Are you for or against infant circumcision, and why?

Oh dear.

Yaakov Sternberg's answer is so misinformed and misconstrued, I am almost at a lack of words.

Circumcision is genital mutilation, an unnecessary medical procedure with a risk of complications, scarring, and death.
It is a blatant violation of bodily integrity, and flies in the face of childrens rights.
All people should have the right to decide over their own bodies.

Let me just start off by linking this: Circumcision Harmful And Unnecessary

1. The HIV-prevention myth

First, babies do not have sex.
With me so far?
Shall we next spend time on discussing the shortcomings of the studies that he refers to, how they were interrupted for gross ethical misconduct – giving people who were circumcised, condoms and instructions for how to use them, and leaving all that out for the uncircumcised "controll"-group (massive roll-eyes), and how subsequent studies found that circumcised people who thought their  circumcision prevented them from contracting HIV, went on to get HIV more frequently than those who took sensible measures to prevent it?


No, we shall not, because BABIES DO NOT HAVE SEX.

But for your general knowledge, have a look at how people arrive at these idiotic health-benefit claims.
Should you circumcise your child?

2. Nevermind the origins of circumcision as mutilation to prevent masturbation.

Yeah, uh, that's kind of an intellectually dishonest and ethically bankrupt position to take.

I won't dignify that with my time, so go educate yourself with a video instead.

"The Real Reason You're Circumcised"

3. The AAP and their follow-the-money-bias

How can one be so uninformed?

  • Major Pediatric Group Releases New Circumcision Guidelines
  • American Academy of Pediatrics, criticism
  • Cultural bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report … [Pediatrics. 2013]

In brief, blah blah we're getting paid for this hooray let's recommend it blah blah blah oops we're not getting paid for it anymore let's no longer recommend it but pretend that doesn't change anything

"The tone of the policy certainly shifts somewhat in favor of circumcision in that it recognizes that there are clear medical benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure, and that those benefits are sufficient to justify coverage by insurance," said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a member of the academy's circumcision task force.
"What remains unchanged is that the AAP still holds that the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males," he said.
The academy's previous policy statement on circumcision was released in 1999. It concluded that there were "potential" medical benefits to newborn male circumcision, but not enough to recommend it routinely.


If only people weren't so interested in money but considered ethical integrity as more important…

4. The minuscule risk of penile cancer in old, old men

Babies are not old men, and you are going to have to carry out an unnecessary, mutilating, risky procedure on thousands of healthy babies to come close to be able to reduce the risks of penile cancer.
The "benefits" are far outweighed by the risks, and again: There is no reason to force this procedure on a baby.

Unless you are an american pediatrician and can get the genital mutilation covered by insurance policies.

I could go into further detail, but *le sigh*.

How about you actually look into this issue, from a critical point of view and not just the confirmation biased one?

Here's a start: Circumcision Harmful And Unnecessary

5. Oh, and Brian Morris, the guy behind circinfo?

A circumcision fetishist.

Want to read the kind of circumcision child pornography that the Gilgal society that he belonged to, produced?

Want to see the kind of circfet images that his site, formerly hosted by the University of Sydney – before they booted that shit off their servers – linked to?

I don't think you do.

  • Why does Brian Morris link his site to a circumfetish page?
  • Brian J. Morris – CircLeaks
  • University of Sydney, Protect your Reputation: Fire Brian Morris

Oh and further down Anonymous links to Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sen… [J Sex Med. 2013].

Which had Brian Morris as one of the two leading authors.

Not an unbiased meta-"study", methinks.

19 Replies to “Are you for or against infant circumcision, and why?”

  1. Against.

    If someone old enough to consent, unforced of their own free will, wishes to be circumsized then that is up to them.

    Male or female.

    If that is your religion then people can opt in once they are old enough to consent: there is no religious discrimination.

    (I'm not sure I approve of a religion that relies on conscipting people who are too young to consent in any case; that is a harder question but physical damage is clearly the wrong side of the line).

    But to mutlitate an unconsenting baby or child is clearly wrong.

    (And the health benefit argument is pretty specious).

