Is circumcision child abuse?

tritium

Ok, possibly a controversial one given the attached religious baggage! Is circumcising a baby child abuse (boy, since most people accept this is true for girls)

For me, I struggle to see any reason to carry out a potentially dangerous and maiming surgery on a small baby. If there's a religious reason I feel the procedure should wait till the child is much older and can input to the decision

Skill Magill

Cutting straight to the point, of course it is

Gael23

If its not nessecary for medical reasons then yes

jockeyboard

is cutting off a peice of another persons body without their informed consent right? come here while i have this knife in my hand and we will decide.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I think you have it right. parent's should wait until their children are old enough to make their own choice. It's very hard to reject the Jewish faith though considering the kind of propaganda that's thrown at them, also that practice they carry out always happens at a young age.

Canis Lupus

Yup, abuse.

kneemos

Supposedly more hygenic as uncircumcised men tend not to wash underneath so you could say it's in the childs interest,also it is much more painfull when you get older.

chughes

kneemos wrote: »

Supposedly more hygenic as uncircumcised men tend not to wash underneath so you could say it's in the childs interest,also it is much more painfull when you get older.

This argument in favour of circumcision always makes me laugh. It makes it seem as if men are incapable of washing themselves throughly. If you'll excuse the pun, this is total boll/x.

In answer to the original question, absolutely yes it is child abuse.

kneemos

chughes wrote: »

This argument in favour of circumcision always makes me laugh. It makes it seem as if men are incapable of washing themselves throughly. If you'll excuse the pun, this is total boll/x.

In answer to the original question, absolutely yes it is child abuse.

Didn't say they were incapable I said they don't,given the other possible conditions such as tight or split foreskin I can see more pros than cons in not having it.

tritium

kneemos wrote: »

Didn't say they were incapable I said they don't,given the other possible conditions such as tight or split foreskin I can see more pros than cons in not having it.

Surely that's an argument to have it if medically required - you know, like most surgical procedures.

As for the whole hygiene argument, I'll take education over maiming surgery every time

kneemos

tritium wrote: »

Surely that's an argument to have it if medically required - you know, like most surgical procedures.

As for the whole hygiene argument, I'll take education over maiming surgery every time

Maiming surgery?the only complaint I've ever heard about it was that it made men less sensitive but on the other hand they last longer...so.

joe stodge

How did it ever become part of the Jewish faith? Who would willingly cut off part of their Micky in the first place?

Boombastic

Is beheading child abuse?

I suppose it could be justified if the children forget to wash their face

tritium

kneemos wrote: »

Maiming surgery?the only complaint I've ever heard about it was that it made men less sensitive but on the other hand they last longer...so.

That of course forgets the risk associated with unnecessary medical surgery, for example a number of cases where the child bled to death...,

Siuin

joe stodge wrote: »

How did it ever become part of the Jewish faith? Who would willingly cut off part of their Micky in the first place?

How about we have ONE thread on this topic where Jews don't get constantly brought into it? After all, Ireland has a Muslim population which is FAR bigger and people constantly seem to forget that they do it too- and sometimes even at a more advanced age.

Morph the Cat

Great clip re this: http://youtu.be/L4yS08N0xeU

JustAThought

Morph the Cat wrote: »

Great clip re this: http://youtu.be/L4yS08N0xeU

No. It's a medical procedure & is done under medical supervision .
Next.

kneemos

tritium wrote: »

That of course forgets the risk associated with unnecessary medical surgery, for example a number of cases where the child bled to death...,

One case years ago done by some backstreet guy,don't know ie the HSE carry out circumcisions presumably they do.

rambutman

Generally in Islam its done with young boys up to early teens and IF its done with girls then when they are babies.

In Indonesia anyhow thats the culture.

Both forms are totally unacceptable - i have two kids with a muslim indonesian woman and this has been a hot topic every since they were born. Everytime they go back there on holidays, i'm saying that if they come back with anything missing there'll be war. My son is 8 and the muslim side are saying "it's time to get him done"..........to which my response is "when he's old enough to decide he wants it himself then he can do it..........the response to this is "well he'll be too scared then to get it done!"......................and i wonder why that is?

I got it done at the age of 30 and it is a very traumatic experience - not one you should force on a child. Child abuse? - most certainly

tritium

kneemos wrote: »

One case years ago done by some backstreet guy,don't know ie the HSE carry out circumcisions presumably they do.

Actually I was thinking of a more recent uk case.....

So does the HSE providing it make it ok? Would you extend tha logict to other purely cultural procedures?

Chinasea

It belongs in the same box as 'but it is our culture' - as if that ever make barbaric cultural acts right eg. bull fighting.

