Is Circumcision A Form Of Child Abuse ?

[Mythical_Suicide]

obviously if you refer to it as mutilation that puts a bias on the question. I don't consider it to be mutilation and female and male genitals are completely different in that respect - there is no extra flap of skin that can be removed without harming the genitalia or providing medical benefits to the circumcised individual.

 

My sons pediatrician made a good point, you can somewhat compare the foreskin of a guys penis to the labia of a woman.

[Aleadragonhawk]

I think that it's important in this discussion to consider what the foreskin really is and what it does. Being so rich in nerve endings is for me reason to not circumsize my future children - I wouldn't want to deny my sons sexual pleasure later on in life because a purely cosmetic procedure was considered normal in my country.

[shadesofmediocrity]

I think I'll let you more informed types duke it out here and observe and ponder...I am a little tempted to start on the religious aspect but I'll stop myself. That's a topic I have much zeal about and may offend somebody, plus I'm heading to bed soon. I'm a radical atheist à la Douglas Adams. Archaic religious traditions bother me as well as fascinate me.

 

I'm being funny

 

It serves it's purpose as a form of birth control

 

Well obviously... *cough* lmao.

[Mythical_Suicide]

Oh..I forgot to mention...IT LOOKS BETTER

 

They're all equally ugly to me, foreskin or not.. LOL

[watupgangsta]

i don't know if this is just here in the northeastern united states but i live in an affluent neighborhood and the vast majority of my friends say they are circumsized. i always thought that most people who had access to good doctors were circumsized? maybe i was totally off on that.

[Batya33]

I don't agree that that comparison is a fair one as far as the impact of removing a foreskin as compared to removing the labia.

[shadesofmediocrity]

Oh..I forgot to mention...IT LOOKS BETTER

 

Honestly I think they are more aesthetically pleasing un-fooled around with.

[m12988]

Well, anyone on this thread who is saying that uncircumcised penises are ugly and gross, are obviously very naive and shallow. If you don't want to circumcise your sons, then that's totally cool, but don't say childish things towards people who kept what nature gave to them.

[Mythical_Suicide]

Well, anyone on this thread who is saying that uncircumcised penises are ugly and gross, are obviously very naive and shallow. If you don't want to circumcise your sons, then that's totally cool, but don't say childish things towards people who kept what nature gave to them.

 

A-freakin-MEN!

[tiredofvampires]

Fruitylips, that was an interesting link, but I have to agree with the comments of shadesofmediocrity: if something's not broken, don't meddle with it.

 

Nature has evolved to the point that every organ serves us. The clitoris has a prepuce (foreskin) and so does the head of the penis. These structures contain HUGE amounts of nerves (you are removing about 6 miles or so of nerves in a male foreskin, if memory serves me correctly), lubricative glands, and smoothe muscle (which helps it retract). So you are tearing off a part of the penis. It is not just a flap. It was put there by nature for evolutionary purposes, and is homologous to all the structures of the female genitalia. While it's not exactly correct to say that clitoris removal is the same as foreskin removal on a man, it would be somethin like removing the clitoral hood.

[tiredofvampires]

Unless there is a significant problem with the foreskin (or religion, which i totally understand), there is no need to mutilate what god has given us.

 

 

I am in agreement with your position, except why should we make allowances for people's religions? I come from the premier religion associated with this practice, and I feel it's good to be politically correct and respect people's religious beliefs, but this is where religion should be questioned. If a tribe in Africa says it's their religion to mutilate genitals, or any other part of the body, does that make it exempt? I think not.

[m12988]

Fruitylips, that was an interesting link, but I have to agree with the comments of shadesofmediocrity: if something's not broken, don't meddle with it.

 

Nature has evolved to the point that every organ serves us. The clitoris has a prepuce (foreskin) and so does the head of the penis. These structures contain HUGE amounts of nerves (you are removing about 6 miles or so of nerves in a male foreskin, if memory serves me correctly), lubricative glands, and smoothe muscle (which helps it retract). So you are tearing off a part of the penis. It is not just a flap. It was put there by nature for evolutionary purposes, and is homologous to all the structures of the female genitalia. While it's not exactly correct to say that clitoris removal is the same as foreskin removal on a man, it would be somethin like removing the clitoral hood.

 

Yes, because when we are concieved, we all start off as females. Then, the genetalia grows into a penis and testicals and yada yada...so our genetalia is all the same basically, just functions differently. So yeah, cutting your clitoris is the same as cutting a penis.

[watupgangsta]

if a tribe in africa says its their religion, they are absolutly exempt. there is no absolute wrong or right answer as to whether things like these are good or bad. its all relative... if someone wants to do it, of course they have that right. and no not everything on our body still serves a practical function... just look at the appendix.

[m12988]

I am in agreement with your position, except why should we make allowances for people's religions? I come from the premier religion associated with this practice, and I feel it's good to be politically correct and respect people's religious beliefs, but this is where religion should be questioned. If a tribe in Africa says it's their religion to mutilate genitals, or any other part of the body, does that make it exempt? I think not.

 

Yeah, i dont believe religions should circumcise either, but it seems when you try to mess with people's religions they get too offended so i'm not even gonna try to talk about that, lol. But yeah, If i was one of those religions, i would still say no to circumcising.

[shadesofmediocrity]

if a tribe africa says its their religion, they are absolutly exempt. their is no absolute wrong or right answer as to whether things like these are good or bad. its all relative... if someone wants to do it, of course they have that right.

