Should Circumcisions be Illegal?

Rothmans

Well AH, I'm not usually one for making threads, but I've been thinking about this for a few days now after seeing the episode of Seinfeld about the circumcision. The one where Kramer goes mad to stop it.

Anyhow,there is apparently a 2% risk of serious harm involved with this procedure and according to this source, approx 117 infants die from circumcisions each year in the US alone!
Its not common practice here ( > 1%), so it isn't that much of a debated topic here.
However, if this procedure was to be performed on the female genital organs it would be labbed 'genital mutilation', but its ok to perform the same procedure on male infants. In fact, as this article points out ( a bit dated, I know), its illegal in the US, whilst the majority of male infants are circumcised. That seems at least a bit discriminatory.

Overall, I think it should not be legal (not even for certain religious traditions), unless it is medically necessary or the person who is getting the operation has reached the aged of majority and can give informed consent.

So, what do the people of AH think of this issue?

Eric Cartman

unless for medical reason - yes, religions are nuts

Saila

No not for adults

Rothmans

Rothmans wrote: »

Well AH, I'm not usually one for making threads, but I've been thinking about this for a few days now after seeing the episode of Seinfeld about the circumcision. The one where Kramer goes mad to stop it.

Anyhow,there is apparently a 2% risk of serious harm involved with this procedure and according to this source, approx 117 infants die from circumcisions each year in the US alone!
Its not common practice here ( < 1%), so it isn't that much of a debated topic here.
However, if this procedure was to be performed on the female genital organs it would be labbed 'genital mutilation', but its ok to perform the same procedure on male infants. In fact, as this article points out ( a bit dated, I know), its illegal in the US, whilst the majority of male infants are circumcised. That seems at least a bit discriminatory.

Overall, I think it should not be legal (not even for certain religious traditions), unless it is medically necessary or the person who is getting the operation has reached the aged of majority and can give informed consent.

So, what do the people of AH think of this issue?

FYP

Sorry for being a Pedantic Pat

I don't think it should be illegal for consenting adults. It is after all more hygenic

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

Saila wrote: »

No not for adults

Yes, and I've provided for that, but I'm referring specifically to the circumcision of infants.

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

Starla_o0 wrote: »

FYP

Sorry for being a Pedantic Pat

I don't think it should be illegal for consenting adults. It is after all more hygenic

Yes,just to make it absolutely clear at this point.

I'm Referring to infant circumcision only, not adults!!!

galwayrush

No, it should be legal

It should be free because it's a ****ing rip off.:D

Rothmans

Rothmans wrote: »

Yes,just to make it absolutely clear at this point.

I'm Referring to infant circumcision only, not adults!!!

relax and change the title so...JEEEZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEE :rolleyes:

galwayrush

No, it should be legal

Starla_o0 wrote: »

relax and change the title so...JEEEZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEE :rolleyes:

Sounds like a sore point to the OP.:pac:

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

Starla_o0 wrote: »

relax and change the title so...JEEEZZZZZZZEEEEEEEEEEE :rolleyes:

I thought I made it clear in the poll and my op though.

hatrickpatrick

Unless it's 100% medically essential, then any surgical procedure should have to wait until you're old enough to decide for yourself.

Why the hell aren't more people demanding equality here? If you even thought about touching a baby girl's clitoral hood, you would be (rightly) massacred for it.

Why are guys' parts considered less important?

Chuck Stone

It's a barbaric practice.

I'm not sure making it illegal would be helpful as it might end up killing more children than it already does by making it more secretive.

Maybe the religions who practice it should be the ones to initiate change.

It's not an easy question to answer.

Starla_o0 wrote: »

It is after all more hygenic

For dirty bastards who don't wash their knobs perhaps.

MungBean

No, it should be legal

Oh no not my foreskin......is what that kid would say ! To the bluffs !!!

rubadub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

unless for medical reason

And remember there are alternatives for most medical reasons, e.g. if the foreskin is too tight it can be stretched with no need for invasive surgery, leaving all sexually responsive nerve endings fully intact.

