Circumcision.

[Spurgy 777]

Out of curiosity, what about children with pierced ears? Also should be prohibited by law? What about finger nails?

Ear piercings should be prohibited, yes, up to a certain age I haven't decided on and I assume you mean cutting finger nails? No. Essentially, and correct me on this if you can think of a reasonable exception, I might be forgetting something obvious, inflicting pain on a child for purely cosmetic reasons shouldn't be legal until they are old enough to be able to give their consent, again I don't know what that age would be.

 

[Danoff]

Ear piercings should be prohibited, yes, up to a certain age I haven't decided on and I assume you mean cutting finger nails? No. Essentially, and correct me on this if you can think of a reasonable exception, I might be forgetting something obvious, inflicting pain on a child for purely cosmetic reasons shouldn't be legal until they are old enough to be able to give their consent, again I don't know what that age would be.

Up until about age 1.5 or so, my kids seemed to think that finger nail cutting was just about the worst thing in the world. But it didn't hurt them.

So I assume that orthodontics for purely cosmetic reasons is absolutely out of the question then, given that those can be quite painful. How about removal of abnormally large moles (google it, it's nasty). Corrective ear surgery for microtia? I assume you would say that cleft palate surgery is not purely cosmetic. Correction of webbed feet? Webbed fingers?

 

[Spurgy 777]

Up until about age 1.5 or so, my kids seemed to think that finger nail cutting was just about the worst thing in the world. But it didn't hurt them.

You can also argue that trimming their nails reduces the chance of them hurting themselves or others as longer nails can obviously catch on things or scratch people more easily. It's also not permanent so when they reach an age where they can rationally decide how long they want their nails to be they still have a choice.

So I assume that orthodontics for purely cosmetic reasons is absolutely out of the question then, given that those can be quite painful. How about removal of abnormally large moles (google it, it's nasty). Corrective ear surgery for microtia? I assume you would say that cleft palate surgery is not purely cosmetic. Correction of webbed feet? Webbed fingers?

Interesting points, I hadn't put much thought into corrective surgery, I want to say it's different to say ear piercings but don't really have a good argument as to why. What do you think?

 

[JKgo]

...Hmm, this is an interesting topic, especially when viewed from a more traditional point of view.

I've gotten it when I was 12 or 13 - can't remember the exact age, although I do remember the excruciating pain and being unable to walk straight for a way too long a time after the op - for medical reasons.

But the funny thing is, it's a rite of passage into adulthood in many African cultures as far as I know. Young boys around the age when I got mine peeled, go to a bare mountainside and spend a couple of weeks in the wilderness with nothing but sticks and stones for comfort and a bunch of strict old men as guides, then, the said guides do the deeds.

Yes, it's as bad as it sounds. A few boys got seriously sick from infection and some even died as a result. Last time I heard, the South African government, as well as a few other African leaders, were thinking of banning the practice, but it kinda fizzled out, I guess, since nothing much has been made out of it.

 

[UKMikey]

http://www.rebelcircus.com/blog/mother-charged-child-abuse-tattooing-children/

I wonder what child tattoos look like when the kid is fully grown.

 

[Danoff]

Interesting points, I hadn't put much thought into corrective surgery, I want to say it's different to say ear piercings but don't really have a good argument as to why. What do you think?

When you've got a kid with a mole that covers a quarter of their head, you want to be able to easily say, that's not normal, that needs to be corrected so that they can have quality of life, they need to look like society expects them to. The same rationale can apply to circumcision or lots of other practices. I do like that we're questioning the practice more these days than we used to, since it seems like an unnecessary risk, with basically no gain. It's good for us to question what we think is normal (in the US, circumcision is considered fairly normal).

On the other hand, it's a flap of skin and has no long term degradation of quality of life.

I don't know, it's a tough call. It sits right around where I'd draw the line. Every time I try to make a strong argument for why I think it should be legal, I talk myself into thinking it should be illegal, and vice versa.

 

[Lizard]

Up until about age 1.5 or so, my kids seemed to think that finger nail cutting was just about the worst thing in the world. But it didn't hurt them.

So I assume that orthodontics for purely cosmetic reasons is absolutely out of the question then, given that those can be quite painful. How about removal of abnormally large moles (google it, it's nasty). Corrective ear surgery for microtia? I assume you would say that cleft palate surgery is not purely cosmetic. Correction of webbed feet? Webbed fingers?

Cutting finger nails was terrible? I used to get in trouble for picking mine and leaving them on the floor as a kid.

 

[DQuaN]

Out of curiosity, what about children with pierced ears? Also should be prohibited by law? What about finger nails?

I understand discussing justification compared to other things but I am absolutely baffled as to how you can compare circumcision to the trimming of fingernails.

 

[Danoff]

I understand discussing justification compared to other things but I am absolutely baffled as to how you can compare circumcision to the trimming of fingernails.

I'm not sure how much of a comparison it was. I was asking where to draw the line when it comes to cutting something off of someone's body. Trimming fingernails is way more rational, less permanent, and less painful. It's not the same, but it is instructive to draw meaningful differences between those and other acts that involve removing things from your child.