Common practice in America

I couldn't believe when Christina Aguleria inflicted it on her baby, with her being so outwardly progressive and all that.

kneemos

tritium wrote: »

Actually I was thinking of a more recent uk case.....

So does the HSE providing it make it ok? Would you extend tha logict to other purely cultural procedures?

Having it done when the child is a baby doesn't seem likd a big deal,leaving it until they are eight,nine or in their teens is a bit odd,I was under the impression that it was always done at a young age,on the other hand loads of people get it done out of necessity and treat it as just another medical procedure

Toby Take a Bow

joe stodge wrote: »

How did it ever become part of the Jewish faith? Who would willingly cut off part of their Micky in the first place?

It's claimed it was to differentiate between themselves and the non-Jews that lived in the area at the time, but it gets confusing when the Egyptians (right next door) probably practiced circumcision as well as the arab tribes.

Siuin wrote: »

How about we have ONE thread on this topic where Jews don't get constantly brought into it? After all, Ireland has a Muslim population which is FAR bigger and people constantly seem to forget that they do it too- and sometimes even at a more advanced age.

Makes far more sense that the first group people would think of regarding circumcision would be Jews: most of us were brought up reading the Bible, half of it is about Jews as well as most of our cultural references (to things like circumcision) will be from a Jewish perspective rather than an Islamic perspective.

i71jskz5xu42pb

Just to bring some data to the hysteria here:

W.H.O. wrote:

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

In that regard is it any different to the MMR vaccine?

Wibbs

Siuin wrote: »

How about we have ONE thread on this topic where Jews don't get constantly brought into it? After all, Ireland has a Muslim population which is FAR bigger and people constantly seem to forget that they do it too- and sometimes even at a more advanced age.

Very true and more likely to have the female version in some cultures, something Judaism never went in for.

Both do it as part of the religious low level blood sacrifice to god. Gods do love their blood sacrifices. The Christian god is his own blood sacrifice which seems fairer though. Islam is an update of Judaism so they kept that part along with the Kosher/Halal food restrictions. Christianity though also a Judaism 2.0 didn't. Why? It was being sold to a different set of cultures, the Roman Greek world. Both considered circumcision to be something only the savages beyond the gates did and try getting pork products off an Italian even today. Good luck with that. Some of the more contentious debates among early Christians was over circumcision(and food). Luckily the Greeks won or we'd never enjoy sausages and our own sausages would be missing bits.

Interestingly the "all off" approach in Judaism wasn't always the case. In the ancient Greek world Jewish men were entering the Greek games and could "pass" for the locals, which suggests more bloodletting rather than full removal of the turtleneck. The religious zealots of the time didn't like that so increased the amount of tissue removed so they couldn't pass anymore.

As for child abuse? Well if we consider women's genitals to be protected in law and culture and consider female circumcision to be bodily mutilation, I don't see why that can't be extended to the male. The usual response to that is "oh well female genital mutilation is far far worse"(though some of the "gentler" versions are similar) and that's true it is, however we're talking about choice and the bodily integrity of the infant/child so on that score it's the same. The reasons given for both are remarkably similar; it's a religious duty, it's more hygienic, their mother/father had it done, they won't be accepted by their peers etc. Yet we look down on one as barbaric performed by barbarians, yet the other is acceptable, even promoted in some cultures like the US*? Arse. It's either one or the other.

If there's no medical reason then basically GTFO.



*there's a big fashion aspect to it too. It was fash here for a time. Indeed was widespread in the late 19th century in the west as a "cure" for masturbation and sins of the flesh. The Americans just held onto the fashion for longer.

smcgiff

More common than not in the US, apparently it's considered lower class not to have it done.

Fook that!

Wibbs

Julieta Noisy Shinbone wrote: »

Just to bring some data to the hysteria here:



http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

In that regard is it any different to the MMR vaccine?

Depends on which data you look at. Some of those studies have been questioned. I could also point to HIV rates in the US where circumcision is at near 80% and they have a far higher HIV infection rate than Sweden where the rates are significantly less.

Bruthal

smcgiff wrote: »

More common than not in the US, apparently it's considered lower class not to have it done.

Fook that!

Steerage it is then

kneemos

Wibbs wrote: »

Depends on which data you look at. Some of those studies have been questioned. I could also point to HIV rates in the US where circumcision is at near 80% and they have a far higher HIV infection rate than Sweden where the rates are significantly less.

There's a hugh range of socio economic variables that could have an effect on that,you can't just pick one.

Wibbs

smcgiff wrote: »

More common than not in the US, apparently it's considered lower class not to have it done.