EDIT: damn voted the wrong way...

Condatis

Starla_o0 wrote: »

FYP

Sorry for being a Pedantic Pat

I don't think it should be illegal for consenting adults. It is after all more hygenic

In what sense is it more hygienic? Surely if you observe hygienic protocols in relation to cleanliness generally there is no hygiene issue!

Otherwise one could argue that a shaven head is more hygienic than a head of hair. Where would that leave the shampoo business?

brownlad

im circumcised and i must say it feels rather mint lol... and plus bishes love it !

yawha

brownlad wrote: »

im circumcised and i must say it feels rather mint lol... and plus bishes love it !

Jew would think that.

MetalDog

No, it should be legal

yawha wrote: »

Jew would think that.

Circumcision jokes are all very funny, but there is a cut off point...

My name is URL

No, it should be legal

I don't understand how anyone can justify it being carried out on children for non-medical reasons.

Overheal

Oh look it's this thread again.

Spread

No, it should be legal

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can justify it being carried out on children for non-medical reasons.

I think it is OK if for psychological psychiatric reasons

Sierra 117

No, it should be legal

It should definitely be illegal for those under the age of consent. Parents should not be allowed to have this procedure performed on their children. It's barbaric.

Biggins

No, it should be legal

There should be a third option - Illegal in most cases except on genuine medical grounds.
If there was a third option, I suspect the voting sway would be greatly different.

Can we have a do-over?

Amhran Nua

No, it should be legal

Primitive mutilation of the genitals of children for religious reasons should be illegal.

Chuck Stone

Biggins wrote: »

Illegal in most cases except on genuine medical grounds.

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Primitive mutilation of the genitals of children for religious reasons should be illegal.

Are you folks who want it illegal not worried that that will just drive it underground and end up doing more harm than good?

That would be my concern about making it illegal.

RoyalMarine

Rothmans wrote: »

Yes,just to make it absolutely clear at this point.

I'm Referring to infant circumcision only, not adults!!!

ah **** i voted for legal as i thought adults need them from time to time...

but didnt know this was religion based...

Tar.Aldarion

i wouldnt have a pen0r if i had been circumcised as it protected me from a blade, and it saved me I'm told, it's here for a reason!

ballsymchugh

there's a fierce amount of fellas squirming uncomfortably reading this thread.

Artur Foden

No, it should be legal

if there are medical reasons in adults and children then go ahead..

for religious or cultural reason in infants illegal

and if adults want to have it done without a medical reason then that's their business

AnneElizabeth

No, it should be legal

It's disgusting, I cannot understand how this is legal in this day and age. I cannot understand why anyone of any age would even want it.
Doing it to a child is wrong on so many levels.

Amhran Nua

No, it should be legal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Are you folks who want it illegal not worried that that will just drive it underground and end up doing more harm than good?

That would be my concern about making it illegal.

It's a valid concern, but one that should be pretty easy to allay - if a child goes in for a medical checkup and is missing his foreskin, it's serious question time.

Chuck Stone

Amhran Nua wrote: »

It's a valid concern, but one that should be pretty easy to allay - if a child goes in for a medical checkup and is missing his foreskin, it's serious question time.

Then parents would probably avoid bringing their kids for check ups and that could lead to even more ill health.

I'm not convinced that outlawing it would be the best way to stop it.

paddyandy

I have to wonder at the concern for a handful jews. Is there some agenda here?

Amhran Nua

No, it should be legal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Then parents would probably avoid bringing their kids for check ups and that could lead to even more ill health.

I'm not convinced that outlawing it would be the best way to stop it.

There's a bit of a difference between religious circumcision and letting a child die of illness; the bottom line is, there's no way to hide chopping off a piece of someone's body - in the end the practise would just die out.

paddyandy wrote:

I have to wonder at the concern for a handful jews. Is there some agenda here?

It's also widespread among sub Saharan immigrants and Southeast Asians, notably Filipinos; also for some reason, Americans, so I'm not sure why you would mention one particular ethnic group.

