Is it normal that i am against child mutilation?

77% Normal
138 Comments

This is a story about circumsition. Well I always found it sad that they did this to boys but the fact they do not put them to sleep? They stated they do not put a baby to sleep when they cut them and this is ok with the law? I do not see how I think we need it banned. They think mutilating a baby and not numbing them or anything is alright? I mean even when they do emergency surgery they have some procedure as to treat the child. yet its ok to cut off flesh with the kid fully awake? I find mutilating a child fully aware cruel? I always thought this was very messed up. I mean if you have a religoues thing find but atleast numb the child!

Voting Results
77% Normal
Based on 96 votes (74 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 138 )
  • BlueJeansWhiteShirt
    11 years ago | pl

    I hope you do realise that there is more severe mutilation than circumcision still taking place in the world.
    I mean, in the UK, there's some groups that cut a little girls whole labia off without any pain relief. No exaggeration when I say the whole thing either. Only her vagina and urethra holes are still left. Everything else, off.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    16
    16
      -
    • VioletTrees
      11 years ago | pl

      Yes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about male circumcision.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      7
      7
        -
      • BlueJeansWhiteShirt
        11 years ago

        I know of course. But when it comes to mutilation, I don't think circumcision is exactly our top priority since that's only removal of skin.
        The thing I am on about is the removal of organs. Involves a lot of blood. The majority of the time ends in infection. Quite a few times ends in death.
        I think our top priority should be preventing deaths before we move onto skin removal.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          I was unaware they did that sort of thing and I have never seen it. I will say right now that seems sick and Im against any kind of treatment to a child without atleast putting them to sleep. Also why would you cut the childs vagina? What are they attempting with this?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • BlueJeansWhiteShirt
            11 years ago

            I'm not totally sure. The BBC did an investigation into it. I would link you if I could find it again.
            Basically, it's from some sort of African tradition. They believe everything should be removed from a woman so she won't be able to get pleasure at all. Some also try to damage the nerves inside the vagina so sex will always be painful. So they basically get rid of the clitoris, the labia minora and majora so there is literally nothing left.
            Obviously there are large African communities in every country now and some still like to keep their culture and traditions by carrying this on.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            3
            3
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              I have also know african tribes that if they find a smart female they press her boobs with a iron till they are flat so she will not be distracted by boys and they are sent to collage. The not very bright ones are tuaght to look pretty and if flat try to give apperence of boobs in hope they will attract a mate and become a house wife.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              2
              2
            • VioletTrees
              11 years ago

              It usually has nothing to do with pleasure, actually (at least in Africa, as I understand it. Old timey doctors would sometimes do it to cure hysteria and nymphomania or to stop masturbation, which obviously has to do with removing pleasure), though obviously it has that effect. In some societies, it's believed that if the labia isn't trimmed, then the genitals will continue to grow until they dangle between the woman's legs. In others, it's believed that if a penis or a baby touches the clitoris, it will kill the man or baby.

              Now, these things obviously don't make FGM (female genital mutilation) any better, but I think it's important to understand that, while it is oppression, it's not intended as such. That doesn't help matters much, but it might change how you view the societies who do it.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              except with them they only ruin the clit not cut the whole thing off.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              they do that to muslim girls aswell. I understand why they would do this. Its often for religoues reasons as not wanting thier girls to run out and be little whores and having babys left and right when they are young. This also means they are less likely to cheat on thier husbands. Yet I greatly disegree with this practice but those are the reasons they usually do things like that. I know alot of cultures that do circumsitions and they always state its one of those 3 reasons. Also they believe if they are running around having sex at a young age they will not go to school and become succeful though removing all of it makes me curioes do they have issues going to the bathroom?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
          • VioletTrees
            11 years ago

            It's illegal in many countries. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
        • disthing
          11 years ago

          I suppose the difference is whilst Western civilisation by in large finds FGM a horrific and deplorable tradition, male circumcision for non-medical reasons is seen as the norm, acceptable, almost encouraged in some places (in the US more boys are circumcised than are not, unlike in the UK where under 20% of males are circumcised).