  2. Against.

    I don't care what beliefs my parents hold, no personal faith based belief could ever give them the right.  And I can understand that, as a parent, if you genuinely believed that your faith was the true and only route to heaven, you'd feel not only inclined, but compelled to bring your son or daughter up in line with your faith. 

    However, permanently scaring your child is a step too far.  Way too far.  Irreversibly defacing another's body with the sole intention to cause as much sexual displeasure as possible, be that to your own child or not, is not only wrong, but unforgivable. Plain and simple.  And without it's marriage to religion, it'd be criminally wrong too.

    (Source: Circumcision DOES reduce sexual pleasure by making manhood less sensitive)

    If you want to mutilate the end of your penis, go for it.  No one's going to stop you.  In fact, it'd be wrong of anyone to try.  But taking a knife to a young child, without his or her consent, is in my opinion, a heinous criminal act and should be treated as such.

    Although I consider the indoctrination of children wrong, it's a world away from physical scarring. 

    Once you're old enough to think and act for yourself, you can abandon your faith.  You cannot abandon circumcision.

  3. If parents want to look into circumcision then they should, this is a personal matter in families. Parents make the decisions for the kids, this is how it works. I also want to note that male circumcision is legal in every country, not just US. Male circumcision is not “mutilation” and there is no damage if done by a professional. Risks are very low and the procedure is simple.

    You will get a lot of answers from people who are part of the hysteria that is created on the Internet regarding circumcision. Their answers come from biased anti-circumcision websites and from social media where everything it taken to another level.

    In terms of more extensive research…

    “Recent studies have found that circumcision may provide relative benefits including the potential prevention of UTIs (urinary tract infections) in infancy. Among adults in developing countries where the prevalence of sexually transmitted disease is high, circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS, syphilis and chancroid.”

    “In developed countries, circumcision may decrease the lifetime risk of penile cancer in men and cervical cancer in women among high-risk populations later in life. ”

    “In New Zealand and Australia at the present time, newborn and infant male circumcision is legal and generally considered an ethical procedure, if performed with informed parental consent and by a competent practitioner with provision of adequate analgesia.”

    Male Circumcision

    “Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. In general, untrained providers who perform circumcisions have more complications than well-trained providers who perform the procedure, regardless of whether the former are physicians, nurses, or traditional religious providers.”

    “For parents to receive nonbiased information about male circumcision in time to inform their decisions, clinicians need to provide this information at least before conception and/or early in the pregnancy, probably as a curriculum item in childbirth classes. Information to assist in parental decision-making should be made available as early as possible.”

    “Newborn male circumcision

    Current evidence indicates that there are potential health benefits associated with male circumcision, par­ ticularly in high-risk populations. Infant circumcision re­ duces the incidence of UTI in young boys and elimi­ nates the need for medical circumcision in later child­ hood to treat recurrent balanoposthitis, paraphimosis and phimosis. Circumcised men have a lower risk of developing penile cancer, while the incidence of tri­ chomonas, bacterial vaginosis and cervical cancer in the female partners of circumcised men is also re­duced”

    Canadian pediatric society.

    “Few data are available concerning the consequences of neonatal circumcision on penile sensitivity in adults. New research reported in The Journal of Urology® indicates that there are no differences in penile sensitivity for a variety of stimulus types and penile sites between circumcised and intact men. Additionally, this study challenges past research suggesting that the foreskin is the most sensitive and, in turn, most sexually relevant, part of the adult penis.”

    Sexual Satisfaction, Performance, and Partner Response Following Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Zambia: The Spear and Shield Project

    “Zambian men undergoing VMMC and their partners had a high degree of satisfaction with the procedure and its consequences in terms of sexual satisfaction, validating findings from previous research.”

    As someone who underwent circumcision in adulthood, my satisfaction rate increased after circumcision.

    In terms of religion, I don’t know why people overlook this? Just because you don't share beliefs in a religion does not mean you can judge others. Male circumcision remains an important part of a lot of families and their religion sees it as an important step to manhood.

  4. I, personally, am against it.

    It’s non-consensual

    Circumcising a newborn child is inherently done without their approval. They aren’t old or self-aware enough to make a valid decision, much less communicate it. Often this procedure is done without painkillers, which can be extremely painful. Just because the infant is too young to remember this incident doesn’t mean it can’t be traumatic. If every individual were able to make the choice as an adult, they would likely reconsider, given the significant pain that circumcision involves.

