Circumcision

[Lon]

Santa Monica Circumcision Ban Proposed As Ballot Initiative

[Ahso!]

I find it interesting that many people who are pro-life are also pro-mutilation. Maybe their motto is: if you can't torture them, why have them!

Circumcision is a barbaric ritual, but then, that's a large portion of the human species for you - contradictory and violent.

[Odie]

I well remember my first born's circumcision.

He couldn't have it done at birth for personal reasons so he was 3 months old and we met the doctor at the hospital for the procedure.

The doctor took him and said to us to walk to the very end of the hospital.

I had no idea what he meant as I was young and naive and assumed he would have been given a local anesthetic.........

boy was I wrong.....I heard my son scream so loud I was in shock!

never again....it's sheer torture on an infant or anyone!:-5

[flopstock]

Ahso!;1360337 wrote: I find it interesting that many people who are pro-life are also pro-mutilation. Maybe their motto is: if you can't torture them, why have them!

Circumcision is a barbaric ritual, but then, that's a large portion of the human species for you - contradictory and violent.


When my son was born it was just routine. I don't remember even being asked about it.

I've known a few men who have had it done for medical reasons, later in life. And they found it very painful.... I can imagine.

[Ahso!]

flopstock;1360353 wrote: When my son was born it was just routine. I don't remember even being asked about it.

I've known a few men who have had it done for medical reasons, later in life. And they found it very painful.... I can imagine.I was circumcised, but we spared my son the procedure. The funny thing is that my wife and I were fundamental Christians at the time of his birth (we did it at home with only fellowship members present) and not even any of us saw any reason for circumcision because we interpreted the practice as Old Testament doctrine.

[Wandrin]

the group that was protesting for the change in the San Francisco law called themselves "intanctivists". It was rather amusing hearing the same tired old arguments to protect the status quo.

[gmc]

The medical arguments put forward by those in favour are the funniest and says a lot about them as individuals and their strange concerns. As a cure for masterbatuion for instance, nowadays we would see such fascination with the subject as ever so slightly disturbing if not outright perverted.

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishmen


Only religion could convince someone to take a knife and cut bits of a baby for it's own good.

[spot]

And an exemplary article in yesterday's Guardian. Bang on, a perfect summary, I commend it.

Infant male circumcision is genital mutilation | Martin Robbins | Science | guardian.co.uk

[Oscar Namechange]

It's no skin off my nose.

[hoppy]

A few years back I had a urinary tract infection that cleared up after a pill or two. My doc then wanted to do a circumcision right then. I said screw that. So far, so good.

[YZGI]

oscar;1377929 wrote: It's no skin off my nose.


What do you reckon most women feel about it? My wife says it would pretty much be a deal breaker if not circumsised.

[Oscar Namechange]

YZGI;1377941 wrote: What do you reckon most women feel about it? My wife says it would pretty much be a deal breaker if not circumsised.


In England we call the circumsised and non circumsised the Roundheads and The Cavaliers.

[spot]

A background piece with a bar-chart of where in the world does it most:In the US, the popularity of circumcision dates back 140 years to Dr Lewis Sayre, one of the founders of the American Medical Association, says David Gollaher author of Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery.

Sayre believed that many medical conditions had their root in a dysfunction in the genital area, and that circumcision could be used to treat a startling array of problems, from depression to mental health issues, syphilis and epilepsy.

Circumcision was also promoted as a way of discouraging masturbation, and was regarded as clean and hygienic. It was particularly popular among the higher classes, and was seen as a sign of being well-off enough to afford a birth at hospital rather than at home.

BBC News - Circumcision, the ultimate parenting dilemma



Barbaric nonsense, if you ask me. How can it not be considered genital mutilation. Genitals are mutilated.

Attached files

[spot]

And here we go - another news article, this from the BBC.A 61-year-old man, believed to be the doctor who carried out the procedure, has been arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm with intent.

The boy's mother complained to police, saying her son was circumcised without her consent while staying with his paternal grandparents in July 2013.

A 44-year-old man and a woman, aged 47, have also been arrested.

