if they want to, nobody has the right to judge.[/QUOTE] So you're saying that parents own a kid and can do whatever they want to them?

[QUOTE=Jookia;35855582]You could say that about repressed sexual abuse too.[/QUOTE] Those are two entirely different things. ...did you really just compare rape to circumcision? Because the former is truly harmful, and I can't say I know any cases where people who are circumcised are emotionally unstable or scarred because of something their parents chose to do.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35862720]Those are two entirely different things. ...did you really just compare rape to circumcision? Because the former is truly harmful, and I can't say I know any cases where people who are circumcised are emotionally unstable or scarred because of something their parents chose to do.[/QUOTE] genital mutilation is comparable to other sexual abuses, no matter how culturally accepted it is. Do think think the tradition of female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) isn't harmful? [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Also please don't say the foreskin serves no purpose or that it's medically necessary to remove it. That has already been addressed.

Wait wtf, they do this in America? I thought only fucked up religious people did this. Wow. This makes me kinda upset, but also VERY glad I don't live in America.

[QUOTE=Warship;35862827]Wait wtf, they do this in America? I thought only fucked up religious people did this. Wow. This makes me kinda upset, but also VERY glad I don't live in America.[/QUOTE] You think that's bad? There has been some controversy over the years over some doctors circumcising newborns [I]without[/I] asking for the parents' consent. That's how culturally ubiquitous the ritual is stateside.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35862854]You think that's bad? There has been some controversy over the years over some doctors circumcising newborns [I]without[/I] asking for the parents' consent. That's how culturally ubiquitous the ritual is stateside.[/QUOTE] I'd definitely be pissed as a parent in that situation.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35862720]Those are two entirely different things. ...did you really just compare rape to circumcision? Because the former is truly harmful, and I can't say I know any cases where people who are circumcised are emotionally unstable or scarred because of something their parents chose to do.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that you argument is stupid because not remembering doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Is it okay to hurt people if they won't remember it later?

[QUOTE=Jookia;35863345]I'm saying that you argument is stupid because not remembering doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Is it okay to hurt people if they won't remember it later?[/QUOTE] And comparing circumcision to rape isn't stupid? People forget rape because it's painful, it's a traumatizing experience. I don't see anyone saying they were traumatized by circumcision. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35862781]genital mutilation is comparable to other sexual abuses, no matter how culturally accepted it is. Do think think the tradition of female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) isn't harmful? [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Also please don't say the foreskin serves no purpose or that it's medically necessary to remove it. That has already been addressed.[/QUOTE] It is harmful, physically, but it isn't comparable to rape, end of story.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35864837]It is harmful, physically, but it isn't comparable to rape, end of story.[/QUOTE] Really? Because the charges for genital mutilation are strangely similar to the charges for rape. Generally because it is considered pseudo-rape when inflicted upon people who are not infants. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Can you tell me the difference between mutilating a newborn's genitals and mutilating a ten-year-old's genitals?

[QUOTE=Warship;35862827]Wait wtf, they do this in America? I thought only fucked up religious people did this. Wow. This makes me kinda upset, but also VERY glad I don't live in America.[/QUOTE] The only religions that promote circumcision are Judaism and Islam, I believe.

[QUOTE=Funky Pickle;35865095]The only religions that promote circumcision are Judaism and Islam, I believe.[/QUOTE] Christianity, bro. Especially Catholicism. All of the abrahamic religions promote male circumcision. Some sects of each also partake in female circumcision.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35864837]And comparing circumcision to rape isn't stupid? People forget rape because it's painful, it's a traumatizing experience. I don't see anyone saying they were traumatized by circumcision. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] It is harmful, physically, but it isn't comparable to rape, end of story.[/QUOTE] I'm not comparing circumcision to rape. I'm comparing one set of events not being remembered to another set of events not being remembers, and emphasizing that even though the victim doesn't remember, the damage is still there.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35864887]Really? Because the charges for genital mutilation are strangely similar to the charges for rape. Generally because it is considered pseudo-rape when inflicted upon people who are not infants.[/QUOTE] Context is everything. I don't know what it's like to have foreskin because I never experienced it, nor was I traumatically affected by the event. But someone who is raped? That's a turning point emotionally and physically. I just don't see how rape is comparable to genital mutilation. [QUOTE=Lankist;35864887]Can you tell me the difference between mutilating a newborn's genitals and mutilating a ten-year-old's genitals?[/QUOTE] What-ifs are a shitty basis for an argument, but I'll humor you. The newborn isn't going to remember it, nor be traumatized. I'm not trying to justify it, but if you cut off a kid's foreskin when he's 10 year old he's gonna be more severely affected than if you did it when he was little. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Jookia;35865313]I'm not comparing circumcision to rape. I'm comparing one set of events not being remembered to another set of events not being remembers, and emphasizing that even though the victim doesn't remember, the damage is still there.[/QUOTE] Physically, but again, rape is more about the emotional trauma, not the physical. I don't see anyone saying they were traumatized by circumcision when they were a newborn.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35865502]Context is everything. I don't know what it's like to have foreskin because I never experienced it, nor was I traumatically affected by the event. But someone who is raped? That's a turning point emotionally and physically. I just don't see how rape is comparable to genital mutilation.[/QUOTE] Most victims of date-rape neither remember the experience nor even realize that they had been raped. Does that make it not-rape? You're implying that something is only a crime if the victim realizes they have been assailed. That is simply untrue.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35865310]Christianity, bro. Especially Catholicism. All of the abrahamic religions promote male circumcision. Some sects of each also partake in female circumcision.[/QUOTE] The Roman Catholic Church is currently neutral on the subject. Previously, however, they denounced it.

