Even without considering the pros or cons of having a foreskin, I am simply unable to understand how anyone can condone removing a piece of an infant boy's body before he can consent.

*quality

You might want to read up on that.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^zombieater:
"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.

Kind of like the appendix? Thinking evolution is this beautiful, perfect thing is no less foolish than the creationist view. (not that I support or disprove cutting...don't really even think about it)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'm with you there. Also suffering from foreskin envy.>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

20,000 nerve endings?!?!?! makes me angry every time I learn more about it.

wah wah waaaaaahhhhhh...>> ^snoozedoctor:

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

I lost an eyelid in an accident years ago. They used my foreskin to fashion a new one. The wound healed fine, but it left me a little cock-eyed.

>> ^zombieater:

"This is the way a normal penis was designed to work."
Uh... no. That is how the penis evolved and changed along with man.


Kind of like the appendix? Thinking evolution is this beautiful, perfect thing is no less foolish than the creationist view. (not that I support or disprove cutting...don't really even think about it)

And how long had he been circumcised when he told you that? The loss of sensitivity doesn't happen over night. It's a process of probably some years.


>> ^wormwood:

I know a guy who was circumcised as an adult. He told me that sex felt just as good after the operation as before. So cheer up, fellas.

I've got a mole on my foreskin

>> ^hpqp:

Cosmetic/aesthetic (non-medical) procedures that modify a person's body should be that person's informed decision/choice, and no one else's. How hard is it to grasp such a simple ethical concept?


It's not a simple ethical concept at all because it is not simply a modification to a person's body. From the Wiki Bioethics of Circumcision Page:

The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.

– American Academy of Pediatrics: Circumcision Policy Statement

Parents have a right to make decisions for their children that they believe will improve their children's future. They're not just doing it because they think it looks nice. Here are the issues that most parents consider:

1) They belong to a group where this is the norm and they want their child to fit in socially. By doing it while the child is still a baby they ensure that the child will have no recollection of the procedure. Furthermore, the child is obviously not sexually active yet. Delaying the procedure until age of consent (which I assume you define as sometime after puberty) guarantees that the person will have to abstain from sexual actions while healing takes place and that they'll have full memories of both the procedure and the subsequent recovery pain.

2) Circumcision will guarantee that the child does not ever have to deal with an infected foreskin. Although proper cleaning can help prevent such an infection in non-circumcised males, only circumcision guarantees (100%) the child will never have to deal with it. The medical research waffles a lot on the reduction of penile cancer and AIDS transmission rates, but the medical consensus is still that circumcision may help in both of these areas.

Given these two facts--and the lack of any conclusive evidence that the procedure is harmful--I see no reason to deny parent's the right to choose to have the practice done on their own child. If they think it will benefit their child, then they should feel free to do so.

Does that answer your question?

I am asking, and this is my main point, which you need to address, can parents make any decisions related to cosmetics? Or is it limited to what you and I use as our subjective standards? For example, can a parent have the earlobe removed because it will make the baby more beautiful/handsome to the parent? It is, after all, reasonable to point out that both are harmless cosmetic adjustments. (And why note that a parent has a right to have one cosmetic surgery but be a hypocrite and say that the same parent does not have the right to have another.)

Can a parent have a harmless lip-reduction done on a child? Or how about removing the nipples on boys? I ask because some parents do have these surgeries done... and it seems you are fine with them...because they do not leave trauma.

Also, we can speculate a bit on the extent of damage, but damage to the body does rewire the brain. You blind a man, you just don't take his sight, his brain rewires to the physical trauma...

Some studies suggest that ripping an infant's dick skin off creates aggressive tendencies later in life. Do I "have an idea of" how far that damage or violence caused might be. No. But we all DO know that physical trauma does propagate violence.

And removing some of the earlobe is not like removing all of the foreskin. All the earlobe and all the foreskin. Just because you leave actual dick skin, that doesn't equate to the foreskin...

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw" title="member since May 3rd, 2010" class="profilelink">Lawdeedaw
Read the link I posted if you'd like to know how to get rid of your scar. It explains the procedure pretty clearly (and is apparently painless).
I understand that you don't believe ear piercing and male circumcision are equivalent. That doesn't mean they aren't equivalent, though. You just don't agree with me, just as I don't agree with you that circumcision is akin to chopping off earlobes. I'd say shaving the earlobes a little bit would be a better comparison and I suppose it is just a quirk of fate that such a cosmetic change is not considered aesthetically pleasing by any particular cultural group. So, on that point I think we're pretty much at a draw.
As to your second point, it doesn't matter that "you have no idea what happens" to the brain during a circumcision. The medical consensus is that it isn't harmful physiologically or psychologically to children. If there's no evidence, how can you legislate against it? You have no idea if eating apples causes cancer, do you? There's no medical evidence for it. Do you see my point here? Saying "you have no idea what happens" isn't a defensible argument in any way.
My primary concern is the medical consequences of the procedure. If there are none (and there don't appear to be so far--who knows what they'll find in the future) and if the process is reversible (which, if you read the link I posted apparently it is) then I don't see the need to legislate against it other than because of someone's Don Quixotic profound interest in interfering with how other people live their lives. There are far better and more serious issues to campaign for than this.