Nottinghamshire Police said they were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm.

[...] Police reopened the investigation after the mother got help from the anti-circumcision group Men Do Complain and leading human rights lawyer Saimo Chahal QC, who wrote to the force.

Three arrested over boy's circumcision in Nottingham - BBC News



Not before time, either. I look forward to the first prosecution where both parents consented.

I think parental consent is as irrelevant in circumcision as it is in Female Genital Mutilation, both are equally grotesque and abominable outdated cultural practices and both are equally indefensible on any reasonable grounds.

Europeans used to castrate promising soloist boy singers. That practice was banned. For some reason male genital mutilation that leaves the testes attached is still considered acceptable by some. It should not be, for exactly the same reason that we no longer listen to castrati during church services.

[magentaflame]

spot;1510437 wrote: And here we go - another news article, this from the BBC.A 61-year-old man, believed to be the doctor who carried out the procedure, has been arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm with intent.

The boy's mother complained to police, saying her son was circumcised without her consent while staying with his paternal grandparents in July 2013.

A 44-year-old man and a woman, aged 47, have also been arrested.

Nottinghamshire Police said they were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit grievous bodily harm.

[...] Police reopened the investigation after the mother got help from the anti-circumcision group Men Do Complain and leading human rights lawyer Saimo Chahal QC, who wrote to the force.

Three arrested over boy's circumcision in Nottingham - BBC News



It should not be, for exactly the same reason that we no longer listen to castrati during church services.


Wow, what people will do to keep women out of protocol of church services.

and don't look at me .....my children are intact!

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ahso!;1360337 wrote: I find it interesting that many people who are pro-life are also pro-mutilation. Maybe their motto is: if you can't torture them, why have them!

Circumcision is a barbaric ritual, but then, that's a large portion of the human species for you - contradictory and violent.


Even Doctors say that male circumcision is beneficial.

[LarsMac]

xfrodobagginsx;1510598 wrote: Even Doctors say that male circumcision is beneficial.


Well, fifty, sixty years or so back, they did. Of course in the 60s you could see doctors on TV telling us that smoking cigarettes could be beneficial, too.

[tude dog]

The story isn't about circumcision, but

The boy's mother complained to police, saying her son was circumcised without her consent while staying with his paternal grandparents in July 2013.


Looks to me like a family squabble.

[Bruv]

tude dog;1510600 wrote: Looks to me like a family squabble.


Religion again.

[tude dog]

Bruv;1510601 wrote: Religion again.


How's that?

[Wandrin]

tude dog;1510604 wrote: How's that?


Because the roots of circumcision are religious, in most cases.

[tude dog]

My comments were based on the article and unless I missed it, I saw nothing about religion.

[Bruv]

tude dog;1510612 wrote: My comments were based on the article and unless I missed it, I saw nothing about religion.


Oy vey......I understood the people in the article were Muslim.......I assume too much at times, could have been Jewish on second thoughts.

[gmc]

Any way you try to justify it it's still mutilation of a child unless there is actually a good medical reason for the procedure. If you wouldn't do it or allow it to be done to yourself how can you possibly justify doing it being done to a child?

One of the reasons the early christian church decided that circumcision was not necessary to become a christian was the realisation that the number of takers would be minimal.

[cars]

gmc;1510616 wrote: Any way you try to justify it it's still mutilation of a child unless there is actually a good medical reason for the procedure. If you wouldn't do it or allow it to be done to yourself how can you possibly justify doing it being done to a child?

One of the reasons the early christian church decided that circumcision was not necessary to become a christian was the realisation that the number of takers would be minimal.


g

There are several medical reasons for the procedure. Click link to see why.



Circumcision (male) Why it's done - Mayo Clinic

[spot]

You believe that to be an honest unbiased assessment? Or do you think it looks like special pleading the way the tobacco industry used to put out.

[tude dog]

Bruv;1510615 wrote: Oy vey......I understood the people in the article were Muslim.......I assume too much at times, could have been Jewish on second thoughts.


Still a family squabble.