          So whilst I agree that FGM is in most cases more severe, more debilitating and a whole other level of cruelty, in terms of the societal view we're all on the same page - it's wrong, it should be stopped. With male circumcision, it's so typical and imbedded in many supposedly 'civilised' cultures that people don't question it, they don't think about the issue of consent, of unnecessary cruelty, they aren't even reading the page. So the apathy towards male circumcision is something I think warrants just as much attention as FGM in western countries because generally the rate of FGM is tiny compared to that of male circumcision. As VioletTrees said, both issues can be spoken about simultaneously. We're not so short-handed that one must be debated before the other - BOTH can be given our equal attention :)

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • BlueJeansWhiteShirt
            11 years ago

            Yes I agree. Circumcision is basically a normal thing to us in Western society now. If someone told me they were circumcised I wouldn't be shocked at all.
            I was just trying to put up my argument that girls die during FGM. I have never heard myself of a death through circumcision. It would just be nice to concentrate on preventing murder before skin removal.
            People will hate me and go mad at me for what I am about to say but of all the men who I have met who are circumcised for religious reasons as an unconsenting baby, they really do not care. All of them I have met aren't religious anymore either, they just don't care. Or is it the fact that the babies experience pain when they are circumcised? And the fact that before this takes place, they should consent to it themselves? I don't really understand the argument on circumcision yet.
            I do agree it should be consented to. I was shoved into religious ceremonies at a young age. If I was old enough to understand then I definitely would have not consented to it.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
    • dappled
      11 years ago

      In some countries, they're sewn up afterwards to prevent sex (or any chance of sexual pleasure) and then have to be torn apart again when somehow they manage to become pregnant. Some die though blood loss. But we're not supposed to do anything about it because it's religion and it's what people believe, even though the people it's being done to don't want it done to them and are old enough to have formed an opinion about it.

      I'm not a woman nor am I religious but I still feel rather strongly about this. I can't understand why anyone wouldn't feel strongly.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      3
      3
        -
      • BlueJeansWhiteShirt
        11 years ago

        Ahh yes I forgot, they do sometimes sew up the vagina to prevent sex.
        It's just horrific. If religion, culture or tradition wasn't involved then the people who inflict these things will be classed as a psychopath. It's something I just imagine a crazy killer would do.
        Sadly it's just extremely hard to police and prevent. Someone may get put away because of it but the damage has already been done.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          I totally agree I watched the live circumsition and its like I think this is something a phycho would like human catipiller.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
      • disthing
        11 years ago

        It is against the law in the UK. It's just sad that our police and courts are so apathetic in pursuing such cases amongst the communities with high FGM (Somalian communities in particular). I suppose because they are such an isolated, insular minority it makes it difficult to investigate, but I get the impression that also makes it very easy and convenient to turn a blind eye to.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • BlueJeansWhiteShirt
          11 years ago

          Most criminal cases aren't even pursued anyway. The majority aren't. The CPS are never confident enough to take on a case. The police want to but the CPS never let them. As a law student and someone who has experienced attempted murder and GBH in my family (which was rejected by the CPS immediately) it is sad hardly anything is prosecuted anymore.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        I totolly agree with you and I am not a male but I do not think this should be performed on female or males by any rate. I do not understand how mutilating a person in such a manner is ok? I mean the doctor performing it on the baby in the video did not even seemed phase he was making the baby cry. I think anyone who feels this is ok is sick and just very cruel. Even as religoues practice gos doing such things to man or child is barbaric and I think we as a specied should have evolved past such things.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • dappled
          11 years ago

          I agree with you. I also understand why men would be insecure and would seek to limit female sexual pleasure because they're threatened by it. Furthermore, I can see how religion could become a way of enforcing this.

          I would make clear that it isn't religion that is the problem, but people abusing the power of religion for their own ends. It's very easy to blame a religion for the minority of people who abuse it. Just like people might imagine all muslims are terrorists. They're not. They're just people. Same as anyone else.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • disthing
            11 years ago

            It's not simply men wishing to render women sexually disabled. It's become culturally ingrained in certain societies that it is preferable for a girl to have FGM to the extent that women choose to mutilate their own daughters because of tradition, without any external pressure from men. Men in many of these communities are indifferent or in fact against the practice. In other words, what may have once been initiated and justified by men, is now initiated and justified by women, whilst men for the most part would not resist the abolishment of FGM.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago

            Oh dapple you just named so many wars in history. Thankyou for stating that I do not think I could have told it any better"People think religion is a issue and it is not". Also I honestly have nothing against wanting to cut off flesh in the name of god but if its forced on a baby they need to put them to sleep so they are not screeching in terror like in the video or atleast let them wiat till they are older to make the discision for themselves.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    people go to jail for a lot less

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    4
    4
  • Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
    11 years ago | pl

    Circumcision of those unable to consent is completely against human rights, and no religion should be able to change that fact.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    6
    6
  • NeuroNeptunian
    11 years ago

    I share your sentiments. My particular religion isn't strong on circumcision (they encourage it for hygienic reasons but when it comes down to it, they don't care either way), mainly because the scriptures make it pretty clear that circumcision is no longer necessary to enter into a covenant with Jesus Christ (Jesus said, “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” (John 7: 23)) not to mention, in our church, children are not to be baptized until they are 8 years old and of sound mind (they are not mentally challenged) to make such a decision, so that's not really something that I have to worry about if I ever have a son.

