Jump to content
NZT48

circumcision

circumcision  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Should involuntary circumcision be illegal?

    • Yes.
      9
    • No.
      5
  2. 2. For the males: are you circumcised?

    • Yes.
      5
    • No.
      9


Recommended Posts

Cutting babies seems barbaric to me and I think it should be illegal. Uncircumcised is natural and how God made us and there is nothing wrong with it IMO. What do you think?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's personal choice so shouldn't be illegal.  There are some VERY good clinical reasons for circumcision.  My sister's son is circumcised due to her living on a working cattle farm.  They go bush regularly and so they cannot keep the hygiene levels to what would be considered normal.  So the medical advice was to circumcise to prevent infections.  So she did.  Without a medical reason however, I see no reason for it.  And religious reasons shouldn't be considered reasons.

To make it illegal would be actually causing harm.  

 

EDIT: personally I wouldn't do it except for the above reasons.  My son is not circumcised as i didn't see a need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Involuntary should indeed be illegal but as Chaos says there can be perfectly good reasons for it.

A myth persisted in this country for years that if we were to go to war all the troops would be circumcised -load of rubbish of course.

A bit interesting that given Leo's ethnicity he agrees on it being illegal but most modern Israelis that I know feel the same way if the subject comes up.

Also a bit interesting given DMB's beliefs - it sort of originates in the Bible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

The controversy really begins with parents taking the decision before a male child can appreciate what is going on but that is apparently becoming far rarer these days.

A couple of friends for perfectly good reasons have had to have adult circumcision - a real leg crosser, they were not happy about it at all but as I noted there were sound medical reasons.

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IRT legality, I'm very uncertain about the proper course of action:

1. In what sense 'involuntary'?  Infants do not have any legal say - it devolves to their parents to make that decision, and that decision might be diametrically opposed to the kid's once he grows up.

1a. It's most often the parents insisting upon more barbaric procedures like FGM. 

2. Whilst it's obviously not painless, it doesn't appear to result in any long-term trauma for the boy: individuals who remember anything before 2 are rare, including major trauma like burn injuries; and the organ still works as intended after the procedure.  Adults who have circumcision report severe pain at the time, but no long-term dysfunction.

3. There are valid hygiene reasons to have it done.  However, given some very basic training and access to water adequate hygiene can be maintained without it.

 

I just can't draw a hard line on that one.  Personal choice: I'm against it (I wouldn't do it to my kid if I had one), but I'm not going to denounce anyone as a monster for having their son done.

The same cannot be said in the case of FGM.  That has no legitimate utility, and does have profound ongoing negative consequences.  If I find out about anyone doing that to their girl, I'll shop them to the authorities as fast as I can pick up my 'phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you break an 8-day-old’s arm, Cybes, they won’t remember it, it’ll heal and no functional loss will be apparent.

It’s barbaric and should be illegal. There are no ifs or buts to this. Harming a child like that is illegal unless you claim to do it for a bearded sky wizard. We’re mature enough as a species in Australia to suggest to people who insist on mutilating their children to fuck off back to wherever it is legal. Or stay and deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Leonid said:

If you break an 8-day-old’s arm, Cybes, they won’t remember it, it’ll heal and no functional loss will be apparent.

It also serves no real purpose.  And whilst the limb will function as intended (assuming proper setting), that bone will ache at odd times for a significant period - possibly for life.

As per my point 3, there is actually a case to made for it on hygiene grounds in very specific circumstances.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Leonid said:

If you break an 8-day-old’s arm, Cybes, they won’t remember it, it’ll heal and no functional loss will be apparent.

It’s barbaric and should be illegal. There are no ifs or buts to this. Harming a child like that is illegal unless you claim to do it for a bearded sky wizard. We’re mature enough as a species in Australia to suggest to people who insist on mutilating their children to fuck off back to wherever it is legal. Or stay and deal.

I mostly agree, but it's not uncommon for kids to be taken out of the country to be circumcised and then brought back in ... now these are kids walking talking kids, not babies .

