'Routine' circumcision on infants is barbaric and should be stopped.
"Is circumcision painful?
Yes. Circumcision is extremely painful – and
traumatic – for a baby. Just being strapped
down is frightening for a baby. The often
repeated statement that babies can’t feel pain
is not true. Babies are as sensitive to pain as
anyone else. Most babies scream frantically
when their foreskins are cut off. Some defecate.
Some lapse into a coma. The reason
some babies don’t cry when they are circumcised
is that they can’t cry because they are in
a state of shock. Most babies are circumcised
without an anesthetic. Anesthetics injected
into the penis don’t always work. Being stuck
with a needle in the penis is itself painful for
a baby, just as it would be for anyone else.
Babies are rarely given pain medication right
after they are circumcised or during the week
to ten days it takes for the wound to heal."
2007-07-10 02:10:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by GarnetMan 2
·
7⤊
2⤋
The view of circumcision seems to be quiet mixed here and to be honest, I don't know what to believe. When I was 6 weeks old, I had a hernia operation and the doctor circumcised me. The reason given was because he was "in the general area" so to speak. I'm 31 now. I'm one person who can't answer the question, I suppose because I've never known life any other way.
2007-07-10 20:43:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by Melok 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I absolutely agree. Infants should only be circumcised as the very last resort when it is absolutely necessary for medical reasons (which is extremely rare, as conservative treatments often work). Other than that, circumcision should only be carried out on adults giving informed consent.
Infant circumcision should not be carried out for religious reasons. There is a chance that the circumcised son of Jewish or Muslim parents will grow up not to hold the same beliefs as his parents, so he will have lost his foreskin for nothing.
Pro-circumcisers say that the foreskin is useless and causes problems. Anti-circumcisers say that it's sensitive tissue and depriving a man of it is depriving him of pleasure. I'm not going to make a judgement on whether one group or the other is right.
All that matters in my opinion is that only the individual to whom the foreskin belongs should have the right to decide to remove it - not their parents, their Rabbis and Imams or their doctors (unless for medical reasons stated above).
EDIT:
eagletalondl, to "raise" a child is a layperson's term for socialisation. This is teaching a child norms and values and has nothing to do with circumcision.
2007-07-10 12:12:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by quierounvaquero 4
·
5⤊
2⤋
If you were to ever witness a circumcision, (2 for me), you would want it outlawed. I did not want my son to go thru it, but my wife at the time did, and I lost out. Part of the reason we are divorced. It was very difficult to watch, and I had to leave the room both times.
But, it is a matter of personal choice and the government has no business sticking their noses in where it does not belong. This is a issue somewhat similar to abortion. At what point does a government decide when it is right to intervene in your private life? In my opinion, never. Less government=better government.
2007-07-10 02:05:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by swissrmeman 4
·
7⤊
2⤋
Absolutely. Circumcism outside of muslim and jewish faiths did not occur much at all until the mid 1940's, when US doctors began advocating for it. Part of this was likely due to the Nazi ethnic cleansing of jews, and they identified jews as those men or boys that were circumcised. Many jewish doctors advocated circumcism in the US, for so-called health reasons, but in reality it was probably to decrease the ability to screen out jews from the general population in case another ethnic cleansing took place. South Korea and the Phillipines had enormous US influences beginning in the 1960's and circumcism there became very popular. Fortunately it is really declining in the US, down to about 53% from a high a couple of decades ago of over 90% of all males. So as the number of boys mutilated decreases, overall popularity of this barbaric act will continue to fall.
2007-07-10 02:37:07
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
It should be banned. There is no religious excuse. Local custom is not the same as an article of faith. The health reason is even more ridiculous. We have put an end to female circumcision, eunuchs and castraltos its distusting this still goes on.
Its sexual violence on a par with rape in my book.
2007-07-10 10:58:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by bouncer bobtail 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
1
2017-02-24 00:41:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm all for allowing guys to choose. I guess that's why circumcision is now becoming a lot less popular. The USA is the last advanced nation doing it.
Other than that, here are the risks of circumcision.
Circumcision = loss of sensitivity according to new study
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285532,00.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells
Higher erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14979200&dopt=Abstract%7C
When women didn't know what penis they were dealing with (circumcised or uncircumcised) 9 out of 10 preferred uncircumcised (study).
http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/60750.html
Foreskin anatomy and function (keeps the glans soft and protects it, etc).
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
Circumcision is extremely painful.
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
The USA is the last advanced nation doing it, but rates have fallen down from over 90% in the 1960s to as low as 21% here in California currently. From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/06/18/circumcision.decline.ap/index.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/staterates2004/
Circumcision was actually promoted in the USA at first to stop masturbation (in hopes of it being tight enough to require lubes and not have skin to slide since the foreskin is already moist)
http://english.pravda.ru/science/health/27-03-2006/77873-circumcision-0
USA = highest HIV rates in advanced nations (and highest circumcision rates). CIA statistics:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
And one study already trashed the claims of the study that said that circumcision reduces HIV.
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000543
Worldwide circumcision rates:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html
And discussion of common circumcision benefit myths and discussion of all the risks that can develop over time and negative side effects (buried penis, meatal stenosis, etc):
http://forums.govteen.com/showpost.php?p=3069995&postcount=2
2007-07-10 11:21:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by Jorge 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
I cannot understand a parent willingly standing by while someone cuts part of their baby's body off. In any other situation this would be called child abuse and the parents, quite rightly, punished.
Circumcision is a medical procedure and, unless there is a good medical reason for it, should not be imposed on anyone, especially an infant.
People who claim it's a matter of religion should ask themselves what sort of god would require them to cut bits off babies. It's barbaric.
2007-07-10 09:32:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
2⤋
I personally am totally against ciecumcision. It is wrong and ignorant to do. Yes it should be againt the law to circumcise, and yes people need to think about what they are putting their babies through. If men chose to go ahead with it in the future then thats fine but dont do it to an innocent, little baby who will have his legs spread wide open with nothing to help the pain while they snip and cut and pull on your babies little body. People this should be against the law.
2007-07-10 05:58:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mommy to 2 A.n.g.e.l.s 4
·
8⤊
3⤋