Male Genital Mutilation

[Boozy]

I pity any men in your life.

Nice Personal attack

Please leave other members' personal lives out of the debate, unless that member has made it an issue. Comments like this hit too close to home and turn a lively discussion into a flame war.

Second, there is a report button here. Anyone who feels they've been personally attacked should use it.

Now carry on.

[kiwi]

I dont believe the human body should be altered in anyway until the person is old enough to consent to it themselves.

I dont believe in male or female genital alteration or reassignment, neither does any of my family.

The thought of it makes me feel ill.

My mother had to argue with every doctor, nurse, family member in sight not to have my brother circumsized when he was born 1978. The only one who agreed with her was my maternal grandfather. They tried every reason in the book including that he would feel out of place because all males were circumsized.

I dont think its right that doing anything to a child who can not consent to it. I dont even believe in infant baptism because again, you take away the rights of that child.

No child under my protection will ever be submitted to it, I think its legalised torture.

[Flyndaran]

...
No child under my protection will ever be submitted to it, I think its legalised torture.

That seems a bit of an extremist view and odd definition of torture. Most circumcisions today are under anesthetic, so torture without pain doesn't fit my definition.

[Slytovhand]

Ooh.. I'm back, and there's been movement on the Western Front...

Firstly - BlaqueKatt. I read your arguments similar to Ped, that you were 'consenting' to circumcision, based on the FGM and HPV arguments (that women have to suffer it in some societies, and that it can prevent diseases, respectively. Your arguments didn't seem to be condemning circumcision... though I think that's more just a way to read it, in amongst all the other posts...

Blas.. I didn't see anything particularly wrong with your first post Only thing I'd really say is that, as others have said, 'personal preference' isn't a good enough reason for it to be forced onto an unwilling or unknowing subject.

Kiwi - I think like you do (although the religion thing could be interesting if I ever have kids... so that's not really an issue).

And, lastly, Ped - ethics is an individual thing, so asking if something is or not doesn't really have much weight or meaning... it's got as much force as asking someone's opinion on a topic. And my opinion on that is all the situations you described are 'unethical' (even the one with 'they have the final say' crap... sorry - you don't get to give away your life to someone else!)

Oh - last other thought... Flyn - Chinese Water Torture... no physical pain involved.....

[suchislife2]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what someone shows me in regards to "statistics" or something from Wikipedia or a random "medical" site. I've always been pro choice. I think everyone should be given the opportunity to do what they wish with their bodies.

Hell people go to great lengths to modify their bodies because they just want to look different/like something, with no medical benefit at all...look at this site and you'll see what I mean : linky

If you have to be over a certain age to get your tongue split, metal horns implanted into your head or your clit pierced then I think, personally, unless it's for a valid medical reason circumcision of ANY kind should be done once the person is old enough to make a informed decision.

I know cutting your tongue in two is a tad different to cutting off a foreskin but both are things that cannot really be reversed.

just my two cents...
Also, another thing to ponder. If it's ok to circumcise a boy, then does this mean that when a parent has a hermaphrodite (has both male and female organse) does this mean that it is ok for them to decide on the gender when the child is a baby? Or should they wait till the child is old enough to know what sex they FEEL they are?

[Flyndaran]

...

just my two cents...
Also, another thing to ponder. If it's ok to circumcise a boy, then does this mean that when a parent has a hermaphrodite (has both male and female organse) does this mean that it is ok for them to decide on the gender when the child is a baby? Or should they wait till the child is old enough to know what sex they FEEL they are?

First thing, there really aren't any true human hermaphrodites. They are intersexed as in having indeterminate sex organs.
In the vast majority of cases it is FAR easier to complete their transformation into females than as very poorly endowed males with no testicles.

There really is a big difference between the removal of useless skin and permanent organ reassignment.
I wish people would stop exagerating circumcisions. Make your point or don't. But please stop hyperbolizing. It ruins your honesty and makes people like me less likely to take you seriously.

Your point is one of loathing "unnecessary" surgeries, NO MATTER HOW MINOR, on unconsenting infants. Don't compare it to far more invasive, dangerous, and life altering surgeries to make your point. It doesn't work.

[Flyndaran]

...
Oh - last other thought... Flyn - Chinese Water Torture... no physical pain involved.....

Poor comparison. The semi-apocraphal water torture is torturous because of the tight restraints not because of some minor dripping.
This is an especially poor comparison because infants love tight restraints. Swaddling clothes are so tight as to make them look like human headed burritos and they love it.

Next you seem to imply horrible emotional torture for infants because of a painless procedure. If this is so, then should all medical check ups and procedures be avoided because they would likely feel this same level of distress?
I seriously doubt you feel this way. So the only thing I can take from your post is that you are feeling desparate and spouting arguments against circumcision off the top of your head.

I see the legitimate con side. I just don't see it as important because I'm circumcised and have absolutely no problems and like it.

But the legitimate side that I see is one of lack of consent from the infant. I am starting to come around to that side. But that leaves the issue of at what age should I allow my hypothetical son to consent to such a surgery?
He wants to be like other boys and daddy, and doesn't like his "useless" extra skin at age 3? 6? 9? 12? What age is appropriate?

[Pedersen]

He wants to be like other boys and daddy, and doesn't like his "useless" extra skin at age 3? 6? 9? 12? What age is appropriate?

Actually, that question is much simpler to answer. Equal protection under the law for both males and females would mean that males would not be able to consent to such surgeries until the same age that females can consent.

In other words, 18 years old.

Like I said, much easier to answer.

