Male circumcision

Post Reply New Topic

Ok sounds about right, but that procedure is illegal in the west no? Also:



One of the big reasons for male circumcision was brought in was to prevent masturbation, to prevent the man finding "release" with anyone other than women, which back then would have been his wife alone. Not only that, we're pretty sure male circumcision does make sex less pleasurable (although admittedly over a longer time frame). To me it looks like two sides of the same coin.
The supposed health benefits were never thoroughly investigated until a great deal of time after the procedure became standard in America and someone said "Wait a minute, we're doing WHAT to infants!?".




No, parents do not always do what's best for their child, be it through ignorance or malice. I don't care how mega-Jewish your family is, you should not have the right to circumcise your kids. The circumcising religious communities will adapt to the new laws.

I'm gonna find some more links about circumcision later, but I thought you might like this little factoid I ran across: The death rate from botched circumcisions (it's pretty rare) is roughly equivalent, perhaps greater than the number of deaths due to penile cancer. Penile cancer, if you are unlucky enough to get it, is pretty easy to surgically cure. I'm willing to bet that the number of botched circumcisions leading to penile deformity far beats out any deformity caused by penile cancer surgery.

When the Greek king Antiochus outlawed circumcision for the Jews, he tripped off the Hasmonian Revolt which the Jews won, by the way. The circumcising communities will fight the law anyway they can.

In the U.S. we have the first amendment so it is unlikely the circumcision will be outlawed here. About 35 percent of American males are circumcised as infants so a lot more than Jews and Muslims have the procedure. Neo-natal circumcision is generally safe and beneficial. No one is forcing any parent to have their male child circumcised and no one is forbidding it either. Those parent who wish to leave their male children intact can and will do so.

ruveyn

it has never been proven beneficial,
it has been proven it removes nerves, dunno what actual effect this has.
i dont think its unsafe,

i think the children should be allowed their own choice but then again where do we set the limit.

Not true. It cuts down the HIV rate and the rate of cancer of the glans penus. I posted several scholarly references addressing this very point. Neo natal circumcision is generally safe and it has medical benefits.

I notice no one is screaming about having the ear lobes of little girls pierced with a pointed instrument so they can wear ear-rings. Wow! What a benefit that is! Fortunately if it is done in a clean way, infections are relatively rare and even when they occur they can be effectively treated. Why do people get worked up by one and not the other: Because the genitals are involved.

ruveyn

That is different because that isn't mutilation. Poking a little hole is different than cutting parts off.

I don't have my ears pierced and never got a little kid's ears pierced.

The reduced HIV correlation of circumcised men is heavily debated as is every single claimed medical benefit of circumcision.


I have similar issues with this practice, on a personal note girls in my immediate family are always given a choice in the matter.

[quote="hanyo"

That is different because that isn't mutilation. Poking a little hole is different than cutting parts off.

.[/quote]

Horsefeathers!

It is only the foreskin that is trimmed. The main shaft of the organ is in no way cut off. And sexual function is not impaired. Look at the size of Ultra Orthodox Jewish families. Orthodox Jews raise football teams, not families. And because of the laws pertaining to the female period, the patriarch is on top of his missus two solid weeks out of very months. Rabbi Minsky Pinsky can give the Rebitzen six and half or seven inches of the law of God (be fruitful and multiply) often, especially on the Sabbath. For the other two weeks it is hands off and no hanky panky. So sexual function is not diminished nor is reproductive effectiveness.

And the tool is clean and shiny. No smegma.

ruveyn

It's still mutilation and shouldn't be done until the person it is done to is old enough to consent to it. At that point they can do whatever strange body modifications they want.

You can always chop it off later but you can't really put it back on.

Last edited by hanyo on 25 Oct 2011, 8:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

A Jewish revolt in America would be highly amusing, but times and attitudes are different now, there will be no revolt. The current generation are mostly closeted atheists or identify as "culturally Jewish" (they are after all at the higher end of the intelligence distribution). When the law comes down there will be a few angry rabbis, but noone will really give a s**t. I expect the Muslims to react more angrily but the atmosphere in America being what it is, that will probably only strengthen the ban, in fact it might make circumcision very uncool.

Parental rights over their child is a tricky subject to get around I know. Should a parent have a right to decide what vaccines to give their children? What if the child then catches a preventable disease and dies? Did the parent abuse that child? It's not a clear cut yes/no answer.

When it comes to circumcision it seems a rather easy distinction. Let's assume that the health benefits are all true and are not fabricated or blown out of proportion by pro-circumcision activists (almost entirely circumcised men in denial).
-- Is the child likely to get penile cancer between the age of consent and birth? No. The chances are miniscule.
-- Is the child likely to be having unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive between the age of consent and birth? No. (If yes, that kid needs to be put into foster care).
-- Is cleaning and appearance a good reason to perform a medical procedure. Sure, why not. Is it right to choose for the child? No. What if I think a large scar across my child's face would look cool?

Came across another pro-circumcision fact, urinary tract infections are less common in circumcised men. I thought, ah a real tangible benefit (not that I've ever had one fortunately). Hehe scrolled to the bottom of the page to read the footnote, "Proper hygiene gives just as much protection against urinary tract infections and swelling". Guess that one's out of the window.

Can't be bothered to list risks/complications and decreased sexual function stuff again. Nor the benefits of retaining ones foreskin. There is no good reason to irreversibly circumcise a child, when the procedure can be done later in life with the man's consent.

No revolt. Just short boat ride out to the S.S. Mohel heaving to just outside the jurisdictional limit of the U.S. Jews are not going to take a prohibition on circumcision lying down. If necessary they will take a short boat ride when their infant boy is 8 days old. The sea air will put him fast asleep, just the thing for the procedure.

History has taught a stark lesson: don't f**k with the Jews. Sampson taught that to the Phillistines.

ruveyn

There is no chop it off. The length of the tool is left intact.

ruveyn

It's still mutilation. They are cutting part of it off. If it wasn't supposed to be there it wouldn't have grown there.

I guess we should give up removal of the appendix, tonsils and adenoids not to say anything of warts, wattles and jowls.

It is not mutilation. It is improvement. The trimmed tool can stay up long and stronger than its untrimmed counterpart. The ladies should be pleased. Less premature ejaculation. And... no smegma.

ruveyn

Then we can change the laws to say a circumcision is evidence of past abuse and separate the adults from their children. I think that would more or less put a stop to it.

Not even close to being comparable. All of those are reactionary procedures and no one who's posted so far is against circumcision when it's in response to a medical issue.


All patently false except perhaps less premature ejaculation due to reduced sensitivity and for the last time smegma is only an issue when there is a general lack of personal hygiene.