/ I prefer not to use the female version of the word for cutting ... A baby/ child feels it just the same regardless of a penis or a vagina . imo. of course that also depends on whether a tribal dude or doctor in a hospital did the cutting.

 

 

4 hours ago, Cybes said:

but I'm not going to denounce anyone as a monster for having their son done.

A friend of mine took her baby boy south to have it done ... she staid with the mother-in-law . I tried very hard not to think her a cunt for doing that, but well we don't have much to say to each other these days.

She never asked my opinion ( probably cos given how long we'd known each other she knew it ), but she told me she'd had him cut later ... I thought that was strange

Edited by eveln
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an opinion, but I feel that as most boys will not have medical issues arise from being uncircumcised, it should not be an option given to parents of baby boys. 

However, sometimes circumcision does fix a medical problem later in life, so it should be an option under these circumstances, or for any male over 18 if that's what they want.

 

Religion is not a good reason IMO.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a vanishingly small number of genuine medical exceptions aside, if the "solution" to a problem is mutilating a newborn human child, then something is very, very, wrong.  

species dont evolve "optional extras".  the level of ignorance/stupidity necessary to believe otherwise, astounds, revolts, and angers me to my core.   i would add, '— especially with regard to specific features of the very organs of reproduction, whose natural functioning is so entwined with lifelong sexual and emotional health' ... but i shouldnt need to.  cutting a piece off a baby (human or animal) you dont absolutely need to, is in and of itself deplorable.

i have not, and will never, forgive my parents for the deliberate act of permanent disfigurement i suffered without the chance to withdraw my consent.  the only small consolation i have is that they grew up in more retarded times.   

i won't countenance wiggle room on this issue.  i have zero tolerance for handwringing notions of tacit permissability for 'some peoples' choices.  in short, i categorically reject moral relativist arguments for child abuse.  

today, 'hygiene reasons' typically translates to it being more convenient than taking a handful of minutes out of each day to clean the boy thoroughly and teach him well.   convenience is not a medical reason nor anything approaching a moral justification for the mutilation of a child.

egregious, selfish, pig ignorant, and cruel.   

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cybes said:

 

1. In what sense 'involuntary'?  Infants do not have any legal say - it devolves to their parents to make that decision, and that decision might be diametrically opposed to the kid's once he grows up.

If it were illegal, then the parents would not need to make a choice and the bub lives on regardless .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mother can be the most insufferable, selfish pig ignorant piece of shit on God's earth and at the moment I've been sentenced to look after the stupid bitch, then she wonders why tonight I was tired and went to bed early.

So what does the stupid bitch do? Ring all and sundry and tell them she's worried about me and as a consequence her blither wakes me up. What's wrong with me is having to fucking live with her incessant drivel, she epitomises the whinging pom and is not happy unless she is wallowing in her own or someone else's misery or wanting to know, all the fucking time, why people, this time me, have something wrong with them.

There is nothing wrong with me that could not be fixed by a couple of beers and 500 miles of separation from the useless cow.

/Rant over/

The one piece of credence that I will give the useless woman is that she would agree with the sentiment here of circumcision being stupid.

It makes as much sense as removing a kid's appendix and tonsils at birth because they might give trouble later. An outmoded useless ritual that is done without justification to far too many babies - one without good medical justification would be one too many.

Now, back to telling this ridiculous woman that she is my problem...

Cheers

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cybes said:

It also serves no real purpose.  And whilst the limb will function as intended (assuming proper setting), that bone will ache at odd times for a significant period - possibly for life.

Circumcision of an infant without any medical issues serves no real purpose either.

If breaking an arm is too extreme for you, we can devolve to lashes?

The point is circumcision is a useless barbaric act against an infant.

And I absolutely guarantee you that I’ve seen and been to more circumcisions than every Atomican put together. I assure you there is nothing quite like seeing one being done to change your mind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to go into details, have gotten tired of arguing my position.

Just going to say, male and female circumcisions (genetal mutilation) is an abhorrent practice that needs to be stopped.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, @~thehung said:

today, 'hygiene reasons' typically translates to it being more convenient than taking a handful of minutes out of each day to clean the boy thoroughly and teach him well.   convenience is not a medical reason nor anything approaching a moral justification for the mutilation of a child.

egregious, selfish, pig ignorant, and cruel.   

