@Walter Hinteler,
Thanks...that is news to me...
@hawkeye10,
The second and last time I had to go to and stay in hospital, was due to a gastrointestinal perforation ... after cauterization of hemorrhoids
@sozobe,
Well the thing is the difference is there is controversy - every agrees (well rational people) that killing children is wrong. The controversy is whether you are harming (or in this case) killinng a child. Some people believe a fetus is a child/others do not. And until you can prove one or disprove the other - it is a controversy.
Thus whether you are harming a child - understanding of course, killing is hugely different than maiming (if you consider circum. as maiming or harming). Sometimes extremes help put things in prespective. And also concluding this is not an exactly equal situation (sometimes hard to find such a thing).
@Linkat,
The backers of this law assume that Circumcision is a harming of the child, and they object on consent grounds, however there is a good argument that Circumcision is done in the service of the childs welfare. Not only will they be less prone to disease, and the care of the penis will be made easier, but they will not face the problem walter did either (which I read is a 1/100 chance). You can make a person wait till they are an adult to get this done, but that makes the circumcision much more traumatic, this is not in that individuals best interest.
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
Perhaps there's some measure of myth to this idea, BBB.
Quote:
Soraya Miré, the Somali filmmaker who has been a leading global voice against forced female circumcision, argues that male circumcision presents the same ethical and human rights challenges as the banned practice of female circumcision.
“The same universal human right to an intact body that I have fought for on behalf of women and girls must apply to boys as well, especially those who are too young to make an informed decision about the integrity of their bodies,” said Miré. “We need to ask ourselves, how can it be wrong to surgically alter the genitals of a baby girl without her consent but okay to surgically alter the genitals of a baby boy.”
Miré also rejects the argument that criticizing circumcision amounts to criticizing parents who have circumcised their sons in the past.
“African parents do not circumcise their girls because they want to hurt or oppress them,” said Miré. “They do it for many of the same reasons that American parents circumcise their sons – because they think it’s cleaner and healthier, because they think the child will be shunned or scorned if she is left intact, and because the mother is circumcised so the daughter should be, too. In other words, African parents go along with a cultural practice they never thought to question, just as many Americans do not think about the practice of circumcising their boys.”
http://www.intactamerica.org/news/ia-urgescdc
@sozobe,
If it's not anti semitic it's an up-yours.
This is one of those things I figure should work out by culture, not vote.
@ossobuco,
Is it anymore of an
up yours than the desegregation ruling of Brown vs Bd of Education, Osso.
I'm slightly conflicted on this one, but come down against this law.
My oldest son is adopted and came to us with foreskin untouched by a scalpel.
When our third child, a boy, was born we had a decision to make.
Neither my wife nor I place any religious significance in the ritual, nor do we put much stock in the argument that it is healthier for the child.
So this is what we considered:
1) Obviously Sons #1 and #2 would, at some point, see one another's Willy.
2) At some point other kids (most likely circumcised) would see Son #2's Willy
In the end we decided it was preferable for the brothers to share this anatomical feature and so didn't circumcise #2 Son. The fact that my little baby wasn't going to have his penis cut was a nice side benefit.
I have to say I don't support any law banning circumcision, but this has more to do with restrained government and personal freedom than any belief that the practice is either beneficial or even neutral.
I don't know why Muslims circumcise their children, but I know Jews do it as a sign of the child's covenant with God. We can argue that this is superstitious mumbo-jumbo but it, obviously, is very important to Jews and the ill effect on the child is, I believe, minimal (as opposed to female circumcision which is intended to reduce the ability of the woman to experience sexual pleasure).
If someone offered me evidence that male circumcision had the same ill effects of its female counterpart, I probably would change my mind. However, as a circumcised goyim of the 1950's it's tough for me to buy any argument of ill effect.
It seems to me that the rite of circumcision would be more meaningful if it was undertaken by an adult rather than imposed on a baby, but I'm sure my Jewish friends can explain to me why I am wrong.
There are a number of cultures that practice ritual facial or body scarring. I don't know of any that practice it on babies, but quite a few practice on young children (during a coming of age ritual) whose freedom of choice is somewhat suspect. Clearly this is a form of mutilation and it involves the infliction of pain, but in the long run I think the scales tip towards the cultural benefits, and I see no reason to outlaw the practices.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I don't know why Muslims circumcise their children, but I know Jews do it as a sign of the child's covenant with God.
Muslims do it as it is a tradition from before-Islamic periods.
(Besides that, it's required when men make a pilgrimage to the Kaaba.)
Quran 3:95: "Say, "GOD has proclaimed the truth: You shall follow Abraham's religion - monotheism. He never was an idolater."
@Finn dAbuzz,
Is your son
satisfied with your decision against circumcision ?