    The Lord said, “Wherefore, for this cause the apostle wrote unto the church, giving unto them a commandment, not of the Lord, but of himself, that a believer should not be united to an unbeliever; except the law of Moses should be done away among them, that their children might remain without circumcision; and that the tradition might be done away, which saith that little children are unholy; for it was had among the Jews; but little children are holy, being sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ; and this is what the scriptures mean.” (D&C 74: 5-7)

    (D&C stands for Doctrine and Covenants, which is the book of revelations had by Joseph Smith and also contains a lot of scriptures from the Bible itself. This is basically Smith using scriptures from the Bible to prove that the Old Testament covenants of circumcision are no longer valid, thus doing the work for me.)

    However, I am not a medical professional so I will not make the decision until I have actually given birth to a son and consulted with every medical professional at my disposal. I truly believe that no amount of research will qualify me to make the decision without even consulting my doctors.

    But you pose an interesting question. I would have to ask my husband, it would be his son too and last I checked, he's the one with the penis, not me.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      This is the main reason I am against it. As they siad most of the time they do not put the child asleep. I have read from others reporting on it they ask the parents to leave for its very horrific. They are litterally stabbing around inside a childs private as he is screeching and screaming and nothing requires them to numb the baby at all. So would you really want to cut a child fully aware being put it pain. I think even if this is done the child needs to be numbed no matter what age they are doing it.Also I have absolutly nothing against your religion but I would not let them do anything a child unless they put the child to sleep or numb for the operation. I think if adults want it they have the freedom to but cutting a baby I find very cruel if you are keeping it awake.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    It is disgusting. We should not be mutilating baby boys, or any babies, but then again they are the only ones with this problem (to my knowledge).
    It is mutilation, and it shouldn't be allowed at all, never mind being under.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    3
    3
  • disthing
    11 years ago

    I totally agree with your stance against circumcision. There are very few circumstances where it is medically necessary, and I don't see why it's acceptable. Here in the UK circumcision rates are very low, which is how it should be. In my opinion it's an antiquated, bizarre mostly-Jewish tradition that should be illegal to practice.

    There is also FGM (female genital mutilation), which is typically far more debilitating. It ranges in severity from relatively minor mutilation to removing the clitoris, much of the labia and even sewing up the vagina leaving only the urethra open. This can result in pain during sex, vaginal infection, inability to reach orgasm as well as psychological trauma. It's cruel and actually illegal in most Western countries. The problem is the motivation to actually enforce the FGM laws differs from country to country. Here in the UK prosecution rates for perpetrators of FGM are embarrassingly low, whereas in neighbouring France and the nearby Netherlands they are better.

    Mutilation of any child justified by tradition, religious or otherwise, is wrong as far as I'm concerned.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
  • DannyKanes
    11 years ago

    Allistalla, they put the baby/child under anesthetic. They don't just hack it off whilst you're awake. I don't know who told you that but get it out of your head. Think about it, if hospitals did that, then they would get sued for failure for duty of care.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • wigsplitz
      11 years ago

      You are SORELY mistaken. They absolutely do NOT put a baby 'out' under anesthesia for this. They are wide awake and strapped into what looks like a torture device.

      At best, they use a local anesthetic....AT BEST. It's not a law, and not every doctor does.

      Watch any one of the hundreds of videos online showing the procedure. Here's one:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6584757516627632617

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      5
      5
        -
      • shade_ilmaendu
        11 years ago

        Christ in a handbasket. I've watched some fucked up videos in my day. I've looked at photos from horrific traffic accidents because I find death and mutilation morbidly fasccinating from a biological standpoint.

        I couldn't watch all of this. That kid screaming got to me in a way few things can. :/

        As for you OP, I agree completely. As far as those people who say it's for hygiene, as long as the parents are responsible and teach the kids how to pull down their foreskin to clean it, there's usually no problem.

