Why the Double Standard on Circumcision?

[Voolawl]

Now...exactly how and why did you come to the conclusion that this would be "best" for said child? I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I would like to know the reasoning behind the thought process. As a personal decision, I'll let my kid decide later on (I know someone whose mother chose a partial one, and he's got physical trouble because of it, but that's because of scar tissue, which isn't an issue with a full one.)

Because it's what was done to me and every male in my family and it's tradition.

[Sargiean]

I don't know, that's not the issue I'm worried about as I have no plans to have my child forcibly tattoed.

We must concern ourselves even with issues we aren't 'worried about'. It's unethical. Imagine if people took this stance on other unethical practices that happened in the US? Segregation, discrimination - surely these issues do not 'worry' everyone but surely everyone has a vested interest in making sure these things don't happen.

[bergmann620]

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/maleci.../en/index.html

I also remember reading that the trend away from circumcision could cost as much as an extra $2 Billion over the next decade.

As to the double standard... One is an actual accepted medical procedure performed primarily on infants, whose side effects are mostly non existent, or shading towards the benign. For the other, reverse all of those things. it sounds like the double standard exists in the operation itself, not in how it is perceived.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

I wonder how some of these people feel about the common practice of deciding the gender of a hermaphroditic infant. Should they be left with both parts until they reach adulthood in which case they then decided whether or not to go one way or the other? Keep in mind, they are sterile upon birth.

This practice disturbs me. Because they almost always chop the penis off. I have read so many cases of an intersexed person who ended developing differently from their assigned gender. If I ever end up with an intersexed child, I'll let nature decide if they're more male/female/both/neither, and not some doctor.

[Flutterguy]

I'm curious as to what people think are Arsenal's chances of reaching the quarter finals of the Champions League...but this is a thread about circumcision.

The core of the argument regarding circumcision is whether or not it is 1) consider mutilation 2) that if it is, why is it allowed unlike female circumcision 3) whether or not it is a necessary procedure

I am making an analogy. There is no significant benefit/hinderance to having a male circumcision. Differences are marginal at best. In the case of children born as hermaphrodites the decision to do surgery to change their gender appearance is purely cosmetic and has no health implications one way or the other. Now one of the big arguments that's being thrown around is that the infant has no say in what happens and therefore should be left until they are adults. Should similar circumstances be delayed until adulthood?

[Catta]

That's the thing. No reason I bring up is going to be good enough for anyone opposing it, so why should I give any shits at all about your opinion and what you think is right?

I shouldn't and I most certainly don't.

Thats a strawman - because if it had produced tangible significant medical benefits like a vaccine it would have been quite enough to convince people and have them join your side.

Just like happened with vaccines back in the day.

[Kalis]

They've got about as much chance as I have of being circumcised.

A Spurs fan arguing against circumcision is amusing.

[Boreaz]

Because it's what was done to me and every male in my family and it's tradition.

Appeal to tradition

[Catta]

What does going to jail have anything to do with this? And are you an infant?

Do you fail at reading comprehension?

[Voolawl]

We must concern ourselves even with issues we aren't 'worried about'. It's unethical. Imagine if people took this stance on other unethical practices that happened in the US? Segregation, discrimination - surely these issues do not 'worry' everyone but surely everyone has a vested interest in making sure these things don't happen.

You know, those are terrible examples because I really don't give much mind to those either.

Thats a strawman - because if it had produced tangible significant medical benefits like a vaccine it would have been quite enough to convince people and have them join your side.

Just like happened with vaccines back in the day.

If it had produced tangible, significant medical complications then it would have been enough to convince people to join your side. See how that works?

[Flutterguy]

Do you fail at reading comprehension?

Yes, so be sure to explain yourself thoroughly so everyone can understand you.

[Catta]

I wonder how some of these people feel about the common practice of deciding the gender of a hermaphroditic infant. Should they be left with both parts until they reach adulthood in which case they then decided whether or not to go one way or the other? Keep in mind, they are sterile upon birth.

The difference here would be, you know, having actual medical reasons to make the decision. Like with a vaccine.

