Is circumcision child abuse?

lounakin · 10-02-2013 11:46AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:49AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:53AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:54AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:56AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:57AM

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 · 10-02-2013 11:59AM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:01PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:01PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:02PM

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!)

10-02-2013 12:04PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:04PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:06PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:09PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:12PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:13PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:14PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:14PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:19PM

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 · 10-02-2013 12:19PM

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...,

Jimoslimos · 10-02-2013 12:22PM

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.

Eh? How about someone with proper medical experience, a doctor? And on that point any doctor (whether they attach a religious label to themselves or not) should be struck off for carrying out a medically unnecessary circumcision.

Primum non nocere

kneemos · 10-02-2013 12:23PM

ford2600 wrote: »

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

Yeah right.

12gauge dave · 10-02-2013 12:24PM

it doesnt matter too much either way guys lets be honest if its for religious purposes so be it religion is an important part of alot of peoples ives and we have no right to question that no matter how important we feel we are here on boards

lounakin · 10-02-2013 12:24PM

Wibbs wrote: »

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. /QUOTE]
You will find that a lot of seemingly acts have, in fact, medical purposes. You will find that there are millions of people on earth who do it nowadays ONLY for those purposes and not because of tradition. I also have to go by personal experience of people I grew up with an while you are totally right, these issues are not as common as a cold, I would still have it done to my son because I believe it may help him and prevent future problems and pain. Just like I chose to vaccinate. That said, if a parent refuses to do it to their child I have no problem with that. We all do our bit at preventing, we all do it differently

lounakin · 10-02-2013 12:26PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Eh? How about someone with proper medical experience, a doctor? And on that point any doctor (whether they attach a religious label to themselves or not) should be struck off for carrying out a medically unnecessary circumcision.

Primum non nocere

A doctor with experience of course, but here in Dublin I'd stay away from them. There are a lot of stories of damage because medical doctors use lasers which can do extensive damage.

tritium · 10-02-2013 12:29PM

kneemos wrote: »

Yeah right.

Unfortunately, this is broadly correct. Not sure about deaths but the herpes issues is accurate

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/07/how-11-new-york-city-babies-contracted-herpes-through-circumcision/

crazy cabbage · 10-02-2013 12:30PM

12gauge dave wrote: »

it doesnt matter too much either way guys lets be honest if its for religious purposes so be it religion is an important part of alot of peoples ives and we have no right to question that no matter how important we feel we are here on boards

So religious child abuse is ok

And either way there is no such thing as a religious child. There is only a child of religious parents. See the difference?

smcgiff · 10-02-2013 12:32PM

kneemos wrote: »

Yeah right.

Which part are you sceptical about?

tritium · 10-02-2013 12:33PM

12gauge dave wrote: »

it doesnt matter too much either way guys lets be honest if its for religious purposes so be it religion is an important part of alot of peoples ives and we have no right to question that no matter how important we feel we are here on boards

So at what point do you stop giving people this as an out for barbarism? Is female circumcision ok. What about animal sacrifice? Human sacrifice? This is being done to someone who cannot consent remember

Sierra 117 · 10-02-2013 12:34PM

If a man wants a circumcision when he's an adult, be it for cosmetic or religious reasons, then that's his choice. But circumcision should not be performed on a child unless it's medically necessary. He's the one who will have to live with the consequences of a circumcision so he's the only one who can make that decision.

Is circumcision child abuse?

Comments