Should circumcision be the person's OWN choice?

[vep]

Except the little toe (Or whatever it is called) I can name nothing that we do not "need"in some way.

You don't NEED legs. Cripples without legs have climbed Mt. Everest.
You don't NEED both arms. People have climbed The Nose without one hand.
You don't NEED both ears. People have done well without one ear.

If it's not vital, you don't need it. It's just a convenience.
Now, I'm not saying life would be wonderful without those, but you don't really need any of those.

[Melodi]

Don't take this the wrong way, but the fact that you consider circumcision to be "normal" frightens me.
Is this a common view in the US? Just as a reference, I've never met anyone who's been circumcised (that I know of ofc) and everyone I know has always reacted with the same disgust I feel about the whole practice whenever the subject is brought up.
It is very much NOT a socially accepted practice over here. I'm not even sure if hospitals will perform it unless there's a medical reason.

Yes, it's very normal to be circumcised in the US. I don't think I've personally seen nor heard of anyone NOT being circumcised. As for the literature here, it's about 50% for pro/against circumcision that when you go through birth courses they just tell you "do what you personally want to do for the child." Neither way has been endorsed to be better by any medical association. I don't really see what's wrong with it, but I'm not a man. When I asked my husband about it when we were expecting our first child before we knew the gender, he had no preference either way (ended up with a girl so it was a non-issue). If anything, I would think it would be better to be done when you are a baby instead of waiting until adulthood. You don't remember anything and it doesn't hinder you, like it would if you waited with recovery time and all of that. Again, let me stress that I'm not a man so I don't have these parts. I just don't see why it would be considered mutilation as it's not harming the person in any way physically. It's not like once it's done your penis is now inoperable, it just looks different.

Go have your gall balder removed then try eating fatty foods.. You'll quickly discover what function it has.

Not even true. I had my removed 2 months ago and I'm eating everything I could eat before I had it removed. In fact, when I stopped eating anything remotely fatty (which wasn't too much because I eat healthy), it made my gallbladder attacks WORSE. It depends on the person. Most people that I know who have their gallbladder out, can eat anything they want. But yes, the main function of the gallbladder is to help create bile to help process fatty foods. Eating large meals can also exacerbate the issue due to an increased bile production which can cause an attack.

[Notos]

God, how I wish people would read the shit they're referencing:
"Whether or not male circumcision amounts to mutilation is a subject of active academic debate."

You think the objection to the use of the word is merely academic? You think people who refer to politicians they happen to dislike as "Hitler" actually think s/he is the type of person to sanction genocide? No, it's done for shock value. That's it. You can pretend you'd still be using mutilation if the goal wasn't to make circumcision sound like some horrible act, but as I said before, I've read too much sensationalist BS to believe that.

So it's being debated, but we should all just stop calling it mutilation. If a portion of the academic community views it as mutilation and some of us view it as mutilation as well, we can agree with them and call it mutilation. You're free to dislike it, but the debate shows that there are grounds for calling it that. I don't find circumcised men grotesque, but I find the idea of circumcising a baby grotesque.

Something else I'd like to point out. Female circumcision, according to the WHO, is a gross violation of individual human rights. I completely agree with them and find the practice revolting. However, many of the women who are themselves circumcised see no problem with it and will defend the practice as traditional and right (my personal experience with this was some years ago so maybe things are changing, however). The reactions from some of the americans in this thread mirror those quite closely, but that doesn't make circumcision any less of a violation of the rights of a child.

[Verain]

God, how I wish people would read the shit they're referencing:
"Whether or not male circumcision amounts to mutilation is a subject of active academic debate."

But it isn't. It's plain as day. What's going on is that there's powerful political interest in continuing this mutilation, so they throw "academics" into the fray. But by the definition of mutilation and common sense, it is as plain as the sun in the sky.

It's a joke. It's a joke that taking the position "We shouldn't cut parts off babies" is extreme or radical. Anyone in favor of non-consensual circumcision (and children can't consent) is rationalizing heavily. Period.

[ELYPOP]

Circumcision for religious or cultural reasons is even worse than circumcision for no reason at all. It's similar to tattooing a crucifix or star of david onto your newborn baby's chest--only it's even worse, because a tattoo doesn't harm your sex life and is removable. You are forcing your religion on them and marking them permanently for that religion without allowing them to choose for themselves.

I agree with you completely.

Gah.. there's no point even arguing, honestly. Yep, fine, the rest of you are right.

