The Circumcision of Infants is Morally Abhorrent and Should Be Illegal

How is it that -- even in our secular, modern society -- it is still completely acceptable to have your children circumcised? Even if it is your personal faith, as a parent you have no way of knowing what your child will believe by the time they are adults, and if they will have that faith to justify the otherwise arbitrary mutilation of their genitalia.

I have to wonder, if it was customary in ancient religion for a female's pinky finger to be removed, would we still do it during their infancy at this point in our cultural succession? Would it, at very least, be prohibited until they come of age to decide for themselves? At least in our secular society, I think it's safe to say that this would be horribly detestable. Now, I have to argue that this is, at most, equally as severe as circumcision. Your pinky finger affords you no benefits that I can think of other than playing musical instruments, which can undoubtedly be done without it. Your foreskin has thousands upon thousands of nerve endings that would enhance sexual pleasure. It can be related, even, to the removal of a large fraction of an infant's tastebuds. How is this justified by a personal faith?

I fear that the quasi-scientific justification for the removal of the pinky finger would be that same as circumcision as well: "it's healthier". It is, indeed healthier not to have a pinky finger for the same reason that it is healthier not to have foreskin; it is prone to cancer and disease simply because it exists to pose such a risk. I'd argue the opposite, actually; circumcision raises many complications and development issues for the future of the boy's anatomy.

The development of the human penis is a complex sequence of events which results in an utterly individual outcome: no two penises are identical and there is a surprising range of anatomical detail that should be considered normal. Parents need to be assured of this range of normality. Moreover, the desire of practitioners for standard procedures can lead to unpredictable outcomes because of both this anatomical variation and the impossibility of predicting the functional results of surgical correction in infants. This is because the procedures are performed with an emphasis on achieving an acceptable cosmetic outcome on a very small organ which has the capacity for considerable growth and changes during puberty.

Source

Even if it were logically reasonable to remove the foreskin for health purposes, which I do not believe it is, does the loss of such a piece of the body rest on the will of the parents? I don't think so.

People should be afforded their own choices in life and the idea of a permanent change being made to someone's body before they become of age to have any cognitive idea of what's going on seems strictly unethical and repugnant to me. It seems to me to be a religiously-justified form of child abuse, molestation, and human mutilation, and it should be completely illegal in any secular society.

It's also a matter of hygiene, plenty of reading you can do there


Personally I'm glad I was snipped as a baby

It is done for personal hygiene, not ostensibly for health reasons, the reason my parents had it done to me, and certainly not for religious reasons. I'm quite happy with it, so is the fork and knife

It is not hard to keep it clean without the snip, believe it or not.

I know plenty a couple of people who weren't snipped until their 20's. They confirm snipped is better, and wish it was done in their infancy

reply to post by LightOrange

If you ever had to care for an infant boy who was ill with a gastrointestinal virus and happened to be uncircumcised you might would see the wisdom of circumcision for the purpose of hygiene. Have you ever tried to clean beneath the foreskin of a sick wiggly baby with diarrhea? It is difficult and extremely uncomfortable for the baby as you must be meticulous in your efforts lest said infant gets a nasty infection.

Getting snipped has its benefits, but I think nowadays alot of women get their sons snipped for cosmetic reasons as a snipped penus doesn't look like an ant eater. Oh how superficial we are.

Originally posted by Hawking
It's also a matter of hygiene, plenty of reading you can do there


Personally I'm glad I was snipped as a baby

Agreed on this. It's a pure matter of hygiene and health to me. Religion didn't even enter into it for my parents and didn't with me. I suppose each person's take on it can be different.

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by LightOrange

 

If you ever had to care for an infant boy who was ill with a gastrointestinal virus and happened to be uncircumcised you might would see the wisdom of circumcision for the purpose of hygiene. Have you ever tried to clean beneath the foreskin of a sick wiggly baby with diarrhea? It is difficult and extremely uncomfortable for the baby as you must be meticulous in your efforts lest said infant gets a nasty infection.

Have you ever tried to brush an infant's teeth while they have an ingrown tooth? Surely we should remove all of their adult teeth to make your job as a parent a little easier should the slight chance of an ingrown tooth present itself? Nevermind what they might think of the permanent affects it has on them when they are adults...