    It can cause deep psychological trauma

    Several studies have indicated that circumcision may lead to profound psychological trauma. While the mind may not remember the pain, the body does. Being a genital procedure it can lead to depressing aftereffects as an adult, such as PTSD, higher sensitivity to pain, feelings of having been mutilated, violated, and being incomplete. Cutting off a piece of the body, albeit a very small one, can have a strong emotional effect, particularly in such an intimate area.

    It reduces sexual stimulation

    The removal of the foreskin has been shown to reduce sexual satisfaction. It contains nerve endings that are highly sensitive and moves during sex in ways that can increase pleasure. Cutting it off it dulls sensitivity in the ‘head’ of the penis. (This has led some men to resort to “un-circumcision,” which can be done with surgery and may increase pleasure.)

    For a wider perspective, check out: The Perspective on Circumcision

  5. Against. It is not harmless, it is not qualitatively different from FGM, it does not have medical benefits that make it worth the risk, and parent's rights to make decisions on their children's behalf should not extend to making permanent alterations on their genitals without strong medical justification.

    That cut men support the practice is no argument for it. 20-30 years after the fact, it's much easier to say "not a big deal" than to consider the possibility that your parents (who no doubt do love you) did an injustice to you, or start thinking of yourself as a victim of a barbaric tradition.

    In areas where it is common, most cut women likewise defend and continue the practice.

    The need people have to defend their cultural traditions should not be underestimated.

  6. My stance is that it's a personal family decision. There are proven health benefits and it's a low risk procedure. If parents want to look into circumcision then they should, this is a personal matter in families. I also want to note that male circumcision is legal in every country, not just US.

    “Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. In general, untrained providers who perform circumcisions have more complications than well-trained providers who perform the procedure, regardless of whether the former are physicians, nurses, or traditional religious providers.”

    “Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.

    Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision that should be provided before conception and early in pregnancy, when parents are most likely to be weighing the option of circumcision of a male child.

    Source: Male Circumcision

    Male circumcision has scientific studies that back up the health benefits. Foreskin removal is not shown to have damage and does not fit the definition. Removing appendix and wisdom teeth is also not considered mutilation for those same reasons. Circumcision offers more protection, it does not mean the person can never get HIV. There just seems to be decreased chance of getting the HIV virus if the person is circumcised and that is very important.

    Source: Male circumcision and HIV infection risk

    Foreskin also does not affect sexual sensations and satisfaction. FGM does. Male glans are equivalent to the clitoris. So you can see why removing clitoris, not clitoral hood, is seen as mutilation.

  7. I feel as if I’m getting to this particular party a little late. I have already commented on a few peoples posts only to realize after the fact that they had been made months ago. Oh well let’s get started.

    The only thing my parents ever did to me as a child that I do not have the power to undue now that I am an adult is circumcision. No other choice my parents ever made was permanent or at the very least could not be changed by me now.

    With that in mind I want my missing part back. I don’t particularly care if most other people never even think about their lack of foreskin, I don’t care that this desire comes from a mostly emotional desire, please note the word mostly. I am in a position where having my extra skin downstairs would be medically helpful (this position is personal so don’t bother asking what it is.).

    I can’t have my missing skin back though, because according to the pro-cutting crowd here, my parents religious rights outweigh mine. Those who recognize my name and adorable profile picture will probably already know that I am an atheist, so being without this piece of my anatomy that would be quite helpful to me now, because the god of my enemies said so, only adds insult to injury.

    One poster to this question added a laundry list of potential medical benefits for male circumcision, including decreased risk for STDs/HIV/Penile cancer and I do not argue these benefits that have very credible and recognized scientific sources. It still says nothing of the fact that the choice is removed from me and given to someone else.

    Giving these medical benefits as an argument will still yield the same results in adults, some will think the benefits are worth it and some will not. Personally I’d rather risk the cancer and Aids thank you very much, I’m not sold and yet here I sit, the decision already having been made for me, without my consent, against my will, and to my detriment.