        I understand where people are coming from with their arguments for circumcision, but NOTHING trumps the fact that you're making the decision to lop off a part of someone's body without their permission.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          not to mention while they are aware and not under painkiller to numb them at all.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
      • Littlebadgirl
        11 years ago

        What the actual f*ck. That is brutally disgusting. I have watched wicked stuff before but this is too much. How can this be happening nowadays? God. I have no words.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
      • DannyKanes
        11 years ago

        Wigsplitz, I'm not doubting that some places don't use anesthetic, but I'm circumsized and I was knocked out for the operation.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          Also I do not think the kid in the video was numb as they started screaming when he put the scissors inside.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
        • wigsplitz
          11 years ago

          I think people are confusing local anesthetic with general anesthesia. A general anesthesia-knocking you out- would never be used for this (on a routine, infant circumcision). Only at most local (topical) anesthetics.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • DannyKanes
            11 years ago

            No no. It was general. I was completely out.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • wigsplitz
              11 years ago

              Well, that's extraordinary and frankly, unbelievable. How old were you? They'd NEVER do this for a newborn for a routine procedure so it's just not plausible.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        I think Im going to vomit I couldnt finish watching. How can they legally do that to a child? the doctor deosnt even seem to give a shit how badly the child was hurting? The fuck is wrong with these people I have to go vomit. FUCK FUKN RELIGION PUT THE CHILD TO SLEEP FUKN WORTHLESS BASTARDS NEED TO BE HUNG FOR CHILD ABUSE.. I have watch horror films and poeple die and murdered in movie but honestly I think Im going to vomit.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • wigsplitz
          11 years ago

          Well you can't 'put the child to sleep', that introduces a whole new level of risk. Doing that would cause even more deaths and complications.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago

            If they can not numb or make the child unaware they should not be doing such a horrific procedure. If that is the case they need to atleast wait till the child is older so they can put him to sleep. This is just horrific to watch and its cruel to do to a poor defensiless child. You might aswell cut off thier fingers and toes too since its just as cruel.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Ihadtomakeyetanotheraccountffs
              11 years ago

              Just for the record, I too feel as I'm about to vomit. I stopped watching after the first cut. I have watched some sickening stuff and this shocked me to the core.

              The fact that no anaesthetic is used makes the act even more abhorrent and unjustifiable than it already is.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago

            Well they can not keep it awake? they should numb it or something or atleast wait till they are older. Since at older ages the kid is atleast able to be put to sleep. Its sick mutilating them like this.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
    • VioletTrees
      11 years ago

      They do sometimes, but they often don't. See wigsplitz's comment.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
    • Justsomejerk
      11 years ago

      Subtle tells now, well spotted.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      This was asked on yahoo and got the response and siad they did not get it until they are adults. I was also told this by jews who were circumsized and they told us they do not put asleep babys only adults.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • DannyKanes
        11 years ago

        I was circumsized as a child and I was put under anesthetic. I was certainly not tortured or mutilated.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          I would think that should be a law they must enforce everywhere. I would have much less of a problem with it if they atleast put the little boys to sleep by law but they do not do that in every case and thats just disgusting.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • DannyKanes
            11 years ago

            I totally agree, anesthetic should be used. Luckily for me I was out cold for the entire op

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              well by law you do not have to. Using it is a luxury not all children get I would not be as upset if they made a law to put all children to sleep or numb them if they are going to do such a operation.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          Well I do not think the baby in the video was since he was shrieking!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • Deshara
    11 years ago

    Fun fact: I was circumsized with no anesthetics. Guess what? I don't remember it at all. In fact, I didn't even realise I had been circumsized until I was, like, 17.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
  • Wüstenfuchs
    11 years ago

    I don't really see what the fuss is about. o.O I was circumcized as a baby, and I've no recollection or any sort of trauma as a result.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • disthing
      11 years ago

      The fuss is because 9 times out of 10 circumcision is an unnecessary act of mutilation. Regardless of you not remembering it or having suffered difficulties because of it, slicing up a young child's genitals for no other reason than tradition, to most people, is an ethically questionable act - the child cannot consent and is typically under little or no anaesthetic.

      If I slapped a baby hard in the face because of family tradition, I doubt that'd be looked upon favourably by the law would it? The baby may not remember and won't have any lasting damage, but I still just slapped a baby straight in the face.