[cars]

spot;1510618 wrote: You believe that to be an honest unbiased assessment? Or do you think it looks like special pleading the way the tobacco industry used to put out.


Yes

[gmc]

cars;1510617 wrote: g

There are several medical reasons for the procedure. Click link to see why.



Circumcision (male) Why it's done - Mayo Clinic


An older child making the decision for themselves is one thing but boing it to babies without the benefit of anaesthetics is child abuse.

Six reasons why you should NEVER allow your son to be circumcised, by PETER LLOYD | Daily Mail Online

In infant boys, it serves a protective function, and throughout a man’s life, it keeps the glans moist, shields it from injury, and enhances sexual pleasure.

'By crushing and severing the foreskin, you damage the healthy penis, cause unnecessary pain and bleeding, create a risk of infection and complications, and permanently remove viable erogenous tissue.'

Read more: Six reasons why you should NEVER allow your son to be circumcised, by PETER LLOYD | Daily Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




Mutilating the genitals of male or female is perverted, the religious have always had a prurient fascination with the sexual activities of their fellow humans for priests the main purpose genital mutilation has been and still is to prevent the enjoyment of sex and keep it purely for the purpose of procreation it's an obsession that has had catastrophic effects on society and it's about time we left this behind. In this country we have been turning a blind eye to female genital mutilation and forced marriage all in the name of respecting religious belief.

[magentaflame]

tude dog;1510600 wrote: The story isn't about circumcision, but



Looks to me like a family squabble.


Child abuse has nothing to do with squables. Assaulting a child has nothing to do with squables. Taking a child and giving it a haircut without its mothers consent is squabbly......permenantly disfiguring a child is assault!

[FourPart]

Would it be just a family squabble if it were a case of Female Genital Mutilation? Apart from the obvious answer regarding gender, just what is the difference?

[tude dog]

magentaflame;1510636 wrote: Child abuse has nothing to do with squables. Assaulting a child has nothing to do with squables. Taking a child and giving it a haircut without its mothers consent is squabbly......permenantly disfiguring a child is assault!


You are entitled to your opinion about circumcision. The issue of this four-year-old story is

The boy's mother complained to police, saying her son was circumcised without her consent while staying with his paternal grandparents in July 2013.


Must be a slow news day.

I am wondering about just where is the dad in all this?

Anyway, the grandparents were way wrong in taking it upon themselves to have this done.

[LarsMac]

The kid will think twice about going to visit grandma and grandpa, again.

[Wandrin]

LarsMac;1510661 wrote: The kid will think twice about going to visit grandma and grandpa, again.


and his shrink will hear all about it when he's a little older...

[magentaflame]

tude dog;1510641 wrote: You are entitled to your opinion about circumcision. The issue of this four-year-old story is



Must be a slow news day.

I am wondering about just where is the dad in all this?

Anyway, the grandparents were way wrong in taking it upon themselves to have this done.


OF course.... if she didn't say the word 'consent' then the grandparents would get away with it. You have to base your complaint on a point of law. Otherwise there is no complaint.

[Ted]

I do find circumcision a Barbaric act. Our children were not done. I often wonder, as a symbol of being Jewish, did they check each man at the door of the synagogue? What a job.LOL

[xfrodobagginsx]

Ted;1510729 wrote: I do find circumcision a Barbaric act. Our children were not done. I often wonder, as a symbol of being Jewish, did they check each man at the door of the synagogue? What a job.LOL


It doesn't minimize sexual pleasure. Men who are circumcised are healthier because the risk of infection is higher in non circumcised men.

[spot]

xfrodobagginsx;1510870 wrote: It doesn't minimize sexual pleasure. Men who are circumcised are healthier because the risk of infection is higher in non circumcised men.Who on earth ever claimed "minimize"? Of course it doesn't minimize, you're setting up a non-existent claim just to have something to shoot at. I've seen anecdotal reports of "reduce" but that can only really be self-reported by adults comparing before and after circumcisions. Where does "minimize" come from? If you want to minimize sexual pleasure, qualify as an embalmer and use Novocain.