    Circumcision of any kind should be banned, on the grounds that it makes a permanent and irreversible physical alteration for someone without their consent and we only make exceptions for these in life threatening scenarios. The ability to be slightly safer when having unprotected sex with an Aids patient is no excuse to cut my junk.

  8. Very much against it, for two reasons:

    1. It's physical mutilation of someone else's body, someone who is too young to agree to it, and;
    2. Other than in uncommon medical cases it's completely unnecessary.
  9. When it comes to the topic of Circumcision, many people focus on the origins of circumcision (I.E. the reasons that the practice began, why people started/used to do it). This is a wrong approach as it commits the Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy, or more specifically, it commits the genetic fallacy. The fact of the matter is (as I will show in some detail), there are significant benefits of circumcision.

    (Others focus on the gory details, which is also wrong as it plays on peoples emotions rather than focusing on the hard facts. Important decisions shouldn't be based on how they make us feel about them, or be disregarded just because they make us squeamish, that's just the nature of biology, medicine, & particularly surgery. What's important is the facts needed to make an accurate cost benefit analysis.)

    I once researched this topic for a debate & found that the benefits are significant & many, while the negative aspects are really relatively few and insignificant
    Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable
    My opponent ultimately forfeited, here is part of my argument:

    Male  circumcision is a relatively simple, quick and safe procedure  when  performed in a clinical setting under aseptic conditions by a  trained  practitioner with proper instrumentation, and has few complications,  especially when done with infants. (1)(2)(3)(4)
    It is the most commonly done surgery in the united states, if not the world.
    Approximately 60% of U.S. Infants are circumcised, & approx. 1 in 3 infants worldwide.
    When performed with a Local anesthetic there is virtually no pain at all.
    (Older patients often require general anesthesia, which does have some level of risk associated with it.)


    Due to lack of time and space, I'll just mention two for now:

    About 50,000 Americans are newly infected with HIV each year. (5)

    The AAP technical report on circumcision cites 14 studies which found evidence that circumcision is protective against HIV.

    Circumcision Reduces Risk of AIDS Virus Infection (6) (7)

    The  World Health Organization/Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS –  The specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that is concerned with  international public health – describes the efficacy of circumcision as  "proved beyond reasonable doubt".(8)

    Male circumcision significantly reduced the incidence of HIV in three clinical trials. (9)

    3  randomized trials have evaluated male circumcision for prevention of  sexually transmitted infections. The trials found that circumcision  decreases HIV acquisition by 53% to 60%. (10) (11)


    The risk of cancer of the penis in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. (12) (13).

    The most recent American Cancer Society estimates for penile cancer in the United States are for 2012: (14)
    About 1,570 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed.
    About 310 men will die of penile cancer.

    With regard the following statistics, keep in mind that that a large majority of Americans (About 80% – Prevalence of circumcision) are circumcised.

    "In  five major studies in the USA, starting in 1932 [13], not one man with  invasive penile cancer had been circumcised neonatal [3]. Another report  noted 50,000 cases of penile cancer in the USA from 1930 to 1990,  resulting in 10,000 deaths [14]. Only 10 of the cases occurred in  circumcised men, but all of these men had been circumcised later in  life. Penile cancer is in fact so rare in a man circumcised in infancy,  that when it does occur it can be the subject of a published case report  [15]. The finite residual risk is greater in those circumcised after  the newborn period but is still less than for men who are not  circumcised [16]." (15)


    It  should be noted that if an uncircumcised man chooses to have the  procedure done later in life, it will be more complex, (painful) and  dangerous, than it would be for a newborn. (1)

    (1) Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Library
    (2) University of Rochester Medical Center
    (3) Male  circumcision for HIV prevention: a prospective study of complications  in clinical and traditional settings in Bungoma, Kenya
    (4) Page on WHO (World Health Organization web site
    (7) Male Circumcision
    (8) Page on WHO (World Health Organization) web site
    (9) Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections and Syphilis — NEJM
    (10) Page on Nih (National institutions of health) .gov
    (12) What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the  penis? – Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons – Infections, Disease, Hygiene, Cancer – MedicineNet
    (13) Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the pe… [Am J Dis Child. 1980]
    (14) What are the key statistics about penile cancer?