      The neat thing for people who are pro-unnecessary circumcision is that it all happens typically behind closed doors surrounded by people inured to the act (having experienced it themselves). If all kids who are circumcised were circumcised in public, out in the open, the kids squealing and crying and the little sliced off flap of foreskin on display, I think more people would be vocally against the ancient practice of chopping bits off kids.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        Thankyou that was very well put.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
      • Wüstenfuchs
        11 years ago

        It's considered a hygenic concern, foreskin. So it's not exactly for no reason.

        I grew up in a family that believes in corporal punishment, so slapping a child is nothing to me.

        As for doing it in public, I doubt many people would love to watch root canals, or sewing up a crushed appendage, or setting bones, or a cesarean-section. But I doubt we'd ban any of that.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • disthing
          11 years ago

          There's no evidence to support the idea that circumcision of a normal penis, that is one without any abnormality or medical condition related to the foreskin, is beneficial in any way, hygienic or otherwise. None. No definitive proof that you gain anything in having no foreskin. No definitive proof that having a foreskin results in greater risk of disease or infection. So yes, it is often exactly FOR NO REASON.

          The slapping a baby example was there to demonstrate how an act of brutality against a child is typically looked unfavourably upon by law when given the tenuous justification of religion or tradition. Whilst I can see how different families use different methods of discipline, there is a difference between spanking a child for doing wrong and slapping a child in the face for no reason other than tradition. Circumcision isn't performed as punishment or to instil a sense of discipline or compliance. It's typically done because of tradition, religious or secular. It's just done. Grandaddy got it done, daddy got it done, so Jr. is going to have it done. That seems pretty dumb to me, and it's the kind of dumb that manifests itself as the perpetuation of cruelty.

          Exactly, we wouldn't LOVE to watch any of those procedures, but as you say, we wouldn't ban them. We wouldn't ban them because most of those procedures are necessary to avoid future deterioration of health. In other words, NOT doing them could result in the death, pain or illness of a person. Circumcision for non-medical reasons is unnecessary (1st paragraph), and not doing so wouldn't endanger the child in any way. It's therefore as cosmetic as a nose job, and most would object to a parent having their 3 year old forced to receive a nose job.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          1
          1
            -
          • Anonymous Post Author
            11 years ago

            Moms got nosejobs for a tv show on kids age 5 to 8 for a tv show.needless to sat state sent doctor to court.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            1
            1
          • Wüstenfuchs
            11 years ago

            I don't know about you, but I wouldn't force my tongue down the inside of a foreskin. It's kind of a breeding ground for bacteria. Ever heard of smegma? That is specific to foreskin. Unsanitary.

            We can't assume, although most do nowadays, that every smack a child gets is for no reason.

            As for "necessary to prevent future deterioration of health", I believe sanitation would count. Not setting a bone could lead to discomfort. The bone will grow back, set or not. Tooth rot hurts, but won't kill you. An infection will. Circumcisions will help prevent infection in the urethra and surrounding skin. One can opt for a c-section to avoid discomfort. It's not very necessary in that case. But we allow it. And if a parent wants to give their child a nose-job (although in most cases the surgeon would refuse) that's up to the parent. The child has no legal voice.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            -1
            -1
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              You are very dumb. Toothrot can kill you from infection in your jaw and they might have remove some of jaw in a
              Some cases. If a bone not set right you may not be able fuction with limb,anymore or may create infection and internal issues. I hope you are not a doctor doctor since you are down rught stupid..

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
            • disthing
              11 years ago

              Sorry, the hygienic argument is a desperate one. It's like saying you had your nose cut off to avoid all the bogies and snot collecting in there. I have a foreskin, and I can assure you that it's easy to clean, and if you are a normal person who washes regularly you'll have no problems. If you're not a normal person and don't wash regularly, a dirty foreskin will be 1 of many grimey areas of grossness. It's not like you don't wash yourself down there because you've been circumcised and think you don't need to, is it?

              Furthermore, in most cases the foreskin isn't long enough to extend over the head of the penis when erect - it rolls down. So in most cases unless you're licking a flaccid willy there won't be an inside to stick your tongue down.

              Sorry, I don't agree with your point that circumcision of normal, healthy penises is pre-emptive to avoid infection in the urethra and surrounding skin. As I said in my previous comment, there is no definitive proof that the rate of UTIs, STDs or any other disease or infection are directly effected by circumcision. It's a MYTH that people who have been circumcised and who promote circumcision continue because either they incorrectly believe what they've heard or they want to feel better about themselves and what was done to them.