Chuck Stone

paddyandy wrote: »

I have to wonder at the concern for a handful jews. Is there some agenda here?

Muslims do it too AFAIK.

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Are you folks who want it illegal not worried that that will just drive it underground and end up doing more harm than good?

That would be my concern about making it illegal.

The same could be said for infant female genital mutilation, but that's still illegal!

Chuck Stone

Rothmans wrote: »

The same could be said for infant female genital mutilation, but that's still illegal!

I don't think the female version is as much of a problem outside of northern Africa but point taken.

They're both barbaric practices and both genital mutilation in my estimation.

orourkeda

Dey took my knob

Chuck Stone

I read a book, the name escapes me, about this African model (I was on holidays in Austria and the choice was limted, easy now) and she wrote about her experience of FGM.

It is truly evil what that poor (then) child had to go through and the lifelong suffering and dulled sexual experience she has to endure.

FGM is truly unequivocally evil.

Edit.

The book was called 'Desert Flower'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waris_Dirie

Wibbs

No, it should be legal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're both barbaric practices and both genital mutilation in my estimation.

+1 If just the clitoral hoods(equivalent to the male chop) of girls were removed a week after birth, either in a hospital, or by some cleric in a ceremony for daft cultural or daft religious or some daft hygiene reason the western world would be up in arms about it. If they were removed then or later on when alternatives were available many would have a shítfit and rightfully so. The west rails against female genital mutilation(rightfully) yet many of the same people in the west say male infant genital mutilation is kinda OK cos it's religious/cultural. That makes ZERO logical sense. Both are a primitive blood sacrifice to some daft desert god or a medical fashion and is utterly backward and retarded.

noxqs

No, it should be legal

Genital mutilation of infants should be a crime. It is an invasion of their bodies which has no scientific reason to be carried out.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene."

Religious tradition or not. We shouldn't give a free pass to mutilate infants just because it's someones tradition. There is a point where religious freedom interferes with someone else basic human rights in my opinion.

krudler

Overheal wrote: »

Oh look it's this thread again.

indeed, been discussed to death on here at this stage.

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

Wibbs wrote: »

+1 If just the clitoral hoods(equivalent to the male chop) of girls were removed a week after birth, either in a hospital, or by some cleric in a ceremony for daft cultural or daft religious or some daft hygiene reason the western world would be up in arms about it. If they were removed then or later on when alternatives were available many would have a shítfit and rightfully so. The west rails against female genital mutilation(rightfully) yet many of the same people in the west say male infant genital mutilation is kinda OK cos it's religious/cultural. That makes ZERO logical sense. Both are a primitive blood sacrifice to some daft desert god or a medical fashion and is utterly backward and retarded.

Thats exactly what I was thinking. It seems that male genital mutilation is ok because it is practiced in the supposed leader of the free world (the US).

But I've always wondered why circumcision has become so popular among the white/non-Muslim/non-Jewish population, given that there is no cultural or religious basis for this to be the case!

Anyone have any ideas why this is the case in the US?

Wibbs

No, it should be legal

Rothmans wrote: »

Anyone have any ideas why this is the case in the US?

A lot of it was Victorian "medical" fashion. They had major issues with both olde time religon and ****. Circumcision was considered both a moral and hygiene thing and a **** preventative. Soo it became fashionable. Just like FGM in the cultures that practice it. Europe was as gangbusters for it at the time, but stepped back and thought "loadabollocks". The US didn't or took longer to catch up.

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

Wibbs wrote: »

A lot of it was Victorian "medical" fashion. They had major issues with both olde time religon and ****. Circumcision was considered both a moral and hygiene thing and a **** preventative. Soo it became fashionable. Just like FGM in the cultures that practice it. Europe was as gangbusters for it at the time, but stepped back and thought "loadabollocks". The US didn't or took longer to catch up.

Oh I see I see.
Well at least now it seems as though infant circumcision in the US is starting to decline, but the majority are still being circumcised.

Chuck Stone

Wibbs wrote: »

The US didn't or took longer to catch up.

One factor is probably the influence of Jewish folk in the states.