    See the rest of the debate where I show that the "risks" have been greatly exaggerated, and many are based on dubious studies.  Parent-elective circumcision of offspring is ethically unacceptable



    This study aims to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature to determine Whether circumcision impairs or improves male sexual function or pleasure:
    … (see link for details)
    The highest-quality  studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on  sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.
     – Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sen… [J Sex Med. 2013]

    "In   addition, particularly in the past 3 to 4 years, objective studies   comparing sensitivity and sexual pleasure in circumcised versus   uncircumcised men and evaluating measures of sexual pleasure before and   after adult circumcision [35–38] have concluded that no clinically   significant difference exists between the circumcised and uncircumcised   states. This result should come as no surprise in view of the complex   psychological, neurologic, chemical, hormonal, and circulatory cascade   involved in sexual activity."

    "Several   studies conducted among men after adult circumcision suggest that few   men report their sexual functioning is worse after circumcision; most   report either improvement or no change [49-52]. The three African  trials  found high levels of satisfaction among the men after  circumcision  [16,17, 18, 46]."

    "A   recent controlled study published in the January issue of BJU   International, the British Journal of Urology, looked at nearly 4,500   Ugandan men, ages 15 to 49, who were all sexually experienced.   Researchers randomly selected half to undergo circumcision, and half to   have a circumcision in 24 months. They compared the two groups at six,   12 and 24 months to measure sexual satisfaction and performance.
    The  circumcised group's rate of  sexual satisfaction remained constant,  with 98.5% reporting sexual  satisfaction before circumcision, and 98.4%  reporting so two years after  the procedure."
    Some circumcise as adults, others reverse it


    FGM (Female genital mutation) on comparison:

    People  often compare Circumcision to FGM asking what the difference is. This  is red herring, the  real question is, what is the similarity & why  do people compare it at all. The answer to the first question, is that  there is no comparison at  all. With male circumcision, there are  positive benefits, as opposed to in a female  there are none. There is  clear risk and negative repercussions when  done on a female, as opposed  to on a male the risk is much less.

    "Female   circumcision is not required by any religious group and is a   traditional practice prevalent in Africa, Southeast Asia and South   America.
    It's  far more disfiguring,  disabling and potentially dangerous than male  circumcision so cannot be  viewed in the same light. The original author  fully supports the World  Health Organisation's policy that this  procedure should cease  throughout the world."
    Effects of circumcision on male sexual function: debu… [J Urol. 2002]

    "It's far more disfiguring, disabling and potentially dangerous than male circumcision so cannot be viewed in the same light."

    Dr. Mark Hoofnagle M.D. Ph.D writes on the FGM comparison:
    "Independent  of how you may feel about male circumcision, it does not  normally, or  even more than very rarely, lead to long-term medical  consequences.   FGM nearly always does.  FGM is not usually as  “simple” as a pinprick.  And who performs it is  irrelevant.  If women  are co-opted into torturing each other by the  dominant male culture,  that is most emphatically not a mitigating  factor, but a sign of how  deeply disturbed gender relations in the  culture are.

    Male  circ is not a method of controlling males and their sexuality.   In  nearly every culture that has ever existed (and one might argue that   this is even more true of cultures that circumcise), males are  dominant.   FGM is always—always—a   method of controlling women and their sexuality.  It is almost always   mutilitory (rather than symbolic) and leads to widespread female   urogenital problems.  Despite what the foreskin-worshipers may say,  male  circumcision and FGM are in no way equivalent. 

    Go  ahead and argue the ethics of male circ on their merits.  There is  a  reasonable discussion to be had.  But leave FGM out of it." 
    Why male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not morally equivalent
    See also:
    Page on Idebate
    An Evidence-Based Appraisal – This is a pro circumcision website, but they make some good  reasonable points, & back up much of what they write with good  credible sources.