              Believe what you want to believe. There are genuine medical justifications for circumcision. 'Because it gets dirty in there' is not one.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • zchristian
    11 years ago

    Im against the same with animals like cutting the tails of pigs without giving them even the slightest to lessen the pain they just say they dont feel it yet they scream rather much...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • blueberry26
      11 years ago

      they also skin animal alive for their fur every type of animals . I think we should stop the idea of cruelty not only to humans but to every living creature

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      1
      1
        -
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        Oh I did hear something like that but I think we should start this and than go thier.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
    11 years ago

    I know you want to dress it up like a big crime against humanity but... Just because you call it that doesn't magically make it true.

    If you don't want to do it fine... but don't start labeling others just because their beliefs don't match yours.

    if you do... then you are welcoming anyone else to pick apart YOUR own beliefs, and cast any of them that they dislike as "evil" and "wrong"... and then lobby to have it banned.

    Because just as you come up with reasons to "justify" banning things you dislike... others can just as easily come up with valid reasons against your own beliefs too.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • wigsplitz
      11 years ago | pl

      I don't think there's ANY way to justify a purely cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting child.

      Can you provide a valid reason?

      I don't think any reason you could come up with can trump this one: let the child decide himself when he's of age. You can always have it done at any age, you can't have it un-done.

      And, why are insurance companies and state funded medical care paying for this cosmetic procedure? That's not fair. I don't get cosmetic procedures done for free, and I don't appreciate my taxes paying for this to be done to babies.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      6
      6
        -
      • Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
        11 years ago

        The procedure can be done on an adult
        however it's actually more painful from what i've been told.

        as for why

        1) Religious practice - the government cannot interfere just because you find it distasteful. It violates the first amendment.

        2) easier to clean. face it little boys are often dirty to begin with. it's easier than dealing with smegma

        3) erection difficulties - some adult men who aren't cut actually opt to have it done simply because the foreskin doesn't retract enough to compensate for their erections

        As for your question - you cannot allow the government to ban a practice that may be religious in nature. You offer no proof that it's harmful other than saying "it's damaging".

        So the government cannot stop this. even if you want them to.

        And let's pretend you get your way... you now have a government that can dictate religion. Including targeting ANYTHING you personally believe in - if the government feels it's not benefitting it's own mission or goals.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        -3
        -3
          -
        • wigsplitz
          11 years ago

          I don't just 'find it distasteful'. That's my OPINION, and that isn't fact. I'm going by the FACT that it violates an unconsenting person's body. There's no way around that FACT.

          There's plenty of religious practices that are unlawful, so (??). Typically, if something violates another human's basic rights then it's unlawful. The bigger question should be, why is the government (and taxpayers) paying for a 'religious ritual'? That's not fair. Make people pay for it themselves. If not banned, then surely you should agree that people who want to have it done should pay for it themselves, since it's cosmetic AND religious. That violates MY freedom of (or from, rather) religion, to have to pay for circumcisions.

          Your point 3...well, hello, ADULT MEN. Those adult men can CHOOSE to have it done.

          I can separate my opinion from facts and the facts are that it violates another person's body, it can't be un-done, it can result in death and there's no medical reason TO do it (to a newborn, anyway). That's my PROOF that it's harmful. Disprove any of that.

          Prove to me that the baby has given consent.

          Prove to me that there's a way to un-do a circumcision. It removes a body part that cannot be reattached.

          Prove to me that NO baby dies from complications having this done.

          Prove a substantial enough medical reason to have it done to a newborn. You can say 'it hurts more as an adult' all you want, but how do you know that? lol. Did we sample a number of men who remember their circumcision? There have been studies done on cortisone levels and heart rate in newborns during and after circumcision and the finding was that it was extraordinarily painful.

          Prove that the risk of death and permanant injury (as in 'accidents', deformity caused by the procedure) outweigh any factual, measurable 'benefit' of doing this to a newborn.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          5
          5
            -
          • Angel_in_a_Glass_Dress
            11 years ago

            That's the problem - you're trying to mix opinions with facts.

            I say that those benefits outweigh the risks. You want "proof" that they do... but really how do you quantify proof of what you've already said is "opinion".

            It's like asking me to prove that chocolate tastes better than vanilla.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            -1
            -1
              -
            • disthing
              11 years ago

              I disagree that the benefits typically outweigh the risks. The level of risk is low, but in most cases the benefits are non existent. The child would in all likelihood have just as healthy a life without a circumcised penis as with a circumcised penis.

