Should routine Circumcision of babies/children be considered Child Abuse?

Question

Adults are free to mutilate themselves as they wish, but to do it to a baby without a rare medical condition is child abuse.
Inflicting unnecessary pain on a baby should, without exception, be a crime.
"Babies scream so hard that they end up with their faces red and mouths wide open with no sound coming out. I had to hold their heads to the side because some vomit from the pain."- Nurse
http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass0/

It is no different from female circumcision - unnecessary, barbaric.
Religions and people in power thought it produced more loyal subjects, people were less likely to play with themselves.
It is certainly not more healthy, the procedure often causes complications and infections.

ONLY IGNORANT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE WOULD RECOMMEND IT.

Some people would chop their babies arms off, if they were told that it is what God wanted.
( it's healthier - no more tennis elbow)
They must imagine God is standing at the gates of heaven checking penis's.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/plastibell.htm
http://www.universalway.org/circtruth.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59639,00.html
http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

"Not one national or international medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision"
http://www.nocirc.org/

Answer 1

This is an issue with many perspectives to consider:
1. To circumcise a person without his or her permission is grossly unethical. Children are not our property to do with as we wish.
2. Circumcism does reduce the incidence of a cervical cancer among women which is triggered by a virus that is spread to them in a waxy substance called "smegma" that is normally part of a male's penile anatomy. Ancient Jewish health laws were derived from objective observations that noticed, over time, which living practices led to greater health, hence, Kosher laws and practices, which might have reduced mad cow disease exposure through the centuries, for example. Their circumcism practices may have been derived from such observations related to which women tended to get cervical/reproductive cancers, those with or without husbands who had frequent foreskin infections.
3. Inadequate hygiene of male genitals frequently causes infections and adherences that can lead to serious and painful disease in some individuals. But, that does not warrant mass circumcism or the unethical treatment of children who do not participate in the decision-making. Just because we get dental cavities does not mean we should automatically pull everyone's permanent teeth at eight years old.
4. With many health issues, society addresses the BEHAVIORS of people, such as Kosher laws and sexual promiscuity in sexually transmitted diseases and not the bug causing the trouble. Before microscopes and before we could identify causes of disease, humans did the best that they could in that regard. But, today, we CAN indentify causes of infective disease, the bastardly bugs that prey on us. Homosexuals got blamed by society for the HIV epidemic, yet, that virus, that monster of a lifeform, is the real blame, the real enemy of mankind. We certainly should begin to focus more on the bugs that cause the infections under foreskins rather than modify the human body as our most significant approach. I don't know about you, but, as a nurse, I've absolutely had it with viruses. Someone suggested that we "negotiate" with them. Sure, with a bottle of bleach.
5. Anyway, as for those who chose to have their sons circumcised, I cannot say this strongly enough: A family representative, a parent or an uncle/aunt or grandparent MUST be present during the circumcism because, as a nurse, I have seen how heartless and uncaring physicians can be during the process. The infant's psychological needs are often totally, inhumanely ignored. They get strapped down in a shaped-tray spread eagle, screaming their lungs out, terrorfied unless someone, usually a nurse or family member is there to ensure proper emotional support. Do not assume physicians are automatically using any kind of numbing agent. The last circumcism that I attended (and stopped) was in 1997 and the physician lectured me at the time that "no one with any real education is so stupid as to think the baby feels pain there". I grabbed that baby up and RAN.

Answer 2

This is a complex question.

First of all circumcision isn't mandatory; therefore, it is up to the parent to make the decision.

The question really falls on the health risk issue.

There are many medical arguments that claim not circumcising a child may possibly lead to future health problems. The problem with this argument is that many males that have never been circumcised do not have any problems throughout their lives.

So the question becomes: Are parents being completely educated as to the related health risk? I think a lot of parents would choose not to circumcise their children if they knew the real medical opinions on this. Furthermore, the majority of males that do have related health issue, don't have those problems until adulthood... meaning at that point they are adults and make the decision as an adult as to what happens to their own body.