More generally it looks to me that you have started with an opinion and then attempted to justify it through exaggeration and one-sided reporting, rather than considered the question on its own merit. As with your threads on Christianity and Communism, and on the same grounds, I suggest you're a biased commentator.

Let me put a suggestion. If female circumcision - the equivalent to removing foreskin rather than the equivalent of damaging the glans, since the words "female circumcision" can be ambiguous in that regard - were performed on the same scale in America as male circumcision, then it seems very likely to me that you could, if you liked, say the same thing about it as you have about male circumcision. The practice of female circumcision is considered culturally abhorrent in America - and indeed in Europe - so it's condemned worldwide by Americans and Europeans, and worldwide it has none of the medical protections of good surgical practice which America and Europe can afford.

Either we approach this comparison between male and female circumcision objectively or we're expressing a cultural bias, and cultural bias has no moral force at all. Even given the best medical practice in the world, both these elective neonatal procedures are capable of killing the patient or causing lifelong harm and I see no reason to believe that it would happen more often to the one sex than to the other. I suggest you read, as I just have, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253617/ if you want to argue that male circumcision in America never has such a result, despite this medical summary being clean contrary to what you just posted. It's worth a quarter of an hour of your time.

If there is a moral argument against female genital mutilation, and I suggest there is such a moral argument, it cannot be supported if at the same time there's no equal condemnation of male genital mutilation whether you call it by a euphemism like male circumcision or not. In equivalent medical environments I'm quite sure that both would be equally safe. That's not the point. The point is that if you want to abolish the one then you have to abolish both, or you're simply saying "my culture is more worthy than your culture".

[tude dog]

spot;1510872 wrote: who on earth ever claimed "minimize"? Of course it doesn't minimize, you're setting up a non-existent claim just to have something to shoot at. I've seen anecdotal reports of "reduce" but that can only really be self-reported by adults comparing before and after circumcisions. Where does "minimize" come from? If you want to minimize sexual pleasure, qualify as an embalmer and use novocain.

More generally it looks to me that you have started with an opinion and then attempted to justify it through exaggeration and one-sided reporting, rather than considered the question on its own merit. As with your threads on christianity and communism, and on the same grounds, i suggest you're a biased commentator.

Let me put a suggestion. If female circumcision - the equivalent to removing foreskin rather than the equivalent of damaging the glans, since the words "female circumcision" can be ambiguous in that regard - were performed on the same scale in america as male circumcision, then it seems very likely to me that you could, if you liked, say the same thing about it as you have about male circumcision. The practice of female circumcision is considered culturally abhorrent in america - and indeed in europe - so it's condemned worldwide by americans and europeans, and worldwide it has none of the medical protections of good surgical practice which america and europe can afford.

Either we approach this comparison between male and female circumcision objectively or we're expressing a cultural bias, and cultural bias has no moral force at all. Even given the best medical practice in the world, both these elective neonatal procedures are capable of killing the patient or causing lifelong harm and i see no reason to believe that it would happen more often to the one sex than to the other. I suggest you read, as i just have, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3253617/ if you want to argue that male circumcision in america never has such a result, despite this medical summary being clean contrary to what you just posted. It's worth a quarter of an hour of your time.

If there is a moral argument against female genital mutilation, and i suggest there is such a moral argument, it cannot be supported if at the same time there's no equal condemnation of male genital mutilation whether you call it by a euphemism like male circumcision or not. In equivalent medical environments i'm quite sure that both would be equally safe. That's not the point. the point is that if you want to abolish the one then you have to abolish both, or you're simply saying "my culture is more worthy than your culture".


NO NO NO

Say what you want but there is no equivalence when it comes to male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation.

I would never say my culture is more worthy because we circumcise our males, but I have no problem condeming a culture which engages in Female Genital Mutilation.

[spot]

That's straightforward taboo bias. No suggestion that there's any evidence, merely a belief. We don't do that, they do that. We're good, they're obviously barbaric because they're different.

[tude dog]

spot;1510883 wrote: That's straightforward taboo bias. No suggestion that there's any evidence, merely a belief. We don't do that, they do that. We're good, they're obviously barbaric because they're different.