Not always. As I mentioned, my sister is in a working cattle farm. They often go for days while mustering with minimal water for washing.   Her husband had to be done as adult to address the issues it caused. That wasn't pretty.

In the city that's generally true. In the country, not always. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Leonid said:

I absolutely guarantee you that I’ve seen and been to more circumcisions than every Atomican put together.

Of this I have no doubt.  OTOH, I have seen sheep mulesing performed - that is horrible, yet I can understand why it is sometimes necessary.  To whit:

1 hour ago, Chaos.Lady said:

Not always. As I mentioned, my sister is in a working cattle farm. They often go for days while mustering with minimal water for washing.   Her husband had to be done as adult to address the issues it caused. That wasn't pretty.

In the city that's generally true. In the country, not always.

 

Leo, you seem to think that because I recognise that there are edge cases I'm approving of the practice in general.  I'm not.  I do not think it is justifiable on cultural or religious grounds at all. I do not think it should be routinely performed.  I most especially do not think it should be done sans anaesthetic in unsterile conditions by bearded old fart with a razor blade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having recently looked at parenting forums, it's absolutely disgusting the amount of women who are getting their sons circumcised because they think their son will be confused if their willy looks different to their fathers.

I've known 2 men who needed surgery as adults. Having babies chopped because of the small risk they'll have medical problems later, is stupid.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Involuntary any medical procedure should be illegal, period.

Special exceptions might include

- it is medically advised

- the person has lost the capacity to make decisions

- the medical condition is life-threatening

 

When not medically indicated, circumcision has something on the order of a 0.04% benefit to a male and a 0.1% handicap.  (Note I'm making up numbers but they are around these figures.)

Edited by Kothos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cybes said:

2. Whilst it's obviously not painless, it doesn't appear to result in any long-term trauma for the boy: individuals who remember anything before 2 are rare, including major trauma like burn injuries; and the organ still works as intended after the procedure.  Adults who have circumcision report severe pain at the time, but no long-term dysfunction.

There is evidence that trauma changes the way the brain works permanently, regardless of whether it is consciously remembered.  And circumcisions is very, very painful, and for infants is often done with little to no anaesthetic.  Partially because people thought it didn't hurt infants and partially because it's dangerous to anaesthetise small infants.

22 hours ago, Cybes said:

3. There are valid hygiene reasons to have it done.  However, given some very basic training and access to water adequate hygiene can be maintained without it.

There are reasons, but not valid ones.  It's also more hygenic to cut off an infants ears, but the cons outweighing the pros is obvious to most people there.  With male circumcision, the cons also outweigh the pros, but most people don't see it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What urks me is parents making this decisions for minors/children who might not quite understand why they doing it. If it's self-inflicted by informed choice, then it's a different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kothos said:

There is evidence that trauma changes the way the brain works permanently, regardless of whether it is consciously remembered.  And circumcisions is very, very painful, and for infants is often done with little to no anaesthetic.  Partially because people thought it didn't hurt infants and partially because it's dangerous to anaesthetise small infants.

There are reasons, but not valid ones.  It's also more hygenic to cut off an infants ears, but the cons outweighing the pros is obvious to most people there.  With male circumcision, the cons also outweigh the pros, but most people don't see it.

There are VERY valid reasons.  My sister had constant UTI's for years before her husband was circumcised (as an adult).  He had UTIs and multiple infections in very sensitive places. She didn't want her son to go through what he did, especially if he chose to stay on the land as an adult.

It was an informed, medically relevant decision.  Which is very valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chaos.Lady said:

There are VERY valid reasons.  My sister had constant UTI's for years before her husband was circumcised (as an adult).  He had UTIs and multiple infections in very sensitive places. She didn't want her son to go through what he did if he chose to stay on the land as an adult.

It was an informed, medically relevant decision.  Which is very valid.