              Of course on occasion there are medical justifications for circumcision. But that accounts for a very small proportion of circumcisions, especially in the US.

              Religion is a limited justification. Mutilating a child for any non-medical reason is considered wrong by most people in most Western civilisations, and law typically follows morality, and morality is typically based on majority rules.

              Saying it's OK because it isn't particularly harmful and is justified by religion is a strange argument to put forward. If somebody drugged a child and sexually molested them, without injuring them and without the child retaining any memory of the act, and if that somebody justified the action because they believed it was their God's will, would the law look favourably upon them?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              2
              2
            • wigsplitz
              11 years ago

              No, I'm not mixing opinion with facts. I separated my opinion from fact. Are you saying you have proof of any of those items I asked you for? Quit trying to skate around the questions.

              Can you reattach a foreskin? No? Oh, OK.

              Did the baby consent to have his foreskin removed? No? Oh, alright.

              Is it a medically necessary procedure? No? Oh, damn.

              Right there is the PROOF, not opinion, that it shouldn't be done to a child.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              2
              2
          • Wüstenfuchs
            11 years ago

            Legally, if a child is under 18, consent is mandated by his legal guardians.

            In the US, taxpayers don't pay for this procedure.

            There's pretty much no way a child can be harmed from this procedure, except for infection, which is accounted for and prevented by our professional medical practicioners. I don't know what kind of doctors you may have...

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            0
            0
              -
            • wigsplitz
              11 years ago

              State-funded medical coverage (Medicaid) pays for it in many states. Some states don't fund it, but most do. So, yes, taxpayers DO pay for it.

              Somewhere just over 100 babies per year die from complications of circumcision.

              $70 million a year it costs taxpayers for the procedures.

              http://www.drmomma.org/2010/12/are-you-paying-for-infant-circumcision.html

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              1
              1
            • Anonymous Post Author
              11 years ago

              No cutting off part of them while awake and aware is not hurting themat all is it? It may be initial harm but the process is still hurting them at the moment.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
        • Anonymous Post Author
          11 years ago

          Since stabbing around inside a Childs peniues with it fully awake screeching and screaming is not hurting the child at all right? So that baby screeching in the video when he stuck the scissors inside his peniues is not mortifying. So chopping off part of the dick one of the most sensitive parts of a males anatomy without NUMBING IT is very sweet to do right? The fact they say they have to make the parents leave the room because the screeching and crying is not enough for you? I mean you might as well brake its legs its just as cruel!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          -1
          -1
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      It is mutilation. How would you like it if a doctor came in and randomly cut off your babys finger tip and siad its ok its a baby. They dont feel pain they do not need to be asleep or numbed. How would you like being strapped to a table fully awake and have part of your flesh cut off? You can not denie its mutilation since it is. You do not have any reguard for what a child feels at all. I guess if we brake a babys arm its ok they can not feel it. You are for the abuse of children and thats sick. My only thing was that I believe the child should not be awake or at least they need to be numb when they cut the baby so it will not feel pain. I find it sad someone would so happily defend mutilation.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
        -
      • Gelmurag
        11 years ago

        mutilate (ˈmjuːtɪˌleɪt)

        —vb
        1. to deprive of a limb, essential part, etc; maim; dismember
        2. to mar, expurgate, or damage (a text, book, etc)

        Well the foreskin isn't a limb. Or an essential part. Maim or dismember...hmm...

        maim (meɪm)

        — vb
        1. to mutilate, cripple, or disable a part of the body of (a person or animal)
        2. to make defective

        Well we know now that maim and mutilate are synonyms, so what about making defective...Well my penis still works just fine. So it doesn't make it defective.

        So lets look at dismember

        dismember (dɪsˈmɛmbə)

        — vb
        1. to remove the limbs or members of
        2. to cut to pieces
        3. to divide or partition (something, such as an empire)

        Again, limbs...but #2 is interesting. To cut to pieces,it never defines what is cut to pieces, but that it is something. And obviously the penis isn't an empire, although some may think otherwise hah!

        So in the worst case context of what you are talking about, it isn't mutilation, it is dismemberment.