  10. Common sense would be against this needless procedure for the following reasons:

    • Routine non-emergency surgery without the permission of the patient is never permissible.
    • No substantiated medical benefits concerning STDs or cancer as provided by collecting data using a variety of different sources from different organizations, in different locations, and with different ethnicities with different genetic predispositions, with no statistics regarding sexual orientation, with no statistics regarding protection methods, no indication of sample size, no evidence of statistical analysis where a probability test is used to determine its accuracy. In other words, just numbers taken from a sample without regard to the countless variables where you pick and choose those numbers that support your hypothesis, also known as biased results. Even worse, are medical benefits that are offered from those organizations such as the AAP which collects dues from its pediatrician members that make a profit on this needless procedure. In other words, look for a conflict of interest when examining statistics.
    • Going against Nature and millions of years of evolution.
    • Also from an evolutionary sexual attraction point of view, just like the vulva of a female exudes pheromones to attract a mate, it would only seem logical that the foreskin does the same.
    • Ancient outdated religious practice for which there is no benefit other than to conform to religious doctrine. This is very similar to conforming to breed standards for dogs when it come to tail docking and ear cropping. Again, no medical benefit.
    • There is actual protection against trauma and infection provided by this valuable piece of epidermal tissue. From a histological point of view, the immunology can be described in terms of the epidermis, where the foreskin is the first line of defense in protecting against trauma and infection. Secretory antibodies such as IgA are secreted by the foreskin in response to a cascade of immunological events when dendritic cells of the foreskin first contact an infectious pathogen or cancer cell and thus can prevent infection or cancer cells from entering deeper into the underlying tissue and bloodstream. And this may be the reason why research labs need this valuable piece of epidermal tissue.
    • This irreversible procedure may have a negative psychological effect at a later date, and possibly accompanied with ill feelings towards parents.
    • Then there’s the individual’s rights over the dictates of the parent. And individual freedom is what Western Society guarantees. Let the individual decide at a later date.

    Conclusion: Take advice from a variety of different sources of information, and look for the profit motive. Baby foreskins are often sold for a profit to research labs and the cosmetic industry.

    The following articles contain the real reasons why this most needless religious procedure is still legal:

    • Is Oprah Supporting the Harvest of Baby Foreskin?
    • Protestors demand Oprah pull her endorsement of 'fountain of youth' face cream because it is made from baby foreskins
    • Is Baby Foreskin The Key To Youthful Skin?
    • Oprah Draws Criticism for Endorsing Face Cream Made From Foreskins
    • The Foreskins in Oprah's Facecream
    • 3 Surprising Uses For Infant Foreskins

    And this again proves the benefit of the foreskin as a valuable piece of epidermal tissue.

    Most importantly, use common sense and let evolution be your guide. Don’t let doctors or hospital staff that stand to profit enter into any decision.

  11. Against.

    When I see a baby, a great many emotions pass through me.

    • I think of the potential accomplishments for that individial in the future.
    • I think about the precious fragility of this human life.
    • I think about how marvellous it is that this helpless thing, can learn and figure out the world around them.

    What I don’t think is:

    “You know what? This kid really needs a chunk of their genitalia sliced-off.”

  12. Against.

    It is pointless mutilation.

    I've seen little evidence of any health benefits, wearing sunscreen probably has greater benefit.

    The only other reason I've seen is to support childhood indoctrination into religious belief systems. A way to constantly remind the child about the religion so that he cannot escape thinking about it (linking a religious reminder to an everyday function – quite clever really). But as I've seen no evidence to support the existence of these gods, I see no defensible benefit of circumcision.

    I think it should be outlawed as child abuse until the individual concerned has reached maturity (18 years in this country) and is able to choose for themselves.

    A slight aside, but if the gods gave men foreskins, why would the gods then want them chopped off?

  13. For anyone arguing in favour of circumcision from religious reasons I would like to understand at which point after first holding a new born baby, supposedly created in Gods image, perfect, innocent and trusting, does it occur to them that God made one tiny design error and that another homosapien needs to correct 'His' work. Snip snip.

  14. I think it is up to the parents.
    It is their religious right.
    There is no evidence it causes any harm.
    There is evidence it can be healthful.

    And it is a very minor surgical procedure on a newborn but a very serious and potentially life threatening procedure done on an adult.

    So "waiting" is not only a violation of one's religion but also would require the person to undergo circumcision as an adult, when it is a MUCH more painful and dangerous procedure.