[crakerjack]

In all honesty, male circumcision isn't the end of the world. People really need to stop comparing it to amputating because it's not remotely the same. When you cut foreskin off, it's just skin... when you cut an arm off, that's blood vessels, bone, muscle etc. There are no special organs or special tissue that is missing when a male gets the little snip... hell the whole argument that circumscribed boys don't feel as much pleasure is pretty ridiculous. If I wanted to have the best possible orgasm, i'd shove something up my butt and hit my prostate because that's scientifically the most potent orgasm a man can have, so I don't give 2 shits if some uncircumcised douche wants to brag about feeling 1/20 more feeling than me.

Will I get my future kids circumscribed? Hell no, I don't care, but this whole argument is stupid, especially when people act like it's life or death. I've never ran into someone who has hated their life because they didn't get a say... i've heard brats who just like to complain, but i haven't heard a single logical argument as to why it sucks that they were circumscribed. People need to stop making this into a big deal... if someone wants to cut the little bit of extra skin off because of religious reasons, let them... now if we all want to be logical and talk about unhealthy traditions, lets all go march into africa and tell them to stop putting rings around their necks and to stop putting giant disks in their lips, now that's mutilation... not to mention girls are forced fed because fatter women are more appealing over there. There's bigger fish to fry over some little bit of skin.

[darkwarrior42]

That's the thing. No reason I bring up is going to be good enough for anyone opposing it, so why should I give any shits at all about your opinion and what you think is right?

I certainly would not discard your reasons if they were valid (valid here not meaning "what I already believe"). I've seen studies and debate on the issue... leaving aside religion and tradition, it seems from my research that any potential benefits of male circumcision can also be gained by good hygiene, without the potential drawbacks.

However, you explicitly said, and I quote: "Tradition is reason enough for me. If my dad, my grandfather, my uncles, every male in my family has been circumcised because it's what our family does, then that's reason enough for me." To me, that's not the statement of someone who has a good reason; that's the statement of a person who not only doesn't have a reason, but doesn't want a reason.

[Xanjori]

A Spurs fan arguing against circumcision is amusing.

Fortunately my family weren't silly enough to lop bits off me due to "tradition". Although my little brother had an infection and got his dick cut up as a kid, I felt sorry for him at first but then he became an Arsenal fan, so I guess you can call it karma.

[RaenavenBlacksun]

Because it's what was done to me and every male in my family and it's tradition.

Ah, but you're dealing with an "appeal to tradition" fallacy. I had hoped for something more substantial than "it was done to me". Let's be hypothetical for a moment. What if you were the only one in your family who had had it done, would you still choose to do so, simply because it was done to you?

[Sargiean]

It's more comparable to a man pressuring a woman to get breast implants, as that actually happens. Both shouldn't happen.

No it's not. It's about someone flatly rejecting someone 'in the moment' because of the way a particular piece of their bits look. Your comparison would be valid if a girlfriend was pressuring a boyfriend over a long period of time to get a circumcision.

[Vutar]

How come male circumcision is seen as acceptable in the US (as well as in other countries) but female circumcision is rightly looked down upon? I know male circumcision has a couple incredibly marginal benefits as well as drawbacks but both seem highly immoral to me. They should be entirely the decision of the child once he or she grows up. I know female circumcision is more brutal and unnecessary, biologically speaking. I just don't think the moral difference of forcing it onto a child, especially for religious reasons, is all that large. I know I will let me children decide for themselves (if I have any). When thinking about the religious causes of circumcision I get even more upset. I wouldn't be opposed to banning the use of it on children, even for religious reasons, except in various life or quality-of-life threatening circumstances. You're freedom of religion shouldn't give you the right to physically impress your beliefs onto your child. It's worse than tattooing your child. Circumcision is at worst mutilation and at best cosmetic in my opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZTS6iVpSPI

Why do you think you have a right to impress your beliefs on anyone else by saying circumcision should not be allowed while complaining that others are impressing their beliefs? Oh right, you're a hypocrite. Sorry, carry on.

[Djuntas]

Wow, I think the OP coulden't be more wrong. I almost never hear anyone being pro for male circumcision. Its actually regulated inn Denmark I think, trough I could be wrong.

I defiantly think its a choice one should first be able to make at age 12 or maybe later.

[Catta]

Yes, so be sure to explain yourself thoroughly so everyone can understand you.

Sorry, i dont plan on becoming a pediatrician so maybe someone else can elaborate for you.