Is circumcision moral?

[moonbogg]

Personally, I resent my mother and others for taking it upon themselves to remove a part of my body that I will never get back. I find it disgusting, immoral and wrong. I want it back.
I have two boys and when the hospital asked me if I wanted to circumcise them, the answer was an easy one: NO, you will not be cutting at my baby boy. He's fine the way he is.
Obviously circumcision was and is a religious thing, but it lingers around in society as something that people just do without thinking.
So, what's your take?

 

[alzan]

I don't see it as just religious; there are health reasons as well.

I'm sure what I was screaming about when I was circumsized was taken as a response to pain rather than an objection to lopping off part of my wee-wee but it really was a pain response. I had no knowledge of what my wee-wee was for at that point, as well as no thoughts of "How dare you remove part of my body".

That being said I have no issue with my parents decision to have me circ'd. I'm not sure of my answer to the hypothetical "if I had had a male child would I have pushed for circumsion"; my gut says I probably would have, if for no other reason than the very positive feedback I've had from my sexual partners over lo these many years.

 

[smackababy]

While, I think circumcision is a choice that should be left until the child is able to make it, I don't have a problem with it. Likely due to the media I've been exposed to, I (and the women I've talked to it with) prefer the look of the circumcised penis to the uncircumcised. If for nothing other than social stigma of having an ugly torpedo, I'd likely get any male child I had circumcised.

The debate is rather fascinating though, as both sides seem to hate the other. It is almost as bad as Nvida vs AMD.

 

[inachu]

It is not moral when an infected man through a religious service bits off the skin with his teeth thus infecting the child. This cave man practice should be made illegal in USA.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't see it as just religious; there are health reasons as well.

I'm sure what I was screaming about when I was circumsized was taken as a response to pain rather than an objection to lopping off part of my wee-wee but it really was a pain response. I had no knowledge of what my wee-wee was for at that point, as well as no thoughts of "How dare you remove part of my body".

That being said I have no issue with my parents decision to have me circ'd. I'm not sure of my answer to the hypothetical "if I had had a male child would I have pushed for circumsion"; my gut says I probably would have, if for no other reason than the very positive feedback I've had from my sexual partners over lo these many years.

Agree.

 

[moonbogg]

While, I think circumcision is a choice that should be left until the child is able to make it, I don't have a problem with it. Likely due to the media I've been exposed to, I (and the women I've talked to it with) prefer the look of the circumcised penis to the uncircumcised. If for nothing other than social stigma of having an ugly torpedo, I'd likely get any male child I had circumcised.

The debate is rather fascinating though, as both sides seem to hate the other. It is almost as bad as Nvida vs AMD.

People are very adamant about it for a variety of reasons. I find it fascinating that people can be so obsessed with their penis. I disagree with it because its causing unnecessary pain to an infant and is senseless mutilation of a helpless infant's body without their knowledge or permission.
It constitutes an unforgivable violation of the sovereignty one has over their body. If they want it done, they can chose later, although something tells me they would not chose to have a part of their penis needlessly hacked off.
Also, what ever happened to God creating people perfect? We feel the need to modify his creation? What about appreciating the product of billions of years of evolution and keeping our kids whole?

 

[Chaotic42]

It sounds horrible. I remember being in health class in middle school when we had our first sex ed lesson. They started the video and showed a normal circumcised penis.

I freaked. D:

I also didn't get the whole vasoline joke with masturbation for a while.

I think it needs to be left up to the man. Why cut off a perfectly functional body part, one which leads to increased sexual pleasure, without permission?

 

[Greenman]

It's odd that if you circumcised a puppy they'ed put you in jail, yet it's fine for little boys.

 

[sandorski]

It's Immoral to alter a Male or Female in this way. It is being done without their Consent and, despite arguments to the contrary, is done only for Religious/Cultural reasons.

 

[momeNt]

I do not view the act as moral. With that said, I think it is even more immoral to attempt and police that act as a society. If we police circumcision and seek to stop it, we are inserting ourselves as the child's agent. I don't really see a logical argument that can allow society in general, and specifically a group appointed within society to become agents for the child's foreskin. That is a matter of family. Up until independence, or at the very least cognition, the child for all intents and purposes is property of the parents.

 

[momeNt]

It's Immoral to alter a Male or Female in this way. It is being done without their Consent and, despite arguments to the contrary, is done only for Religious/Cultural reasons.

It has its basis in "old medicine" most likely. Nomadic living with rare access to bathing water for prolonged periods of time probably had more complications with having the foreskin than the few days/weeks that the circumcision takes to heal and is prone to infection.

A lot of religious teachings or practices are based in old medicine, pork, confining women when they have unusual flows, circumcision.

 

[Chaotic42]

I do not view the act as moral. With that said, I think it is even more immoral to attempt and police that act as a society. If we police circumcision and seek to stop it, we are inserting ourselves as the child's agent. I don't really see a logical argument that can allow society in general, and specifically a group appointed within society to become agents for the child's foreskin. That is a matter of family. Up until independence, or at the very least cognition, the child for all intents and purposes is property of the parents.

How far do you extend it though? Can the parents cut off the nose of their child? A finger tip? An ear lobe?

 

[momeNt]

How far do you extend it though? Can the parents cut off the nose of their child? A finger tip? An ear lobe?

At some point somebody with a more direct connection to the child can claim agency and attempt to step in.

Let's extend that thought though and experiment with it a bit.

Assume a society without taxation or public agencies, that was beforehand acting perfectly moral.

A family comes into the sphere of that society, they have a child, and begin mutilating the child. What does the society do, and under what authority are they claiming to act under?

 

[sandorski]

It has its basis in "old medicine" most likely. Nomadic living with rare access to bathing water for prolonged periods of time probably had more complications with having the foreskin than the few days/weeks that the circumcision takes to heal and is prone to infection.

A lot of religious teachings or practices are based in old medicine, pork, confining women when they have unusual flows, circumcision.

No doubt.

 

[pcgeek11]

That being said I have no issue with my parents decision to have me circ'd. I'm not sure of my answer to the hypothetical "if I had had a male child would I have pushed for circumsion"; my gut says I probably would have, if for no other reason than the very positive feedback I've had from my sexual partners over lo these many years.

Even without a circumcision it is natural and normal to have a foreskin intact. You do have to wash and keep clean just like any normal person would. Natural is the only way.

Anything else is just mutilation without consent.

 

[alzan]

Even without a circumcision it is natural and normal to have a foreskin intact. You do have to wash and keep clean just like any normal person would. Natural is the only way.

Anything else is just mutilation without consent.

Natural is one way, it's not the only way.

Possibly. It's also possible you chose the term "mutilation in order to elicit an emotional response.

Parents who choose circumcision for their male offspring do so because they believe they're acting in the child's best interest and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Mursilis]

Personally, I resent my mother and others for taking it upon themselves to remove a part of my body that I will never get back. I find it disgusting, immoral and wrong. I want it back.
I have two boys and when the hospital asked me if I wanted to circumcise them, the answer was an easy one: NO, you will not be cutting at my baby boy. He's fine the way he is.
Obviously circumcision was and is a religious thing, but it lingers around in society as something that people just do without thinking.
So, what's your take?

Depending on when/where you were born, she might've had the right to abort you, so granting her the right to merely maim you hardly seems like much of a stretch. After all, a woman and her doctor always make the right choice, right?

 

[moonbogg]

Depending on when/where you were born, she might've had the right to abort you, so granting her the right to merely maim you hardly seems like much of a stretch. After all, a woman and her doctor always make the right choice, right?

All I know is I want it back. Having a natural, complete penis would change your self image. I'm not talking about being fashionable or anything like that. I'm talking about what you see in your head when you think of yourself. You are different without a whole penis.
I resent the fact that I was lead to believe that this large, light colored ring around my penis is normal. Only much later would I discover that this is scar tissue from a severe injury, inflicted upon me by my parents and doctor. That anyone can justify this makes me sick.

 

[Chaotic42]

At some point somebody with a more direct connection to the child can claim agency and attempt to step in.

Let's extend that thought though and experiment with it a bit.

Assume a society without taxation or public agencies, that was beforehand acting perfectly moral.

A family comes into the sphere of that society, they have a child, and begin mutilating the child. What does the society do, and under what authority are they claiming to act under?

I'd say that humans have a natural, built in instinct to avoid harming people for no reason. We naturally form societies which leads to social mores which lead to rules.

Any group size larger than one becomes a political unit and if they act in unison and are unstopped, they become a defacto public agency.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

It's no less moral then deciding whether or not the child should exist in the first place, then deciding how they'll be raised, how they'll be instructed, where they'll live and with what standard of living.

In short, it's no less moral then being a parent in the first place is. I'm not capable of pretending a foreskin is sacrosanct while molding a mind is not merely OK, but actually a duty.

 

[Murloc]

it is a violation of the right to bodily integrity of a child. The fact that the consequences aren't as serious as with FGM does not change the philosophical substance of the matter.

But most legal systems have an exception for it because it's prevalent among jews and muslims.
Still, courts have shown that it's a hypocritical position. E.g. recently in Germany the court couldn't find any difference between that and any other kind of medically unnecessary mutilation, which are of course banned. The parliament had to rush in and add an exception to the law.

I'm not capable of pretending a foreskin is sacrosanct while molding a mind is not merely OK, but actually a duty.

If you want to go there, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and maybe some other 'stans too ban children from worshipping in religious buildings and the police makes the rounds to make sure of that, and they also discourage participation in religious meeting of under-age people.

 

[moonbogg]

It's no less moral then deciding whether or not the child should exist in the first place, then deciding how they'll be raised, how they'll be instructed, where they'll live and with what standard of living.

In short, it's no less moral then being a parent in the first place is. I'm not capable of pretending a foreskin is sacrosanct while molding a mind is not merely OK, but actually a duty.

Yes, it is less moral. Its OK for me to not have the answer to every moral question, but when I have the answer to a question I will say it. It is wrong to do this to kids. Anyone with a moral compass and a clear mind can see this. Its inexcusable and straight up wrong.
If the bible had said that it was a good idea to cut off the left ear lobe, then we might have a lot of people walking around today with only 1 ear lobe. Cutting off the penis is just as stupid.

EDIT: Are you circumcised? I am, and I am actually kind of pissed off about it the more I think of it. Some bastard who I don't even know cut off the end of my god damn penis. This is a serious offense my friend. Every time I look down I am reminded in vivid detail that I am a child of the dark ages.
I wish I could find that doctor and confront him. I'd let him know that whatever authority he thought my parents granted him, was false and was no authority at all. He did wrong and he did harm. He took a knife to a healthy baby. Screw him. Taking orders and being within the law is no excuse for evil acts.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

If you want to go there, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and maybe some other 'stans too ban children from worshipping in religious buildings and the police makes the rounds to make sure of that, and they also discourage participation in religious meeting of under-age people.

And yet no one complains if the parents teach vegetarianism, or non-vegetarianism, or that math is less important then communication skills, or any one of the literally millions of things that parents teach their children. Your parents form your mind through everything they do. That's just reality.

Yes, it is less moral. Its OK for me to not have the answer to every moral question, but when I have the answer to a question I will say it. It is wrong to do this to kids. Anyone with a moral compass and a clear mind can see this. Its inexcusable and straight up wrong.
If the bible had said that it was a good idea to cut off the left ear lobe, then we might have a lot of people walking around today with only 1 ear lobe. Cutting off the penis is just as stupid.

EDIT: Are you circumcised? I am, and I am actually kind of pissed off about it the more I think of it. Some bastard who I don't even know cut off the end of my god damn penis. This is a serious offense my friend. Every time I look down I am reminded in vivid detail that I am a child of the dark ages.
I wish I could find that doctor and confront him. I'd let him know that whatever authority he thought my parents granted him, was false and was no authority at all. He did wrong and he did harm. He took a knife to a healthy baby. Screw him. Taking orders and being within the law is no excuse for evil acts.

Yes, I am. Don't really mind it. Seems like an incredibly silly thing to get worked up over.

My sister had Orthodontic braces. You know, basic body modification from it's natural form. Is that also immoral? Or is it only immoral if the it's being modified into a form you disagree with?

 

[moonbogg]

And yet no one complains if the parents teach vegetarianism, or non-vegetarianism, or that math is less important then communication skills, or any one of the literally millions of things that parents teach their children. Your parents form your mind through everything they do. That's just reality.




Yes, I am. Don't really mind it. Seems like an incredibly silly thing to get worked up over.

My sister had Orthodontic braces. You know, basic body modification from it's natural form. Is that also immoral? Or is it only immoral if the it's being modified into a form you disagree with?

You think its silly to get angry about having a piece of your body hacked off without your permission? I'm sorry you feel that way, truly.
Giving a child braces will stop their suffering. That's a moral act. This reduces harm to the child at the cost of short term pain. Life is hard sometimes and we suffer. Sometimes suffering is necessary for good to emerge. Braces are such a thing.
Slicing off the penis of an infant has no purpose. It is immoral, misguided and violates the infant's sovereignty. In addition, it results in pain with no benefit to the infant.
There is no way around this. Its wrong. I know its wrong. I asked the question in the OP to see why people think it could be right. So, why do you think its justified?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I'm pretty sure you've had a haircut when you were young. Did they ask permission? Did you get angry about having a part of your body hacked off without permission when that happened?

And braces stop their suffering? I'm pretty sure it's cosmetic. Crooked teeth are ugly, not painful and certainly not debilitating.

Basic body modification for cosmetic reasons of children by parents is so widespread it's entirely disinteresting.