        And as for the rest of your comment, I was strapped to a table and did have part of my flesh cut off. I don't remember it, because the synapses that control memory don't understand language at that age and therefore cannot express the memory. But I also don't remember the table. Or the doctors. So I'll leave it at that because I don't feel up for getting into a fight about memory and the can of worms that can open up.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        -1
        -1
          -
        • blueberry26
          11 years ago

          if you don't remember then it doesn't mean you didn't feel pain when it was done. they face no pain when they grow up but some of them dies when it's done

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • NothingxCrazy
    11 years ago

    It's cruel awake or not. There is no reason circumcision should really be allowed since the baby cannot consent to the procedure. Why mess with something so natural in the first place? Men lived with the foreskin for hundreds of thousands of years, why is it an issue in the modern world?

    It also ruins the sensitivity of the penis which is really quite horrible. I feel bad for circumcised males knowing it could feel much better for them had they not had the skin removed.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Anonymous Post Author
    11 years ago

    I love how some of the women commenting do not seem to care what kind of pain the man or boy has to go through? I am not a boy writing this and I am deeply Offended that they let this happen!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • [Old Memory]
      11 years ago

      http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-20/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-circumcision-rates-costsbre87j0rg-20120820_1_circumcision-male-babies-tobian

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
        -
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        How about if a man says he wants you with parts of you cut off to date you. How very cruel of him would that sound?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
      • Anonymous Post Author
        11 years ago

        My point remains the same. I know you want to treat men like a prized horse because you are a very shallow women I do not feel the same. You discriminate men like society does women and models. I know they call them studs but they are not a prize. They are humans and deserve rights. I love how little you care about what a man feels. Lets cut off the end of your boobs see if that hurts. See how very cruel that sounds and my point remains the same. They should not mutilate little boys without putting them under a pain killer. I know you want a man with a cut private area since you state "it looks pretty" that is the cruellest reason for wanting to mutilate a person.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • rhythmness93
    11 years ago

    ok yes, this is an issue. but why are you all acting so surprised? this has been happening for a very long time it's old news. most of you men commenting on this are probably circumsized anyway. calm yourselves.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
  • mm6969
    5 years ago

    I wish I was given a option and not forced to be circumcised. Thanks barbaric catholics that call Muslims barbaric

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Naughtygirl147
    8 years ago

    I agree.numb the baby before you cut it or ban it but religious freedom...Its a controversial topic just like gay marriage,Abortion,etc.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • q25t
    11 years ago

    I'm not sure if anyone already brought this up but as for circumcision being purely a cosmetic act, it is not.

    Circumcision makes 'it' easier to clean and leaves less area for dirt and bacteria to hide and multiply, possibly causing disease. Later into life, it also increases the risk of STDs.

    As for the point of anesthetic, I had never heard that one before and I agree with you completely that anesthetic should be a requirement.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • [Old Memory]
    11 years ago

    that was horrible it should be illegal or at least let the boy choose it if he wants it when he gets older.
    anyone who defends that really is not right in the head.
    how can anyone defend that jesus i had to take my ear phones off in the middle of it and i could still hear the screaming i understand religion but thank hell i am not a Jew in my religion we did not do things like that we had the baptism (a bit of water never hurt anyone), first confession, first communion, and then confirmation why every religion can't do simple things like that instead of that terrible thing i don't know and even though i am not very religious i still am glad to have being born into the the religion i was. i am not trying to be sectarian or offensive about the Jewish Religion but it should be the child's choose when he gets older.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • Wendell
    11 years ago

    Yeah, I don't remember it at all. But I am glad it was done. Guess I'm at the end of your bell curve.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • westoptic
    11 years ago

    Circumcision on babies should be illegal; let the man choose that later on in life when he can consent to it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • nightmare28
    11 years ago

    I know in Jewish tradition, they put a little wine on the baby's pacifier, and the kid falls asleep.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • conviews
    11 years ago

    those who cut the cake dont have the right to take the first choice of the slice

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • GoraIntoDesiGals
    11 years ago

    Religion is such a crock of illogical shit. On one hand they would say stupid shit against cosmetic surgery that you change what their imaginary god allegedly gave you but on the other hand they want to change the penis that according to their retarded logic their imaginary god gave a little boy. What gives?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    -1
    -1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      In old days they use to sacrifice animals. Most stopped this practice. The practice of cutting mens private area is part of the bible sayinvg "one must sacrifice a part of themselves". Some take it as must cut flesh and some give up things they like or will want. Thats why some religion has forbidden things or customs.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      Many religions follow this code but they give up thing they like rather than giving up a part of the body.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
    • Anonymous Post Author
      11 years ago

      No its not that simple. Jews think its needed but most christains and cathlocs are against it. Most sacrifice things like meat or sex bit jews took it more litteral and said lets give a part of our body.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0