I'm not into a cultural pissing contest.

Female Genital Mutilation is nothing like male circumcision.

[spot]

The World Health Organization classifies various female genital mutilation practices, some more common and some less. Regardless of the scale on which is it performed, the type 1A procedure on females is effectively identical to male circumcision. Perhaps you'd like to check that fact before saying it's untrue. Western condemnation of Type 1A female genital mutilation is totally undermined by the trivialization of male circumcision as not being genital mutilation, as being culturally accepted and as being a promoter of male health.

[tude dog]

spot;1510889 wrote: The World Health Organization classifies various female genital mutilation practices, some more common and some less. Regardless of the scale on which is it performed, the type 1A procedure on females is effectively identical to male circumcision.


There is a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

spot;1510889 wrote: Perhaps you'd like to check that fact before saying it's untrue. Western condemnation of Type 1A female genital mutilation is totally undermined by the trivialization of male circumcision as not being genital mutilation, as being culturally accepted


You keep talking about culture, not the reality there is no comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation.

spot;1510889 wrote: and as being a promoter of male health.


I don't know who does that. I wouldn't.

[spot]

tude dog;1510907 wrote: I don't know who does that. I wouldn't.If you'd just look up a few obvious sources like Wikipedia you'd know, there's not much effort involved. Circumcision being a promoter of male health is the excuse American doctors give for promiscuously performing the operation on newborn males when asked to by a child's guardian.

[gmc]

spot;1510889 wrote: The World Health Organization classifies various female genital mutilation practices, some more common and some less. Regardless of the scale on which is it performed, the type 1A procedure on females is effectively identical to male circumcision. Perhaps you'd like to check that fact before saying it's untrue. Western condemnation of Type 1A female genital mutilation is totally undermined by the trivialization of male circumcision as not being genital mutilation, as being culturally accepted and as being a promoter of male health.


Do you actually know what is imvolved in female genital mutilation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

most girls are cut before the age of five.[5] Procedures differ according to the country or ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, known as infibulation, a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth.[6]

or if you prefer

WHO | Classification of female genital mutilation

[QUOTE]Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways. First and foremost, it is painful and traumatic. The removal of or damage to healthy, normal genital tissue interferes with the natural functioning of the body and can cause several immediate and long-term health consequences. For example, FGM can cause excessive bleeding, swelling of genital tissue and problems urinating, and severe infections that can lead to shock and in some cases, death, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of perinatal deaths.





It is a sick practice that complelety removes any possoble enjoyment of the sex act leavung the woman as nothing more tha a child bearing entity. It is a religious practice borne put of a hatred and contempt and perhaps fear for females. To equate it to male circumsicion displays not only a lack of awareness but aso a lack of inclination to find out. To claim not all female genital mutilation is that extremer and some is really just like male circumcision is rather pathetic. In any sane culture both would be seen as child abuse regardles of the reigious justification.



Some religious sects used to practice self castration the better to serve god nowadays anyone wanting to do that would be regarded as insane rather than being touched by god.

[spot]

gmc;1510910 wrote: Do you actually know what is imvolved in female genital mutilation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation


The fact I gave, that the Type 1A procedure on females is effectively identical to male circumcision, comes from that same Wikipedia page you quote. Your problem is in your use of that weasel-word "most". I don't deny your "most" at all but it does not invalidate my fact or my conclusion.

[cars]

spot;1510912 wrote: The fact I gave, that the Type 1A procedure on females is effectively identical to male circumcision, comes from that same Wikipedia page you quote. Your problem is in your use of that weasel-word "most". I don't deny your "most" at all but it does not invalidate my fact or my conclusion.


.

"Weasel Words" are the greatest! :wah: Gotta love em!

[magentaflame]

YOU know?

There's a very good reason we have all the bits to our bodies that God/nature/evolutionary biology intended. Why **** with it? Would it be perverse arrogance? both medically and religiously?

[spot]

magentaflame;1510934 wrote: YOU know?


Who?

What post are you replying to?

[magentaflame]

You know? is a rhetorical question. Speaking generally about the discussion.