[anriana]

I dont believe in male or female genital alteration or reassignment, neither does any of my family.

Are you referring to something other than transexual surgery here?

[suchislife2]

Flyndaran:

I think the comparison I made to major body modification is relevant I'm sorry. You must be over a certain age to make an informed decision on what you want to do to you're body, so I think it fair that whether the skin is "useless" or not, the child should be old enough to make the decision on their own. I also think that the child needs to be old enough mentally to understand all the implications (if there are any) that might be involved in such a decision.

A baby, a child at the age of 3, 5, 6 even a teenager at the age of 15,16 and 17 isn't at the mental age yet to completely understand what doing something like circumcision can/could do. Specially in regards to the sensitivity of the organ after the procedure is complete. Either way, I think the person that has the modification done should be the one to make the final decision, and as a baby can't do that, it shouldn't be done. Simple.

As for Hermaphrodites while it may be easier to transform the child to a woman, it doesn't mean it's right. There have been incident where the parents made the decision to do that and the "girl" decided "she" really was a "he". It also caused her lots of problems later down the track because of the confusion. Either way the parent is still making the decision for the child at an age that the child can't fully comprehend what is happening. It's still the same.

People always assume that the term "Hermaphrodite" just means someone with both female and male organs. This isn't the case. It can mean that, or that the genitalia has not completely formed "correctly" in a medical sense. The virginal cavity hasn't formed at all, or completely, or the male genitals are underdeveloped. In those cases yes, it's easier to go with the sex that the child is genetically. That I would agree with, but unless the child is definitely one or the other, how is it fair to decide their sex? It's the same. How is it fair to remove the foreskin of a baby boy when he isn't able to give consent? Regardless of the "use" of it. It's still something permanent.

[Slytovhand]

Poor comparison. The semi-apocraphal water torture is torturous because of the tight restraints not because of some minor dripping.
This is an especially poor comparison because infants love tight restraints. Swaddling clothes are so tight as to make them look like human headed burritos and they love it.

Next you seem to imply horrible emotional torture for infants because of a painless procedure. If this is so, then should all medical check ups and procedures be avoided because they would likely feel this same level of distress?
I seriously doubt you feel this way. So the only thing I can take from your post is that you are feeling desparate and spouting arguments against circumcision off the top of your head.

I see the legitimate con side. I just don't see it as important because I'm circumcised and have absolutely no problems and like it.

But the legitimate side that I see is one of lack of consent from the infant. I am starting to come around to that side. But that leaves the issue of at what age should I allow my hypothetical son to consent to such a surgery?
He wants to be like other boys and daddy, and doesn't like his "useless" extra skin at age 3? 6? 9? 12? What age is appropriate?

Actually Flyn, I hadn't even gone there with what you are assuming... I was just commenting on your "torture without pain doesn't fit my definition" comment. No other comparisons made..

I do find it interesting the particular phrase you used here -

at what age should I allow my hypothetical son to consent to such a surgery?

with a few bits of emphasis... how do you mean 'allow' your son to consent? Isn't that completely irrelevant? Either, your son has total consensual rights, or you do... not you allowing him those rights. After all, he is a (hypothetical) human being.

[smileyeagle1021]

with a few bits of emphasis... how do you mean 'allow' your son to consent? Isn't that completely irrelevant? Either, your son has total consensual rights, or you do... not you allowing him those rights. After all, he is a (hypothetical) human being.

actually Slyt, I have to agree with the wording... in most contries the parent is responsible for decision making until the child reaches majority age... so really, as far as legality is concerned any choice a child makes is because his/her parent is allowing it... not saying it's right or wrong, that's just how it is.

[Saydrah]

Idea: What about instead of a ban, a law making it legal for any doctor to refuse to perform a circumcision, and any hospital board of directors to vote to stop performing circumcision in their hospitals?

It would send a clear message to parents if, when they sought a circumcision, they found that their chosen hospital refused to perform them for valid medical reasons. It would also make seeking the procedure inconvenient. Yet, it would neither endanger boys more, because there would still be some hospitals willing to perform circumcision, nor restrict freedom; in fact, it would increase the freedom of individual doctors and hospitals.

[Pedersen]

Idea: What about instead of a ban, a law making it legal for any doctor to refuse to perform a circumcision, and any hospital board of directors to vote to stop performing circumcision in their hospitals?

<sarcasm>
That's a great idea Saydrah. Using that same logic, we can allow pharmacists the option to refuse to dispense birth control medication. And we all know what a great idea that is.
</sarcasm>

Seriously, there is nothing that makes circumcision a requirement right now. There exists no law that requires doctors to perform it, nor any law that prevents a hospital from placing a ban on it.

In short, your proposed law does precisely nothing. In fact, it would weaken the argument in favor of banning it outright without strong medical reason until the male reaches the age of majority. The argument would then become "We should make this illegal to do to defenseless children." "Well, doctors and hospitals can already refuse, so why bother?"

I'd rather have no law than that one.

[anriana]

Idea: What about instead of a ban, a law making it legal for any doctor to refuse to perform a circumcision, and any hospital board of directors to vote to stop performing circumcision in their hospitals?

It would send a clear message to parents if, when they sought a circumcision, they found that their chosen hospital refused to perform them for valid medical reasons. It would also make seeking the procedure inconvenient. Yet, it would neither endanger boys more, because there would still be some hospitals willing to perform circumcision, nor restrict freedom; in fact, it would increase the freedom of individual doctors and hospitals.

Um, are doctors/hospitals currently legally forced to perform the operation?