Circumcision.

[Danoff]

The thing is, in the mind of a religious person the procedure is as necessary as a medical procedure. We're dealing with a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE, yet quite common, topic here: Can we tell a culture what to do and what no to do with it's own members? It's a topic with no easy answer.

Yes. We call the rules regarding what a culture can do and what they cannot do with it's own members Human Rights.

 

[Joel]

Can we tell a culture what to do and what no to do with it's own members?

Legendary double entendre.

 

[shmogt]

Legendary double entendre.

Lol

 

[CodeRedR51]

Me - Been done? Yes. Do I remember it? No. Do I care? Not really.

A bit personal to share I think, but thought I would contribute.

 

[e30 freek]

Same here with me ^

 

[Callum B]

Same with me, it's had no effect on me.

 

[Minty]

Well that's the thing. For most people they've been that way as long as they can remember.

There's not really any way to know how you'd feel otherwise.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ah, we're still talking about each others' knobs?

 

[Slash]

Well that's the thing. For most people they've been that way as long as they can remember.

There's not really any way to know how you'd feel otherwise.

Like I said before I honestly thought a circumcised penis was how they always looked until I got older. I thought it was normal.

 

[Liquid]

If this thread is going to continue going somewhere, Dennisch quite rightly pointed out in another thread that some people are confusing helmets and hoods.

You don't want your helmet snipped. Nobody wants their glans penis chopped off. Let's clear that up.

 

[Slash]

^^^Ouch....

 

[Encyclopedia]

^ Your username and this thread...

 

[Wiegert]

^ Your username and this thread...

I was considering pointing that out earlier.

 

[Carbonox]

Right. I hope not a lot of people saw my previous 🤬 up. It's all good, let's have a fresh start.

Basically, an email from a petition site:

So yeah, according to this religious court, parents are only allowed to make choices they believe are right if the choices abide by the religious rules. Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Zenith]

Ahh Israel, never change.

 

[Duke]

I support the parents right to choose for whatever reason... BUT, if they choose to have it done, they need to have it done in the most medically hygienic possible way. Frankly, the orthodox Jewish method is disgusting, dangerous, and should be illegal.

I was circumcised at birth and I have always been glad of it, even though I didn't have a say in it. I certainly don't feel I've been missing anything in the sensation and functionality department. I don't see any reason to make it either mandatory or prohibited.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is mutilation that is aimed at depriving the future woman of both sensation and function. It should be outlawed immediately and unilaterally.

 

[dxld]

Circumcision is a little like Wisdom tooth removal and braces. Not totally necessary, but their are so many benefits. I prefer the Jewish way, or the American Hospital methods of Circumcision.

I'm Filipino, but the Filipino method involves a boy who comes of a certain age, the kid lays down on a table, and a coconut shell is used to cover his penis. The kid is then given a leaf to bite down on. A machete is then used to chop the foreskin off and the kid screams in pain and runs into the ocean. It is considered a right of passage to manhood.

There are not many tests of manhood as awesome as letting someone take a machete to a boys wiener.

 

[Imari]

There are not many tests of manhood as awesome as letting someone take a machete to a boys wiener.

Are you sure that's the word for it?

 

[Denur]

I found this to be an interesting statement from the USA based AAP:

Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it...

Complete text:

Abstract: Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.
------------------------------------------------------
Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.

The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare. Male circumcision performed during the newborn period has considerably lower complication rates than when performed later in life.

Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner.

Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices. The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

Findings from the systematic evaluation are available in the accompanying technical report. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

 

[Carbonox]

Circumcision is a little like Wisdom tooth removal and braces. Not totally necessary, but their are so many benefits. I prefer the Jewish way, or the American Hospital methods of Circumcision.

I'm Filipino, but the Filipino method involves a boy who comes of a certain age, the kid lays down on a table, and a coconut shell is used to cover his penis. The kid is then given a leaf to bite down on. A machete is then used to chop the foreskin off and the kid screams in pain and runs into the ocean. It is considered a right of passage to manhood.