And yet its practitioners still undergo the ritual.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35865784]And yet its practitioners still undergo the ritual.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]

[QUOTE=Lankist;35864887]Really? Because the charges for genital mutilation are strangely similar to the charges for rape. Generally because it is considered pseudo-rape when inflicted upon people who are not infants. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Can you tell me the difference between mutilating a newborn's genitals and mutilating a ten-year-old's genitals?[/QUOTE] Am I the only one that gets pissed off about the sensationalism of calling circumcision genital mutilation? Let me say up front that I agree that the tradition of infant circumcision should end. The parent shouldn't have that kind of control over the body of a child that cannot make the decision for himself. Any logical examination of the ethics of the debate should bring a person to that conclusion. But it's like uncircumcised people think that masturbation is practically impossible or difficult for circumcised people, or that sex doesn't feel good. I believe that in the last thread about this there was even someone who was insisting that circumcised people couldn't masturbate without lube? Now I'm not saying that mutilate isn't technically an acceptable word to refer to the process, but it carries such a loaded connotation, and doesn't really have a place in rational debate. And rational debate is what this section is for, isn't it? [QUOTE=Lankist;35862781]genital mutilation is comparable to other sexual abuses, no matter how culturally accepted it is. Do think think the tradition of female circumcision (removal of the clitoris) isn't harmful? [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] Also please don't say the foreskin serves no purpose or that it's medically necessary to remove it. That has already been addressed.[/QUOTE] And I know that last page you said that you weren't saying that female circumcision was equal to male circumcision, but here you go again with a post that seems to imply that it is. It really, really isn't. A procedure that almost entirely removes the ability of a woman to feel pleasure is hardly comparable to male circumcision, in which only an apparently slight drop in sensitivity is recorded to occur. It's like putting vasectomy or removal of the penis or scrotum entirely next to male circumcision. And the assertion that the prevalence of circumcision in America is due to religious reasons is incorrect, and a myth. Though male circumcision is present in Abrahamic religion, it was the misinformed medical belief that circumcised penises were less likely to spread venereal disease that led to both British and American armies during world war 1 and 2 circumcising soldiers. The circumcision of the soldiers led to their children being circumcised, both them and their doctors believing that it had beneficial effects. The main reason for the eventual divergence between American and British circumcision rates after world war 2 was the incredibly high availability of health insurance in America that was willing to pay for a procedure that, although seen as beneficial at the time, was unnecessary. After that it just got stuck in the culture and now most men in the US are circumcised. It's going to make its way out eventually though, even if slowly. Those who bother to do the research into it will see that it's unnecessary and overall detrimental, and the number of circumcisions will decline. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we ended up with a small minority of conservatives desperately rallying against a law making male circumcision illegal someday after most of moderate society has passed them by.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35865825][citation needed][/QUOTE] you want me to prove that most cocks in america are circumcised it's not as though that's the fucking premise of this thread.

I don't think circumcision is a big deal, but it really should be the kids choice. Even in Amish communities parents allow their children the choice whether or not to abandon their culture and the culture is all the stronger for it. I.E. when its the kids choice to follow tradition it means a whole lot more so why not let the kid decide. Circumcision is no different. [QUOTE=Lankist;35865954]you want me to prove that most cocks in america are circumcised it's not as though that's the fucking premise of this thread.[/QUOTE] ...Wouldn't that mean it should be proven even more? I mean, I don't dispute the claim, but its poor debating to brush that aside.

