Is circumcising babies wrong?

Question

While there is some evidence that people who are circumcised are slightly less likely to contract certain sexually transmitted diseases, and it could possibly be more hygienic (both debatable; you could just teach boys to practise safe sex and wash properly instead) , the bottom line is that circumcision is an irreversible act of mutilation performed on people too young to decide for themselves whether they want it.

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.

I read somewhere that some religions demand circumcision because it makes masturbation more difficult. In theory that would then increase the number of new members of that religion, because if the easiest sexual outlet becomes genital sex then you will probably have more children, who can be indoctrinated into your religion.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

I fully agree that circumcising infants (for non-religious and non-medically necessary reasons) should not be allowed. It's a very sensitive and personal part of the body, and once removed there's no going back. So if a guy is upset that his foreskin was removed (or if he had some kind of complication from the circumcision), there's pretty much nothing he can do. On the other hand, if an uncircumcised guy doesn't like his foreskin (or has problems with it), he can just get circumcised.

It should be the person's own choice whether or not he wants his foreskin cut off or not. Despite the widely publicized research that indicates a decreased HIV contraction rate for circumcised men, there are also other studies (far less publicized) that show good genital hygiene (link 1) and population of prostitutes (link 2) are far more important factors.

So if a person has good genital hygiene and practices safe sex, does circumcision really provide any benefit? Probably not. And hygiene and safe sex are things every guy should do regardless. So circumcising infants, taking away their choice over a sensitive part of their body, to prevent something that would not happen if he kept clean and was careful, seems unethical.

Answer 3

I think its completely wrong. You hear the argument that its more painful in grown men than in infants to be circumcised, but perhaps that's only because infant boys have no way of fully expressing the pain it causes. No one can say it doesn't hurt infants. I'm a nurse and have assisted in a lot of infant circumcisions and I can tell you the children certainly look like it hurts them a great deal. Another thing that I find funny is a lot of times the OB/GYN is the one doing the circumcision. I don't know about other people, but I for one wouldn't want someone whose living is made looking at female anatomy chopping at my son's foreskin. I think its just an old tradition that needs to be broken. The world has such a huge problem with female circumcision, it seems like males are being overlooked. With females its considered "genital mutilation" and a crime, but when done in males, its just for cleanliness sake. To me its just another win for the feminists out there trying to control the male population one penis at a time.

Answer 4

Yes, I think it's wrong, but I've always been worried about this "loss of sensitivity" business. When a man is cut after puberty, then yes, he can tell the difference, but there are as many men who say it it improves it as those who say they lose some. On the other hand, who knows what happens when a baby is cut at birth - could it not be that with one so young, all of those nerve endings which are allegedly lost could be replaced on the glans by Mother Nature rather than being permanently lost - rather like (for instance) a blind baby will develop a much more sensitive hearing mechanism ! ! !

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

There are arguments on both sides. Circumcision does not affect sex and the penis is much easier to keep clean. If it is to be performed at all, it is better to have it done while a baby. It is said that circumcision reduces sensitivity; but by and large, the uncircumcised glans is too sensitive anyway.

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

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!