Check this out.

http://www.slate.com/id/2125225/

Cut It Off

Another disgusting religious practice.

By Christopher Hitchens

(Excerpt)

A circumcision ritual practiced by some Orthodox Jews has alarmed city health officials, who say it may have led to three cases of herpes—one of them fatal—in infants. … The practice is known as oral suction, or in Hebrew, metzitzah b'peh: after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

(Excerpt)

What's Bloomberg got to do with this, you may be impatient to know by now. Well, the mayor of the great city where these children were deliberately exposed to infection and death has had a meeting with the Orthodox authorities who like to see this happening to small putzes, and he has expressed himself thus, on his own radio show, again as per the Times:

We're going to do a study, and make sure that everyone is safe and at the same time, it is not the government's business to tell people how to practice their religion.

Study? What study? Can't the fool get through an article by a Jewish authority in Pediatrics? For the Times reporter to add that Mayor Bloomberg's comment appeared to be designed not to "upset a group that can be a formidable voting bloc" was, in the circumstances, worse than superfluous.

gnfnrhead

No, it should be legal

I've often sorta wondered about this myself. Is it really fair to make such a big decision for a child when he could very well decide he wants to keep his neckwarmer? I'm not circumcised and I've never wanted to be either. I dont think it's fair to take that choice away from people. If, when you turn 18, you want to get it chopped off, go for it. If not, at least you had a choice in the matter.

To answer the question, yes, it should be illegial if you are under age. Once you turn 18, it's your body, chop off whatever you want.

after removing the foreskin of the penis, the practitioner, or mohel, sucks the blood from the wound to clean it.

I didnt know that part, thats bleeding mankey!

Rothmans

No, it should be legal

I've noticed that over 30 % of people have voted in favour of infant circumcision, but none of them have posted a reply trying to justify it

Jimoslimos

No, it should be legal

Wibbs wrote: »

A Circumcision was considered both a moral and hygiene thing and a **** preventative.

Hasn't stopped me yet:D

Rothmans wrote: »

I've noticed that over 30 % of people have voted in favour of infant circumcision, but none of them have posted a reply trying to justify it

I think someone alluded to it earlier, a third option is needed for cases deemed medically necessary.

*edit* i've just re-read the poll and saw the medically necessary bit - still seems misleading though for some reason

Female genital mutilation (or misleadingly female circumsicion) is completely different. No in all cases (Should be illegal in all cases I mean). Regardless of the rights or wrongs of male circumsicion no guy can seriously argue that the physical or pyschological effects come even close to the female victims.

rubadub

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Female genital mutilation (or misleadingly female circumsicion) is completely different. No in all cases. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of male circumsicion no guy can seriously argue that the physical or pyschological effects come even close to the female victims.

I cannot understand how people can refuse to compare the 2 and declare them "completely different". They are obviously very similar, its the most obvious comparison and legitimate argument to make. It reminds me of people denying alcohol is a drug when discussing legalisation.

They have similar reasons touted, religion & hygiene, a type I female circumcision can be just the clitoral hood, which is perfectly analogous to male circumcision.

So I wonder if the people who voted NO, would vote the same for female circumcision of the clitoral hood.

(I voted no by mistake BTW).

Jimoslimos

No, it should be legal

rubadub wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can refuse to compare the 2 and declare them "completely different". They are obviously very similar, its the most obvious comparison and legitimate argument to make. It reminds me of people denying alcohol is a drug when discussing legalisation.

They have similar reasons touted, religion & hygiene, a type I female circumcision can be just the clitoral hood, which is perfectly analogous to male circumcision.

So I wonder if the people who voted NO, would vote the same for female circumcision of the clitoral hood.

(I voted no by mistake BTW).

Sorry, but they are "completely different". The reasons for medically-necessary circumcisionhave nothing to do with either religion or hygiene.

Even though there isn't full medical consensus regarding the neccesity for male circumcision I don't think any respected health professional would argue any sort of case for the female circumsion - even type I.

In the countries where its carried out, its generally underground, unlike males in the west.