    PS: Someone else posted a link alleging that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. The link leads to a newspaper article in which the researchers being interviewed describe a survey they conducted of people in the subway…

    Here is what the latest peer reviewed medical literature has to say:

    Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sen… [J Sex Med. 2013]

    Those studies reported a total of 40,473 men, including 19,542 uncircumcised and 20,931 circumcised.

    Rated by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system, 2 were 1++ (high quality randomized controlled trials) and 34 were case-control or cohort studies (11 high quality: 2++; 10 well-conducted: 2+; 13 low quality: 2-).

     The 1++, 2++, and 2+ studies uniformly found that circumcision had no overall adverse effect on penile sensitivity, sexual arousal, sexual sensation, erectile function, premature ejaculation, ejaculatory latency, orgasm difficulties, sexual satisfaction, pleasure, or pain during penetration.

    Support for these conclusions was provided by a meta-analysis.

    Impairment in one or more parameters was reported in 10 of the 13 studies rated as 2-. These lower-quality studies contained flaws in study design (11), selection of cases and/or controls (5), statistical analysis (4), and/or data interpretation (6); five had multiple problems.

    Conclusion: The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?-A systematic review. J Sex Med

  15. Absolutely against. There is no proven health risk of an uncircumsized penis, people just talk about "Circumsized men might be at lower risk of this disease and that." The potential health risk of an appendix is higher and more sudden, yet we don't get our children have a surgery to remove their appendix.

    I think it should be illegal to get it done until adulthood. An (adult) man should decide what he wants to do with his body.

  16. In my culture (Kikuyu culture & tradition), circumcision is a mark that you are leaving or graduating from boyhood (lad) to adulthood & it's done when one reaches age 13 or 14 & there is alot of counseling before the act & after from your seniors (though of late it's purely cosmetic & has lost meaning). For me, i would be against unless on medical grounds. Why? Why do it just for the sake.

  17. Really, I’m indifferent to the issue of infant circumcision except as it relates to Judaism and Jewish babies, though I realize that the subject is fraught for many people. (On a slow news day, the NYT invariably runs an article either on circumcision or breastfeeding: both subjects make people nuts).

    Infant circumcision (for Jews) is not a ‘tradition.’ For a believing Jew, it is a commandment from Sinai. It is non-negotiable. Even if you don’t believe in God, or commandments. Circumcision needn’t be painful, and has a few ancillary benefits.

    EDIT: As modern people, the very idea of ‘commandment’ as a non-negotiable act falls very hard on our ears. Judaism says that unfettered personal autonomy is a false god. Whether you personally believe that or not.

    Quora User's answer to What is the reason behind infant circumcision in Judaism?

  18. I am totally 100% against. Why anyone in their right mind would do this to a child and why it even continues to exist is frankly beyond me, there is no possible excuse for male genital mutilation either in a child or adult unless the person has some form of condition that requires it e.g Phimosis where the foreskin is too tight although in babies it is not possible to determine the position as the foreskin does not retract. Frankly I think circumcision is completely barbaric and I have a large number of American friends who agree with me – unfortunately in most cases it was too late for them. What amazes me is that when they come and stay at my house in Europe and we go to the pool or the gym they can't believe everyone is uncut. What really upsets them is when I refer to someone who is uncut as "an intact male" a friend of mine in Fort Lauderdale was discussing his boys planned circumcision and his son wasn't even due to be born for week or two – not a good start in life is it 🙂 he said to me he thought it was a good idea for the health benefits and I explained that I have never had a problem and neither have any of my friends in Europe or Canada who are not cut so these "perceived health benefits" are completely nonsensical in the same way as the North American obsession with extracting wisdom teeth. When a teenager tells me his wisdom teeth have to come out I ask myself a question "as most Americans are of European origins how come most of them have their wisdom teeth extracted when most Europeans have retained them" when you think about it it doesn't make sense.

    Returning to the issue of my friends son and the proposed circumcision I said if you think it's a good idea why not leave it to your son to make up his own mind when the time comes? What baffles me is that when we are talking about female genital mutilation everyone is tearing their hair out but when we talk about male circumcision in the US its frequently looked at differently though in Europe people are strongly opposed – time to smell the coffee over here in the US I reckon!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *