Circumcision: The act of removing the foreskin, usually done for religious reasons to babies or young boys. I've seen quite a scare about this in my own country as well as online, and I've always thought it's a concern that is mostly grounded in cultural fears. I'll explain what I mean:

Provided of course, it is done by a licensed physician, it is not a life altering event in any way. I know plenty of people who are circumcised thanks to having grown up around large Muslim populations, and they've never batted an eye to it. Most of the resistance I see to this, seems based on it being a form of "mutilation" but honestly parents are allowed to make way more life altering decisions without anyone thinking twice about it. Ex. deciding a child's diet, and through that potentially leading them into a life of obesity and related health complications. This is also strongly culturally correlated, the difference being that it's very much normalized in much of the western world.

I think if people were more exposed to this practice, they wouldn't care much. It seems like a somewhat misguided use of attention to me, as some dedicate large amounts of time and effort protesting it. However, I'm curious to hear what thoughts people might have.

A lot of people use Circumcision for males due to religious religions. It is mainly important in the Jewish religions and some Christians participate in it as well. The practice among Jews is mentioned in the Torah. After 8 days males are to be circumcised. Some Christians have also adopted the practice as I mentioned.

The main opposition is because some people compare it to female mutilation. There is a big difference. For females they actually cut off parts of the female sexual organs. Female mutilation is banned in the States, Canada, Europe, Israel and other countries. A lot of females have died from this. Male Circumcision if done by a doctor does not damage the male's main reproductive organ's ability or function. Also males will heal.

Even non religious people often go with circumcision for medical benefits. Here is why. The foreskin can cause bacteria to get trapped in it. This makes the non circumcised male more prone to infections. In addition, the foreskin can also get in the way of urination and intercourse. Sometimes the foreskin can block the opening making urinating hard. This in terns can cause UTI's in men. It can also cause intercourse to be painful for the male. Medical studies show male Circumcision can prevent certain infections. It can make urination and intercourse much easier later on in life.

Doctors recommend that circumcision be done right after the male is born. This is much better as the risk for complications is very low. Children that get circumcised later in life it can be painful.

I actually know some people who were not circumcised one of them ended up getting circumcised. The foreskin was causing them problems. It was blocking their opening and they were having a hard time with UTI's. They eventually got circumcised but because they were older it was painful for them. After the procedure the UTI's stopped.

Another guy I know was not. He also had problems that I mentioned above.

While the practice has religious values. There seems to be a lot of medical benefits from the practice.

I am firmly against male circumcision, even though I live in a country where the majority of male babies are circumcised, and it is actually considered weird for a man to have his foreskin intact. I am against it for the simple reason that it is a permanent change to a person's body without that person's permission.

There is no substantial benefit to circumcision, other than personal preference regarding appearance. Yes, bacteria can build in the foreskin, but that is only an issue for people that don't wash themselves. People that shower regularly, and that wash their penis while in the shower, generally do not experience infections.

Once a person has reached the age where they are able to make their own medical decisions, then of course they can choose to remove their own foreskin if they would like. If, for whatever reason, a child is having medical problems related to their foreskin and a doctor recommends removing it to cure that specific medical problem, then parents should be able to choose to have the procedure done for their son. But as a preemptive decision, to unnecessarily and permanently remove a part of someone's body when they are too young to have a say in the matter, and when there is no reason to believe that doing so will help them in any way, is unethical, and a violation of bodily autonomy.

Zlinqx : I wholeheartedly support circumcision, I do not want cheese on my fcukin snake, alright? I also do not want to have to touch my snake each time I pee, that's gross. Honestly, you're just doing them a favor.

I find circumcision a gross practice.

In 99% of cases it is unnecessary and most cases in the west aren't for religious purposes either. I'm not circumcised and would be horrified if my parents had made that choice for me at a time when I was unable to protest in any way. Leave that decision for your son to make. If he wants to have it done once he does his own research then let him do so. But making permanent changes to a person's body without consent isn't right.