There is also the issue as to why, during the procedure, they do not choose to use more methods to prevent the pain. Surely with technology today, the medical field could come up with a way to numb the penis in order for no pain to be felt by the child. I have no idea why they haven't acquired such methods.

To summarize my statements:
1. The medical field doesn't explain the full depth or lack of depth of the health issues related to not circumcising a child at birth.
2. Most parents are making the decision based on incomplete medical knowledge.
3. More medical technology should be established in order to prevent the severe pain related to circumcision.

Answer 3

If its gonna be done then do it early!! My cousin never had it as a baby and at 13 he had to have it due to medicaol complications. I don't think I ever seen anyone in such pain!! It may not feel good as a baby but its worse the older a little boy gets. I too believe its a rough thing but its got benefits and if we eveer have a boy he will have it done .

Answer 4

My osn, who is 9 months now, had his done at 2 weeks old. My husband insisted on being in there while it was done so he could make sure they were professional and did it right. He told me later that they sprayed a numbing spray on it and that he never even cried. So how can something be so tortureous if a 2 week old doesnt even cry? My best friends husbnad wasnt circumsized until he was 18 and hell be the first to tell you that he wishes it was done at birth. It harbors bacteria and can give your partner infectons. Its not hygenic at all. If you dont make the decison for your child then they will most likely make the decison to have it dont later in life which in my opinion will be MUCH worse!

Answer 5

Actually it's a health issue and NOT circumsizing a male child when they are a baby should be considered child abuse. Circumsizion of a female, however, should be treated as serious child abuse, regardless of the religious intentions and the parents should go to jail for that stupid crime.

OH... and it's much less painful to have a circumcision done when the person is a baby than when they have reached adult stage... just ask anyone who waited until age 21 and see when THEY wish it had been done.

Answer 6

I'm not religious but i had both my boys circumsized. It's alot healthier for them. I did wait on my youngest cause he has alot of health problems until somehow it got infected. Doctor said he scratched it, and that small tiny scratch cause the infection, So yes i do believe in it. But everyone has the right for an opinion. Thank god, they put my son under anesthesia to do his.

Answer 7

Shame on doctors that don't use a local to numb some of the pain. Childhood immunizations are not necessarily fun however either... have you seen how the babies scream and cry? Personally... I'd rather have my son safe from serious illnesses and prevent him from having to possibly undergo circumcision as an adult due to complications of having the foreskin left intact. No, it's not life threatening to have a circumcision or not to have one... no it's not life threatening to have an immunization or not to have one... NO... NOT until a serious infection occurs that leaves a man with no choice but to have it done as an adult or risk serious complications to his penis and all connected parts in the future (bladder, kidneys, prostrate, etc..)... NO... NOT until German Measles makes it's way to your un-immunized child and then threatens his/her life.... sorry... but I do not believe it should be considered Child Abuse... I believe it is a choice that the parents make for their children... they weigh the facts... is it safer to have it done, or is the possible pain of it not worth your child's safety? That is for YOU as a parent to decide (not a court)... IMHO. Thank you for bringing the topic up... it was a nice item to comment on! I look forward to seeing other's opinions as well!

Answer 8

I recommend it, because my step son wasn't circumcised, and when he was six years old, he started getting infections all the time, even though he took baths, and showers everyday, he ended up having to be circumcised at the age of six which was very painful for him where he grew so much, it was sad...but if you feel like you don't want to do that to your son then that is fine...

Answer 9

Circumcision should be illegal. Foreskin plays a vital role in protecting the body. If the foreskin wasn't meant to be there, boys would not be born with it. Ever watched a video of a circumcision? Google it. If you can watch it without tears, you truly have a problem. Circumcision IS genital mutilation.

Answer 10

You being a so called nurse should know that if a baby is not circumcised that it can cause track infections in the boy later in life because of the build up of urine that is trapped because of the for skin that has not been removed besides the chance of him ever having children is slim to none because i don't know of very many women that think a un-circumcised penis isn't very pretty, so before you go and condemn circumcision why don't you consider ALL the pros and cons.