Originally posted by Hawking
It's also a matter of hygiene, plenty of reading you can do there


Personally I'm glad I was snipped as a baby

Your personal gratefulness does not overwrite the choice of many others who feel almost betrayed that such a decision has been made about their body for them. If you personally feel like circumcision is a good thing, then you personally can choose to be circumcised in your personal life.

It's not about you, though, when it comes to those who do not wish to have had it removed.

reply to post by LightOrange
Don't see how that relates as infants do not have teeth yet. And before you cast aspersions on anyone's job as a parent I don't judge people who choose NOT to circumcise their infant boys. I myself had only girls but have many nephews , both circumcised and uncircumcised. The mother of the uncircumcised boys lamented that decision, and the boys (grown now) wish that it had been done.

The head of the penis has many nerve endings and the foreskin is there to protect them, exactly the same reason as the clitoris having a hood.

Remove the hood or foreskin and those nerve endings are constantly agitated therefore reducing their sensitivity.

Ill stick with uncircumsized thanks.

P.s never had a chick complain and have never missed out on any fun because of it

Its a fallacy that its done for hygene, my father in law is a doctor and he says the hygene thing is bollocks. if you want to mutilate your child then go ahead. I personally think its barberous.

Hygiene, pleasure, and appearance Glad to have had it done young, I've known a few that waited until adulthood and they really had a rough time.
I was born 9.5 lbs but only weighed 8.2 pounds after circumcision.

It's a delusional practice and is completely unnatural. It's also linked to ED:

Researchers surveyed 300 men and found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys.

One reason: Circumcised penises can experience up to a 75 percent reduction in sensitivity compared to non-snipped members, according to a study published in the British Journal of Urology International.

news.menshealth.com...

Please don't get your sons cut.

Luckily being a female, I am left out of the debate about MY skin.

However, I am always left to wonder what "doctor" decided to start hacking off skin in that region anyway. I mean most men I know would curl up in a ball and start fighting if you mentioned you were going to start snipping down there. What ideas back then did they have about this strange practice, and what made them take knife to manly flesh?

1. The foreskin has many vital functions Unlike popular belief, the foreskin is not useless. It has the function of keeping the glans (head of the penis) moist, preventing abraisions and chafing during intercourse. The foreskin also plays a role in stimulating the G-spot in female partners. Researchers have also found that the presence of the foreskin can also prevent vaginal dryness during sex.
2. Circumcision reduces sexual pleasure Did you know that adult circumcision removes approximately 4-5 inches of foreskin that is used to cover an erect penis? This portion of the foreskin contains specialized sensory receptors called tactile corpuscles. These receptors are responsible for light sensations and play a key role in achieving rich orgasms. By removing this part of your skin, you greatly impair your ability to enjoy intense sexual sensations.
3. Most post-circumcision patients don't recommend it Researchers have found that up to 1 out of 3 men that undergo circumcision are dissatisfied with their results. More than half of those patients report that the procedure actually "made things worse" than they were before. Reduced sensitivity and poor cosmetic results are among the most common reasons circumcized phimosis patients recommend non-surgical options to their uncircumcized counterparts.
4. There are many risks involved with circumcision Before you decide to have a circumcision, it's important to know the risks involved in the surgery. If you include minor complications, the overall complication rate is above 30%. Some of these complications can include excess bleeding, infection, removal of excessive amount of skin, and partial amputation of the penis. These complications don't include the risks involved with receiving anesthesia.

reply to post by AdamsMurmur

I know this isn't the only point that anyone is making and I know that the person I replied to was mainly making a point about ED but it seems weird to me that people are telling parents not to circumcise their kids so that the kid can have more sexual pleasure. I would think that would have to be the furthest point at the bottom in the list of reasons not to circumcise but it always gets brought up. I've never heard of someone who was circumcised complaining about not having enough pleasure because of it. I would think that from a pleasure perspective, the women would rather have the male circumcised then, because he would supposedly last longer.

Bet you didnt know that i new so much about willies

reply to post by LightOrange


I'm glad I was circumcised as a baby. I don't remember a thing. I never was hurt during intercourse. I never scratch or injured my glans during sexual relations. I have no problems what so ever.. There is a lot of literature that states the since the foreskin and the mucosal surface of the foreskin which produces smegma is practically removed it lessens the risk of STD's. Apparently we last longer too. I've been told that women prefer a circumcised penis. But then again, playing to our egos is kind of their forte isn't it.