is circumcision better characterised as infant male genital mutilation?

Question

could have asked it in many categories - medicine, psychology (trauma), newborns, men's health

but then i remembered philosophy covers ethics, and this is perhaps an ethical issue

Answer 1

No, I wouldn't let the hospital start hacking on my son's private parts. It's wrong. Come on, 82% of the world's men are not circumsised.
It started as a religous practice! Believe it or not a penis is easy to clean, like any other body part!

Many people think circumcision removes nothing more than a little extra skin. However, circumcision removes several critical components of male sexual anatomy. This list enumerates everything currently known to be physically lost after circumcision.
When they are older circumcision diminishes sensitivity.
Alongside these physical losses, it is important to remember that whenever a child is circumcised, by far the greatest loss is his choice to make decisions about his own body and his own sex life when he becomes an adult.
Circumcision is not practiced in most medically advanced nations. Unlike American parents, few parents worldwide are actually faced with this choice. Their babies are automatically brought home intact.

http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

Answer 2

This is a difficult question because so many people have different views on this issue.

I for one do NOT believe in circumcision. I think it's a horrible thing to do to a little baby boy...unless it's medically necessary (as in the baby is having problems with his foreskin or something like that) I believe it is a procedure that DOES NOT need to be done. As long as you teach the baby when he's old enough to wash it himself there is NOTHING wrong with an uncircumcised boy. Sometimes I think it's lazyness of the parents part to get it done because they don't want to "deal" with it.
There are also religious views about it as well...but I'm not religious. I just feel that it's something HORRIBLE to put a baby through. My sons are fine and I DID NOT have them circumcised...there has been absolutely NO complications at all...and I know grown men that have had no complications...It takes a few extra seconds in the bath or shower to clean it properly....no big deal. I would never consider having my boys circumcised because if I made that decision to have it done, and when they are older they actually WANTED their foreskin, it takes a while to stretch it back...but it's never the same. I do not believe in circumcision at all and I never will. I think it's a horrible horrible proceedure and I think it's rotten to do that to a little boy. It's painful and just not right.

Answer 3

This is a good topic. It's a question I've thought about, talked about with friends, fellow students, etc. I still have mixed feelings regarding the issue. The reason is: I do feel it is 'technically' mutilation. If I'm going to feel that declawing cats is mutilation, I should believe the same of a baby boys penis, right? It IS removing something they're born with without their permission, or letting them come of an age to decide.

However, the reason I have mixed feelings is because of the "benefits" of circumcision. There is an issue with smell and hygiene in general. I know this from personal experience. heehee ::blushing:: The smell is hard to deal with even when it's "clean." I'm not saying that just because it stinks you should scupt it to your liking. When I was young, my parents knew a man who was circumsized as an adult and I think he was rather upset that his parents did not have it done when he was a little baby.

Sometimes we have to endure painful experiences for the benefit of our health.

If I had a penis, I would want it circumsized (as a baby)

Answer 4

No, I don't think it should be put that way. Even tho, I am sure it hurt like all hell when it was done. I don't remember one single bit of it. And I know this is a two sided coin. There are good and bad as there is with anything. So I won't go into that. As I am sure for every good I bring up YOU will bring up a bad. But I'll say NO to your question (again) and I will also say it is a decision that is to be made by the parents of the boy/infant involved.

Answer 5

I actually just wrote a report about this. I believe it is... otherwise it would be a double standard for women and men. I mean if it's not... then women should have their coochies sewed up at birth to ensure that their husbands get virgins at marriage. Some may argue against this for religious reasons, but genital mutilation is genital mutilation.

Answer 6

I personally think it is a form of genital mutilation. I mean who the hell decided a man's penis looks better circumcised. I was almost 25 years old when I saw my first uncircumcised and guess what? I didn't think it was ugly or weird. I thought OH WOW that's how it supposed to look. I mean don't we think its painful to have your penis snipped. I'm against it, its a senseless act of mutilation similar to clitoris cutting that is done to women in Africa. Stop the madness people.

Answer 7

I viewed this question as a health issue after delivering my son. I thought about whether or not cleanliness could lead to really bad health issues later in life.

By having him circumsized when he was very young (only 3 days old) I hoped to minimize the trauma. He is now a teen and I'm not going to ask (privacy), and he has not complained!

Answer 8

It could be described at mutilation, depending on your point of view.

Some 3rd world nations are still doing crude genital surgery on women as part of their culture & belief system. To our standards this is mutilation. If circumcision wasn't so popular in the US, Amercians might feel negatively against it as well.

Answer 9

Circumcision was the sign of God's covenant with his people of old. It signifies man's need for a new heart or regeneration (being brought from spiritual death to life) and to become sensitive to the ways of God (opposed to hardness of heart in sin). Males as representative heads of households were circumcised as the promises signified therein applied to all those that were in them as well (wife and children). Males were circumcised on the eighth day foreshadowing Christ's work of recreation and resurrection. The circumcision of the flesh served as a daily reminder of God's covenant with his people (think of the male act of urination). Baptism serves today in place of circumcision as the sign for mans need for a new heart.

Answer 10

Who says that circumcision has to be performed on an infant??