Circumcision: Maiming infants

[[deleted user]]

San Francisco's pending ban on circumcision elicits screams from God experts. Unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants is part of their religious tradition!

More here: http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/...

[MadgeUK]

But then there are those who believe that it is good for hygeine and helps to prevent cervical cancer in women....Foreskins are unhygienic little things and perhaps best removed when it does least harm?

[[deleted user]]

MadgeUK wrote: "But then there are those who believe that it is good for hygeine and helps to prevent cervical cancer in women....Foreskins are unhygienic little things and perhaps best removed when it does least ..."

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read the health benefit claims are negligible and/or unfounded. What I think is really at stake here is not male health but male sexuality; that the single biggest effect of circumcision is a decrease in sexual functionality and pleasure, not to mention that it's a body modification (mutilation, really) without permission.

[Mimi V]

Donegal wrote: "Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read the health benefit claims are negligible and/or unfounded..."

what i've read is that if boys are taught how to properly clean under their foreskins there are fewer health issues for them or their partners. i think that especially here in the US there's a real reluctance to do the work involved in teaching this to a child. in general, i think people in the US are reluctant to talk openly with their young children about their genitals

i believe it's cruel to cut off a piece of a child's body as an infant. maybe somebody here knows if circumcision is still commonly performed without any anesthesia. they may not remember the pain, but obviously they feel it because they do cry.

frankly, i equate it to docking a dog's tail or ears, which has fallen out of favor. if enough people stop doing it, it will fall out of "fashion" and eventually be rare, as it should be.

[Melki]

I think "fashion" is the operative term here. Parents want their son to look like his father and like all the other boys in the school locker room. I don't know if anesthesia is currently used during the operation - Google you let me down on this one! - but I do know insurance companies will no longer foot the bill as it is considered unnecessary surgery. In the US, I believe circumcision is performed more for "looks" than for medical and cleanliness reasons.


Hmm...notice no men at all have weighed in on this topic...curious, no?

[MadgeUK]

Donegal wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've read the health benefit claims are negligible and/or unfounded. What I think is really at stake here is not male health but male sexuality; that the single biggest effect of circumcision is a decrease in sexual functionality and pleasure"

I do not know how scientific the claims are about hygiene although there is no doubt that is easier to clean the penis, to keep it clean and to see that it is clean. However, it has no effect on male sexuality and I can attest to that as I guess can millions of Muslims and Jewish women!!

I think it is cruel and unnecessary thing to do to young babies and I objected to my grandson having it done but because it is such an old established practice, and quite safe if in proper hands. it is difficult to make an objection stick.:( It is done without anaesthesia but very quickly as I understand it. I saw my grandson immediately afterwards and he was quite calm and serene. I think that any unnecessary surgery is bad, especially on a baby. There is always the risk of infection and complications but I suppose millions of Jews and Muslims worldwide for centuries are proof that it is mostly OK.