 

for her, and her husband

to extrapolate that to a situation that never occurred for their son is not actually a  valid proof -  most people have sex without uti, most of the time, as would their son most likely even if his foreskin remained inrtact

 

circumcision is for most males completely unnecessary, and potentially lethal, whereas keeping the roof attached on a convertible is how they are designed

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

rcumcision is for most males completely unnecessary, and potentially lethal, whereas keeping the roof attached on a convertible is how they are designed

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chaos.Lady said:

There are VERY valid reasons.  My sister had constant UTI's for years before her husband was circumcised (as an adult).  He had UTIs and multiple infections in very sensitive places. She didn't want her son to go through what he did, especially if he chose to stay on the land as an adult.

It was an informed, medically relevant decision.  Which is very valid.

That's medically indicated, not routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2019 at 4:06 PM, Chaos.Lady said:

There are VERY valid reasons.  My sister had constant UTI's for years before her husband was circumcised (as an adult).  He had UTIs and multiple infections in very sensitive places. She didn't want her son to go through what he did, especially if he chose to stay on the land as an adult.

It was an informed, medically relevant decision.  Which is very valid.


i am wary of arguing this point not only because its close to you personally but also because i am sure i dont have all the information (and that may even be somewhat true for you).  i can only respond in a generic way.

but that disclaimer aside, i really have to insist that the picture you paint still sounds exactly like adults weighing the lifelong disfigurement of a baby against their own transient inconvenience.  

as for the father's issues, i confess to having some difficulty believing there werent alternate actions that could have been taken — from prevention, to early intervention, to better maintenance, all with varying (albeit diminishing) degrees of feasibility.  more to the point, though, there were many choices along the way, choices that he made for himself with the prerogative of an adult's volition, before he opted for the last resort - invasive, irreparably destructive, surgery.  

for this baby, though, no such choices.  instead, its straight to the last resort for him, 'just in case'.  just in case not doing it will be less convenient, and more "risky".   

but FUD propped up by medical factors of tangential relevance is still FUD.   circumcision lowers your risk factor for some things whilst raising the certainty that you will be robbed of a feature of anatomy that is your natural birthright to 100%.  an enforced birth defect right here and now wagered against a litany of future maybes.   the two dont even compare.   

the child has some of his mother's DNA for one.  he is biologically different.  he hopefully has a long lifetime ahead of him that may involve vastly different life circumstances.  what of undertaking better precautions, or changing jobs, or moving house, or dare i say it, not having the baby at all if they couldnt see their way past hacking chunks off it fresh from the birth canal?  

its a flippant excuse made palatable by a show of beard-stroking concern.  and why are equivocations like this so easy? because of the backdrop — an epidemic of passive tolerance for this act of irreversible violence to newborns.   and despite your personal preference against circumcision, i am resolutely focusing on this because it is precisely what needs to change: barely critical acceptance that violating the sanctity of a baby's body in this way is even a matter of preference when its not absolutely 100% medically necessary.

circumcision is a drastic thing.  the fact its so hard for so most of us to relate to it this way is testament to how hard it is to tear ourselves away from the grip of long established norms.  this is a blindness, a cognitive dissonance that has befallen generations of otherwise morally upright, smart, and sensible people.  monkeying around with baby genitals is something human beings do, isnt it?  its kind of normal, right?  its always been an option on the menu, hasnt it?  its so deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian tradition that too many of us fail to see it for what it is.  this needs to change.  there needs to be push back.

but thats herd animals for you.  when it comes to smoking or drinking during pregnancy we went from ubiquitous ignorance, to 'you probably shouldn't do that, but it's your choice', to 'don't fucking do it' — in the last 50 years or so.  that shit will get you ostracised from your circle of friends now, and rightly so.  evidently we still have a way to go as far as ringbarking defenceless baby's dicks on a whim goes.  incredibly, thats less of a faux pas.


p.s. since i am going pretty hard on this, i just want to clarify that ive never ostracised my parents over this and of course make no serious suggestion that you should do anything of the sort to members of your family either.  this is just an impassioned appeal for you to consider recalibrating your idea of what constitutes a "justified" circumcision.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×