 

[PeterJB]

The only way it would compare is if your foreskin grew back after it was cut off.

 

[Danoff]

The only way it would compare is if your foreskin grew back after it was cut off.

I'm not sure how much of a comparison it was.

 

[SestoScudo]

Im born in Australia to Turkish parents. Circumsicion plays an important cultural and religious life among Turkish people.

To be honest thankfully I got circumcized in a childrens hospital where they used anaesthetic. In Turkey its much barbaric where they do it where the boy is awake. My dad told me about this even today in Turkey they still do it. For the boys its painful with screams but the parents throw a party where the kid gets gifts. There is modern hospitals and putting the patient to sleep but many in turkey oppose such a thing because its tradition and that the boy needs to be a man.

I got no problem with circumsicion unless if its done in a hospital where the boy is operated when his asleep. I also find the jewish tradition of rabbis sucking the penis equally awful with the turkish one.

Agree or disagree. If people want circumsicion it should be done in a proper hospital.

 

[Encyclopedia]

On the other hand, it's a flap of skin and has no long term degradation of quality of life.

Well it's a flap of skin with a lot of nerve endings. Particularly below the frenulum. For some, it's the most sensetive part of the penis. So I wouldn't say it has no long term consequences. It does have a purpose.

 

[Imari]

Well it's a flap of skin with a lot of nerve endings. Particularly below the frenulum. For some, it's the most sensetive part of the penis. So I wouldn't say it has no long term consequences. It does have a purpose.

I suspect if you started suggesting that young boys have their nipples removed, there would be more pushback of the "why on earth would we do that" type. They still have no real purpose, and your life is hardly going to be ruined by not having them, but they don't have the history to make it sound like it's a good idea to whip out the pliers and rip them off at birth.

 

[Liquid]

As far as I know, nipples and foreskin don't grow back. Hair and nails do and such a comparison is like chalk and cheese.

To me, a more comparable situation would be not trimming fingernails but removing the actual nail from underneath and not cutting hair but actually taking out every hair follicle so that they cannot grow back and leaving you like a sufferer of alopecia. Both sound as extremely painful as having a foreskin sliced off.

You'd need an anaesthetic for each of them if you were really determined to go through with it.

 

[Danoff]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Agree or disagree. If people want circumsicion it should be done in a proper hospital.

I don't have a problem with people having elective surgery. I do have a problem with people automatically having surgery performed on children, particularly when it's something that changes their experience as an adult.

 

[Danoff]

Rabid anti-abortionists are only slightly saner than anti-circumcisionists.

I tend to think the opposite actually, that the anti-circumcisionists have more of an argument than anti-abortionists. Obviously that's true of female circumcision, but even when we're talking about male circumcision I can see the argument against more than I can see the argument against abortion.

Male circumcision carries with it some risks, and even some potential reduced sensitivity. And while I don't think that successful male circumcision results in degraded quality of life, I do think that an argument can be made that modifying your child's genitals for no good reason might be something that isn't within the purview of parenthood.

 

[TexRex]

Yeah I'm certainly not rabidly anti-circumcision but I do recognize that it's pretty close to genital mutilation, if not exactly that, solely to satisfy religious dictate and that when performed on infants it's done in complete disregard for consent. Maybe it served a purpose once, like not consuming meat and dairy together, possibly because both being susceptible to spoilage presented an unnecessary risk when consumed together, but like with modern refrigeration, modern hygienic practices tend to be such that it's maintained purely for the sake of tradition. Of course not consuming meat and dairy together isn't comparable to cutting off part of the penis, and ultimately, if you're an adult...go nuts?

 

[Duke]

I don't really know where I was going with that, and I do see your point. However, I recently had an encounter with an anti-circumcisionist and some of those people can to go from apparently normal to unhinged, foaming-at-the-mouth furious in milliseconds. Then again I don't suppose they are firebombing any circumcision clinics, either.

I have been told that I am destined to be a child molester and am sexually dysfunctional just because I am circumcised. To the best of my knowledge, neither is true.

I should clarify that I am 100% opposed to female circumcision, which is much more drastic and interferes much more with a normal sexual life (which is, of course, the point).

 

[TexRex]

I should clarify that I am 100% opposed to female circumcision, which is much more drastic and interferes much more with a normal sexual life (which is, of course, the point).

Misogynistic barbarism, full stop.

 

[Danoff]

I don't really know where I was going with that, and I do see your point. However, I recently had an encounter with an anti-circumcisionist and some of those people can to go from apparently normal to unhinged, foaming-at-the-mouth furious in milliseconds. Then again I don't suppose they are firebombing any circumcision clinics, either.

I have been told that I am destined to be a child molester and am sexually dysfunctional just because I am circumcised. To the best of my knowledge, neither is true.

Yea, people get weird.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I should clarify that I am 100% opposed to female circumcision, which is much more drastic and interferes much more with a normal sexual life (which is, of course, the point).

There is no justification for that. We have new laws to try and combat it. I'd love even tougher sentencing.

Its proper term is FGM (female genital mutilation).