[Orangetai420]

Yes, it's very normal to be circumcised in the US. I don't think I've personally seen nor heard of anyone NOT being circumcised. As for the literature here, it's about 50% for pro/against circumcision that when you go through birth courses they just tell you "do what you personally want to do for the child." Neither way has been endorsed to be better by any medical association. I don't really see what's wrong with it, but I'm not a man. When I asked my husband about it when we were expecting our first child before we knew the gender, he had no preference either way (ended up with a girl so it was a non-issue). If anything, I would think it would be better to be done when you are a baby instead of waiting until adulthood. You don't remember anything and it doesn't hinder you, like it would if you waited with recovery time and all of that. Again, let me stress that I'm not a man so I don't have these parts. I just don't see why it would be considered mutilation as it's not harming the person in any way physically. It's not like once it's done your penis is now inoperable, it just looks different.

The foreskin has tons of nerves in it, its sorta the equivalent of cutting off your clitoris. Sure, it's functional but sex isn't as pleasurable without it.

[Vuljatar]

Yes, it's very normal to be circumcised in the US. I don't think I've personally seen nor heard of anyone NOT being circumcised.

Thankfully this is no longer true. Over the last decade or two circumcision rates in the U.S. have dropped sharply and are now closer to 50-50.

[Purlina]

Yes, it's very normal to be circumcised in the US. I don't think I've personally seen nor heard of anyone NOT being circumcised.

Why would you hear or see someone not being circumcised? You can't see something if it's not being done....

How often do you ask people if they are circumcised..?

[Funt Case]

No, I am not happy.

I just want each person to be able to choose which parts of their body they get to keep, and which parts they lose...

Thats the whole point of the bloody thread, the child isn't deciding what they want.

[Purlina]

Thats the whole point of the bloody thread, the child isn't deciding what they want.

Dude, I have been arguing that children should get to decide for a while now. I don't think you understood my exchange with Elyaan...

[Funt Case]

Dude, I have been arguing that children should get to decide for a while now. I don't think you understood my exchange with Elyaan...

Probably didnt and i aplogise, been glossing over the thread loosely. Just alot of clueless people, which i just added my name too

[Krulani]

I was circumcised. It has never bothered me. It's really not a big deal.

[Belial]

I'm sorry if this will offend some of you, but cutting a small child with a scalpel because of religious or traditional reasons is revolting in any way, shape or form. It is a violation of the rights of a child and should be punishable by law. Hell, cutting a small child for any reason should be a crime. Period.

[Verain]

I was circumcised. It has never bothered me. It's really not a big deal.

Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about!

[Purlina]

I was circumcised. It has never bothered me. It's really not a big deal.

That's what she said!

[Cassidin]

Because it is mutilation. You have a part of your body removed, without your input, for no good reason.

That's the very fucking definition of mutilation.

No it's not.... Self mutilation involves your own input - but that doesnt stop it being mutilation.

On the subject though: Circumcision was originally practiced by the Isralites for health reasons (keeping clean wasnt so easy in the desert tbh) and also to stand apart from the nations around them. The reason it was done on very young boys was because the blood clotting ability is actually strongest on the 8th day after birth.

I agree that these days apart from when needed for medical reasons - it doesnt really serve any purpose apart from religious so I can see the argument to stop it as the child cant choose. I would not call it mutilation however any more than I would call it mutilation to pierce a childs ears.

[darkhole]

I would like to thank you all for understanding this horror. I consider myself to be a victim and, "super mutilated": tonsils, appendix, two moles on my back, a cyst, and yes my foreskin. All done because these blasphemers of doctors thought they MAY lead to problems down the road. If I were an adult and informed I would have kept them ALL.

[Symphonic]

Circumcision doesn't make you less of a man than an uncircumcised guy. While people argue that it should be a decision made by the owner of the genitals, by the age they even think about it, doing so would be more painful, have a lot longer recovery time, a more dangerous procedure. I am circumcised. If I wasn't, I would NOT WANT TO because I wouldn't want to be subjected to that at my age. I am glad I got it done when I was a baby because I don't remember it now, and my nerves have grown up with me and make me just as sensitive as uncircumcised guys. That's why saying that they should make their own choice is wrong in this circumstance, because doing it later is not wise unless medically necessary. I don't even think it's a religious thing to do it anymore. I'm Mormon and plenty of Mormon kids are not circumcised, our religion doesn't require or force it, but I believe it is for the parents to decide what's best for their child, just like choosing to vaccinate or not.

[Purlina]

If I wasn't, I would NOT WANT TO because I wouldn't want to be subjected to that at my age.

Then you don't really want to be circumcised...

[Symphonic]

Then you don't really want to be circumcised...

Don't you speak for me. I am glad I'm circumcised. you're missing the entire point. Doing it LATER IN LIFE WILL MAKE YOU LESS SENSITIVE!! But doing it as a baby your nerves are essentially the same age as your body and you will still be sensitive later in life, so waiting until your child can choose for themself... it's too late. And if they need it medically, sorry, out of luck.