And it makes the willy look more animalistic to them, more sexually charged. I remember reading Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and the main character Raoul Duke and his "Samoan"(but actually Hispanic) Lawyer get into a spot when the latter brings some zonked out possibly underaged girl back to their hotel room. Duke tries to freak out Gonzo by imagining the court case and suggests her being exposed to his "uncircumcised cock" adds to the horror the American jury would imagine.

Wibbs

kneemos wrote: »

There's a hugh range of socio economic variables that could have an effect on that,you can't just pick one.

Indeed, but the circumcision as protection does just that to quite an extent.

lounakin

joe stodge wrote: »

How did it ever become part of the Jewish faith? Who would willingly cut off part of their Micky in the first place?

Preventive medicine. It is believed to be more hygienic and to prevent many complications. They don't do it to hurt or cripple the child, it's purely prevention that turned into tradition.
It is much more painful afterwards. Most guys who have issues later in life, as young children or men have to have a circumcision. Circumcised men rarely have those issues (but they have others, of course), so I think it's a valid argument. I do not think it's child abuse and I would do it if I had a son.
Also I would have it done by someone with experience, a mohel, as there are fare less accidents the old fashion way. Also, remember that it's not as painful to have it done as a baby then as an adult. You absolutely cannot compare the two.
I had to have my daughter's tongue released from a tie, at birth there are no nerves and barely any blood vessels, you just snip and they don't feel it. Later, you need general anaesthetics. So yeah, prevention.

suicide_circus

I thought the desert folk practiced it because the moist nature of the glands under the foreskin was seen as unnessersary moisture loss in the hot dry middle east/ north Africa

Sh1tbag OToole

Everything is child abuse these days. Such an overused term

Teaching them religion
Smoking while in the car with them
Driving past them on the road at speed

Whatever next? Not giving them all the sweets they want and letting them play computer games 24/7? Being brought up by poor parents who can't afford to spoil them? Surely that's child abuse

opinion guy

Julieta Noisy Shinbone wrote: »

Just to bring some data to the hysteria here:



http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

In that regard is it any different to the MMR vaccine?

60% reduction in only half the population is nowhere near enough for herd immunity. HIV is a behaviourally spread disease. Circumcision isn't the answer imho. Its a cheap seemingly quick fix that appeals to various religious groups - but in reality it is no solution

Also note:

Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe.

How likely is that to happen when the WHO trial money is gone ?

smcgiff

lounakin wrote: »

I do not think it's child abuse and I would do it if I had a son.

People with eyes are more likely to get eye infection, might want to take care of that while you're at it.

smcgiff

suicide_circus wrote: »

I thought the desert folk practiced it because the moist nature of the glands under the foreskin was seen as unnessersary moisture loss in the hot dry middle east/ north Africa

Think it's the reason that eating Pork became taboo. Too salty.

bobwilliams

kneemos wrote: »

Supposedly more hygenic as uncircumcised men tend not to wash underneath so you could say it's in the childs interest,also it is much more painfull when you get older.

hey! i always have a gentlemen's before she sucks the banger off me

Wibbs

lounakin wrote: »

Preventive medicine. It is believed to be more hygienic and to prevent many complications. They don't do it to hurt or cripple the child, it's purely prevention that turned into tradition.

Nope it's a blood sacrifice ritual, common in many early cultures, a Covenant with god as it's described in the Old Testament(and the Quran). Hygiene had feck all to do with it and any such advantage(which is highly arguable) is more a way to explain it;s continuance in more enlightened times.

It is much more painful afterwards. Most guys who have issues later in life, as young children or men have to have a circumcision. Circumcised men rarely have those issues (but they have others, of course), so I think it's a valid argument.

Again hardly. The percentage of men who have issues later in life hover around the single digits. Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a mustard seed. Plus many such "issues" do not require a full circumcision.

I do not think it's child abuse and I would do it if I had a son.

Are you male or female? If the latter then you hardly know what you're talking about(though I have found women much more pushy about this procedure if they have a belief in it), if the former you've either been snipped yourself so see it as "normal" or don't have the full information and in both cases it's much more likely a "fashion" choice and in both cases you should read much more information on both sides that is out there. Judging from your post I'm getting the strong feeling you're buying more into myths and fashion and culture than any objective science.

Funkfield

kneemos wrote: »

Supposedly more hygenic as uncircumcised men tend not to wash underneath so you could say it's in the childs interest,also it is much more painfull when you get older.

kneemos wrote: »

Didn't say they were incapable I said they don't,given the other possible conditions such as tight or split foreskin I can see more pros than cons in not having it.