[QUOTE=froztshock;35865914]Am I the only one that gets pissed off about the sensationalism of calling circumcision genital mutilation? Let me say up front that I agree that the tradition of infant circumcision should end. The parent shouldn't have that kind of control over the body of a child that cannot make the decision for himself. Any logical examination of the ethics of the debate should bring a person to that conclusion. But it's like uncircumcised people think that masturbation is practically impossible or difficult for circumcised people, or that sex doesn't feel good. I believe that in the last thread about this there was even someone who was insisting that circumcised people couldn't masturbate without lube? Now I'm not saying that mutilate isn't technically an acceptable word to refer to the process, but it carries such a loaded connotation, and doesn't really have a place in rational debate. And rational debate is what this section is for, isn't it? And I know that last page you said that you weren't saying that female circumcision was equal to male circumcision, but here you go again with a post that seems to imply that it is. It really, really isn't. A procedure that almost entirely removes the ability of a woman to feel pleasure is hardly comparable to male circumcision, in which only an apparently slight drop in sensitivity is recorded to occur. It's like putting vasectomy or removal of the penis or scrotum entirely next to male circumcision. And the assertion that the prevalence of circumcision in America is due to religious reasons is incorrect, and a myth. Though male circumcision is present in Abrahamic religion, it was the misinformed medical belief that circumcised penises were less likely to spread venereal disease that led to both British and American armies during world war 1 and 2 circumcising soldiers. The circumcision of the soldiers led to their children being circumcised, both them and their doctors believing that it had beneficial effects. The main reason for the eventual divergence between American and British circumcision rates after world war 2 was the incredibly high availability of health insurance in America that was willing to pay for a procedure that, although seen as beneficial at the time, was unnecessary. After that it just got stuck in the culture and now most men in the US are circumcised. It's going to make its way out eventually though, even if slowly. Those who bother to do the research into it will see that it's unnecessary and overall detrimental, and the number of circumcisions will decline. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually we ended up with a small minority of conservatives desperately rallying against a law making male circumcision illegal someday after most of moderate society has passed them by.[/QUOTE] But the fact remains that it IS harmful, regardless of its extent. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Azaer;35866233]I don't think circumcision is a big deal, but it really should be the kids choice. Even in Amish communities parents allow their children the choice whether or not to abandon their culture and the culture is all the stronger for it. I.E. when its the kids choice to follow tradition it means a whole lot more so why not let the kid decide. Circumcision is no different. ...Wouldn't that mean it should be proven even more? I mean, I don't dispute the claim, but its poor debating to brush that aside.[/QUOTE] It's like asking for proof that most people in the American south speak in a southern accent. It is ubiquitous to the point of being common knowledge.

The claim being made was that the Roman Church practitioners still circumcised boys. Could you back that up? I'd still like to argue that it doesn't matter what the Roman Church's standing is, it matters what the people's stand is.

[QUOTE=Jookia;35866482]The claim being made was that the Roman Church practitioners still circumcised boys. Could you back that up? I'd still like to argue that it doesn't matter what the Roman Church's standing is, it matters what the people's stand is.[/QUOTE] There are roughly 66.5 million practicing catholics in the United States. Unless you think the majority of those people actually gave a shit what the pope said and didn't get snipped, then the religion's practitioners still partake in the ritual. Fact is, the majority of men in the US have been circumcised, and the most populous religion in the US is catholicism. Put two and two together here and you will get four. A similar example: The Vatican accepted evolutionary theory as scientific fact quite some time ago. And yet the Catholic League is one of the most prominent lobbying groups against teaching evolution. [editline]7th May 2012[/editline] (FYI American catholics don't really give a shit what the Pope says, they sort of do whatever the hell they want)

[QUOTE=Lankist;35866650](FYI American catholics don't really give a shit what the Pope says, they sort of do whatever the hell they want)[/QUOTE] So then religious precedent doesn't really matter, does it? Because then American catholics, according to you, are not real Roman catholics.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;35866850]So then religious precedent doesn't really matter, does it? Because then American catholics, according to you, are not real Roman catholics.[/QUOTE] I didn't say Roman Catholics. You did. I said "Catholicism", in the context of a thread about America. In fact, if you CTRL+F, this is the first time I have said the word "Roman" in this entire thread. Stop trying to argue semantics over things I didn't even say.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35866963]I didn't say Roman Catholics. You did. I said "Catholicism", in the context of a thread about America. In fact, if you CTRL+F, this is the first time I have said the word "Roman" in this entire thread. Stop trying to argue semantics over things I didn't even say.[/QUOTE] Considering you've been using what-ifs and scary buzzwords like mutilation, as well as refusing requests to back things up with empirical evidence, semantics is fair game.