Zlinqx : That's a stupid argument. Parents can already do X to affect their child's health and/or body so might as well let them do Y too. Neither are okay. Putting your children on a road to obesity is obviously bad and shouldn't be encouraged. Permanently affecting their body at birth because you 'think it looks better' shouldn't be encouraged either. Or are you saying we should just go ahead and crop their ears too while we're at it?

tornadocam : I'm not going to tell religious folks to cut it with the circumcisions even though I'm against the principle. However saying 'males will heal' simply isn't true. The skin that is cut off will not grow back. There are also cases in which a poorly performed circumcision leads to nerve damage, and, shockingly, loss of function of the reproductive organ. Not in most cases, but not a risk I find healthy to take for no real benefits. It is important as parents to teach your children how to properly clean themselves and maintain their hygiene. I'm uncircumcised and have never had an infection. Neither have any of the guys I've known in my life (where I'm from we're almost all uncircumcised). Guess what? You can clean yourself when you take a shower. My parents taught me how and I've never had any health issues. Sure, it takes some time for the foreskin to properly stretch enough to pull it back all the way as a kid. And yes, in rare cases they might find themselves unable to. I support circumcision in those cases. I have a friend who had this happen to them. It rarely is the case.

Honestly, saying it has all these medical benefits just sounds like an excuse for people who can't maintain their hygiene properly. I'm super glad it's happening at lower rates nowadays, and look forward to the practice dying off more.

Those are excellent points. I think the issue with the people I knew was their foreskin was longer than it was supposed to be.

I will be honest I'm from a region of the USA were there are lots of church's and Synagogues. You can find a lot of church's/synagogues within a few miles of going anywhere. So maybe for us it might be more of a religious or culture thing.

On the other hand, a lot of pediatricians back in the day pushed for the practice. I am a meteorologist but I did minor in health science. I remember a few professors in my human and anaouatamy classes citing the reasons I mentioned in my post above.

I do agree though that proper hygiene is huge important especially among children.

Furret : You're correct that two wrongs don't make a right. Despite what it may seem, this isn't really what I was trying to get at. My (admittedly clumsily presented) angle is calling into question the actual autonomy of a child. Rather than argue about whether circumcision is a violation of a child's freedom we should consider the fact that a child is going to be limited in their autonomy no matter what action is taken. This is part of the power a parent has over a child. I took diet as one example, just to make the point that this will always occur. I think you can find faults like this even in the most perfect parenting examples, where a parent's authority has lasting consequences for a child. This is part of the trade off of parenting. For this reason I don't think increased autonomy is a sufficient argument.

Circumcision permanently modifies someones body, yes. But is this really such a bad thing as you're making it out to be? I'm not going to get into the argument of whether circumcision is healthier or not, but as far as I'm aware the reverse is not the case either. Tons of things that we do alter your body for life, I don't think permanence in and of itself is a good enough argument to disallow it. There needs to be grounds to show how this permanence is in fact resulting in negative consequences to where it warrants public action.

This is what I'm referring to by saying that this is to a large extent a question of cultural fears. Because this resistance to limiting choice and prioritizing individual autonomy over all else, ultimately stem from values and ideals that we hold onto in Western culture, but that in themselves are not necessarily true or untrue. I think it is in this most of the resistance is grounded. Not in a discussion of how it impacts well being.

I'm not saying you can't be against circumcision in spite of that. But, I think what we need to do is base the discussion more on the tangible positive/negative consequences of disallowing it.

It's clear that it is a practice that has gone on since before the Christian calendar even came into effect, it is practiced in multiple religions and cultures. Some people do it for other reasons, but at least in Europe I would say it's mainly based in religion and tradition. Whatever legislative action is taken I sincerely doubt is going to stop it from occurring for that reason. This is also disregarding any social consequences that follow from cultural policing. People will just have it done illegally.

Looking at it from a purely consequential point of view, to my knowledge it is not something that is going to exact lifelong physical or psychological pain or discomfort. The more large scale data we have seem to support this. Rare complications are generally minor and not long lasting. The select cases where it does go very wrong, seem to almost all result from it being done unlawfully in less than optimal conditions so in that sense disallowing it can actually be counter productive. I think it's better to allow it so it can be regulated and exacted in a safe manner with little risk to the child.