Male infant circumcision ban

[Zcrab]

Would you support a ban on male infant circumcision if the intervention is done without a medical reason?

 

I am a huge supporter of it. I find it disgusting that parents are allowed to cut in their child's penis just because their religion says they need to. The only legitimate reason for circumcising your child is for health reasons. In any other case, I think you should keep your hands off your child's genitials.

 

I keep hearing the same counter argument that goes:

 

"If we ban it, then parents will start to circumcise their children in the dark, meaning that the act won't be done in a safe place, and possibly not done by a trained doctor." 

 

I do not think it will become such a huge problem. I believe that the vast majority of the parents who circumcise their children are law abiding citizens, and if circumcision were to be banned, they would stop doing it. A ban on female infant circumcision has already been made in all western countries, and to my knowledge that has not created a big issue with children getting circumcised in shady places with unprofessionals.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I mean comparing it to FGM is a little bit of a reach, because that's barely the same thing. Male circumcision is a lot safer and practised in a much broader number of countries, including most of north america. 

 

Having said that... yeah, I'd support a ban. If a guy wants to get cut he can make that choice when he's an adult. Cutting off a part of the penis of a baby who can't consent, with no medical justification, is frankly barbaric, and it's utterly bizarre that it's the norm in the US. In countries without organised healthcare systems or high use of contraception, it can provide some protection against STIs.

[Zcrab]

2 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

I mean comparing it to FGM is a little bit of a reach, because that's barely the same thing. Male circumcision is a lot safer and practised in a much broader number of countries, including most of north america. 

 

I did not mean to compare it directly to female circumcision, I know it is a much worse  intervention. That being said though, male circumcision isn't just bad because you're abrogating  individual rights, there are also healthy risks. For example, this Danish study found that circumcised boys may run greater risks of devoloping autism spectrum disorder.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530408/

[Discovery]

As someone who was circumcised at freaking 12 years old, I would definitely support this. I was so pissed when I learned that the extremely painful process was only for religious reasons and a sort of "rite of passage" to teenage boys in my country. 

 

I miss my foreskin

[Haxor Gaming]

I was circumcised at 8 days old and I would also support a ban until a male can consent to having his foreskin removed. I know that this is a Jewish tradition, but my parents are Christian so I do not know why they followed this tradition. 

 

EDIT: After reading more into male circumcision, infant circumcision is much more painful than in later stages of life and there is usually no medical need for the removal of the foreskin. 

[ksolis01]

Same.

[polar]

On 4/6/2018 at 11:54 AM, Zcrab said:

Would you support a ban on male infant circumcision if the intervention is done without a medical reason?

 

Umm, it's usually done not for religious reasons but because studies have found it to be beneficial - reduced risk of UTIs, STDs, cancers associated with HPV infection (cervical, penile),  and a few other infections that can happen. 

 

If you actually look at a lot of "religious" practices that have been around for hundreds of years, they are actually rooted in practices that promoted health, survival of our species. They probably became religious practices to encourage people to get them done after they were found to be beneficial. 

 

Obviously doesn't apply to all religious practices... 

 

And in this day and age infections related to having foreskin are a lot less important in developed countries. So the overall benefit is small enough that it hasn't been made a "mandatory" intervention done in all male infants in the US and EU. 

[Zcrab]

On 29/4/2018 at 4:21 AM, polar said:

 

Umm, it's usually done not for religious reasons but because studies have found it to be beneficial - reduced risk of UTIs, STDs, cancers associated with HPV infection (cervical, penile),  and a few other infections that can happen. 

 

If you actually look at a lot of "religious" practices that have been around for hundreds of years, they are actually rooted in practices that promoted health, survival of our species. They probably became religious practices to encourage people to get them done after they were found to be beneficial. 

 

Obviously doesn't apply to all religious practices... 

 

And in this day and age infections related to having foreskin are a lot less important in developed countries. So the overall benefit is small enough that it hasn't been made a "mandatory" intervention done in all male infants in the US and EU. 

 

When I say medical reasons, I mean urgent medical reasons and not preventive reasons. Some preventive procedures like vaccines are indeed great, but circumcision is not between life and death. STD's can be avoided easily, and HPV is being vaccinated against. I don't know much about UTI but I can't imagine it being a huge deal.

 

I have yet to hear a religious person argue that they circumcise their child because of health benefits, so I don't really believe in your first point. To add on top of that, the vast majority of people who do circumcise their children are religious, and I do not belive that religious parents just protect their children better than other, non-religious parents.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

STIs can't be avoided easily everywhere, there are huge benefits in countries without the kind of healthcare infrastructure we have in the west.

