Is circumcising babies wrong?
Question:
I mean, it might be more hygienic not to have toes, but how would you like it if all your toes had been cut off when you were a baby because it 'might' be more hygienic? That would be considered cruel, so why isn't disfiguring a child's penis also considered cruel? Especially considering it makes the penis less sensitive; you're taking away some of the kid's pleasure later in life, and there's nothing he can do about it!
I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.
Obviously I'm not talking about the small minority of people who do need it done for medical reasons.
Answers:
Yes, I believe it is wrong.
If you said it was right to remove all a woman's labia minora, and the hood of the clitoris, leaving the bare minimum and the head of the clitoris exposed, most people would disagree with you. Yet this would be the equivalent for women. And it would help to prevent, yeast infections, improve cleanliness, and decrease the spread of sexually transmitted diseases - all the things used to justify male circumcison. It would also reduce female sexual sensitivity - loss of some degree of sensitvity is another side effect of male circumcision. Yet if we advocated doing this to all female children like we do to male - what's good for the gander is good for the goose after all - it would be considered abhorrent.
Male infact circumcision is only considered ok because it has become a cultural norm to be mutilated, and it shouldn't be. I can't believe it still goes on in the civilised world.
No, it's a wise decision.
its cruel and there is no statistically relevant evidence to show any health benefits to it.
basically, its just tradition.
i say leave it.
Bravo
its done in the Bible... so it couldn't be wrong
no
No, just for the simple reason that a lot of girls find an uncircumcised penis disgusting, so do you kid a favor and just get him snipped.
Not wrong, right.
Ouch! Better to be done as a baby than when you're older, though.
Yes, good point.
It is an act of force and possibly for the sake of it. Most of Christianity has the dictated view that a person isn't mature, can't make mature decisions. Which is a dangerous way for a system to be.
The secular world hasn't woken up to the fact that the worst of what we think religion is, or is, it actually laps up without realising it.
But de-sentitisation shouldn't be a problem in this society, we are so messed about with continually.
we dont need earlobes
should we have those removed at birth also?
SOME BOYS NEED IT , BUT THEY SAY IT IS CLEANER
NO NOT AT ALL . most people do it now, it's a "must" for health reasons. You are doing the child GOOD for his future. It is good for sanitary and other health-related reasons down the road. It is more cruel not to circumcise him, and then have him end up doing it when he's OLDER where he can have clear memory of the pain from surgery. Both Islam and Judaism require circumcision of the child at birth for sanitary reasons.
No. It is not wrong. It is saving your baby boy a lot of embarressment and pain in the future. I understand that someone else is making the decision for them, but someone has to, they are a baby, they don't know.
It's not an act of mutilation. It is painful to have done as an adult. It is more hygenic for the person as a man and young adult.
i've never heard a circumsised man complain thathe wishes he had some extra smelly skin on his penis.so i guess i say it's a good idea to do it when he won't remember.
WOW less sensitive you say? I am circumsized and I am very sensitive there. I couldnt imagine being more sensitive. I can keep a good Erection for hours. Well needless to say my circumsission looks great and the ladies think so too. Either or it has it advantages and disadvantages.
I have 3 boys. None of them were circumsized at birth because their dad isn't. 2 of the 3 ended up having to have it at the age of 2 because the skin wasn't going back the way it was supposed to. I talked to their pediatrician when I was pregnant and was told there was no medical reason to get it done. I was not told about the possibility of their skin not going back and them needing to have it done when they were older. If I had known, I would've had it done when they were born. They were in so much pain having it done at 2 years old. It killed me to watch them suffer like that. If I ever had another boy I'd have it done.
my boys have had it done cos they were born in a muslim country and theres no question it is done. i wasnt happy about it but had no choice. im still undecided about whether its a good idea or not.
Yes. When it is done to newborns. You were made a certain way for a reason. All circumcision is, is cosmetic surgery on an infant. I don't care if you want to do it to yourself when you are old enough to make that decision for yourself. But Babies should not be put through that pain, for the pleasure of the parents. And that is what it is, a choice not a medical necessity.
I personally dont agree with it for all the reasons that you have mentioned .
I agree with you. I thin it is mutilation and tantamount to cutting off the clitoral hood and we don't do that to our little girls.
The foreskin protects the Glans, just like the hood protects the clitoris. Both are mucus membranes. That is why circ'd men and boys glans look almost like they are dried out (they are) and are often rough. they should be pink, smooth and sensitive.
Also circumcisions often result in the frenulum being injured which results in a lot of loss of sensitivity.
My wife had never before seen or experienced an uncut man until we met and she later told me it felt better (the skin moving inside her) and was as clean during oral sex as any circ'd guy.
We should never do that to our boys. We sure didn't.
Good point!
I think it's cruel both male and female circumcision. Lot of it is done for religious reasons which I don't get. Why would the God of these religions put it there in the first place if he wanted people to remove it? I think they should wait until the child is old enough to make their own choice. They should be allowed to have their own choice instead of someone taking away that choice from them. If they don't want to be circumcised then people should respect their choice and not force them.
I totally agree with you. I have two sons, one circumcised, the other not. I was a young mother and did not do my homework. It wasn't until AFTER I had my first son circumcised did I learn about the procedure. I felt I had sent my son to the butchers! I discovered that more and more mothers are opting to NOT have their infants circumcised, and I've since jumped on the bandwagon with those against it . I'm glad a question such as this was posted and hope that the Yahoo mothers-to-be will read this.
It's better to get it done at birth instead of waiting until later. Later is more torturous. A day or two old is better. They won't know anything about it. I've know grown men who had it done and it was very painful. A whole lot more to it later in life. It is better to be circumsiced than not to be.
i agree 90% with you, boys should be able to deicde if they want it done to them when they are older, that way, they have a choice. As you said its unnessecary, and it can be cruel, unless it needs to be done for religious reasons
Many of us consider that it's child abuse. If you think that term is too strong, watch this video http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/pl...
I find it strange that so many people seem to think that most guys have to have it done at some point in their lives. That's simply not true -- most men who escape the knife at birth keep their foreskins their entire lives. And the answerer who "had to" have her sons done at age 2 got terrible medical advice -- the foreskin is not supposed to retract that early! Honey, you had your kids mutilated for no good reason!
I am a nurse and I have seen the infections men have gotten from being uncircumcised and not cleaning self properly...Not a pretty sight...
I am for it...
I am American so almost all of the men I know are cut. But this doesn't mean I agree with it. I think altering anyone's body without their consent is wrong. What I find most odd is that most of the guys I know are happy they are circumcised. They think that uncut d*cks are weird. I don't understand this at all. If I was a cut guy, I would be so angry that someone mutilated my genitals when I was baby.
Nah, nothing wrong with it.
no its nothing wrong with circumcision it cleaner for the baby.because if the baby has a lazy mom urine and yeast can get in the fold of the forskin.and cause chaffing and craking. which can be very painful.and it keeps down bacteria and other infections due to dirt.
in some religions you get circumsized at a certain age but in my opinion yea i think its wrong i bet that if they asked us this question wether we want to be circumsized almost 3 fourths of us will say no
More Questions & Answers...