How can you back up these statements? Just out of interest.

i71jskz5xu42pb

opinion guy wrote: »

60% reduction in only half the population is nowhere near enough for herd immunity. HIV is a behaviourally spread disease. Circumcision isn't the answer imho. Its a cheap seemingly quick fix that appeals to various religious groups - but in reality it is no solution

WHO, last I checked is not a religious group. I don't think this is something they threw out without any thought. While you have a right to your opinion you'll excuse me if I side with an organisation who has a focus on World Health as opposed to a randomer on the internet - an organisation with some skin in the game as it were (boom boom!)

Ritual child abuse is still child abuse.

I understand the solid thinking behind the inception of all these traditions, but the world has moved on it's time to adapt.

Gran Hermano

lounakin wrote: »

Preventive medicine. It is believed to be more hygienic and to prevent many complications. They don't do it to hurt or cripple the child, it's purely prevention that turned into tradition.
It is much more painful afterwards. Most guys who have issues later in life, as young children or men have to have a circumcision. Circumcised men rarely have those issues (but they have others, of course), so I think it's a valid argument. I do not think it's child abuse and I would do it if I had a son.
Also I would have it done by someone with experience, a mohel, as there are fare less accidents the old fashion way. Also, remember that it's not as painful to have it done as a baby then as an adult. You absolutely cannot compare the two.
I had to have my daughter's tongue released from a tie, at birth there are no nerves and barely any blood vessels, you just snip and they don't feel it. Later, you need general anaesthetics. So yeah, prevention.

Why didn't you have your daughters tonsils and appendix removed soon after birth ? Just in case they might cause her some trouble in later life? You could say it'd be preventative medicine.

Canis Lupus

lounakin wrote: »

Preventive medicine. It is believed to be more hygienic and to prevent many complications. They don't do it to hurt or cripple the child, it's purely prevention that turned into tradition.
It is much more painful afterwards. Most guys who have issues later in life, as young children or men have to have a circumcision. Circumcised men rarely have those issues (but they have others, of course), so I think it's a valid argument. I do not think it's child abuse and I would do it if I had a son.
Also I would have it done by someone with experience, a mohel, as there are fare less accidents the old fashion way. Also, remember that it's not as painful to have it done as a baby then as an adult. You absolutely cannot compare the two.
I had to have my daughter's tongue released from a tie, at birth there are no nerves and barely any blood vessels, you just snip and they don't feel it. Later, you need general anaesthetics. So yeah, prevention.

Prevention of what exactly?

kneemos

Funkfield wrote: »

How can you back up these statements? Just out of interest.

Some sexual health professor I've heard on the radio a few times over the years(forget his name I'm afraid)and also on Embarrassing bodies one night.

opinion guy

Julieta Noisy Shinbone wrote: »

WHO, last I checked is not a religious group. I don't think this is something they threw out without any thought. While you have a right to your opinion you'll excuse me if I side with an organisation who has a focus on World Health as opposed to a randomer on the internet - an organisation with some skin in the game as it were (boom boom!)

I didn't argue using my opinion however I argued using the facts. 60% half the population is NOT enough to establish herd immunity - look it up if you don't believe me. Herd immunity is the driving prinicple behind vaccination.

WHO clinical trials, as any clinical trials, have extra resources compard to standard care. This will not continue outside of trials. Again read up on it if you don't believe me

Mickeroo

I think it's daft, I'd put it around the same level as removing the ear lobes. It's a part of my body, it evolved to be there, there's no logical reason to remove it.

The hygiene argument is nonsense too, I dare say its the most vigorously washed part of a mans body :pac:

Wabbit Ears

Circumcision was a necessity when folk lived in the desert and had no regular access to clean fresh water and soap. It has no place in modern society other then to brand ( as in same idea as the hot metal used on cows) a child from birth as being part of a religious group.

kneemos

opinion guy wrote: »

I didn't argue using my opinion however I argued using the facts. 60% half the population is NOT enough to establish herd immunity - look it up if you don't believe me. Herd immunity is the driving prinicple behind vaccination.

WHO clinical trials, as any clinical trials, have extra resources compard to standard care. This will not continue outside of trials. Again read up on it if you don't believe me

Still a huge reduction.

ford2600

Was there not a case in NY a few years back where a young Jewish boy contracted herpes following the procedure?
Seemingly whatever traditional sect he was born into involved the rabbi putting cut bleeding penis into his mouth a part of ritual.
If I remember right Hitchens refers to it in one of his books

tritium

kneemos wrote: »

There's a hugh range of socio economic variables that could have an effect on that,you can't just pick one.

I think that's kind of the point. Even the Hopkins studies on this basically show that, outside of sub Saharan africa it's inconclusive.

None of which btw explains why this should be done to an infant, who has no ability to give consent, as opposed to waiting till theyre older and can make a decision. Any benefit re female to male HIV simply doesn't apply pre puberty.

Wibbs comparison to female circumcision seems pretty appropriate and fair...,