There are not many tests of manhood as awesome as letting someone take a machete to a boys wiener.

Glad to see civilization's healthily spreading across the world.

 

[niky]

Well... we don't do the ocean part, anymore. Too much raw sewage floating around out there.

We just douse the wound in rum.

Used to be a common procedure at the hospital (except for the machete part and leaf part and the ocean yada yada yada), with young boys coming in to have it done, but more and more parents are having it done at birth. A whole lot more humane (though not as humane as simply not doing it).

 

[Lucas]

I haven't had mine circumcised. Mainly because I'm not Jewish, and mainly because over here it's not a common practice, apparently as it is in the USA and the UK (or so it would appear from the posts of this thread).

But I would be pissed off to have my penis circumcised because of religious beliefs or cosmetical reasons, rather than medical urgencies.

 

[Danoff]

But I would be pissed off to have my penis circumcised because of religious beliefs or cosmetical reasons, rather than medical urgencies.

I suppose you feel the same way about parents getting their kids' ears pierced.

 

[Lucas]

I suppose you feel the same way about parents getting their kids' ears pierced.

Don't really think about it since I'm a boy, but yeah.

I think it's undoubtedly wrong to pierce kids' ears without their consent. I guess that if I was in that situation myself, however, I wouldn't mind too much.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's undoubtedly wrong to pierce kids' ears without their consent.

True, also no big deal.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

But one is for sanitary purpouses while the other is just to remove libido.
I personally think that female circumcison is totally unecessary, but not necissarily a crime against humanity, as the child is under 18, meaning that her parents have control over it, not the child.

I'm happy to have my foreskin removed, as:

1) It looks better than without a foreskin
2) Cleaning is less of a hassle
3) Girls get less creeped out by it.
4) I don't have some annoying skin that I have to pull back everytime I need to do something.

If you don't like the idea of circumcision, I have one thing for you:

I agree.


I just had to post this moment from the show Scrubs. The babies reaction @0:32 is priceless.

 

[Carbonox]

But one is for sanitary purpouses while the other is just to remove libido.
I personally think that female circumcison is totally unecessary, but not necissarily a crime against humanity, as the child is under 18, meaning that her parents have control over it, not the child.

Old post, but I assume the user's still around.

Would you support the parents' "right" to perform the mutilation on a 17-year-old female? Because according to your logic, everyone under 18 is some sort of property rather than an independent person.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Old post, but I assume the user's still around.

Would you support the parents' "right" to perform the mutilation on a 17-year-old female? Because according to your logic, everyone under 18 is some sort of property rather than an independent person.

No, because as I said in that post:
"I personally think that female circumcison is totally unecessary"

And it seems like you have interpreted my sentence the wrong way. In a black-and-white way, yes, they are almost like a property. However, they are also humans and have the ability to talk about their emotions and body, so in a modern/humanitary way, they are not simply property.

Nice attitude with the roll eyes by the way.

 

[BobK]

Can't really compare ear piercings to circumcision because the piercing will heal eventually if nothing is worn in it, the foreskin won't grow back.

That being said, I don't agree with piercing toddlers' ears or any other body part for that matter.

 

[Carbonox]

No, because as I said in that post:
"I personally think that female circumcison is totally unecessary"

And it seems like you have interpreted my sentence the wrong way. In a black-and-white way, yes, they are almost like a property. However, they are also humans and have the ability to talk about their emotions and body, so in a modern/humanitary way, they are not simply property.

Nice attitude with the roll eyes by the way.

Rather than "under 18" you could've said "not old enough to understand the world around them" to make a lot more sense. Now the post simply categorized any underage person as someone whose parents have complete control over their life, regardless of whether they give consent or not. (Ugh, that's creepy)

My inner semi-militant liberal tends to kick in when I see those types of posts. Even though you don't (hopefully) seem to be the kind of person who would go around requesting every male newborn to have their foreskin go chop chop.