@chilaxe

Like I said to Lawdeedaw, I don't agree with the analogy of cutting ears off. It's a red herring argument in my opinion. At best, I think you could say it is equivalent to shaving some skin off the ear lobes--it would leave no permanent damage to the function of the ear, though it would change the appearance slightly. If some culture in the world did that as a means of showing "belonging" and if, additionally, it was shown to be a medically useful procedure in preventing ear illnesses in some people, then I guess I'd have to say I'd have no problem with it being performed on babies.

I notice you left out a very important sentence from your quote (the very next one in fact).

Non-surgical restoration is inexpensive, relatively easy, and gives good results. It is not surgery, and it is not classified as a medical treatment.

They explicitly state that when done correctly the procedure should be painless, though it does take time. There is no conclusive medical evidence that having a foreskin makes sex more pleasurable (see the link to the Bioethics of Circumcision) although there are anecdotal reports from adults who have the procedure done that supports all three views (i.e. some say sex got better, some say sex got worse, some say there is no difference).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying everyone should be circumcised. I'm saying it should be the parents' choice. It should certainly be an informed choice based on all the latest information--they should know for instance that the vast majority of people who go uncircumcised don't have any problems. But they should also do what they think is best for their child. Maybe they're wrong--it turns out eventually that the procedure isn't best for their child. But it's certainly not all that harmful either, judging by the evidence we have.

As parents, we do this on a daily basis--we make decisions that seriously affect our children's future long before they have the aptitude to make the decisions for themselves. And sometimes we make the wrong decisions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to make the decisions in the first place. Those against circumcision have to unequivocally prove that it is harmful to the child before they can take away parents' rights to choose to have the procedure done. And quite frankly they haven't done that yet, which is why this law will fail. You, personally, can find the practice distasteful (as I do). And you, personally, can choose not to have your male children circumcised (as I have). But our distaste alone doesn't entitle us to stop other parents from having the procedure done on their own children.

In time, I predict this practice will die out. Religious attendance is on the decline and in many countries like the U.K. male circumcision has virtually disappeared. Coincidentally, what led to the dramatic decline in the U.K. and other countries was insurance deciding it was an elective procedure and not paying for it anymore. I think the protesters in San Francisco would be better served by trying to lobby insurance companies not to cover it anymore than to try to pass a law against it.

Wow, that was the longest edit I've ever written. Sorry.

@SDGundamX

It seems more accurate to say circumcision is partially reversible, at the expense of substantial time, discomfort, and inferior results. From your link:

Tape and weights, elastic straps, a traction device, or even manual stretching can be used to exert a gentle outward tension on the shaft of the penis to induce the skin to grow, to make the most of what was left after the circumcision.
[OR]
Surgical restoration (or reconstruction) is the grafting of skin onto the penis, either from the penis itself or from elsewhere on the body, to reconstruct something that looks and functions like a foreskin. The grafted skin may be of dissimilar texture to the original.

Maybe some people who have already been circumcised might what to consider pursuing restoration. Most people would like more pleasurable sex.

Even though it's partially reversible to cut off children's ears or foreskins (we could grow them new ear-like tissue in a lab), I'd be very skeptical of any claim that parents should be cutting off their children's ears.

@SDGundamX : I am aware of phimosis (I suggest reading the whole article), and do not oppose circumcision as a last resort in a severe case thereof, should all else fail. Justifying circumcision as a preventive measure, however, is absurd and unethical (cf. this video's comments).

The argument from aesthetics is vile and contemptible. Feet-binding and neckrings where/are performed for the same reason, should they be tolerated too? Circumcision and ear-piercing are not alike (although I disprove of doing the latter to children as well). A pierced ear will heal, a foreskin will not grow back; the functions of the foreskin (and there are several) are lost forever, whereas nothing is lost from a pierced ear (but susceptibility to infection is gained).

As for FGM, just because one act is worse than the other (and FGM certainly is worse than male circumcision, as I've stated many times before: see this video), does not mean that the lesser of the two evils is therefore justifiable. Every time someone argues in favour of male circumcision on non-consenting people, they are undermining the fight against FGM and other religion/culture-based barbarisms that use the same defensive arguments.

Hay nice post. I had no idea this can be genetic. Better get my 2 year old checked up so he doesn't have to go trough what I went through at 24. That was some of the most physically painful memories of my life.

In reply to this comment by nanrod:
Here's my anecdotal two bits worth. There is a condition called phimosis (abnormally tight foreskin) which runs in my family. It can lead to chronic infections of the foreskin, urinary tract infections, kidney infections and ultimately lead to loss of kidney function. None of these are guaranteed to happen but they can't be predicted. My father was not circumcised at birth but required the procedure at the age of 15. He swore then that no son of his would go through the same thing so me and 3 brothers were circumcised. When my son was born we decided against it after much research but again he had to be circumcised at 9. Bottom line if a parent opts for circumcision for family medical reasons they shouldn't be condemned or criticized, but lacking a family history like mine I see no compelling reason for it.

Other than aesthetics, of course, uncut dicks are ugly.

Fuck all the religions, cultures, parents and doctors that support and perform these BODY MUTILATIONS!

Medical claims of health and hygiene are bullshit! If any of that was real, natural selection would eliminate foreskin. Alas, it still exist.
As for "following tradition" or "following religion", FUCK YOU SAVAGES!