 

Okay, I'm jumping out of the backseat again...lmao.

Relativism, yay! It isn't concretely "wrong" or "right", no, but it's downright silly. Religious reasons may be compelling to some but completely unreasonable to others. If somebody has the power and will to do something and some reason to do it, they're going to. We can all only speak for ourselves here pretty much.

[Samedy]

I think it is fairly barbaric if they don't use anesthesia. The type of crying exhibited after the circumcision is not that of a normal babies cry. After a circumcision the characteristics of the baby's cry, is also seen in babies that are mentally disabled/ brain damaged.

 

Having said that, I had to be circumcised when I was 21 because of medical reasons. They put me completely out (general anesthesia) and it took about a month to heal.

 

Did it hurt? In some ways it hurt a lot more than I ever expected, where a loose thread could bring my whole body to a halt because of the shock and pain. But I could sleep fairly easily, as long as nothing was touching my "area". Getting erections during sleep (aka morning wood) was probably the most painful aspect of it. It felt like razor-wire ripping down my shaft when that occurred. I would have to hobble down to the freeze to get an ice pack every time.

 

And now everyone knows Samedy a bit better.

[tiredofvampires]

if a tribe in africa says its their religion, they are absolutly exempt. there is no absolute wrong or right answer as to whether things like these are good or bad. its all relative... if someone wants to do it, of course they have that right. and no not everything on our body still serves a practical function... just look at the appendix.

 

Wrong, and wrong:

 

-- A tribe in Africa cuts off a woman's clitoris, citing religious reasons (this is done a lot in Islamic African countries, too, as part of Islam.) You saying women should go around without part of their genitals for life because someone "has the right" to make that decision to grab a 9 year old little girl, subdue her with 4 people, and slice off her healthy body parts? Who has that right?

 

-- EVERYTHING serves a function in our body. Some are less well-understood than others, but the appendix is a piece of lymph tissue. What lymph does is help monitor bacteria and filter toxins, it's like your tonsils, adenoids and spleen, all are part of the immune system. You can live without this tissue, but that is less protection you have in that area. Sometimes the appendix is overwhelmed and gets infected (like the tonsils) and MUST be removed. But there is no reason to remove an appendix or any other organ unless there is a serious problem with function occurring. We are the product of millions of years of evolution and you have to understand that over these MILLIONS of years, nature did away with things that just had no more relevance to the organism. Nature is HIGHLY economical that way. There is no reason to provide nutrients and bloodflow to a part of the body and waste resources without it having a role in the whole. We may dismiss its importance, but that is ignorance on our parts, not nature's.

[tiredofvampires]

And now everyone knows Samedy a bit better.

 

Lol. Actually I remember you from the thread I posted months ago on this, asking for men's opinions because of my nephew-in-the-making! Thanks for you input again, that was really helpful. It's not every day you get to hear a "before and after" take on this.

[Gracelove]

Whoa, circumscion is not abuse.

 

Have you seen pictures of uncircumsied penises?! Gross! It's good to have a circumscied penis says Dr. Oz. It's more healthy.

[shadesofmediocrity]

But there is no reason to remove an appendix or any other organ unless there is a serious problem with function occurring. We are the product of millions of years of evolution and you have to understand that over these MILLIONS of years, nature did away with things that just had no more relevance to the organism. Nature is HIGHLY economical that way. There is no reason to provide nutrients and bloodflow to a part of the body and waste resources without it having a role in the whole. We may dismiss its importance, but that is ignorance on our parts, not nature's.

 

I fully concur.

[Mythical_Suicide]

Whoa, circumscion is not abuse.

 

Have you seen pictures of uncircumsied penises?! Gross! It's good to have a circumscied penis says Dr. Oz. It's more healthy.

 

First off, to say that an uncircumcised penis is gross is rather immature and secondly, It isn't "more healthy" There is absolutely no health benefits behind it whatsoever. If a guy keeps himself clean and practices good hygiene (like one should anyway) there will not be any problems. The guys that do have problem when they aren't circumcised are either, not as good at keeping themselves clean (EW!) or would have had the problems whether they were circumcised or not.

[m12988]

Yeah, and do people ever think about hygeine and the woman's clitoris? Ok, if you people who claim uncircumcised penises are so hard to clean etc, have you looked at the amount of folds and creases that the vagina/clitoris has? More than an uncircumcised penis, that's for sure. Yet, we keep ourselves sparkling clean down there. There is no way that a circumcised man can NOT pass an STD along, don't ever let a circumcised guy fool you out of not using protection because "only uncircumcised guys can pass STDs". Wow, i think people need a lesson on anatomy and a license before they have sex...LOL.

[Mythical_Suicide]

Y There is no way that a circumcised man can NOT pass an STD along, don't ever let a circumcised guy fool you out of not using protection because "only uncircumcised guys can pass STDs". Wow, i think people need a lesson on anatomy and a license before they have sex...LOL.

 

 

No Kidding, right?!

[m12988]

Definitely, lol.

[skiersanonymous]

i'm circ'd and while it probably sucked when i had it done as a baby, i turned out fine in every way and i'm glad i had it done. i say that for the fact that its one less thing to worry about, and for the admittedly shallow reason of wanting to fit in and seem normal...and i'm not sure that circumcision is anything near as traumatic for children as the process of birth must be anyways...

 

also, evolution does leave vestigial structures that serve no purpose, but don't adversely affect our chances of survival... see link removed