I had too many urinary infections,
resulting in the decision in favor of circumcision when I was a few months old.
I 'm very pleased with
THAT, and I 've had no further infections.
I woud not wanna look the other way.
David
@hawkeye10,
David wrote:Its healthier, to avoid infections.
hawkeye10 wrote:to include AIDS according to some studies.
I had not considered
that,
but (in that I 'm neither a homosexual nor a drug addict)
I consider myself effectively to be
immune to AIDS.
I 'm more likely to get trampled by a herd of buffalos.
David
@boomerang,
boomerang wrote:I remember when Mo was little and his mom asked me to pay for his circumcision (it wasn't covered by the state insurance program). I didn't really want to because I thought it was unnecessary so I did some research and talked to some men about it. I learned that the uncircumcised guys really caught a lot of flack about it in gym class, etc. Some men who were uncircumcised wish they had been. I've read several accounts of adult men deciding to be circumcised.
I ended up giving mOther a couple of hundred bucks and telling her what she decided to do with it was her business. I knew they were completely broke and I thought that affording some other things would for sure turn out to be more important. She spent the money getting him circumcised. Obviously it is very important to some people.
I think it's a lot less common now and whatever "stigma" that might have been attached to not being circumcised is starting to wane.
Is Mo
pleased with your decision, boomer ?
David
@OmSigDAVID,
It was his other mom's decision, not mine.
I don't think he's really got anything to compare it to -- if he knows there is more than one way for a penis to look. When he was little we used the family locker room at the pool and the pool we go to now has private showers. I know boys go through a "let's compare" stage but I don't think he's reached that yet.
@boomerang,
My cousins have told me that I
exhibited a lot of pain & anger
for a long time (during healing of the wound),
but I 'm certainly glad that it was done.
I 'd not have wanted to go thru life the other way.
David
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
There is a big difference between males and females. Male circumcision does not impede any of it's sexual functions and sensations. The removal of female genitalia removes the ability to have a sexual organism or any sexual sensations due to the removal of the clitoris.
The purpose in some cultures is to allow the male to enjoy sexual sensation while the female does not for the purpose of keeping the female for himself.
BBB
Yes it does affect male sensitivity. No, despite the horribleness of female genital mutilation, it does not take away all sensitivity (except possibly through psychological trauma or the frequent terrible infections).....the clitoris is bigger than the penis and only the small portion of it that appears on the surface can be excised.
I don't think the US is ready for a ban on cutting babies' penises, but I think it ought not to be a decision made for a child but one they make for themselves when old enough.
It's not antisemitic....it's anti religious crap.
@dlowan,
Quote:I don't think the US is ready for a ban on cutting babies' penises, but I think it ought not to be a decision made for a child but one they make for themselves when old enough.
Quote:During the procedure, the narrow sleeve of the foreskin will be trimmed away and remaining skin edges are stitched together, usually with dissolvable stitches that do not need to be removed afterwards.
The procedure will be carried out under general anaesthetic, meaning you will be asleep throughout the operation. The operation is a simple one and usually you can go home the same or next day.
http://www.spirehealthcare.com/Our-Treatments/Body-Map-and-A-Z/A-Z-Treatments/Adult-circumcision/
YOu are advocating of a general anaethetic procedure in place of a local anaesthetic procedure, which means that people will die unnecessarily....are you sure that this is the position that you want to stick with?
@hawkeye10,
I am advocating that people make up their own minds.
At how many bris do you think ANY anaesthetic is used?
How many men would have it done once the silly group pressure was gone?
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:
Not to conflate the two, but I think it bears asking -- how does everyone feel about mutilation of girls' genitalia (euphemistically called female circumcision) in places where such is practiced as a cultural tradition? Should that be banned or should it be protected?
Are you asking if gouging out a little girl's clitoris so she will never experience sexual pleasure, and sewing up her labia so it fuses together in away that makes it difficult to urinate, and is guaranteed to be torn asunder during intercourse and childbirth, is the same as removing the foreskin of a penis? No it is not even close. If they were cutting off the tip of the penis and stitching it closed I might agree, but otherwise we are talking two different things. The word
circumcision should not be applied to this atrocity performed on little girls. It is far worse and has no justification under any religious belief or cultural reasoning.
@Green Witch,
Quote:The word circumcision should not be applied to this atrocity performed on little girls.
The folks who consider it an atrocity normally call it "female genital mutilation".....
Quote: (It) has no justification under any religious belief or cultural reasoning.
Bullshit, the reasoning goes that relationship and society function better when females are able to experience less pleasure during sex. You can disagree with this evaluation but you can not fairly say that there has been no cultural reasoning given...
@hawkeye10,
The folks who consider it an atrocity are not the problem - and yes, I am familiar with the term.