[Zcrab]

21 hours ago, Teeny Tiny Cat said:

STIs can't be avoided easily everywhere, there are huge benefits in countries without the kind of healthcare infrastructure we have in the west.

 

I realise that this idea is not applicable anywhere in the world, but when I posted this I was focusing on the west. Those countries you are talking about have greater issues than male infant circumcision. For example, female circumcision.

[Chilled Soda]

I think there should be a choice for the individual, as there is no telling how that person may feel. It should definitely be a choice, and one that the person can make at a certain age of consent (18?)

[polar]

On 5/4/2018 at 10:55 AM, Zcrab said:

 

When I say medical reasons, I mean urgent medical reasons and not preventive reasons. Some preventive procedures like vaccines are indeed great, but circumcision is not between life and death. STD's can be avoided easily, and HPV is being vaccinated against. I don't know much about UTI but I can't imagine it being a huge deal.

 

I have yet to hear a religious person argue that they circumcise their child because of health benefits, so I don't really believe in your first point. To add on top of that, the vast majority of people who do circumcise their children are religious, and I do not belive that religious parents just protect their children better than other, non-religious parents.

 

"I don't really believe in your first point" - I'm speaking from the POV of a health care professional, not a parent. My first point is why health care professionals have pushed for it. It's a responsibility of healthcare professionals to state without bias the advantages and disadvantages of all procedures. 

 

"I don't know much about UTI but I can't imagine it being a huge deal." - UTIs were one of the top causes of death in infants in the preantibiotic era. 

 

I'm not sure if you're getting my main point here. My point is that circumcision reduced infant mortality for over a thousand years - before antibiotics, vaccines - existed. It makes sense that it would be incorporated as part of religious doctrine. In places with appropriate health care like the US and EU, it's no longer necessarily needed but still exists because it's still part of the religious doctrine. 

 

[Zcrab]

3 hours ago, polar said:

"I don't really believe in your first point" - I'm speaking from the POV of a health care professional, not a parent. My first point is why health care professionals have pushed for it. It's a responsibility of healthcare professionals to state without bias the advantages and disadvantages of all procedures.

 

I carefully explained why I do not think of it as an issue, I never said you were wrong. Do you disagree when I say it is easy to avoid STD's in Europe or the US? Do you belive the HPV vaccines we have are ineffective?

 

3 hours ago, polar said:

"I"I don't know much about UTI but I can't imagine it being a huge deal." - UTIs were one of the top causes of death in infants in the preantibiotic era. 

 

But we do not live in the preantibiotic era. Is it still one of the top causes of death in infants?

 

3 hours ago, polar said:

I'm not sure if you're getting my main point here. My point is that circumcision reduced infant mortality for over a thousand years - before antibiotics, vaccines - existed. It makes sense that it would be incorporated as part of religious doctrine. In places with appropriate health care like the US and EU, it's no longer necessarily needed but still exists because it's still part of the religious doctrine. 

 

I am not sure what to make of this. Are you trying to legitimatise infant circumcision because it has historically been advantageous? This post is about male infant circumcision in the modern western world, and I am asking if you believe it should be accepted in our western world. Yes or no?

[ksolis01]

We should honestly just get rid of religion, ez fix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

[Aquaa]

Have good body hygiene or lose 3/4ths of your sexual pleasure hmmm. Like Teeny said, STI's / STD's are easily avoidable, it's not that hard to shower often and if we're going beyond circumcision also practicing safe sex.

 

Should probably let the children decide when they are old enough :/

[SneakySpinarak]

On 4/28/2018 at 10:21 PM, polar said:

 

Umm, it's usually done not for religious reasons but because studies have found it to be beneficial - reduced risk of UTIs, STDs, cancers associated with HPV infection (cervical, penile),  and a few other infections that can happen. 

 

If you actually look at a lot of "religious" practices that have been around for hundreds of years, they are actually rooted in practices that promoted health, survival of our species. They probably became religious practices to encourage people to get them done after they were found to be beneficial. 

 

Obviously doesn't apply to all religious practices... 

 

And in this day and age infections related to having foreskin are a lot less important in developed countries. So the overall benefit is small enough that it hasn't been made a "mandatory" intervention done in all male infants in the US and EU. 

studies have shown it also reduces sensitivity in nerves in the head of the penis and fractionally reduces pleasure during sex. It is also very strange to me as an American who lived abroad that it is expected in the states and almost entirely nonexistent and considered unfortunate across all of Europe (where I lived) and in many other parts of the world. I will always support choice in the most matters regarding sexual health and don't see this as any different. Also I agree with your statement on seemingly "religious" practices being doctored in for health reasons across ancient cultures, it is an important distinction to recognize.